20/20 world cup
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36384
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: 20/20 world cup
In the bag now for the Windies.
Think the game turned in Samuels being not out. That extra inch of carry and I reckon England had this.
That's the luck in this game I guess. And the West Indies have had plenty. 3 players out to no balls in the semi final.
Think the game turned in Samuels being not out. That extra inch of carry and I reckon England had this.
That's the luck in this game I guess. And the West Indies have had plenty. 3 players out to no balls in the semi final.
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 43326
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
Re: 20/20 world cup
You sure?BWFC_Insane wrote:In the bag now for the Windies.
Think the game turned in Samuels being not out. That extra inch of carry and I reckon England had this.
That's the luck in this game I guess. And the West Indies have had plenty. 3 players out to no balls in the semi final.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32699
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: 20/20 world cup
yup - nowt more certain.
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36384
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: 20/20 world cup
Yes. Good sides chase down what was left.TANGODANCER wrote:You sure?BWFC_Insane wrote:In the bag now for the Windies.
Think the game turned in Samuels being not out. That extra inch of carry and I reckon England had this.
That's the luck in this game I guess. And the West Indies have had plenty. 3 players out to no balls in the semi final.
Re: 20/20 world cup
I do not believe those first three deliveries from Stokes.
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36384
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: 20/20 world cup
Not bad balls.Dr Hotdog wrote:I do not believe those first three deliveries from Stokes.
- Bruce Rioja
- Immortal
- Posts: 38742
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.
Re: 20/20 world cup
You what? The first two especially were a fecking disgrace!!!BWFC_Insane wrote:Not bad balls.Dr Hotdog wrote:I do not believe those first three deliveries from Stokes.
And if they weren't bad balls then where did they end up?
May the bridges I burn light your way
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36384
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: 20/20 world cup
England bowl Yorker length at the death. They were fine, the batting just better. None were perfect but they weren't far off. Game just favours big hitters and they have them in abundance.Bruce Rioja wrote:You what? The first two especially were a fecking disgrace!!!BWFC_Insane wrote:Not bad balls.Dr Hotdog wrote:I do not believe those first three deliveries from Stokes.
And if they weren't bad balls then where did they end up?
Virtually the same balls tied NZ right up.
Re: 20/20 world cup
F*ck me Insane. You are such a WUM i'm not even goin to bother.
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 43326
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
Re: 20/20 world cup
Our whole lead and chance to win gone with four smacks in the last over. 22 needed and got off just six balls make the over a total bowling disaster.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32699
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: 20/20 world cup
It clearly ain't a fecking yorker if it sails over the long on boundary. "Yorker length" if the batsman comes towards you moves towards you too. So you need to judge Yorker length from the batsman's feet not where their mark is.BWFC_Insane wrote:England bowl Yorker length at the death. They were fine, the batting just better. None were perfect but they weren't far off. Game just favours big hitters and they have them in abundance.Bruce Rioja wrote:You what? The first two especially were a fecking disgrace!!!BWFC_Insane wrote:Not bad balls.Dr Hotdog wrote:I do not believe those first three deliveries from Stokes.
And if they weren't bad balls then where did they end up?
Virtually the same balls tied NZ right up.
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36384
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: 20/20 world cup
Aye because someone bowling balls perhaps an inch out from perfect is ridiculous.Dr Hotdog wrote:F*ck me Insane. You are such a WUM i'm not even goin to bother.
They got under the ball and they flew. But they are powerful players who swing hard and can clear boundaries.
This is the game now. Yorkers are being phased out because they need to be perfect and even then they can still go. But that has been England's plan for the death and it worked before but not today.
It was incredible striking. Sometimes you have to hold your hand up and give the opposition credit.
- Bruce Rioja
- Immortal
- Posts: 38742
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.
Re: 20/20 world cup
Yorkers? They were dollies down the leg side FFS! You type some shit, you!BWFC_Insane wrote:England bowl Yorker length at the death. They were fine, the batting just better. None were perfect but they weren't far off. Game just favours big hitters and they have them in abundance.Bruce Rioja wrote:You what? The first two especially were a fecking disgrace!!!BWFC_Insane wrote:Not bad balls.Dr Hotdog wrote:I do not believe those first three deliveries from Stokes.
And if they weren't bad balls then where did they end up?
Virtually the same balls tied NZ right up.
May the bridges I burn light your way
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36384
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: 20/20 world cup
Chill out. They were Yorker length. Jordan got away with a couple the previous over, Stokes didn't.Bruce Rioja wrote:Yorkers? They were dollies down the leg side FFS! You type some shit, you!BWFC_Insane wrote:England bowl Yorker length at the death. They were fine, the batting just better. None were perfect but they weren't far off. Game just favours big hitters and they have them in abundance.Bruce Rioja wrote:You what? The first two especially were a fecking disgrace!!!BWFC_Insane wrote:Not bad balls.Dr Hotdog wrote:I do not believe those first three deliveries from Stokes.
And if they weren't bad balls then where did they end up?
Virtually the same balls tied NZ right up.
I keep saying, this game favours the batsman. 19 off the last over was by no means safe and I wouldn't blame Stokes. What he was trying to do has a huge margin of error.
- Bruce Rioja
- Immortal
- Posts: 38742
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.
Re: 20/20 world cup
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think that he absolutely capitulated. A yorker, by the way, for me, is aimed at the toes. Something at "yorker length" that goes down leg is pretty much a full toss.BWFC_Insane wrote:
Chill out. They were Yorker length. Jordan got away with a couple the previous over, Stokes didn't.
I keep saying, this game favours the batsman. 19 off the last over was by no means safe and I wouldn't blame Stokes. What he was trying to do has a huge margin of error.
May the bridges I burn light your way
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 43326
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
Re: 20/20 world cup
It should have been. Four fours (unlikely) instead of sixes woukd still have left three singles off two balls. I'm almost tempted ( when younger of course) to say I could have bowled an over and guaranteed not to get 19 scored off it by xxxxxx Len Hutton....BWFC_Insane wrote:
Chill out. They were Yorker length. Jordan got away with a couple the previous over, Stokes didn't.
I keep saying, this game favours the batsman. 19 off the last over was by no means safe and I wouldn't blame Stokes. What he was trying to do has a huge margin of error.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36384
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: 20/20 world cup
Well T20 is a very different game. And in the last few years it has become a batsman's game.TANGODANCER wrote:It should have been. Four fours (unlikely) instead of sixes woukd still have left three singles off two balls. I'm almost tempted ( when younger of course) to say I could have bowled an over and guaranteed not to get 19 scored off it by xxxxxx Len Hutton....BWFC_Insane wrote:
Chill out. They were Yorker length. Jordan got away with a couple the previous over, Stokes didn't.
I keep saying, this game favours the batsman. 19 off the last over was by no means safe and I wouldn't blame Stokes. What he was trying to do has a huge margin of error.
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36384
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: 20/20 world cup
Aye in the final analysis perhaps England shouldn't have gone Yorker length with 19 needed. It doesn't take much margin for the batsman to be able to get under it.Bruce Rioja wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree. I think that he absolutely capitulated. A yorker, by the way, for me, is aimed at the toes. Something at "yorker length" that goes down leg is pretty much a full toss.BWFC_Insane wrote:
Chill out. They were Yorker length. Jordan got away with a couple the previous over, Stokes didn't.
I keep saying, this game favours the batsman. 19 off the last over was by no means safe and I wouldn't blame Stokes. What he was trying to do has a huge margin of error.
Perhaps they should have gone slow ball bouncers. But they can get the treatment too, I suppose you just have a little more margin for error.
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32699
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: 20/20 world cup
This is cock-endery of the highest water. A Yorker is a ball that lands at the batsman's feet/bottom of the bat. If it doesn't do that, it's not "Yorker length". Yorker length isn't a static point of the pitch.
Balls one and two were at least two/three yards short of Yorker length. Ball three was a closer but still a yard or two short. Not seen a decent side on replay of ball four, but I guarantee it was nowhere near Yorker length.
Balls one and two were at least two/three yards short of Yorker length. Ball three was a closer but still a yard or two short. Not seen a decent side on replay of ball four, but I guarantee it was nowhere near Yorker length.
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 43326
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
Re: 20/20 world cup
I'm aware of what T20 is BCFCI, but nothing excuses four sixes in the last over of a World Championship final being anything but bad. And " please" listen to what people are saying: A yorker isn't a length, it's wherever the batsman's toes happen to be.BWFC_Insane wrote:Well T20 is a very different game. And in the last few years it has become a batsman's game.TANGODANCER wrote:It should have been. Four fours (unlikely) instead of sixes woukd still have left three singles off two balls. I'm almost tempted ( when younger of course) to say I could have bowled an over and guaranteed not to get 19 scored off it by xxxxxx Len Hutton....BWFC_Insane wrote:
Chill out. They were Yorker length. Jordan got away with a couple the previous over, Stokes didn't.
I keep saying, this game favours the batsman. 19 off the last over was by no means safe and I wouldn't blame Stokes. What he was trying to do has a huge margin of error.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 65 guests