What is an Ignore list?
Re: WI choke
Hello Guest
  
  • Login
• Register…
• Start blog
  • Who, Where, When
• What is interesting here?
• Duels
  • Polls
• Avatars
• Interests
  • Cities and Countries
• Random blog
• Users search
  • Search
• Games
• Tests
• GYXU
  • Ñîîáùåñòâà
• Talxy Chat
• Horoscope
• Online
 
Register!

GYXU > Cricket > Re: WI choke 12 May 2005 19:29:37

  Recent blog posts: 
  Forums:   
  Discuss: 
  Recent forum topics: 
  Recent forum comments:
  Ìîäåðàòîð:

Re: WI choke

Nouman 12 May 2005 04:51:10
 As big a choke as I've ever seen. Though WI did play well, gives a chance to
regain a glimmer of pride.

"Southpaw" <arbit00@yahoo.com>­ wrote in message
news:1115849229.697­514.27350@g49g2000cw­a.googlegroups.com..­.> Needing 10 runs to win in 2 overs with 4 wickets in hand:>
1 . . N1 2 1 W | 1 1 W W W>
Ntini bowled the penultimate over and Charl Langeveldt the last one.> The latter finished with 5/62 of 9.5 overs. Massive choke.>
-Samarth.>


Add comment
DubWize 12 May 2005 05:08:22 permanent link ]
 Yes they choked, but they actually won the match. There was a boundary for
which they were only credited 2 runs.

"Nouman" <n2ahmadNOSPAM@uwat­erloo.ca> wrote in message
news:iIadnbCUQO7tNB­_fRVn-hw@rogers.com.­..> As big a choke as I've ever seen. Though WI did play well, gives a chance > to regain a glimmer of pride.>
"Southpaw" <arbit00@yahoo.com>­ wrote in message > news:1115849229.697­514.27350@g49g2000cw­a.googlegroups.com..­.>> Needing 10 runs to win in 2 overs with 4 wickets in hand:>>
1 . . N1 2 1 W | 1 1 W W W>>
Ntini bowled the penultimate over and Charl Langeveldt the last one.>> The latter finished with 5/62 of 9.5 overs. Massive choke.>>
-Samarth.>>


Add comment
Nouman 12 May 2005 05:46:54 permanent link ]
 When was that?

"DubWize" <dubwizeuk_nospam@h­otmail.com> wrote in message
news:kWxge.23295$RG­2.701@bignews5.bells­outh.net...> Yes they choked, but they actually won the match. There was a boundary for > which they were only credited 2 runs.>
"Nouman" <n2ahmadNOSPAM@uwat­erloo.ca> wrote in message > news:iIadnbCUQO7tNB­_fRVn-hw@rogers.com.­..>> As big a choke as I've ever seen. Though WI did play well, gives a chance >> to regain a glimmer of pride.>>
"Southpaw" <arbit00@yahoo.com>­ wrote in message >> news:1115849229.697­514.27350@g49g2000cw­a.googlegroups.com..­.>>> Needing 10 runs to win in 2 overs with 4 wickets in hand:>>>
1 . . N1 2 1 W | 1 1 W W W>>>
Ntini bowled the penultimate over and Charl Langeveldt the last one.>>> The latter finished with 5/62 of 9.5 overs. Massive choke.>>>
-Samarth.>>>


Add comment
CiL 12 May 2005 06:31:34 permanent link ]
 On Wed, 11 May 2005 21:46:54 -0400, "Nouman"
<n2ahmadNOSPAM@uwat­erloo.ca> wrote:
"DubWize" <dubwizeuk_nospam@h­otmail.com> wrote in message >news:kWxge.23295$R­G2.701@bignews5.bell­south.net...>> Yes they choked, but they actually won the match. There was a boundary for >> which they were only credited 2 runs.

When was that?

http://caribbeancri­cket.com/jforum/foru­ms/show/1.page;jsess­ionid=32EF2324C0A3D5­D3B91CD592E5725D4C
Add comment
Nouman 12 May 2005 06:41:49 permanent link ]
 Sounds pretty bad, but didn't see anything mentioned in the Cricinfo
commentary. Keith Lane is the most one sided commentator I have seen. Still,
what happened at the end was appaling, a hatrick to a crap bowler...

"CiL" <cricketislife@redi­ffmail.com> wrote in message
news:quf581pkujlhc1­tulafems762nj6hqt7qu­@4ax.com...> On Wed, 11 May 2005 21:46:54 -0400, "Nouman"> <n2ahmadNOSPAM@uwat­erloo.ca> wrote:>
"DubWize" <dubwizeuk_nospam@h­otmail.com> wrote in message>>news:kWxge­.23295$RG2.701@bigne­ws5.bellsouth.net...­>>> Yes they choked, but they actually won the match. There was a boundary >>> for>>> which they were only credited 2 runs.>
When was that?>


Add comment
Andrew Dunford 12 May 2005 15:09:13 permanent link ]
 
"Allan Lazrado" <aslazrado@yahoo.co­.in> wrote in message
news:1115881064.834­748.235250@o13g2000c­wo.googlegroups.com.­..> Salil wrote:> > Amazing bowling by Langeveldt and Nel at the end overs. Langeveldt in> > particular was getting the ball to reverse swing quite a bit - the> one> > that knocked Powell over was a real beauty. Collymore and company had> > no chance whatsoever with the way he was bowling.> >
Still a dismal performance for WI - 10 runs in 10 balls with 4> wickets> > in hand should be the easiest task for most lineups, and the fact> that> > they choked like this is a real worry for Shiv and company.>
I think the Windies' choke is nothing compared to the Indians> choking against Zimbabwe in the 1999 World Cup. The Indian> tailenders were unable to score 4 runs of 7 balls with 3 wickets> in hand. Henry Olonga wrapped up the Indian tail(not with a hat-> trick) and Zimbabwe beat India by 3 runs at Leicester.

Describing WI as 10 runs needed in 10 balls is of course making it sound
more difficult than it later become, which was 4 runs off 7 balls with 4
wickets in hand. Whereas the Indian equation at Leicester required 4 runs
off 7 balls with *one* wicket in hand (earlier 7 off 11 with three wickets
in hand). Quite why the Indian 'choke' was so much worse is not obvious to
me.

Andrew


Add comment
CiL 12 May 2005 15:23:26 permanent link ]
 On Thu, 12 May 2005 23:09:13 +1200, "Andrew Dunford"
<adunford@artifax.n­et> wrote:
"Allan Lazrado" <aslazrado@yahoo.co­.in> wrote in message>news:111588­1064.834748.235250@o­13g2000cwo.googlegro­ups.com...>> Salil wrote:>> > Amazing bowling by Langeveldt and Nel at the end overs. Langeveldt in>> > particular was getting the ball to reverse swing quite a bit - the>> one>> > that knocked Powell over was a real beauty. Collymore and company had>> > no chance whatsoever with the way he was bowling.>> >
Still a dismal performance for WI - 10 runs in 10 balls with 4>> wickets>> > in hand should be the easiest task for most lineups, and the fact>> that>> > they choked like this is a real worry for Shiv and company.>>
I think the Windies' choke is nothing compared to the Indians>> choking against Zimbabwe in the 1999 World Cup. The Indian>> tailenders were unable to score 4 runs of 7 balls with 3 wickets>> in hand. Henry Olonga wrapped up the Indian tail(not with a hat->> trick) and Zimbabwe beat India by 3 runs at Leicester.>
Describing WI as 10 runs needed in 10 balls is of course making it sound>more difficult than it later become, which was 4 runs off 7 balls with 4>wickets in hand. Whereas the Indian equation at Leicester required 4 runs>off 7 balls with *one* wicket in hand (earlier 7 off 11 with three wickets>in hand). Quite why the Indian 'choke' was so much worse is not obvious to>me.

I wud hazard a guess that Alan thinks India were in better odo form
than WI and also Zim was pretty much ranked low when compared to SA
and the choke in that context might be worse.
Add comment
Nouman 12 May 2005 19:22:28 permanent link ]
 
<bcl400@mailinator.­com> wrote in message
news:1115907942.182­583.278840@g43g2000c­wa.googlegroups.com.­..

Ofcourse it would not have come to this at all if the third umpire had> changed that '2' to a '4'. Why he didn't do that is a mystery to me?.> Are there ICC regulations now that the thirs umpire cannot call the> umpire on the ground to make a correction to close boundary calls. It> happened early in the innings for them to have atleast changed it> during a drinks break.

If it was in the first innings it would have been changed, it usually is.
Another thing the ICC has to look at.


Add comment
 

Add new comment

As:
Login:  Password:  
 
 
  
 
respect your talk pals, avoid using obscene language, typing entire messages in CAPS, posting buy/sell ads or violating netiquette or the RF Criminal Code..


GYXU > Cricket > Re: WI choke 12 May 2005 19:29:37

see also:
Re: Pickup in New Jersey?
Rules question: the old 'double…
pass tests:
see also:
UPJA4KA!!!
ONOTOLE NEGODUE

  Copyright © 2001—2009 GYXU
Idea: Miñhael Monashev
See Help and FAQ in the community support.gyxu.com.
Write in the community about the bugs you have noticedbugs.gyxu.com.
Write your offers and comments in the communities suggest.gyxu.com.
Information for parents.
Write us at:
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please .