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.
I don't follow cricket so much these days.
I used to be a Glamorgan member when at school, and a few years after I left. I was often seen at St Helens when I should have been at school.
When I first joined a schoolboy membership cost £1.
My friend got battered by his Dad, who saw him on the telly smoking at St Helens, when he should have been at school, and not smoking.
Those were the days when Alan Jones, Tony Lewis, Eifion Jones, Don Shepherd, Peter Walker, Ossie Wheatley, Roy Fredericks, Hugh Morris, Mathew Maynard, Jeff Jones, Jim Pressdee, and Majid Khan, were playing.
This period unfortunately included Gary Sobers smashing Malcolm Nash all over the shop.
I used to live very close to Bernard Hedges, bought stuff at Wilf Woollers cricket shop near the ground, often shopped at Malcolm Nashs sports shop, and frequented Don Shepherds shop that was famous for superb ice cream.
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.
Just a matter of time.
Sharing Cricket World Cup should be considered after tie, says New Zealand coach Gary Stead
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.
OOPS
Cricket: The picture that proves umpire error handed England the Cricket World Cup
As the picture above shows, however, Stokes and Rashid had not crossed when Guptill threw in from the boundary edge, meaning England were erroneously given one extra run by umpires Marais Erasmus and Kumar Dharmasena. To add to New Zealand's sense of injustice, had this been spotted at the time, Rashid would have been on strike for the penultimate delivery rather than Stokes, further diminishing the chances of England completing a famous victory.
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.
Black Caps captain Kane Williamson: We didn't lose the Cricket World Cup final
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.
Black Caps captain Kane Williamson: We didn't lose the Cricket World Cup final
If you read the article, rather than just the headline, it shows what a credit Williamson is to the game, and indeed proves that cricketers are mostly superb people and sportsmen
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.
Black Caps captain Kane Williamson: We didn't lose the Cricket World Cup final
If you read the article, rather than just the headline, it shows what a credit Williamson is to the game, and indeed proves that cricketers are mostly superb people and sportsmen
I wouldn't disagree with that.
I was merely posting three or four articles in response to a previous post.
Umpires ignored England star Ben Stokes' overthrows plea in Cricket World Cup final
Ben Stokes created arguably the most pivotal moment in ODI history during the Cricket World Cup final. And it's now been revealed that England's World Cup hero had asked the umpires to overturn the decision that ultimately led to England's win over New Zealand. With England needing nine off the final three balls of the final at Lord's, Christchurch-born Stokes was running back for a second run when a throw from Martin Guptill hit his bat and deflected to the boundary for four. It meant six was recorded off the ball instead of two and Stokes eventually got two singles off the final two balls to force a tie and a Super Over.
Stokes' test teammate for the upcoming Ashes series, Jimmy Anderson revealed that Stokes had appealed to the umpires to turnover their decision which could have seen the match never reach a tie.
It's been revealed that Ben Stokes had asked the umpires to overturn a crucial decision.
"The etiquette in cricket is if the ball is thrown at the stumps and it hits you and goes into a gap in the field you don't run," Anderson told the BBC's Tailenders podcast. "But if it goes to the boundary, in the rules it's four and you can't do anything about it. "I think, talking to Michael Vaughan who saw him after the game, Ben Stokes actually went to the umpires and said, 'Can you take that four runs off. We don't want it'. "But it's in the rules and that's the way it is.
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
Comments
I used to be a Glamorgan member when at school, and a few years after I left. I was often seen at St Helens when I should have been at school.
When I first joined a schoolboy membership cost £1.
My friend got battered by his Dad, who saw him on the telly smoking at St Helens, when he should have been at school, and not smoking.
Those were the days when Alan Jones, Tony Lewis, Eifion Jones, Don Shepherd, Peter Walker, Ossie Wheatley, Roy Fredericks, Hugh Morris, Mathew Maynard, Jeff Jones, Jim Pressdee, and Majid Khan, were playing.
This period unfortunately included Gary Sobers smashing Malcolm Nash all over the shop.
I used to live very close to Bernard Hedges, bought stuff at Wilf Woollers cricket shop near the ground, often shopped at Malcolm Nashs sports shop, and frequented Don Shepherds shop that was famous for superb ice cream.
Just a matter of time.
Sharing Cricket World Cup should be considered after tie, says New Zealand coach Gary Stead
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/cricket/sharing-cricket-world-cup-should-be-considered-after-tie-says-new-zealand-coach-gary-stead/ar-AAEoBwv?ocid=spartandhp
Cricket: The picture that proves umpire error handed England the Cricket World Cup
As the picture above shows, however, Stokes and Rashid had not crossed when Guptill threw in from the boundary edge, meaning England were erroneously given one extra run by umpires Marais Erasmus and Kumar Dharmasena.
To add to New Zealand's sense of injustice, had this been spotted at the time, Rashid would have been on strike for the penultimate delivery rather than Stokes, further diminishing the chances of England completing a famous victory.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12249806
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/black-caps/news/article.cfm?c_id=128&objectid=12249827
I was merely posting three or four articles in response to a previous post.
That was a brilliant game. And New Zealand were desperately unlucky. And I hope we would have been just as magnanimous in defeat.
Ben Stokes created arguably the most pivotal moment in ODI history during the Cricket World Cup final.
And it's now been revealed that England's World Cup hero had asked the umpires to overturn the decision that ultimately led to England's win over New Zealand.
With England needing nine off the final three balls of the final at Lord's, Christchurch-born Stokes was running back for a second run when a throw from Martin Guptill hit his bat and deflected to the boundary for four.
It meant six was recorded off the ball instead of two and Stokes eventually got two singles off the final two balls to force a tie and a Super Over.
Stokes' test teammate for the upcoming Ashes series, Jimmy Anderson revealed that Stokes had appealed to the umpires to turnover their decision which could have seen the match never reach a tie.
It's been revealed that Ben Stokes had asked the umpires to overturn a crucial decision.
"The etiquette in cricket is if the ball is thrown at the stumps and it hits you and goes into a gap in the field you don't run," Anderson told the BBC's Tailenders podcast.
"But if it goes to the boundary, in the rules it's four and you can't do anything about it.
"I think, talking to Michael Vaughan who saw him after the game, Ben Stokes actually went to the umpires and said, 'Can you take that four runs off. We don't want it'.
"But it's in the rules and that's the way it is.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/cricket/news/article.cfm?c_id=29&objectid=12250327
Maybe pick more Irish players, and call them Englireland?