|
|
Post by mickeyg on Jul 17, 2022 10:55:41 GMT
I agree that Vilas is a good captain. Very hard to lose the game on such a small margin. I thought the Yorkshire total would be beyond us and that the Hant's total would be straightforward..got that all wrong. Hants were the only team without any players with England. If perhaps we had had Livingstone for Hartley? Be a bit hard to drop Croft for Buttler though. In the situation you mention, I'd have dropped Wells for Livingstone and kept Hartley. Maybe Buttler for Lamb and force Gleeson, Parky, Hartley, Wood and Livingstone to all bowl 4 overs each. Bit of a gamble bowling wise giving no leeway, but very aggressive batting wise! |
|
|
|
Post by exile on Jul 17, 2022 11:04:16 GMT
I think we did have a strong enough side to win (and. arguably, actually did win). We just didn't get it together mentally when it came to chasing a smallish total on a wearing pitch. btw does anyone have any stats on how often the winner of the first semi-final has gone on to win the final?
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil on Jul 17, 2022 11:04:22 GMT
So if it's a free hit shouldn't there be another ball afterwards? Or have I missed something I think I missed it as well, thinking there would be an extra delivery to come. There was one |
|
|
|
Post by Phil on Jul 17, 2022 11:08:30 GMT
I didn't realise at the time that we only needed to get level to win the game, I thought it would have gone to a super over if level.
|
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jul 17, 2022 11:22:21 GMT
I think we did have a strong enough side to win (and. arguably, actually did win). We just didn't get it together mentally when it came to chasing a smallish total on a wearing pitch. btw does anyone have any stats on how often the winner of the first semi-final has gone on to win the final? I believe that is the 4th consecutive win by the team winning the second SF. |
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jul 17, 2022 11:26:15 GMT
I agree that Vilas is a good captain. Very hard to lose the game on such a small margin. I thought the Yorkshire total would be beyond us and that the Hant's total would be straightforward..got that all wrong. Hants were the only team without any players with England. If perhaps we had had Livingstone for Hartley? Be a bit hard to drop Croft for Buttler though. At the start of the season when Livingstone was playing, Wells wasn’t. Without further comment from me; Lancashire (2 players absent) beat Yorkshire (3) Hampshire (0) beat Somerset (1) Hampshire (0) beat Lancashire (2). |
|
|
|
Post by mickeyg on Jul 17, 2022 12:48:44 GMT
I know injuries are all part of sport, but would Mahmood have made a difference? I really only got back into following Lancs at the end of the last CC season so without looking it up I don't know whether he played t20 much if at all for Lancs.
|
|
|
|
Post by mickeyg on Jul 17, 2022 13:13:39 GMT
Just watched Livingstone and Buttler both hole out for England on the same boundary. I know there have been a lot of comments about the red balls being soft, but has the white ball been getting the same complaints?
|
|
|
|
Post by exile on Jul 17, 2022 13:32:15 GMT
It has always been normal for the white ball to go soft relatively early as, apparently, the lacquer wears off quite quickly. The problem with the current batch of Duke red balls is not so much that they keep going soft as that they keep going out of shape. The manufacturer is blaming a faulty batch of cowhide.
|
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jul 17, 2022 13:35:02 GMT
I think we did have a strong enough side to win (and. arguably, actually did win). We just didn't get it together mentally when it came to chasing a smallish total on a wearing pitch. btw does anyone have any stats on how often the winner of the first semi-final has gone on to win the final? I believe that is the 4th consecutive win by the team winning the second SF. Although I spotted that there was an issue with the last ball, we turned the TV off straight away and I forgot about it. Having read about it this morning, what I should have said was “I believe that is the 4th consecutive time that the Trophy was presented to the team winning the second SF. “ |
|
|
|
Post by Butter_Fingers on Jul 17, 2022 15:56:33 GMT
I think we did have a strong enough side to win (and. arguably, actually did win). We just didn't get it together mentally when it came to chasing a smallish total on a wearing pitch. btw does anyone have any stats on how often the winner of the first semi-final has gone on to win the final? Wanted to know that as well. It's such an unfair advantage as the team that have won the 2nd SF should still be in 'the Zone' and more so if it was a tense finish by the time of the Final. Maybe the team that win the first SF should have the choice whether to bat or bowl first in the Final. |
|
|
|
Post by Phil on Jul 17, 2022 16:41:03 GMT
I think we did have a strong enough side to win (and. arguably, actually did win). We just didn't get it together mentally when it came to chasing a smallish total on a wearing pitch. btw does anyone have any stats on how often the winner of the first semi-final has gone on to win the final? How did we 'actually' win when they scored more runs than we did? |
|
|
|
Post by exile on Jul 17, 2022 16:50:45 GMT
tbh I think the format is inherently faulty. For a start, the day is far too long, even without adding on travel. It was around 9.40 last night when the final ended so, if you arrive at, say, 10.40 a.m. you will spend 11 hours in a concrete bowl being ripped off by extortionate prices for food and drink. Secondly, supporters of the losing semi-final teams can't help feeling that the day is now ruined and large numbers of them just decide to go home. Thirdly, as Butter Fingers says, the winner of the first semi-final is inherently disadvantaged.
I think it would be better to hold the semi-finals as separate events, just like the QFs, and then have a double header final. If this resulted in one win each, NRR could be used to determine the winner or the title could be shared.
|
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jul 17, 2022 17:08:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by exile on Jul 17, 2022 17:22:38 GMT
I think we did have a strong enough side to win (and. arguably, actually did win). We just didn't get it together mentally when it came to chasing a smallish total on a wearing pitch. btw does anyone have any stats on how often the winner of the first semi-final has gone on to win the final? How did we 'actually' win when they scored more runs than we did? I did say "arguably". As we all saw, Gleeson missed the ball but Hartley had made his ground for a bye by the time McDermott had broken the stumps. Hartley then ran back to the bowler's end in a race with McDermott, who had to uproot a stump while holding the ball. Meanwhile, Crane, in a premature celebration, had already uprooted a stump and Vilas claims that McDermott just grabbed the stump from Crane and did not uproot either of the two left standing. Therefore Hartley scored a second bye and Lancashire should have won. However, the umpires declared a dead ball as soon as McDermott broke the stumps at the striker's end, so they were able to ignore the chaos at the other end. The laws of the game are quite clear about this: "the ball shall be considered dead when it is clear to the bowler's end umpire that the fielding side and both batters at the wickets have ceased to regard it as in play" (Law 20.1.2) Vilas simply wanted the umpires to check the replay. Also, when a free hit is given, the fielding side is not allowed to re-set the field but Hampshire brought in a short midwicket, who hadn't been there for the no-ball. Therefore another no-ball should have been called, which would have made Lancs the winners in any case. Both umpires missed this. Anyone who has been to a lot of T20 Finals will know that it is not completely unusual for the combination of over-excitement and tired umpires to create this sort of confusion. |
|
