Ops-Normal.org

Anyone got any nails left?

Mrs OFSO, after F1, tennis, and cricket, has bit 'em down to the quick.

Even Mrs PN was cheering the team on. You could not have scripted a game like that in Midsomer Murders even.

Oh, was there tennis too

But was it cricket?

ian16th wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 14, 2019 8:16 pm

But was it cricket?

Not really, but the most exciting sports event since Istanbul 2005

Well, judged by the question 'Was Geoffrey Boycott batting for three and a half days?' , No.
The limited overs game has a different skillset required. There's some overlap, and some players are good at both limited overs and test cricket.
Based on the fact that the vast majoirty of cricket, including all of that played by amateurs, is limited overs, I would say it was cricket.
It isn't a crime for cricket to be thrilling.

Oh my head hurts, all day braai watching the game and then we went out to celebrate

Completely drained of all energy today after watching the match yesterday.
NZ must be gutted to lose how they did.

handsfree wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:46 am

Completely drained of all energy today after watching the match yesterday.
NZ must be gutted to lose how they did.

Especially as England were given an extra run by mistake.

I disagree; see rule 19.8
https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws/boundaries
The law is unclear/ offers the opportunity for interpretation.
It was not an overthrow until the ball hit Stoke's bat, that being the critical act, by which time the batsmen had crossed.
So far, the newspapers are going off one retired umpire's interpretation.

17 days to The Ashes starting

Woody wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:06 pm

17 days to The Ashes starting

.....and during the 1st Test of a 5 Test series, the Football League starts!

Re Lords.

I can't my head around how a team that is 241 all out, beats a team that scores 241 for 8.

Boundaries are now worth more than wickets.

It's more exciting that way. Field hockey is always changing the rules to make things flow better or be more exciting. Removing the offside rule and allowing play with the edges of the stick are examples.

ian16th wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:11 pm

Woody wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:06 pm

17 days to The Ashes starting

.....and during the 1st Test of a 5 Test series, the Football League starts!

Re Lords.

I can't my head around how a team that is 241 all out, beats a team that scores 241 for 8.

Boundaries are now worth more than wickets.

Greater brains than ours probably worked out that 241 for 8 might apply to both teams at 50 overs so boundaries are another way. If course of boundaries were equal count a 6 as 1.5 etc etc

ian16th wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:11 pm

Woody wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:06 pm

17 days to The Ashes starting

.....and during the 1st Test of a 5 Test series, the Football League starts!

Re Lords.

I can't my head around how a team that is 241 all out, beats a team that scores 241 for 8.

Boundaries are now worth more than wickets.

It's not hard to work out. Those are the tournament rules, of which every team was aware. Don't really see why you have difficulty with that.

Nick, I think you missed Ian's point. A team that has lost fewer wickets for the same number of runs as the other team could be assumed to be the better team.

In other words, why did they use boundaries rather than wickets as the criterion? More boundaries implies poor fielders; fewer wickets implies better batsmen, weaker bowlers.

Spectators like boundaries, and more boundaries means more batting risk-taking is required. Making the following-on team achieve both more runs AND no more wickets would necessarily require a more cautious approach and thus less boundaries. With only the scores mattering, not wickets, the team opening the batting will also go for more boundaries.

Pontius Navigator wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:31 pm

Nick, I think you missed Ian's point. A team that has lost fewer wickets for the same number of runs as the other team could be assumed to be the better team.

In other words, why did they use boundaries rather than wickets as the criterion? More boundaries implies poor fielders; fewer wickets implies better batsmen, weaker bowlers.

Didn't miss the point at all. In a one day game the onus is on scoring lots of quick runs. Boundaries get you those. It might be a fairer refection of the way this form of cricket is played.

But I am not saying that it is the best way to settle matters. Whatever criteria is chosen will have its pros and cons. My point is that this is the process that was chosen for this tournament and that is that. You don't need to get your head around it, it's there in black and white in the rules.

Wonder if Rees-Mogg is watching England against the Europeans at Lords

It is all a dastardly ploy, to make the Australian over confident!

I hope.