Cricket Thread

[BringBackSwales]

they don’t keep the review

The question was why the sky graphic clearly said review retained

 

[KS55]

Even I can work out Englands lead at any time in this innings.

 

[wattle]

What the fuck is this wicket? This is like Kingstone In 1998 from one end

 

[wattle]

Tbf, Crawley has faced most deliveries this morning and has battled his way through. Will he last?

No

 

[KS55]

The question was why the sky graphic clearly said review retained

It means chances for the team to review decisions.

 

[BringBackSwales]

Would a lead of 300 give us a good chance?

 

[BringBackSwales]

It means chances for the team to review decisions.

They’d already reviewed and the review said “wickets missing” but the sly graphic clearly said “review retained”. They don’t get to review the review, not even India

 

[wattle]

Would a lead of 300 give us a good chance?

I don’t think It’ll be that high mate. 240 would be very difficult with Archer and Stokes bowling from the nursery end

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Duckett is an idiot, comes in this morning, faces what six balls and plays that terrible shot. What happened to trying to play yourself in and read the wicket. Let's see how many other England batsmen chuck away their wicket.

 

[balotellishaircut]

What the fuck is this wicket? This is like Kingstone In 1998 from one end

Was that the game where Curtly Ambrose took 6 wickets for 2 runs or something like that ?

 

[M18CTID]

If we can hold out until lunch on monday (big if!), declare and set them a target around 400.

Monday’s day 5 mate so that would only give us around 60 overs to bowl them out!

 

[jimharri]

Monday’s day 5 mate so that would only give us around 60 overs to bowl them out!

I was aware of that, but I was looking at a point where it'd be hard to see us losing. If India somehow managed to score at nearly 7 per over to achieve that hypothetical 400 (a total rarely achieved in the fourth innings in a test),that'd be staggering. Whereas a target of, say, 300 (5 rpo) would be "gettable". But thanks anyway.

 

[BringBackSwales]

Englands top 3 is fucking abysmal. Pope can’t bat, can’t field, I am sure he is a nice lad though

 

[waspish]

We new pope Crawley ain’t good enough before the series!

Get rid but we know they won’t!

Funny that review stays law with hawk eye where the ones Woakes was reviewing all going high

 

[Gray]

Englands top 3 is fucking abysmal. Pope can’t bat, can’t field, I am sure he is a nice lad though

Get that West Indies lad back in the team, he looked like he could bat.

 

[waspish]

Englands top 3 is fucking abysmal. Pope can’t bat, can’t field, I am sure he is a nice lad though

England new he has a shoulder Problem and why he has been shite in the field and his batting has been predictable get one big score then utter shite rest of the series!

 

[jimharri]

Next winter will be messy.

 

[meeesh]

Crawley needs a ton minimum for me otherwise my lunchtime prediction from last night ain’t gonna be too far off

 

[M18CTID]

I was aware of that, but I was looking at a point where it'd be hard to see us losing. If India somehow managed to score at nearly 7 per over to achieve that hypothetical 400 (a total rarely achieved in the fourth innings in a test),that'd be staggering. Whereas a target of, say, 300 (5 rpo) would be "gettable". But thanks anyway.

True mate, but I don’t think this England team would bat that long - assuming we weren’t bowled out in the meantime that is! - before declaring

 

[dadnlad]

Have the batting side tried to change the ball