By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Alan Brazil was destroying him this morning because Saunders floated the idea that Stokes could have been more sporting after getting 6 runs off the throw that hit his bat.
Dean Saunders suggesting that a batsman who couldn't help a ball he couldn't see hitting his bat, but who then decided not to go for any other runs (when he could have) could have been more sporting.
The same Dean Saunders that deliberately threw the ball of a goalkeepers back and then scored from the rebound.
Funny how something you can't help is unsporting Dean, but something you deliberately did is deemed 'clever'.
The sporting moral compass that is Dean Saunders on 10:15 - Jul 15 by Guthrum
In any case, what more could Stokes have done? The ball went to the boundary, the runs stand, those are the rules.
I read a piece from Paul Hayward (who's supposedly a Chief Sports Reporter or somesuch) this morning. Something along the lines of "Stokes apologised to Williamson but took the runs in any case". What was he supposed to do? Get off the floor, chase after the ball and stop it going for four?
The sporting moral compass that is Dean Saunders on 10:18 - Jul 15 by SWGF
I read a piece from Paul Hayward (who's supposedly a Chief Sports Reporter or somesuch) this morning. Something along the lines of "Stokes apologised to Williamson but took the runs in any case". What was he supposed to do? Get off the floor, chase after the ball and stop it going for four?
TMS described it as a net-cord point in tennis. You apologise to your opponent, but you still accept it.
The sporting moral compass that is Dean Saunders on 10:18 - Jul 15 by SWGF
I read a piece from Paul Hayward (who's supposedly a Chief Sports Reporter or somesuch) this morning. Something along the lines of "Stokes apologised to Williamson but took the runs in any case". What was he supposed to do? Get off the floor, chase after the ball and stop it going for four?
It's one of those things that if it happens first ball of the match the player all laugh at it.
The sporting moral compass that is Dean Saunders on 10:18 - Jul 15 by SWGF
I read a piece from Paul Hayward (who's supposedly a Chief Sports Reporter or somesuch) this morning. Something along the lines of "Stokes apologised to Williamson but took the runs in any case". What was he supposed to do? Get off the floor, chase after the ball and stop it going for four?
It was just one of those things.
As several experts have pointed out, Stokes could technically have carried on and got another run whilst the ball was making it's way to the boundary but didn't. That may well be because he wanted to ensure he faced the next delivery, but we'll never know what he would have done if Root or Buttler had been down the other end.
Stokes didn't know about it until it hit his bat, he didn't go for any other runs and he apologised. Anyone suggesting he could have done more is talking nonsense. You wouldn't expect anything more, let alone with 3 balls left in a World Cup final.
It's akin to hammering a shot across the box and hitting the defender in the face the ball going in the net. You don't start inviting them to walk the ball in from the restart. It's not like he moved his bat towards the throw. It came from behind him. He had no idea. It was just a fluke.
The sporting moral compass that is Dean Saunders on 10:53 - Jul 15 by Harlestonblue
I remember the same Dean Saunders diving and winning a penalty against us for Liverpool up the North Stan end
One of my least favourite oppo players ever. Can't think of anyone from 'up the road' who I despise more. Huckerby maybe. Off the top of my head only Chris Morgan might trump him.
A quick read of the press online indicates that what the antipodean press is in a lather about is the boundary countback that ultimately decided the final.
If you don't know the rules at the start, chaps, it's no good complaining about them afterwards. And all nations were involved in the decision-making about those rules - it is the International Cricket Conference after all.
The sporting moral compass that is Dean Saunders on 11:12 - Jul 15 by factual_blue
A quick read of the press online indicates that what the antipodean press is in a lather about is the boundary countback that ultimately decided the final.
If you don't know the rules at the start, chaps, it's no good complaining about them afterwards. And all nations were involved in the decision-making about those rules - it is the International Cricket Conference after all.
That's the glory of cricket. Stokes' 6 the ball before equally "decided" the final. Buttler switching to play that second scoop "decided" it too. Santner inexplicably ducking... and so on. It's about what you do as a total of 600 balls; if one freak means you lose, you didn't do enough.
The sporting moral compass that is Dean Saunders on 11:12 - Jul 15 by factual_blue
A quick read of the press online indicates that what the antipodean press is in a lather about is the boundary countback that ultimately decided the final.
If you don't know the rules at the start, chaps, it's no good complaining about them afterwards. And all nations were involved in the decision-making about those rules - it is the International Cricket Conference after all.
What would have been fairer?
- who won the group game? - who finished higher in the table?
Everyone should take a leaf from Kane Williamson’s book.
0
The sporting moral compass that is Dean Saunders on 11:50 - Jul 15 with 4370 views
The sporting moral compass that is Dean Saunders on 11:12 - Jul 15 by factual_blue
A quick read of the press online indicates that what the antipodean press is in a lather about is the boundary countback that ultimately decided the final.
If you don't know the rules at the start, chaps, it's no good complaining about them afterwards. And all nations were involved in the decision-making about those rules - it is the International Cricket Conference after all.
'If you don't know the rules at the start, chaps, it's no good complaining about them afterwards.' - bit like a referendum then.
Ade Akinbiyi couldn't hit a cows arse with a banjo...
The sporting moral compass that is Dean Saunders on 11:12 - Jul 15 by factual_blue
A quick read of the press online indicates that what the antipodean press is in a lather about is the boundary countback that ultimately decided the final.
If you don't know the rules at the start, chaps, it's no good complaining about them afterwards. And all nations were involved in the decision-making about those rules - it is the International Cricket Conference after all.
They may have a point - it should have been a 5, not a 6 as the batsmen had only crossed once before the throw back towards the wicket had been released.
In all fairness a New Zealand fan tweeted him that and he was putting the point accross to Steve Harmison as the authority on cricket and asking the question.
0
The sporting moral compass that is Dean Saunders on 15:39 - Jul 15 with 3963 views
The sporting moral compass that is Dean Saunders on 11:21 - Jul 15 by BryanPlug
[content removed at owner's request]
He was no Shearer, but got a good share of goals. He also scored this goal which took the wind out of the sails of the Lyall/McGiven era side and started the club’s decline over 1993-1995.
1
The sporting moral compass that is Dean Saunders on 23:41 - Jul 15 with 3557 views
The sporting moral compass that is Dean Saunders on 15:39 - Jul 15 by braveblue
Decided not to go for more runs? What?
I think the commentary team said that it would be sporting not to take runs off the next ball. But it is professional sport. Crazy rule.
He couldn't have completed more runs as the overthrows would have kicked in as a 4 anyway from the moment the throw hit the bat which was also the "act" that led to the overthrows and hence the reason 6 runs (and not 5) was the correct call.
The sporting moral compass that is Dean Saunders on 10:18 - Jul 15 by SWGF
I read a piece from Paul Hayward (who's supposedly a Chief Sports Reporter or somesuch) this morning. Something along the lines of "Stokes apologised to Williamson but took the runs in any case". What was he supposed to do? Get off the floor, chase after the ball and stop it going for four?
Not very sporting but years ago we were playing against a rather nasty lot in a league game, they threw the ball in deliberately at the non striking batsman when no run was being attempted. It hit him hard on the pads and bounced away and we ran two.
Flounce when ITFC lose, flounce about brexit and flounce about Trump.
The sporting moral compass that is Dean Saunders on 10:28 - Jul 15 by WarkTheWarkITFC
It was just one of those things.
As several experts have pointed out, Stokes could technically have carried on and got another run whilst the ball was making it's way to the boundary but didn't. That may well be because he wanted to ensure he faced the next delivery, but we'll never know what he would have done if Root or Buttler had been down the other end.
Stokes didn't know about it until it hit his bat, he didn't go for any other runs and he apologised. Anyone suggesting he could have done more is talking nonsense. You wouldn't expect anything more, let alone with 3 balls left in a World Cup final.
It's akin to hammering a shot across the box and hitting the defender in the face the ball going in the net. You don't start inviting them to walk the ball in from the restart. It's not like he moved his bat towards the throw. It came from behind him. He had no idea. It was just a fluke.
He couldn’t have carried on for more runs - in fact it’s in dispute whether he should have been allowed the two they got or just one as the batsmen hadn’t crossed when Guptill threw it
Neither of your football examples are remotely comparable either btw
Highlighting crass stupidity since sometime around 2010
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
