|
Post by Panda on Feb 7, 2009 17:38:27 GMT 1
Cook gone for 0. England 1-1.
|
|
moronm
Member
Modest Mouse
Posts: 1,394
|
Post by moronm on Feb 7, 2009 17:39:07 GMT 1
Oh dear god, England are 1/1. Cook goes for nought, a stupid poke outside off. England need a saviour - unfortunately, it's Bell up next.
|
|
moronm
Member
Modest Mouse
Posts: 1,394
|
Post by moronm on Feb 7, 2009 18:06:18 GMT 1
England in big trouble - 11/2 - Bell's gone. What a surprise. I've seen this before.
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Feb 7, 2009 18:09:17 GMT 1
England in big trouble - 11/2 - Bell's gone. What a surprise. I've seen this before. And hopefully gone from the team. Might as well get the crap out of the way. We're in big trouble if KP doesn't get some runs, though.
|
|
moronm
Member
Modest Mouse
Posts: 1,394
|
Post by moronm on Feb 7, 2009 18:11:40 GMT 1
England in big trouble - 11/2 - Bell's gone. What a surprise. I've seen this before. And hopefully gone from the team. Might as well get the crap out of the way. We're in big trouble if KP doesn't get some runs, though. Yeah, Bell's had more than enough time doing sh*t all in the team. Shah will probably replace him - I'm still not sure whether he's test caliber, though...
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Feb 7, 2009 18:15:58 GMT 1
And hopefully gone from the team. Might as well get the crap out of the way. We're in big trouble if KP doesn't get some runs, though. Yeah, Bell's had more than enough time doing sh*t all in the team. Shah will probably replace him - I'm still not sure whether he's test caliber, though... I'm not sure either but he at least deserves a chance to prove himself.
|
|
moronm
Member
Modest Mouse
Posts: 1,394
|
Post by moronm on Feb 7, 2009 19:28:39 GMT 1
This is f***ing ridiculous. 23/6.
I'm strangely pleased that England are losing so badly. Maybe it will give the selectors a long overdue wake-up call.
|
|
Elmer
Member
Posts: 7,318
|
Post by Elmer on Feb 7, 2009 19:32:46 GMT 1
They need to bin this shower of sh*t apart from Pietersen, Flintoff and Broad. Eight changes for the next test and leave the others to obscurity of county cricket
|
|
moronm
Member
Modest Mouse
Posts: 1,394
|
Post by moronm on Feb 7, 2009 19:34:00 GMT 1
26/7
England's lowest ever test score was 45.
|
|
Elmer
Member
Posts: 7,318
|
Post by Elmer on Feb 7, 2009 19:42:05 GMT 1
My team for next test 1 Trescothick (Someone offer him some serious money to fly out) 2 Key 3 Pietersen 4 Shah 5 Bopara 6 Flintoff 7 Foster 8 Broad 9 Swann 10 Hoggard 11 Anderson SACK THE REST !!!
|
|
|
Post by Robin on Feb 7, 2009 19:42:39 GMT 1
How embarrassing! Let's not forget that the opposition are only an average team!
|
|
moronm
Member
Modest Mouse
Posts: 1,394
|
Post by moronm on Feb 7, 2009 20:53:03 GMT 1
It's over. England all out for 51 and lose by an innings and 23 runs.
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on Feb 7, 2009 21:53:04 GMT 1
Has any team lost a test match by an innings after conceding a smaller first innings deficit?
|
|
Paddy
Member
*Pick up a P..P...P.. Paddy*
Best newcomer 2009
Posts: 19,422
|
Post by Paddy on Feb 7, 2009 22:22:22 GMT 1
Has any team lost a test match by an innings after conceding a smaller first innings deficit? Probs, more likely also if they were made to play on. If they had more then 200 runs less!
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on Feb 7, 2009 22:31:39 GMT 1
Has any team lost a test match by an innings after conceding a smaller first innings deficit? Probs, more likely also if they were made to play on. If they had more then 200 runs less! That would have required a much larger first innings deficit. Put it another way. England required a modest 74 runs to make WI bat again. They failed. Has any team missed such a low target to make the opposition bat again?
|
|
Paddy
Member
*Pick up a P..P...P.. Paddy*
Best newcomer 2009
Posts: 19,422
|
Post by Paddy on Feb 7, 2009 22:39:11 GMT 1
Probs, more likely also if they were made to play on. If they had more then 200 runs less! That would have required a much larger first innings deficit. Put it another way. England required a modest 74 runs to make WI bat again. They failed. Has any team missed such a low target to make the opposition bat again? Bangledesh as a guess have done worse?
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Feb 7, 2009 23:35:13 GMT 1
That would have required a much larger first innings deficit. Put it another way. England required a modest 74 runs to make WI bat again. They failed. Has any team missed such a low target to make the opposition bat again? Bangledesh as a guess have done worse? But it's very rare that they would be within 74 runs of the opposition after the first innings.
|
|
Paddy
Member
*Pick up a P..P...P.. Paddy*
Best newcomer 2009
Posts: 19,422
|
Post by Paddy on Feb 7, 2009 23:37:39 GMT 1
Im sure in 2000 Bangladesh did worse.
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Feb 7, 2009 23:44:30 GMT 1
My team for next test 1 Trescothick (Someone offer him some serious money to fly out) 2 Key 3 Pietersen 4 Shah 5 Bopara 6 Flintoff 7 Foster 8 Broad 9 Swann 10 Hoggard 11 Anderson SACK THE REST !!! Totally agree that Robert Key is long overdue a recall. Trescothick being back would be great but all the money in the world can't guarantee he won't crack up when he gets there. Unfortunately, the only options we have for the 2nd test are Shah, Ambrose, Rashid, Swann and Anderson...
|
|
Elmer
Member
Posts: 7,318
|
Post by Elmer on Feb 8, 2009 10:07:18 GMT 1
I would definitely have 3 of those in. I actually believe that Prior is better than Ambrose but Foster is better than both of them.
Swann and Rachid are both spinners and you're lucky to get one spinner in the side in the windies. I would love to see Rachid at some point but I think Swann just has that experience for now in this critical situation.
|
|