20/20 world cup

[BWFC_Insane]

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.

Aye. So what do you want him to bowl? He took two NZ wickets in the last few overs the other day with balls that were attempted Yorkers but ended up fairly rank full tosses.

These against Braithwaite were much closer to the mark. Just re watched it. The first is the worst ball, fraction too short and line wrong.

The rest I'm not having were appalling balls. Just great batting. If he bowled perfect Yorkers every time he'd not be human.

[Worthy4England]

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.

Aye. So what do you want him to bowl? He took two NZ wickets in the last few overs the other day with balls that were attempted Yorkers but ended up fairly rank full tosses.

These against Braithwaite were much closer to the mark. Just re watched it. The first is the worst ball, fraction too short and line wrong.

The rest I'm not having were appalling balls. Just great batting. If he bowled perfect Yorkers every time he'd not be human.

Well I'd want him to bowl some Yorkers. You never played much did you? I'll post some pics - you can go reconsider at leisure...

[Bruce Rioja]

Aye. So what do you want him to bowl?

Yorkers?

[BWFC_Insane]

Aye. So what do you want him to bowl?

Yorkers?

Aye and you are talking about being an inch out and it going for six.

Like I say he took 2 wickets against New Zealand attempting Yorkers and ending up a full toss halfway up the stumps.

My view is that Stokes has been superb this tournament and to lambast him for that over would be ridiculous.

Had any of our batsmen stayed in like Samuels did we'd more than likely have ended up winning. But if you leave a chance for a side with big hitters in, you can easily go for 19 or more in some overs. Buttler et al have done that to other sides in the competition.

Windies did it to India too.

[Bruce Rioja]

Aye. So what do you want him to bowl?

Yorkers?

Aye and you are talking about being an inch out and it going for six.

An inch out? Did you watch the same game, FFS? He bowled dollies down the leg side that were smashed, baseball style, into the seats. An inch out? Oh my giddy aunt! Go on, piss off!

[Worthy4England]

Aye and you are talking about being an inch out and it going for six.

Aye and you're talking out of your mouth (or you're arse if you don't know the difference between an inch and a yard.

[Bruce Rioja]

BWFC-I in putting forth his view as being the official version of events, only to be found out to be talking complete and utter bollocks SHOCKER? Blimey!

[Worthy4England]

Aye. So what do you want him to bowl?

Yorkers?

My view is that Stokes has been superb this tournament and to lambast him for that over would be ridiculous.

I agree - they've all played pretty well, so I'm lambasting none of them.

You're view that the first three balls were pretty good is what we're lambasting!

[BWFC_Insane]

Post grainy stills all you want, nobody in the world is likely to bowl 6 perfect Yorkers. It was great batting and I'm not having it as anything else. First ball aside they were perfectly acceptable deliveries.

The Independent reckon

Thereafter Stokes did not quite locate his yorker, but nor was he far away from doing so. A millimeter too short here; a millimeter too wide there.

The Telegraph reckon

A matter of millimetres had separated him and his team from glory. The difference between four perfect yorkers and four clean half-volleys, all of which disappeared into the stands.

Graeme Fowler reckons

If anyone blames Ben Stokes, they don't understand cricket.

[Worthy4England]

Aye why go off something that shows pretty much where they pitched when you can carry on making shit up?

They're all agreed then that none of 'em were fcking yorkers? The independent and the Telegraph need to go look at them again too, if they think they were "near" yorkers. I'll give them their due for trying not to bash morale - they were a matter of millimetres out - around 3,657 of them in the case of the first delivery.

The Telegraph points out that they were four clean half volleys - which is correct. As for the quote from Foxy to support some bizarre contention - I think I'd already said I'm not blaming any fecker. But they weren't good balls and they met great striking.

[BWFC_Insane]

Aye why go off something that shows pretty much where they pitched when you can carry on making shit up?

They're all agreed then that none of 'em were fcking yorkers? The independent and the Telegraph need to go look at them again too, if they think they were "near" yorkers. I'll give them their due for trying not to bash morale - they were a matter of millimetres out - around 3,657 of them in the case of the first delivery.

The Telegraph points out that they were four clean half volleys - which is correct. As for the quote from Foxy to support some bizarre contention - I think I'd already said I'm not blaming any fecker. But they weren't good balls and they met great striking.

So, anything other than a perfect Yorker is a bad ball?

Because 99.9% of balls bowled this World Cup have been bad then!

[Worthy4England]

You're changing what you're arguing, to suit the fact you couldn't pick a yorker if it hit you on the boot. No one argued that anything other than a perfect yorker was a bad ball. That's playground a let's go to an extreme coz we're 12, approach.

As a general guide, I suspect you'd be a bit miffed with a skipper if they kept a bowler on for another over having just gone for 6-a-ball...

As for your "grainy" photo bollocks - the official hawkeye pitch locations are here

http://www.icc-cricket.com/world-t20/ma ... 20-2016/35" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And the fact they were all leg side is here

http://www.icc-cricket.com/world-t20/ma ... 20-2016/35" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So you can tell the Telegraph and the Independent to stick it up their know-nowt collective arseholes too.

[BWFC_Insane]

You're changing what you're arguing, to suit the fact you couldn't pick a yorker if it hit you on the boot. No one argued that anything other than a perfect yorker was a bad ball. That's playground a let's go to an extreme coz we're 12, approach.

As a general guide, I suspect you'd be a bit miffed with a skipper if they kept a bowler on for another over having just gone for 6-a-ball...

As for your "grainy" photo bollocks - the official hawkeye pitch locations are here

http://www.icc-cricket.com/world-t20/ma ... 20-2016/35" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And the fact they were all leg side is here

http://www.icc-cricket.com/world-t20/ma ... 20-2016/35" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So you can tell the Telegraph and the Independent to stick it up their know-nowt collective arseholes too.

My argument was they weren't apart from perhaps the first 'bad balls'.

It was more a case of good batting than poor bowling. Certainly he bowled worse deliveries against NZ where we won.

[Worthy4England]

Whatever. They were all leg-side, they were all too short to be yorkers, they were all parked for 6, they didn't really cramp the batter and they all happened to be perfectly in his arc. They were hit very well by a big powerful bloke.

Not every bad ball gets parked for 6, not every good ball gets a wicket - he'll have certainly bowled a few pianos in his time and not got the benefit. When those four balls are looked back upon by him, he'll think he could've done better with all 4. On another day, he might well have got away with all four. I haven't met a bowler yet, who's thought any ball that's been ballooned 90-odd meters for 6 was a good one (apart from the odd spinner, who would always argue that if I'd have put a man there for him, it could've been "oh so different". I did try my hardest to find some 45ft tall fielders coz that's usually the height they were when they cleared the rope).

[TANGODANCER]

Well known cricket authorities like The Sun (ever ready to jump on the "our boys" bandwaggon when we're winning)
will probably do a reverse and say we lost due to bad cricket. In fact, we lost due to one bad over. When the last over started with the Windies needing 19 we had the game all but won. It was still a terrifically entertaining game of cricket.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Dunno what you're all getting het up about. 20-20 is nowt but batting practice with an audience. You'll be talking about wimmins football next

[Dr Hotdog]

Jordan bowled a perfect yorker on the offside in either the previous over or the over before that. The batsman made his natural move to leg to open up their body and he bowled it so wide (maybe on the 'wide' marker) the batsman didn't get near it (and even if he did, it wasn't going for 6). Why was Stokes bowling his medium pace at the legs?! Nutcase got rightfully bashed here there and everywhere.

For our National Newspapers to declare that they were inches or millimeters out is simply factually incorrect.

[TANGODANCER]

Jordan bowled a perfect yorker on the offside in either the previous over or the over before that. The batsman made his natural move to leg to open up their body and he bowled it so wide (maybe on the 'wide' marker) the batsman didn't get near it (and even if he did, it wasn't going for 6). Why was Stokes bowling his medium pace at the legs?! Nutcase got rightfully bashed here there and everywhere.

For our National Newspapers to declare that they were inches or millimeters out is simply factually incorrect.

Probably because the columns are written by Sports Editors rather than people who know and understand cricket and a lot of reports seem to be copies of each other. The game, particularly 20-20 still isn't massive enough for newspapers to have regular experts on tap and give knowlegable comment. One of the Windies bowled a full over? of dot balls during our innings.

[BWFC_Insane]

We lost because we got a low score on a pitch that demanded something around the 180 plus mark. Our bowlers did well to make it a game with a low score on the board.

Jordan went for 9 an over and that as an average easily reaches England's total, and iirc had an expensive over of 16 or 18 or something in the latter half of their innings that kept them in touch.

Chasing the Windies were always going to have to have a go at some point. It came to the last over and they needed 6's and got them.

But ultimately on a good pitch we were always way light in terms of runs.

It astounds me that people who watch t20 think conceding 19 an over is out of the ordinary. When teams have someone who can clear the ropes and are just swinging and hitting it happens time to time.

Just like when Buttler was hitting their spinner for maximums. That is the game. We came out the wrong side. But has we even got an average score we'd have won.

[TANGODANCER]

It astounds me that people who watch t20 think conceding 19 an over is out of the ordinary. When teams have someone who can clear the ropes and are just swinging and hitting it happens time to time.

Just like when Buttler was hitting their spinner for maximums. That is the game. We came out the wrong side. But has we even got an average score we'd have won.

Gee, give it up Insane. Nobody thinks that; it's just that this was the last over of a world championship final and however many we scored or didn't score, we were well on course to win. We lost, that's what astounds "most people who watch t20" (which is usually only when it's on TV anyway, so we're hadly experts, are we? ) It was a bit of a unique situation, not an everyday one. Let it go.