@Chester-Draws said in 2019 Tour de France:

ITTs don't bother me at all. There should be two of them, to prevent the GTs just being who can sprint out of the bunch on the climbs. That's a skill, but doesn't make for the most rounded rider.

It adds suspense too. Can a climber get enough lead to hold off the TT specialist? Otherwise the whole thing is over once you know who is climbing best. The recent Giros have really come down to that calculation, and been exciting for it.

I loathe Team TTs. They merely advantage those who are already most advantaged with a good team.

Can't say I watch ITTs, but that doesn't mean they should go.

Nail. Head.

@gt12 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:

I had a real struggle not punching out a half English freshman who brought out the video of the Stokes overthrow to show me during class today. Gloating little shit.

I Kaned it though “great game, that’s sport etc etc”

Only just but.

The verb to "Kane". Love it.

@akan004 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:

@TeWaio The boundary rule was introduced to determine the winner in a tied super over in T20s, and it makes sense in that format of the game I suppose. The clowns at the ICC probably never envisaged this happening in a ODI CWC semi or final so applied the same rule to ODIs. Makes zero sense in the 50 over format.

Still don't reckon it makes sense for T20s, given my above example regarding 4s and 6s.

If they want to have this stupid rule (and they shouldn't), it should be "total runs scored from boundaries" not "total number of boundaries".

That way 6s are worth 1.5x 4s, i.e. like in the ACTUAL GAME. ICC need to give themselves an uppercut.

Imagine if, runs tied, England had 13 fours and 2 sixes across regular match + super over. And we had 10 fours and 4 sixes. Both teams have same runs, and same total runs from boundaries (64).

England still win on number of boundaries (15 vs 14), even though we have more sixes.

The boundary rule is presumably there to encourage more aggressive/swashbuckling play, but isn't even coherent in how it does that! It assumes boundaries are "better" than 1s and 2s, but not necessarily that 6s are better than 4s given the above. So it's completely ridiculous.

@ACT-Crusader No! Just a generic knife-twister

@MajorRage Yep this is what upsets me the most. Aus/India/Eng will always be there or thereabouts most world cups.

@barbarian said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:

Random thought - I'm pretty sure that there is no law in cricket that mandates the use of pads. Couldn't Guptill take off his pads for the final delivery, with the view that if it hits him on the legs he's fucked regardless, but if he makes contact he would be faster through the wickets?

It's a largely pointless hypothetical, but these boards are built on this sort of shit I suppose.

This is interesting. Both could've ditched their pads for the last ball. Also might be harder psychologically to bowl at a padless guy knowing that you could break his leg, even though it's his "fault".

Some smartrse in IT changed my work PC screensaver to the picture of Morgan hoisting the cup.

And a pommie colleague claims we deserved to lose, as batting second in a super over is such an advantage that a tie should go to the side setting the target.

Today is going to be a long day..

It rained so hard at about 5am it woke me up! Clear now but hearing start might be delayed

Just got a late ticket through a work connection yussssss