So dad, you lost

Touche. Yeah thinking about it you're right. I agreed with the wickets argument until thinking about it. Would England have taken the two run outs knowing they'd lose on wickets lost? I doubt it they would have tailored their innings not to lose anymore wickets. The two sacrifices made by Rashid then Wood turned out to be a tactical masterstroke.

 

And Archer, effectively threw his wicket away. If he blocks that ball and we take singles instead of 2s, we only lose 7 wickets. It's absurd to try and judge the game with different rules, they were the competition rules and both teams played to them.

 

You’ve lost me. We needed 15 from 4 deliveries which suddenly became 3 from 2. We then no longer needed to hit it out of the park and Stokes knew that.

Wood was ran out on the final ball of the innings pushing for the second that would’ve won the World Cup outright.

Stokes’ shot was a safe push knowing it was at least one run and at least ending with scores tied. They pushed for the second notwithstanding the above, as you would.

Great batting under considerable physical and mental pressure.

*edited

 

Rashid got run out on the 5th ball of the over, Wood got run out on the 6th ball. They were both part of tactical masterstrokes as they got Stokes back on strike each time and gave up their wickets for the cause.

 

Ah I see. I misread the tone of the previous post.

 

still cannot fathom out why people try to pick the bones out of 1 of the greatest achievements in english (and welsh) sport.
if 1 of the bones had been changed the knock on effect for the rest of the game would have also changed
the rules are there the only error was 6 not 5 in the last over, you could then argue stokes would have gone for glory on the last ball and whacked it for 4 doing away with the "won on boundaries" stat

if you have an hour spare this is well worth a listen, still can't believe it ;-)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p07gxndd

 

Glad that England were playing New Zealand in a sport that at least has some sporting spirit remaining. Not one of them has complained in any way about what happened in the match. Quite the opposite in fact. Kane Williamson , despite being devastated by the result, has pointed out that fine decisions affected both teams and that “the rules were there at the start”.
The match was decided on the pitch with that final run out as far as I am concerned. Sensational, beautifully judged partnership by Stokes and Buttler won the cup for us.

 

Are you from Auckland?

 

There are some miserable sods on this board.

Probably stills moans about Kasprowicz been given out when his hand wasn't on the bat in the 2005 Edgbaston test.

 

Posted this in the other thread on the subject.

New Zealand batsman Henry Nicholls brushed off the decision as part of the sport.

"It doesn't mean anything to us now, it's the game, things happen," he told BBC Radio 5 Live.

"Sometimes you get the rub of the green. England had a great tournament, they have been the dominant team for the last four years so they deserve to win it".

Talking about the extra runs off Stokes bat. The rules for a tie were set out before the tournament started. Amazingly after all that cricket that's what it came down to.

 

Hat, Rick?

 

If it was the Aussies they would be windging until the next World Cup.

 

Apparently the umpire made a mistake and Stokes should have only been given five runs.

I'm still taking the win.

 

Isn't that a prerequisite for posting on the BBS?