If certain people don't like the result perhaps the match should be replayed until they get the result they like...
I am a fan of winning fairly. You can bet your life that if this had happened the other way around, that there would be plenty of people on this forum kicking off.
I've not heard one of the New Zealand players complain about the result,in fact they have been nothing but complementary about the match. A sporting match is exactly that,a sporting match.If those actually involved in the game accept the decisions/rulings/laws/interpretations and by no means less the official result,who are you(or anyone you quote) to doubt the result. As for your other point,if New Zealand had won the match(which they deserved to do) I would've congratulated them because that's what sport is all about,the same as what the English team would've done.
If certain people don't like the result perhaps the match should be replayed until they get the result they like...
I am a fan of winning fairly. You can bet your life that if this had happened the other way around, that there would be plenty of people on this forum kicking off.
I've not heard one of the New Zealand players complain about the result,in fact they have been nothing but complementary about the match. A sporting match is exactly that,a sporting match.If those actually involved in the game accept the decisions/rulings/laws/interpretations and by no means less the official result,who are you(or anyone you quote) to doubt the result. As for your other point,if New Zealand had won the match(which they deserved to do) I would've congratulated them because that's what sport is all about,the same as what the English team would've done.
If certain people don't like the result perhaps the match should be replayed until they get the result they like...
I am a fan of winning fairly. You can bet your life that if this had happened the other way around, that there would be plenty of people on this forum kicking off.
I've not heard one of the New Zealand players complain about the result,in fact they have been nothing but complementary about the match. A sporting match is exactly that,a sporting match.If those actually involved in the game accept the decisions/rulings/laws/interpretations and by no means less the official result,who are you(or anyone you quote) to doubt the result. As for your other point,if New Zealand had won the match(which they deserved to do) I would've congratulated them because that's what sport is all about,the same as what the English team would've done.
+1 well said.
FTR, Haysie is welsh. Nuff said
FTR, there have been plenty of Welsh players that have played for the "England" cricket team.
Also, I started this thread because a well respected umpire pointed out that according to the rules, England scored one run less.
FTR he was Australian, but he is either right about the rules, or he isn't.
If certain people don't like the result perhaps the match should be replayed until they get the result they like...
I am a fan of winning fairly. You can bet your life that if this had happened the other way around, that there would be plenty of people on this forum kicking off.
I've not heard one of the New Zealand players complain about the result,in fact they have been nothing but complementary about the match. A sporting match is exactly that,a sporting match.If those actually involved in the game accept the decisions/rulings/laws/interpretations and by no means less the official result,who are you(or anyone you quote) to doubt the result. As for your other point,if New Zealand had won the match(which they deserved to do) I would've congratulated them because that's what sport is all about,the same as what the English team would've done.
I was merely pointing out that accordingly to the article the rules were not implemented correctly.
Nobody seems to be disputing this.
I think you have an optimistic view of any team, and their supporters if they felt they had been stitched up in a World Cup Final.
Football club managers, players, and supporters, never ever criticise refereeing decisions do they?
They never dispute offside decisions, the penalty that wasn't given, or the one that was given, but shouldn't have been.
I am certain the New Zealand team would have valued your congratulations, had the runs been added up correctly and they had won.
If certain people don't like the result perhaps the match should be replayed until they get the result they like...
I am a fan of winning fairly. You can bet your life that if this had happened the other way around, that there would be plenty of people on this forum kicking off.
I've not heard one of the New Zealand players complain about the result,in fact they have been nothing but complementary about the match. A sporting match is exactly that,a sporting match.If those actually involved in the game accept the decisions/rulings/laws/interpretations and by no means less the official result,who are you(or anyone you quote) to doubt the result. As for your other point,if New Zealand had won the match(which they deserved to do) I would've congratulated them because that's what sport is all about,the same as what the English team would've done.
+1 well said.
FTR, Haysie is welsh. Nuff said
Thanks @MAXALLY I didn't know that but it explains a lot of things...
If certain people don't like the result perhaps the match should be replayed until they get the result they like...
I am a fan of winning fairly. You can bet your life that if this had happened the other way around, that there would be plenty of people on this forum kicking off.
I've not heard one of the New Zealand players complain about the result,in fact they have been nothing but complementary about the match. A sporting match is exactly that,a sporting match.If those actually involved in the game accept the decisions/rulings/laws/interpretations and by no means less the official result,who are you(or anyone you quote) to doubt the result. As for your other point,if New Zealand had won the match(which they deserved to do) I would've congratulated them because that's what sport is all about,the same as what the English team would've done.
+1 well said.
FTR, Haysie is welsh. Nuff said
FTR, there have been plenty of Welsh players that have played for the "England" cricket team.
Also, I started this thread because a well respected umpire pointed out that according to the rules, England scored one run less.
FTR he was Australian, but he is either right about the rules, or he isn't.
Can we bring VAR into past football matches too? Lets start with England v Argentina 1986. According to the rules, there might have been an hand ball in that game.
You started this thread to have a pop at England winning. (imo). Like the majority have stated.....it doesnt matter what this respected umpire says or thinks. The result has been ACCEPTED by all who it concerned.
If certain people don't like the result perhaps the match should be replayed until they get the result they like...
I am a fan of winning fairly. You can bet your life that if this had happened the other way around, that there would be plenty of people on this forum kicking off.
I've not heard one of the New Zealand players complain about the result,in fact they have been nothing but complementary about the match. A sporting match is exactly that,a sporting match.If those actually involved in the game accept the decisions/rulings/laws/interpretations and by no means less the official result,who are you(or anyone you quote) to doubt the result. As for your other point,if New Zealand had won the match(which they deserved to do) I would've congratulated them because that's what sport is all about,the same as what the English team would've done.
+1 well said.
FTR, Haysie is welsh. Nuff said
Thanks @MAXALLY I didn't know that but it explains a lot of things...
If certain people don't like the result perhaps the match should be replayed until they get the result they like...
I am a fan of winning fairly. You can bet your life that if this had happened the other way around, that there would be plenty of people on this forum kicking off.
I've not heard one of the New Zealand players complain about the result,in fact they have been nothing but complementary about the match. A sporting match is exactly that,a sporting match.If those actually involved in the game accept the decisions/rulings/laws/interpretations and by no means less the official result,who are you(or anyone you quote) to doubt the result. As for your other point,if New Zealand had won the match(which they deserved to do) I would've congratulated them because that's what sport is all about,the same as what the English team would've done.
+1 well said.
FTR, Haysie is welsh. Nuff said
Not everyone is happy, see the video on the link.
2019 Cricket World Cup final: Should England have got five, not six runs for overthrows?
As the dust settles and the analysis pours in on the "greatest ODI match of all time", Kiwi cricket fans have been left wondering just how robbed they were of their first World Cup title. Lost in the thrilling late-match madness was one key question; were England awarded one run too many during the chaotic scenes of Trent Boult's final over to Ben Stokes?
If certain people don't like the result perhaps the match should be replayed until they get the result they like...
I am a fan of winning fairly. You can bet your life that if this had happened the other way around, that there would be plenty of people on this forum kicking off.
I've not heard one of the New Zealand players complain about the result,in fact they have been nothing but complementary about the match. A sporting match is exactly that,a sporting match.If those actually involved in the game accept the decisions/rulings/laws/interpretations and by no means less the official result,who are you(or anyone you quote) to doubt the result. As for your other point,if New Zealand had won the match(which they deserved to do) I would've congratulated them because that's what sport is all about,the same as what the English team would've done.
+1 well said.
FTR, Haysie is welsh. Nuff said
FTR, there have been plenty of Welsh players that have played for the "England" cricket team.
Also, I started this thread because a well respected umpire pointed out that according to the rules, England scored one run less.
FTR he was Australian, but he is either right about the rules, or he isn't.
Can we bring VAR into past football matches too? Lets start with England v Argentina 1986. According to the rules, there might have been an hand ball in that game.
You started this thread to have a pop at England winning. (imo). Like the majority have stated.....it doesnt matter what this respected umpire says or thinks. The result has been ACCEPTED by all who it concerned.
Congratulations, I wasn't aware of your telepathicness.
How else would you know my reason for starting the thread?
I find your post comical, as on the one hand you claim the result has been accepted, something that is contradicted by the NZ Herald by the way, and on the other hand you still bear a grudge over a handball that occurred over 30 years ago. This is obviously in complete contradiction to Lucys explanation of what sport is all about.
I started the thread because I was surprised by the claim that the rules had been broken.
I was interested to know whether the umpires knew the rules, and were mistaken, or if they didn't know the rules.
If so, why the umpires were allowed to officiate in a World Cup Final, if they weren't completely aware of all the rules.
What about the third umpire?
When was the last time that there were claims of rules being broken in any World Cup Final, or any huge sporting event?
I also thought about the bitter taste that would be left in the mouths of the losers if the allegation was true.
The NZ Herald questions how robbed they were.
So I don't think that everything is as rosy as you make out.
If I intended to have a pop about the England cricket, I would start a thread about the probability of them being prosecuted under The Trades Descriptions Act, over continuing to call themselves England.
The rules are the rules, and if the guy that wrote the article is correct, the fairness of the result is called into question.
Depends what you mean by "playing to the rules". In cricket, that normally means that the umpire's decision is final. And cricketers (unlike footballers or journalists) generally accept that.
Turning to the "Trades Descriptions Act", sorry to break it to you, but Wales is not, and never has been, a country by most definitions. It has never truly self-governed (unlike Scotland or Ireland), and does not have separate membership of all the major organisations.
The England (and Wales) cricket team has a considerable history of picking foreign-born players. The most common are South African batsmen and West Indian bowlers. Anybody betting against this team?
Strauss, Trott; Pietersen, R. Smith, Lamb; Greig, Prior, De Freitas; Archer, Small, Malcolm
Depends what you mean by "playing to the rules". In cricket, that normally means that the umpire's decision is final. And cricketers (unlike footballers or journalists) generally accept that.
Turning to the "Trades Descriptions Act", sorry to break it to you, but Wales is not, and never has been, a country by most definitions. It has never truly self-governed (unlike Scotland or Ireland), and does not have separate membership of all the major organisations.
I was referring to the fact that "England" clearly select players from throughout the UK, in addition to many other countries throughout the rest of the world.
The British, and Irish Lions, also select from throughout the UK, but aren't called England.
The Olympic team is selected in a similar way and called Team GB.
The England (and Wales) cricket team has a considerable history of picking foreign-born players. The most common are South African batsmen and West Indian bowlers. Anybody betting against this team?
The team are never called England and Wales. Even though the governing body are called The England and Wales Cricket Board, and incredibly known as the ECB, not the ECWB.
Strauss, Trott; Pietersen, R. Smith, Lamb; Greig, Prior, De Freitas; Archer, Small, Malcolm
Depends what you mean by "playing to the rules". In cricket, that normally means that the umpire's decision is final. And cricketers (unlike footballers or journalists) generally accept that.
Turning to the "Trades Descriptions Act", sorry to break it to you, but Wales is not, and never has been, a country by most definitions. It has never truly self-governed (unlike Scotland or Ireland), and does not have separate membership of all the major organisations.
The England (and Wales) cricket team has a considerable history of picking foreign-born players. The most common are South African batsmen and West Indian bowlers. Anybody betting against this team?
Strauss, Trott; Pietersen, R. Smith, Lamb; Greig, Prior, De Freitas; Archer, Small, Malcolm
Reserves Morgan, B.Hollioake, Pringle (and, if including Welsh, Croft/S.Jones)
List of English international cricketers born outside of England
A map of the world showing which countries England's international cricketers were born in. This is a list of cricketers born outside England who have represented England's cricket team at Test, One Day International, or T20I level. The country of birth is the only criterion applied; therefore, some of the players below may have very little relationship with the country of their birth, while others were born and bred in that particular country. Conversely, other England players may be associated with a country (such as Matthew Maynard, who is often listed as a Welsh cricketer because of his links with Anglesey and Glamorgan), but they are not listed below because they were actually born in England. Countries of birth are listed under their current names and according to their current borders for convenience's sake. Therefore, players born in modern-day Zimbabwe are listed under that country, regardless of whether they were born in Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia or Zimbabwe. Similarly, Neal Radford was born in Luanshya in modern-day Zambia and is therefore listed under that country, although at the time Luanshya was part of the short-lived protectorate of Northern Rhodesia. Finally, Joseph McMaster is listed under Northern Ireland although his birthplace, County Down, was then part of Ireland. In recent years, the England team has been perceived to benefit hugely from players born in South Africa.[1][2] Since Andrew Strauss made his ODI debut in 2003, ten other South African-born players have played international cricket for England. In total, 107 players born abroad have represented England, of a total of 736 players.[3] List[edit]
India 17 K.S. Ranjitsinhji, Teddy Wynyard, Richard Young, Neville Tufnell, Douglas Jardine, Duleepsinhji, Nawab of Pataudi Sr., Errol Holmes, Norman Mitchell-Innes, George Emmett, Colin Cowdrey, John Jameson, Bob Woolmer, Robin Jackman, Nasser Hussain, Vikram Solanki, Min Patel.
South Africa 17 Basil D’Oliviera, Tony Greig, Ian Greig, Allan Lamb, Chris Smith, Robin Smith, Andrew Strauss, Kevin Pietersen, Matt Prior, Jonathan Trott, Craig Kieswetter, Jade Dernbach, Stuart Meaker, Michael Lumb, Jason Roy, Keaton Jennings, Tom Curran.
Wales 14 Johnnie Clay, Robert Croft, Jeff Jones, Tony Lewis, Austin Matthews, Hugh Morris, Gilbert Parkhouse, Pat Pocock, Greg Thomas, Maurice Turnbull, Cyril Walters, Steve Watkin, Allan Watkins, Simon Jones.
Australia 10 Billy Murdoch, John Ferris, Sammy Woods, Albert Trott, Gubby Allen, Adam Hollioake, Ben Hollioake, Jason Gallian, Tim Ambrose, Sam Robson.
Scotland 9 Mike Denness, Gavin Hamilton, Alec Kennedy, David Larter, Gregor MacGregor, Ian Peebles, Eric Russell, Dougie Brown, Peter Such.
Republic of Ireland 5 Leland Hone, Sir Tim O'Brien, Frederick Fane, Ed Joyce, Eoin Morgan.
Barbados 4 Roland Butcher, Gladstone Small, Chris Jordan, Jofra Archer.
Northern Ireland 3 Joseph McMaster, Martin McCague, Boyd Rankin.
Zimbabwe 3 Graeme Hick, Paul Parker, Gary Ballance.
Germany 2 Donald Carr, Paul Terry.
Guyana 2 Chris Lewis, Monte Lynch.
Jamaica 2 Norman Cowans, Devon Malcolm.
Kenya 2 Derek Pringle, Jamie Dalrymple.
New Zealand 2 Andy Caddick, Ben Stokes.
Pakistan 2 Usman Afzaal, Owais Shah.
Trinidad and Tobago 2 Lord Harris, Pelham Warner.
St Vincent and the Grenadines 2 Wilf Slack, Neil Williams.
Zambia 2 Phil Edmonds, Neal Radford.
Denmark 1 Amjad Khan.
Dominica 1 Phillip DeFreitas.
Hong Kong 1 Dermot Reeve.
Italy 1 Ted Dexter.
Papua New Guinea 1 Geraint Jones.
Peru 1 Freddie Brown.
St Kitts and Nevis 1 Joey Benjamin.
^ As of May 3 2019, 690 players have represented England at Test level. A further 44 players have only represented England in limited overs cricket, and 2 only at T20 level.
Depends what you mean by "playing to the rules". In cricket, that normally means that the umpire's decision is final. And cricketers (unlike footballers or journalists) generally accept that.
Turning to the "Trades Descriptions Act", sorry to break it to you, but Wales is not, and never has been, a country by most definitions. It has never truly self-governed (unlike Scotland or Ireland), and does not have separate membership of all the major organisations.
I was referring to the fact that "England" clearly select players from throughout the UK, in addition to many other countries throughout the rest of the world.
The British, and Irish Lions, also select from throughout the UK, but aren't called England.
The Olympic team is selected in the same way and called Team GB.
The England (and Wales) cricket team has a considerable history of picking foreign-born players. The most common are South African batsmen and West Indian bowlers. Anybody betting against this team?
The team are never called England and Wales. Even though the governing body are called The England and Wales Cricket Board, and incredibly known as the ECB, not the ECWB.
Strauss, Trott; Pietersen, R. Smith, Lamb; Greig, Prior, De Freitas; Archer, Small, Malcolm
Depends what you mean by "playing to the rules". In cricket, that normally means that the umpire's decision is final. And cricketers (unlike footballers or journalists) generally accept that.
Turning to the "Trades Descriptions Act", sorry to break it to you, but Wales is not, and never has been, a country by most definitions. It has never truly self-governed (unlike Scotland or Ireland), and does not have separate membership of all the major organisations.
I was referring to the fact that "England" clearly select players from throughout the UK, in addition to many other countries throughout the rest of the world.
The British, and Irish Lions, also select from throughout the UK, but aren't called England.
The Olympic team is selected in the same way and called Team GB.
The England (and Wales) cricket team has a considerable history of picking foreign-born players. The most common are South African batsmen and West Indian bowlers. Anybody betting against this team?
The team are never called England and Wales. Even though the governing body are called The England and Wales Cricket Board, and incredibly known as the ECB, not the ECWB.
Strauss, Trott; Pietersen, R. Smith, Lamb; Greig, Prior, De Freitas; Archer, Small, Malcolm
Depends what you mean by "playing to the rules". In cricket, that normally means that the umpire's decision is final. And cricketers (unlike footballers or journalists) generally accept that.
Turning to the "Trades Descriptions Act", sorry to break it to you, but Wales is not, and never has been, a country by most definitions. It has never truly self-governed (unlike Scotland or Ireland), and does not have separate membership of all the major organisations.
I was referring to the fact that "England" clearly select players from throughout the UK, in addition to many other countries throughout the rest of the world.
The British, and Irish Lions, also select from throughout the UK, but aren't called England.
The Olympic team is selected in the same way and called Team GB.
The England (and Wales) cricket team has a considerable history of picking foreign-born players. The most common are South African batsmen and West Indian bowlers. Anybody betting against this team?
The team are never called England and Wales. Even though the governing body are called The England and Wales Cricket Board, and incredibly known as the ECB, not the ECWB.
Strauss, Trott; Pietersen, R. Smith, Lamb; Greig, Prior, De Freitas; Archer, Small, Malcolm
Reserves Morgan, B.Hollioake, Pringle (and, if including Welsh, Croft/S.Jones)
Very few Welsh-born players have ever been good enough.
That is a silly argument. They have picked those that have been good enough, to play for England.
I don't see that the numbers matter that much, England seem to want to have their cake and eat it.
Shouldn't the team be named in respect of the country or countries that it selects from, irrespective of how many players.
On the basis you are suggesting you may justify calling the Olympic team England.
Scotland and Ireland have their own cricket teams that compete internationally, unlike Wales.
"Team GB" at the Olympics is a separate matter, and is totally disrespectful to Northern Ireland. It should be Team UK. The Lions have it spot on.
How can you say it is a separate matter, it is a sports team?
"Sport" is thousands of different games, with thousands of different sets of rules, often with different rules for different competitions. With £billions at stake in some.
So-Commonwealth Games, "Wales", Olympics "GB". Some sports Northern Ireland is part of the UK, others part of all Ireland (like boxing/rugby).
In your world, everything is straightforward. But sport, and indeed life, is not like that.
Depends what you mean by "playing to the rules". In cricket, that normally means that the umpire's decision is final. And cricketers (unlike footballers or journalists) generally accept that.
Turning to the "Trades Descriptions Act", sorry to break it to you, but Wales is not, and never has been, a country by most definitions. It has never truly self-governed (unlike Scotland or Ireland), and does not have separate membership of all the major organisations.
I was referring to the fact that "England" clearly select players from throughout the UK, in addition to many other countries throughout the rest of the world.
The British, and Irish Lions, also select from throughout the UK, but aren't called England.
The Olympic team is selected in the same way and called Team GB.
The England (and Wales) cricket team has a considerable history of picking foreign-born players. The most common are South African batsmen and West Indian bowlers. Anybody betting against this team?
The team are never called England and Wales. Even though the governing body are called The England and Wales Cricket Board, and incredibly known as the ECB, not the ECWB.
Strauss, Trott; Pietersen, R. Smith, Lamb; Greig, Prior, De Freitas; Archer, Small, Malcolm
Reserves Morgan, B.Hollioake, Pringle (and, if including Welsh, Croft/S.Jones)
Very few Welsh-born players have ever been good enough. Scotland and Ireland have their own cricket teams that compete internationally, unlike Wales.
"Team GB" at the Olympics is a separate matter, and is totally disrespectful to Northern Ireland. It should be Team UK. The Lions have it spot on.
Wales 14 Johnnie Clay, Robert Croft, Jeff Jones, Tony Lewis, Austin Matthews, Hugh Morris, Gilbert Parkhouse, Pat Pocock, Greg Thomas, Maurice Turnbull, Cyril Walters, Steve Watkin, Allan Watkins, Simon Jones.
Scotland 9 Mike Denness, Gavin Hamilton, Alec Kennedy, David Larter, Gregor MacGregor, Ian Peebles, Eric Russell, Dougie Brown, Peter Such.
Republic of Ireland 5 Leland Hone, Sir Tim O'Brien, Frederick Fane, Ed Joyce, Eoin Morgan.
Northern Ireland 3 Joseph McMaster, Martin McCague, Boyd Rankin.
I presume you don't follow cricket much. In international terms, most of those were journeyman cricketers, and (unfortunately) some of the better ones had terrible injuries.
Croft was good, Pocock was unlucky to be around with Underwood, Titmus et al, Jones and Thomas were unlucky with injuries, Lewis was a better commentator, and most of the rest played about 2 Tests.
Scotland/Ireland both have their own teams, don't have a County side, and don't play much cricket compared to England or Wales.
Depends what you mean by "playing to the rules". In cricket, that normally means that the umpire's decision is final. And cricketers (unlike footballers or journalists) generally accept that.
Turning to the "Trades Descriptions Act", sorry to break it to you, but Wales is not, and never has been, a country by most definitions. It has never truly self-governed (unlike Scotland or Ireland), and does not have separate membership of all the major organisations.
I was referring to the fact that "England" clearly select players from throughout the UK, in addition to many other countries throughout the rest of the world.
The British, and Irish Lions, also select from throughout the UK, but aren't called England.
The Olympic team is selected in the same way and called Team GB.
The England (and Wales) cricket team has a considerable history of picking foreign-born players. The most common are South African batsmen and West Indian bowlers. Anybody betting against this team?
The team are never called England and Wales. Even though the governing body are called The England and Wales Cricket Board, and incredibly known as the ECB, not the ECWB.
Strauss, Trott; Pietersen, R. Smith, Lamb; Greig, Prior, De Freitas; Archer, Small, Malcolm
Reserves Morgan, B.Hollioake, Pringle (and, if including Welsh, Croft/S.Jones)
Very few Welsh-born players have ever been good enough.
That is a silly argument. They have picked those that have been good enough, to play for England.
I don't see that the numbers matter that much, England seem to want to have their cake and eat it.
Shouldn't the team be named in respect of the country or countries that it selects from, irrespective of how many players.
On the basis you are suggesting you may justify calling the Olympic team England.
Scotland and Ireland have their own cricket teams that compete internationally, unlike Wales.
"Team GB" at the Olympics is a separate matter, and is totally disrespectful to Northern Ireland. It should be Team UK. The Lions have it spot on.
How can you say it is a separate matter, it is a sports team?
"Sport" is thousands of different games, with thousands of different sets of rules, often with different rules for different competitions. With £billions at stake in some.
So-Commonwealth Games, "Wales", Olympics "GB". Some sports Northern Ireland is part of the UK, others part of all Ireland (like boxing/rugby).
In your world, everything is straightforward. But sport, and indeed life, is not like that.
I can say it because it is undeniably true.
I am only disputing why the England cricket team is called England. In support of this argument I have used a number of teams that have similar selection criteria, but aren't called England. I think it fairly obvious that a team that selects players from other countries shouldn't bear the name of just one country. I will let go the fact that the "England" team on occasion may have contained only a very small majority of English players.
Comments
FTR, Haysie is welsh. Nuff said
Also, I started this thread because a well respected umpire pointed out that according to the rules, England scored one run less.
FTR he was Australian, but he is either right about the rules, or he isn't.
Nobody seems to be disputing this.
I think you have an optimistic view of any team, and their supporters if they felt they had been stitched up in a World Cup Final.
Football club managers, players, and supporters, never ever criticise refereeing decisions do they?
They never dispute offside decisions, the penalty that wasn't given, or the one that was given, but shouldn't have been.
I am certain the New Zealand team would have valued your congratulations, had the runs been added up correctly and they had won.
You started this thread to have a pop at England winning. (imo). Like the majority have stated.....it doesnt matter what this respected umpire says or thinks. The result has been ACCEPTED by all who it concerned.
Name One?
2019 Cricket World Cup final: Should England have got five, not six runs for overthrows?
As the dust settles and the analysis pours in on the "greatest ODI match of all time", Kiwi cricket fans have been left wondering just how robbed they were of their first World Cup title.
Lost in the thrilling late-match madness was one key question; were England awarded one run too many during the chaotic scenes of Trent Boult's final over to Ben Stokes?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12249636
How else would you know my reason for starting the thread?
I find your post comical, as on the one hand you claim the result has been accepted, something that is contradicted by the NZ Herald by the way, and on the other hand you still bear a grudge over a handball that occurred over 30 years ago. This is obviously in complete contradiction to Lucys explanation of what sport is all about.
I started the thread because I was surprised by the claim that the rules had been broken.
I was interested to know whether the umpires knew the rules, and were mistaken, or if they didn't know the rules.
If so, why the umpires were allowed to officiate in a World Cup Final, if they weren't completely aware of all the rules.
What about the third umpire?
When was the last time that there were claims of rules being broken in any World Cup Final, or any huge sporting event?
I also thought about the bitter taste that would be left in the mouths of the losers if the allegation was true.
The NZ Herald questions how robbed they were.
So I don't think that everything is as rosy as you make out.
If I intended to have a pop about the England cricket, I would start a thread about the probability of them being prosecuted under The Trades Descriptions Act, over continuing to call themselves England.
The rules are the rules, and if the guy that wrote the article is correct, the fairness of the result is called into question.
This should concern all genuine sports fans.
Turning to the "Trades Descriptions Act", sorry to break it to you, but Wales is not, and never has been, a country by most definitions. It has never truly self-governed (unlike Scotland or Ireland), and does not have separate membership of all the major organisations.
The England (and Wales) cricket team has a considerable history of picking foreign-born players. The most common are South African batsmen and West Indian bowlers. Anybody betting against this team?
Strauss, Trott; Pietersen, R. Smith, Lamb; Greig, Prior, De Freitas; Archer, Small, Malcolm
Reserves:-Roy, D'Oliveira, Cowans
Or this team, from the Rest of the World:
Woolmer, D.Jardine; Hussain, Dexter, C.Cowdrey; Hick, Stokes, G.Jones; Gubby Allen, Edmonds, Caddick
Reserves Morgan, B.Hollioake, Pringle (and, if including Welsh, Croft/S.Jones)
List of English international cricketers born outside of England
A map of the world showing which countries England's international cricketers were born in.
This is a list of cricketers born outside England who have represented England's cricket team at Test, One Day International, or T20I level.
The country of birth is the only criterion applied; therefore, some of the players below may have very little relationship with the country of their birth, while others were born and bred in that particular country.
Conversely, other England players may be associated with a country (such as Matthew Maynard, who is often listed as a Welsh cricketer because of his links with Anglesey and Glamorgan), but they are not listed below because they were actually born in England.
Countries of birth are listed under their current names and according to their current borders for convenience's sake. Therefore, players born in modern-day Zimbabwe are listed under that country, regardless of whether they were born in Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia or Zimbabwe. Similarly, Neal Radford was born in Luanshya in modern-day Zambia and is therefore listed under that country, although at the time Luanshya was part of the short-lived protectorate of Northern Rhodesia. Finally, Joseph McMaster is listed under Northern Ireland although his birthplace, County Down, was then part of Ireland.
In recent years, the England team has been perceived to benefit hugely from players born in South Africa.[1][2] Since Andrew Strauss made his ODI debut in 2003, ten other South African-born players have played international cricket for England.
In total, 107 players born abroad have represented England, of a total of 736 players.[3]
List[edit]
India
17
K.S. Ranjitsinhji, Teddy Wynyard, Richard Young, Neville Tufnell, Douglas Jardine, Duleepsinhji, Nawab of Pataudi Sr., Errol Holmes, Norman Mitchell-Innes, George Emmett, Colin Cowdrey, John Jameson, Bob Woolmer, Robin Jackman, Nasser Hussain, Vikram Solanki, Min Patel.
South Africa
17
Basil D’Oliviera, Tony Greig, Ian Greig, Allan Lamb, Chris Smith, Robin Smith, Andrew Strauss, Kevin Pietersen, Matt Prior, Jonathan Trott, Craig Kieswetter, Jade Dernbach, Stuart Meaker, Michael Lumb, Jason Roy, Keaton Jennings, Tom Curran.
Wales
14
Johnnie Clay, Robert Croft, Jeff Jones, Tony Lewis, Austin Matthews, Hugh Morris, Gilbert Parkhouse, Pat Pocock, Greg Thomas, Maurice Turnbull, Cyril Walters, Steve Watkin, Allan Watkins, Simon Jones.
Australia
10
Billy Murdoch, John Ferris, Sammy Woods, Albert Trott, Gubby Allen, Adam Hollioake, Ben Hollioake, Jason Gallian, Tim Ambrose, Sam Robson.
Scotland
9
Mike Denness, Gavin Hamilton, Alec Kennedy, David Larter, Gregor MacGregor, Ian Peebles, Eric Russell, Dougie Brown, Peter Such.
Republic of Ireland
5
Leland Hone, Sir Tim O'Brien, Frederick Fane, Ed Joyce, Eoin Morgan.
Barbados
4
Roland Butcher, Gladstone Small, Chris Jordan, Jofra Archer.
Northern Ireland
3
Joseph McMaster, Martin McCague, Boyd Rankin.
Zimbabwe
3
Graeme Hick, Paul Parker, Gary Ballance.
Germany
2
Donald Carr, Paul Terry.
Guyana
2
Chris Lewis, Monte Lynch.
Jamaica
2
Norman Cowans, Devon Malcolm.
Kenya
2
Derek Pringle, Jamie Dalrymple.
New Zealand
2
Andy Caddick, Ben Stokes.
Pakistan
2
Usman Afzaal, Owais Shah.
Trinidad and Tobago
2
Lord Harris, Pelham Warner.
St Vincent and the Grenadines
2
Wilf Slack, Neil Williams.
Zambia
2
Phil Edmonds, Neal Radford.
Denmark
1
Amjad Khan.
Dominica
1
Phillip DeFreitas.
Hong Kong
1
Dermot Reeve.
Italy
1
Ted Dexter.
Papua New Guinea
1
Geraint Jones.
Peru
1
Freddie Brown.
St Kitts and Nevis
1
Joey Benjamin.
^ As of May 3 2019, 690 players have represented England at Test level. A further 44 players have only represented England in limited overs cricket, and 2 only at T20 level.
Scotland and Ireland have their own cricket teams that compete internationally, unlike Wales.
"Team GB" at the Olympics is a separate matter, and is totally disrespectful to Northern Ireland. It should be Team UK. The Lions have it spot on.
How can you say it is a separate matter, it is a sports team?
So-Commonwealth Games, "Wales", Olympics "GB".
Some sports Northern Ireland is part of the UK, others part of all Ireland (like boxing/rugby).
In your world, everything is straightforward. But sport, and indeed life, is not like that.
I can say it because it is undeniably true.
Wales
14
Johnnie Clay, Robert Croft, Jeff Jones, Tony Lewis, Austin Matthews, Hugh Morris, Gilbert Parkhouse, Pat Pocock, Greg Thomas, Maurice Turnbull, Cyril Walters, Steve Watkin, Allan Watkins, Simon Jones.
Scotland
9
Mike Denness, Gavin Hamilton, Alec Kennedy, David Larter, Gregor MacGregor, Ian Peebles, Eric Russell, Dougie Brown, Peter Such.
Republic of Ireland
5
Leland Hone, Sir Tim O'Brien, Frederick Fane, Ed Joyce, Eoin Morgan.
Northern Ireland
3
Joseph McMaster, Martin McCague, Boyd Rankin.
I presume you don't follow cricket much. In international terms, most of those were journeyman cricketers, and (unfortunately) some of the better ones had terrible injuries.
Croft was good, Pocock was unlucky to be around with Underwood, Titmus et al, Jones and Thomas were unlucky with injuries, Lewis was a better commentator, and most of the rest played about 2 Tests.
Scotland/Ireland both have their own teams, don't have a County side, and don't play much cricket compared to England or Wales.
In support of this argument I have used a number of teams that have similar selection criteria, but aren't called England.
I think it fairly obvious that a team that selects players from other countries shouldn't bear the name of just one country.
I will let go the fact that the "England" team on occasion may have contained only a very small majority of English players.