Fingernails? I'm gonna need prosthetic arms from the elbow down! So, so lucky. Boult stepping on the rope, the overthrows off stokes bat. Madness. I'm also puzzled by a couple of things. 1) I didn't think you got any of the runs if there was a runout. 2) I thought that in the event the scores were tied, if the chasing team lost more wickets, the team who batted first won? Maybe they've amended the rules slightly from what's used in tests, try and add a bit more drama.
Yip correct. Every run counts until the one that runs you out. Amazing game and nail-biting finish. Was screaming at the TV on the last ball. Thought for sure they would run the two but then the camera panned back to the stumps and realised they had only got the one and were miles from the second.
IIRC In the event of a tie like this, the number of boundries is/was the decider. Englande scored more 4s [and more 6s] so they won on that basis.
I meant at the end of 50 overs. I'm sure I've seen a test where the team batting 2nd drew the scores level in the 4th innings but we're then bowled out and lost the test. This super over is news to me, or I'd forgot about it's existence as I thought we'd lost and slumped back in my chair distraught. lol
I think it will be technically recorded as a tie+win as scores were level after both teams completed their allocated overs. Wickets gone mean nowt now, there were a couple of ODIs in the 80's that used wickets lost as a decider.
The real winners are those of us who f*****ng hate cricket and don't have to listen to it anymore. but well done, England. For once.
Colleague of mine, many careers ago, used to listen to test matches on the radio. You'd basically have two commentators waffling on about whatever came into their head for fifteen minutes, then be reminded it was a cricket match with the occasional "15th out for six with leg before wicket" before they'd go back to talking about how summers felt longer when they were growing up...
I can't say I'm surprised. I know English people have a thing for laughing at how many breaks are in American football, but oh boy is cricket far worse for taking too long.
Twenty20 matches can be frenetic (each innings is about 1.5 hours with a short break in between) and and 50 over matches, well, are done in a day. But Test matches, yeah I guess they are a war of atrition. Five days takes effort even from people watching it.
I only found out recently that that's another sport that some British yokel probably invented as it was already in a dictionary in 1768.
If you're watching cricket, or baseball for that matter, you're doing it wrong. Both "sports" exist solely for the purpose of providing people with a valid excuse to drink to excess all day.
This is why I don't watch cricket - the rules are either ambiguous or flat out unfathomable. How can you have the same score with wickets in hand and be the losing side? I mean, it's nice to see England win it - I just don't understand how.
I honestly thought we'd lost when they got run out on the final ball. And I watch/listen to a fair bit of cricket!
