But Bernard surely you agree that it was the best method of deciding it because it meant England won.

Trent Boult stepping on the rope and failing to dismiss Stokes? Hilarious.

Ball hitting Stokes's bat and running to the boundary for four thus sparing him the moral dilemma of whether to run or not? Hysterical.

Jason Roy's throw under the most extreme pressure? Off the *%^@*** sofa punching the ceiling with delight.

Watching the manly artisans of a nation of peasants, tattooed man-monsters, cheats-in-the-ruck, and face-stampers trying not to cry? Makes up for JPR Williams.

Now all we need is a debate as to whether England WON the match - over to the world-class forumites, they're not usually short of an opinion on that one.

Goes without saying that imagining Bernard's quisling lip trembling in solidarity with the Kiwis only makes victory all the sweeter. Not since somebody was mean about Gael Clichy's fatal dithering to allow Tottenham a way back into a NLD where we were almost home and dry can he have been so upset.

Having said that they could have decided it on better names which would undoubtedly have handed it to the Kiwis.

Trent Boult is a brilliant name - you can almost hear the sheep in the background.

It has been eight years since Batman, in collusion with Commissioner Gordon, vanished into the night. Assuming responsibility for the death of Harvey Dent, Batman sacrificed everything for what he and Gordon hoped would be the greater good. However, the arrival of a cunning cat burglar and a merciless terrorist named Bane force Batman out of exile and into a battle he may not be able to win.

Welcome back Daz !

Thank you, no way I was missing the opportunity to tousle the hair of my favourite forumite who is probably head-first in a barrel of rum burbling away about Chilean poofters, zionist helicopters, and how unfair it is they didn't change the pre-match formula to favour his poxy little country. And I bet Bernard's inflatable Mertesacker took a bit of a pounding last night.

(nb before anybody comes and tells me, I know the kiwi cricket team are a decent bunch and if I had to lose a final to anybody it would have been them but I'm still *%^@*** glad Lady Luck, Trent "rope" Boult, and our middle order showing up prevented it from happening).

Not to mention the Ben Stokes Moment: 'It was a little with my left arm, a little with the Bat of God.'

So, what next after he laughs at this?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football ... r-18211812

Arsenal supporters pen open letter calling for change to Stan Kroenke ownership

File under Lady Luck but yes that was nearly as delightful as Henry's handball for introducing the colonials to the concept of karma.

I hope Hoy has seen the Maradona movie. It is absolutely excellent and while he cannot be said to have a particularly endearing personality, the most striking thing about it is how alone he was in a city where predators waited at every turn. Ronaldo and Messi would have had an army of advisers and fixers; he just had the Camorra preying on him. It is a real indictment of Italy in the 80s - racist to the core - rather than a not especially bright and susceptible kid from a Buenos Aires slum. And yet so huge was his natural talent, he still managed to take a club looking more likely to be relegated and win the Scudetto. Twice. Just extraordinary.

This is excellent. Chapeau.

Sadly, I don't think we will end up with Tierney. I've read Celtic reject 25 mil. Maybe they will take Mustafi (we actually paid 35 mil? Mind boggling). with a slightly improved offer? We may have to go the next option at full back. I like the look of Tierney but oh well.

True. Regrettably, while being a 'legend', Diego Armando was no gentleman: certainly no Baron Cowdrey of Tonbridge. As an Australian, and therefore a guardian of fair play and good humour - both in sport and, of course, elsewhere in the game of life - I remain conflicted.

Just to add to the slapped-arsedness of Pete's face, all those bleary eyed Kiwis should read this:

MCC Rule 19:8 states that, in the event of an overthrow, the runs scored are the allowance for the boundary and "the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act."

This image shows that Rashid and Stokes had NOT crossed when Guptil threw in from the boundary, hitting Stokes' bat and going for a boundary. Stokes was given 6 but it should only have been 5.

You'd need a heart of stone not to laugh.

I question that interpretation anyway.

Boundary(4) + runs completed(1) + run in progress (1).

Crossed which crease? It can only mean the crease for the beginning of the run otherwise it wouldn’t make any sense. But whatever if you want to insist it shouldn’t have counted you have at it.

England ICC World Cup champions - it’s engraved now.

EDIT: Not you per se DHD, I know you’re just pointing this out. Albeit I don’t think that’s the correct reading of it.

Afternoon Ash

In this context - "...if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act.." crossed refers to batsmen passing each other in the middle of the track - once they've passed each other, they've crossed. It's a definition that triggers other actions as well. It's not about crossing one or other crease.

For Kiwis crying foul, there is another point about that amazing game.

Archer's first ball of the second 'super' over was called as a wide. That was a judgement on the part of Umpire Dharmasena but there's a perfectly reasonable case to argue that it wasn't wide at all. To my eye, the ball was on the blue guide line, not wide of it.

That would have been one less run to NZ and more importantly, one less ball which in the context of that over was worth 1, 2 or 6 runs. If the ball hadn't been called 'wide', that would likely have lopped a minimum of 2 runs off the NZ score - maybe more.

Mind you, there's a blindingly simple and indeed infallible way to resolve all these contentious issues - just read the scorecard in this morning's paper.

They crossed for the first run. That’s good enough for me.

I don’t understand the guidelines for the wide as umpires seem to call them even when they are just inside. It should be outside and Archers ball was on the line.

Overmars really talking up selling Ziyech. 21 goals and 24 assists last year, overmars saying he’s surprised no-one has properly come in for him yet. If we’re being quoted silly prices for wingers like zaha and Fraser, Ziyech can be got for around £20m and listening to Overmars he’s ready to sell

Ah, ok, as you were. Seems a difficult thing to judge for an umpire two people running full pelt at each other and the moment they cross compared to the initiation of a throw that could be fully 50m away. But I suppose the third umpire could adjudicate.

Good to see you back on the forum Daz. Cracking game of cricket wasn't it.

It definitely wasn't a wide.

Apparently Arsenal have ‘analysed’ Ziyech and found him wanting. Probably not enough outside to in, third quarter past the stat leading fullback sprint dribble passes per 90. Or something. Also why is Overmars talking him up so much when they’re making 200m from sales so far anyway?? Seems a bit over eager. But yes you wouldn’t say no for less than 30M.

Sorry to bang on but one other small point that reflects extremely well on NZ - check out when Boult takes that rope ‘catch’. It was a potentially explosive and contentious moment but Guptill was very close-by, and immediately- IMMEDIATELY- signalled a six.

That is natural and instinctive sportsmanship - and these days, it’s rare!

Respect to Martin Gupthill, to NZ and to Brendon McCallum whose influence and example pervades both teams.

Brendan McCallum was at Middlesex for a while.

I get the impression the calling of wides is an area of the game that has moved away from the rule book. I’m not saying that’s right. Just that it is what has happened, particularly in one day games, time after time after time.

Considering what seems to be called a wide whoever is playing, not just yesterday’s game, I’d have been astonished if Archer’s delivery had not been called a wide.

Just to reassure you, this definitely didn’t come across as sour grapes.
Best,
Pinocchio

Tricky one Bern

The ump is supposed to use the blue lines as a guide but he’s also supposed to take account of the batsman’s stance at delivery and as the ball arrives.

The point about ‘wides’ is that the batsmen is supposed to be able to reach the bowled ball from a normal batting stance. But we all know that batsmen dance all around the crease these days as the bowler is about to deliver - backwards and forwards but more relevantly, to off and to leg, sometimes by a metre or more. Sometimes this is so he/she can be in a position to hit a ball bowled outside off to leg or a ball bowled outside leg to off. Realistically, there is no such thing any more as a ‘normal’ stance, particularly when the batter switches from a right to a left hand guard.

Archer’s first ball was on the blue line but crucially, Neesham had moved across to be well outside his off stump as the ball passed him. From a normal - static - middle stump guard, he probably couldn’t reach a ball bowled on the blue line, though technically it should still have been a legal delivery. That’s where the bowler’s skill comes into play, and Archer’s was of the highest order.

In the event, from where he was, Neesham definitely COULD have reached that ball so it should not have been called as a wide.

That’s hilarious - have you ever thought about becoming a comedian? Have you got over that humiliation in the semi yet?

I’m not disagreeing with you DHD. But from what you see being called a wide in countless one day games now, whoever is playing, I’d have been very surprised if it hadn’t been called a wide. I see it as the way the game has developed or moved on. Again, I’m not saying it’s right. Just that it is what has happened, for better or worse.

I see that Bern but the point is that no matter where the batter stands, a ball bowled on or inside the blue guideline is not a wide.

If the batter moves to the leg side and the bowled ball is on or inside the offside blue line, the batter looks stupid; that’s brilliant bowling.

But if the batter moves to the off, the ump is supposed to allow a wider interpretation of the allowable width. Neesham moved appreciably to his off side so the notional blue line limit should also have moved.

In my opinion, that wasn’t a wide - though we all know, scorecard says it was.

Mate in a week of bad results it wasn’t even in the top 2. Queenslander Ash Barty lost at Wimbledon, Queensland lost the State of Origin in the last minute and NSW cheat Dave Warner with Australian teammates lost a semi. I don’t think it really even registered much interest. I may be Australian when it suits but I am first and foremost a Queenslander and North Queenslander at that.

We have won a few WC’s so while it is good to win it wasn’t life or death which apparently it is for some of the other second rate nation. Call it the Leicester year and leave it at that.

What is really sad is that instead of talking about our signings and their impact we are talking about cricket and some strange decisions in a sport where betting dominates.

Or we could talk about Josh Kroenke turning up at Arsenal training in LaLa Land wearing a t-shirt saying Rams, even though the colours he had were red/white. Really, have you no shame Josh.
Sorry I couldn't resist Gaz...

And hes the future. Thanks for the photo - didn't exactly cheer me up.

I thought yesterday it's odds on this event will bring you back ...... so I was right ...... again

Didn't watch the match thank God but the son came home yesterday cursing Trent Boult

.... but being the well adjusted model of serenity that I am ; when he explained the situation ; I gave a gallic shrug and said Kurt .. " c'est la vie ...don't begrudge the Poms their day in the sun ... they won , we threw it away ...... move on ".

So if you think you are going to get a rise out of me ; you gloating , gender challenged , microscopic penied Spanish speaking Pommie fairy ........think again

.. "One Carlos Braithwaite , there's only one Carlos Braithwaite "

Oh and by the way to any soft cock lisping ..... "wonderful to see you back Daz " .... I say pull your head in , let the t****er f*&^%**** off for another millenium .

Agreed.

With that being only your seventh post I suppose it’s unlikely you were already blocked. But I think after that it’s a fairly safe bet that you soon will be. A bit safer than saying someone who doesn’t buy, get given, find or steal a ticket is unlikely to win the jackpot for tonight’s Euromillions draw. Unless he’s already seen it and blocked you already.

I would have thought one of the important reasons for posting here is not only that a relatively small number of people will read your views, but debate them with you. That will cover agreeing and disagreeing with you. Yet he’s blocked so many of the members who disagree with him, he must get something else from the forum.

a stiffy when he sees my name...

Saw the highlights. Didn't see anything I didn't expect. Wasn't much of a crowd which is surprising to some extent because you don't get European clubs playing friendlies in Colorado. New York, Los Angeles, Chicago? Yes. Colorado? I'd be surprised if there were any major clubs that played there preceding us.

There is typically good turnouts in Los Angeles. If the crowds are small then, no one really gives a ### about us. Even if you support another PL club, people come to see the rare chance of seeing a major European side. I went to a Man Utd vs. Club America (Mexico) friendly in LA a long time ago and it was well attended and I saw not only other gooners (donning the shirt) but Chelsea, Milan, etc, supporters.

I see in the papers we are linked to Dani Alves. He's what? 36? We might...just might be able to get most of a season out of him. Maybe he'll offer some "leadership", assuming he comes as rumored.