Good entertainment that. One question for the cricket experts: After 20 overs, we were 154-8, Pakistan were 154-7. So why isn't the number of wickets to fall a factor in the result? Not complaining, like. Just wondering.
Good entertainment that. One question for the cricket experts: After 20 overs, we were 154-8, Pakistan were 154-7. So why isn't the number of wickets to fall a factor in the result? Not complaining, like. Just wondering.
Simply because in this competition that they decided wickets do not matter. I think its part of the general direction of trying to provide more entertainment - bloody hell, whats gone wrong with cricket, i mean..entertainment !! - and to try to promote Super Over - which TBH i think is brilliant.
What an over by Jordan too. 3 balls down the leg side, one just wide of off stump yorker and a leg wicket ruined.
Yep, as much as i think he's a donkey, it was a great over - then again, he had to bowl at some time !
I got England batsmen right but not the bowler for the super over. Thought Woakes would get the ball and a few others before Jordan but hey, what do I know!
Good entertainment that. One question for the cricket experts: After 20 overs, we were 154-8, Pakistan were 154-7. So why isn't the number of wickets to fall a factor in the result? Not complaining, like. Just wondering.
Simply because in this competition that they decided wickets do not matter. I think its part of the general direction of trying to provide more entertainment - bloody hell, whats gone wrong with cricket, i mean..entertainment !! - and to try to promote Super Over - which TBH i think is brilliant.
As Bumble mentioned if the super over was tied it would not have been a super duper over but would have gone down to boundaries scored which also makes it more interesting.....
Edit: which would mean Pakistan winning scoring 3 boundaries more.
Good entertainment that. One question for the cricket experts: After 20 overs, we were 154-8, Pakistan were 154-7. So why isn't the number of wickets to fall a factor in the result? Not complaining, like. Just wondering.
Simply because in this competition that they decided wickets do not matter. I think its part of the general direction of trying to provide more entertainment - bloody hell, whats gone wrong with cricket, i mean..entertainment !! - and to try to promote Super Over - which TBH i think is brilliant.
As Bumble mentioned if the super over was tied it would not have been a super duper over but would have gone down to boundaries scored which also makes it more interesting.....
Edit: which would mean Pakistan winning scoring 3 boundaries more.
Good entertainment that. One question for the cricket experts: After 20 overs, we were 154-8, Pakistan were 154-7. So why isn't the number of wickets to fall a factor in the result? Not complaining, like. Just wondering.
Simply because in this competition that they decided wickets do not matter. I think its part of the general direction of trying to provide more entertainment - bloody hell, whats gone wrong with cricket, i mean..entertainment !! - and to try to promote Super Over - which TBH i think is brilliant.
As Bumble mentioned if the super over was tied it would not have been a super duper over but would have gone down to boundaries scored which also makes it more interesting.....
Edit: which would mean Pakistan winning scoring 3 boundaries more.
Which sorta shows how shit PAK are at running !
Yep. More interested in clubbing out the ground than working the ball around.
David Warner (Aus) Alastair Cook (C) (Eng) Kane Williamson (NZ) Younis Khan (Pak) Steve Smith (Aus) Joe Root (Eng) Sarfraz Ahmed (Pak) Stuart Broad (Eng) Trent Boult (NZ) Yasir Shah (Pak) Josh Hazlewood (Aus)
So no Indian players and no South Africans either even though they are ranked, by a country mile, the current World's best Test Team. Just goes to show that SA are a team and we have three or four world class players.
No English players in the ODI version:
Tillakaratne Dilshan (SL) Hashim Amla (SA) Kumar Sangakkara (SL) A B V (SA) Steve Smith (Aus) Ross Taylor (NZ) Trent Boult (NZ) Mohammed Shami (India) Mitchell Starc (Aus) Mustafizur Rahman (Bang) Imran Tahir (SA)
So Smith and Boult are the only players to appear in both team though Joe Root is 12th man in the ODI side. Some consolation I suppose!
Comments
WHERE did that over come from ???!!!!!!!!!!!
I'll give it 2 balls.
England win !
One question for the cricket experts:
After 20 overs, we were 154-8, Pakistan were 154-7. So why isn't the number of wickets to fall a factor in the result?
Not complaining, like. Just wondering.
Edit: which would mean Pakistan winning scoring 3 boundaries more.
We won then...
Good good.
:-)
David Warner (Aus)
Alastair Cook (C) (Eng)
Kane Williamson (NZ)
Younis Khan (Pak)
Steve Smith (Aus)
Joe Root (Eng)
Sarfraz Ahmed (Pak)
Stuart Broad (Eng)
Trent Boult (NZ)
Yasir Shah (Pak)
Josh Hazlewood (Aus)
So no Indian players and no South Africans either even though they are ranked, by a country mile, the current World's best Test Team. Just goes to show that SA are a team and we have three or four world class players.
No English players in the ODI version:
Tillakaratne Dilshan (SL)
Hashim Amla (SA)
Kumar Sangakkara (SL)
A B V (SA)
Steve Smith (Aus)
Ross Taylor (NZ)
Trent Boult (NZ)
Mohammed Shami (India)
Mitchell Starc (Aus)
Mustafizur Rahman (Bang)
Imran Tahir (SA)
So Smith and Boult are the only players to appear in both team though Joe Root is 12th man in the ODI side. Some consolation I suppose!