creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

If you have a life outside of BWFC, then this is the place to tell us all about your toilet habits, and those bizarre fetishes.......

Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em

Post Reply
BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 29046
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by BWFC_Insane » Mon Jul 26, 2021 1:19 pm

dave the minion wrote:
Mon Jul 26, 2021 12:45 pm
Well, I spent yesterday at OT for the women's and mens matches, and it was an amazing day out. Absolutely loved every second of it, as did the many many kids who were there (and who this is largely aimed at).
Yeah noticed lots of kids in the crowd from watching on TV yesterday. I guess though that a similarly branded T20 franchise competition would be as successful. Its just the format that I think is unnecessary. And so far (perhaps its the pitches) I don't think its produced cricket any more exciting than T20 and possibly at times a bit less so. But early days.

Bruce Rioja
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 37147
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Bruce Rioja » Mon Jul 26, 2021 6:35 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:42 pm
I'm not a format snob
Twattish comment. Do you not have a preferred format?
May the bridges I burn light your way

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 29046
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by BWFC_Insane » Mon Jul 26, 2021 9:08 pm

Bruce Rioja wrote:
Mon Jul 26, 2021 6:35 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:42 pm
I'm not a format snob
Twattish comment. Do you not have a preferred format?
I wasn’t calling anyone a format snob or suggesting that preferring one makes you a snob. More that my non plussed reaction to the hundred has had me called a format snob. I don’t think I am. I enjoy all forms of the game. I don’t really think this is a needed change. But perhaps it will prove to be better than t20.

Bruce Rioja
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 37147
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Bruce Rioja » Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:36 am

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Jul 26, 2021 9:08 pm
Bruce Rioja wrote:
Mon Jul 26, 2021 6:35 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:42 pm
I'm not a format snob
Twattish comment. Do you not have a preferred format?
I wasn’t calling anyone a format snob or suggesting that preferring one makes you a snob. More that my non plussed reaction to the hundred has had me called a format snob. I don’t think I am. I enjoy all forms of the game. I don’t really think this is a needed change. But perhaps it will prove to be better than t20.
My apologies - I misinterpreted your comment.

When I first heard about the at-the-time proposed 100 format, the chief goal was to take it to the US, who still considered it too long.
May the bridges I burn light your way

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 25750
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Tue Jul 27, 2021 11:28 am

Bruce Rioja wrote:
Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:36 am
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Jul 26, 2021 9:08 pm
Bruce Rioja wrote:
Mon Jul 26, 2021 6:35 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:42 pm
I'm not a format snob
Twattish comment. Do you not have a preferred format?
I wasn’t calling anyone a format snob or suggesting that preferring one makes you a snob. More that my non plussed reaction to the hundred has had me called a format snob. I don’t think I am. I enjoy all forms of the game. I don’t really think this is a needed change. But perhaps it will prove to be better than t20.
My apologies - I misinterpreted your comment.

When I first heard about the at-the-time proposed 100 format, the chief goal was to take it to the US, who still considered it too long.
How long does their rounders last?

Bruce Rioja
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 37147
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Bruce Rioja » Tue Jul 27, 2021 12:31 pm

Worthy4England wrote:
Tue Jul 27, 2021 11:28 am
Bruce Rioja wrote:
Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:36 am
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Jul 26, 2021 9:08 pm
Bruce Rioja wrote:
Mon Jul 26, 2021 6:35 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:42 pm
I'm not a format snob
Twattish comment. Do you not have a preferred format?
I wasn’t calling anyone a format snob or suggesting that preferring one makes you a snob. More that my non plussed reaction to the hundred has had me called a format snob. I don’t think I am. I enjoy all forms of the game. I don’t really think this is a needed change. But perhaps it will prove to be better than t20.
My apologies - I misinterpreted your comment.

When I first heard about the at-the-time proposed 100 format, the chief goal was to take it to the US, who still considered it too long.
How long does their rounders last?
Haven't a clue, mate, but I'm sure it drags on.
May the bridges I burn light your way

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 29046
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by BWFC_Insane » Tue Jul 27, 2021 2:12 pm

Worthy4England wrote:
Tue Jul 27, 2021 11:28 am
Bruce Rioja wrote:
Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:36 am
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Jul 26, 2021 9:08 pm
Bruce Rioja wrote:
Mon Jul 26, 2021 6:35 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:42 pm
I'm not a format snob
Twattish comment. Do you not have a preferred format?
I wasn’t calling anyone a format snob or suggesting that preferring one makes you a snob. More that my non plussed reaction to the hundred has had me called a format snob. I don’t think I am. I enjoy all forms of the game. I don’t really think this is a needed change. But perhaps it will prove to be better than t20.
My apologies - I misinterpreted your comment.

When I first heard about the at-the-time proposed 100 format, the chief goal was to take it to the US, who still considered it too long.
How long does their rounders last?
Days and days in my experience.

Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 21481
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Prufrock » Tue Jul 27, 2021 2:30 pm

9 innings isn't it? "Bottom of the ninth" whatever that means. And add in their propensity for ad breaks and timeouts.

My brother went at the Olympic stadium a couple of years ago and said it went on forever.

That super bowl nonsense goes on for hours and hours too I think.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

Bruce Rioja
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 37147
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Bruce Rioja » Wed Jul 28, 2021 9:15 am

Prufrock wrote:
Tue Jul 27, 2021 2:30 pm
9 innings isn't it? "Bottom of the ninth" whatever that means. And add in their propensity for ad breaks and timeouts.

My brother went at the Olympic stadium a couple of years ago and said it went on forever.

That super bowl nonsense goes on for hours and hours too I think.
Isn't there only about and hour's worth of play and four hours worth of fecking around in the old 'Big Girl's Rugby'?
May the bridges I burn light your way

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 25750
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Wed Jul 28, 2021 10:27 am

Bruce Rioja wrote:
Wed Jul 28, 2021 9:15 am
Prufrock wrote:
Tue Jul 27, 2021 2:30 pm
9 innings isn't it? "Bottom of the ninth" whatever that means. And add in their propensity for ad breaks and timeouts.

My brother went at the Olympic stadium a couple of years ago and said it went on forever.

That super bowl nonsense goes on for hours and hours too I think.
Isn't there only about and hour's worth of play and four hours worth of fecking around in the old 'Big Girl's Rugby'?
Yes. With the ball in play equal to around 11 minutes from some sources :-)

User avatar
Montreal Wanderer
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12784
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Montreal, Canada

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Montreal Wanderer » Sat Jul 31, 2021 3:38 am

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Tue Jul 27, 2021 2:12 pm
Worthy4England wrote:
Tue Jul 27, 2021 11:28 am
Bruce Rioja wrote:
Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:36 am
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Jul 26, 2021 9:08 pm
Bruce Rioja wrote:
Mon Jul 26, 2021 6:35 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:42 pm
I'm not a format snob
Twattish comment. Do you not have a preferred format?
I wasn’t calling anyone a format snob or suggesting that preferring one makes you a snob. More that my non plussed reaction to the hundred has had me called a format snob. I don’t think I am. I enjoy all forms of the game. I don’t really think this is a needed change. But perhaps it will prove to be better than t20.
My apologies - I misinterpreted your comment.

When I first heard about the at-the-time proposed 100 format, the chief goal was to take it to the US, who still considered it too long.
How long does their rounders last?
Days and days in my experience.
I watch North American games. Basically you are in and out in under three hours, except when baseball goes extra innings. This includes commercial beaks. The public attention span is not that long, and a test match would kill them. Most games like hockey and American football are one hour of playing time, and two hours of other stuff. Has anyone ever put a stop watch on footie to see how much time the ball is actually in play? I would guess less than an hour.
"If you cannot answer a man's argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names. " Elbert Hubbard.

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 25750
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Sat Jul 31, 2021 11:35 am

Montreal Wanderer wrote:
Sat Jul 31, 2021 3:38 am
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Tue Jul 27, 2021 2:12 pm
Worthy4England wrote:
Tue Jul 27, 2021 11:28 am
Bruce Rioja wrote:
Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:36 am
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Jul 26, 2021 9:08 pm
Bruce Rioja wrote:
Mon Jul 26, 2021 6:35 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:42 pm
I'm not a format snob
Twattish comment. Do you not have a preferred format?
I wasn’t calling anyone a format snob or suggesting that preferring one makes you a snob. More that my non plussed reaction to the hundred has had me called a format snob. I don’t think I am. I enjoy all forms of the game. I don’t really think this is a needed change. But perhaps it will prove to be better than t20.
My apologies - I misinterpreted your comment.

When I first heard about the at-the-time proposed 100 format, the chief goal was to take it to the US, who still considered it too long.
How long does their rounders last?
Days and days in my experience.
I watch North American games. Basically you are in and out in under three hours, except when baseball goes extra innings. This includes commercial beaks. The public attention span is not that long, and a test match would kill them. Most games like hockey and American football are one hour of playing time, and two hours of other stuff. Has anyone ever put a stop watch on footie to see how much time the ball is actually in play? I would guess less than an hour.
Yeah - think it was averaged at 25 minutes or so....but they get through that in 90 minutes rather than 3 hours.

My bad - 55 minutes or so :-)

User avatar
Montreal Wanderer
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12784
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Montreal, Canada

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Montreal Wanderer » Sat Jul 31, 2021 2:37 pm

Worthy4England wrote:
Sat Jul 31, 2021 11:35 am
Montreal Wanderer wrote:
Sat Jul 31, 2021 3:38 am
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Tue Jul 27, 2021 2:12 pm
Worthy4England wrote:
Tue Jul 27, 2021 11:28 am
Bruce Rioja wrote:
Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:36 am
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Jul 26, 2021 9:08 pm
Bruce Rioja wrote:
Mon Jul 26, 2021 6:35 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:42 pm
I'm not a format snob
Twattish comment. Do you not have a preferred format?
I wasn’t calling anyone a format snob or suggesting that preferring one makes you a snob. More that my non plussed reaction to the hundred has had me called a format snob. I don’t think I am. I enjoy all forms of the game. I don’t really think this is a needed change. But perhaps it will prove to be better than t20.
My apologies - I misinterpreted your comment.

When I first heard about the at-the-time proposed 100 format, the chief goal was to take it to the US, who still considered it too long.
How long does their rounders last?
Days and days in my experience.
I watch North American games. Basically you are in and out in under three hours, except when baseball goes extra innings. This includes commercial beaks. The public attention span is not that long, and a test match would kill them. Most games like hockey and American football are one hour of playing time, and two hours of other stuff. Has anyone ever put a stop watch on footie to see how much time the ball is actually in play? I would guess less than an hour.
Yeah - think it was averaged at 25 minutes or so....but they get through that in 90 minutes rather than 3 hours.

My bad - 55 minutes or so :-)
So there is about the same time of actual play. Baseball and American football have more "non-play" time as players change quite often. Ice hockey is quicker because they often change in the fly, but they have tv time outs for ads three times a period.
"If you cannot answer a man's argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names. " Elbert Hubbard.

Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 21481
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Prufrock » Sat Jul 31, 2021 3:01 pm

Well I'm not sure that's a valid comparison Monty! The "ball in play" stats mean exactly that. They don't include gearing up for throw-ins or corners etc. By that metric there must be far less actual play in any baseball game. From the pitchers arm to the backstop, or behind the foul line a lot of the time.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

User avatar
Montreal Wanderer
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12784
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Montreal, Canada

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Montreal Wanderer » Sat Jul 31, 2021 7:11 pm

Prufrock wrote:
Sat Jul 31, 2021 3:01 pm
Well I'm not sure that's a valid comparison Monty! The "ball in play" stats mean exactly that. They don't include gearing up for throw-ins or corners etc. By that metric there must be far less actual play in any baseball game. From the pitchers arm to the backstop, or behind the foul line a lot of the time.
It also means exactly that in American football as the clock starts with the snap of the ball and stops with the ref's whistle - time is measured precisely. Baseball is a different comparison and I never suggested it was an hour playing time like US football, basketball or hockey. It is simply a game that takes some 2.5 hours to complete. Your illustrations don't make a great deal of sense if you know the game. A ball pitched to the back stop is still in play if there are runners on base or three balls on the batter - a lot of action can take place. Further a pitcher who makes a lot of wild pitches (i.e. throws it to the backstop) a lot of the time, does not spend a lot of time in the major leagues. The ball is also in play if the pitcher is just standing around as they can pick runners off base. Indeed the ball is in play from the point the umpire calls time in until a player call time out (usually the batter if he is not quite ready or the catcher if he needs to talk to the pitcher) or the inning ends with a third out.
"If you cannot answer a man's argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names. " Elbert Hubbard.

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 25750
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:24 am

Off to a flier - 0-1 (well 2-1 now)....

England have had 13 ducks in the top three so far this year. The only other team to do that in a calendar year was England in 1998 during which the faced very good South Africa, West Indies and Australia sides.

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 25750
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:31 am

Oh, hadn't spotted the return of Bairstow at 5 either. His second weakest spot after 4...

Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 21481
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Prufrock » Wed Aug 04, 2021 12:38 pm

Genuinely have no idea of the answer to this question, but how sure can we be on batting order? Do they write a team sheet that gets submitted (as is often tweeted in the football by Iles pre-game) and if so does that tend to be in order?

It's usually fairly obvious (and sometimes the captain will say before the game) but I remember there was a spell where we never really knew whether Root would be in at 3 or 4.

Could be Bairstow at 6 and Lawrence 5? Feck knows. The lack of batting means it looks very tough to balance that side without Stokes.

Guessing we've also decided that given we haven't got a top class spinner and they've got at least two we'll make it as green as possible.

Think I've got a ticket for Lords next Thursday.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 25750
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Wed Aug 04, 2021 12:54 pm

Prufrock wrote:
Wed Aug 04, 2021 12:38 pm
Genuinely have no idea of the answer to this question, but how sure can we be on batting order? Do they write a team sheet that gets submitted (as is often tweeted in the football by Iles pre-game) and if so does that tend to be in order?

It's usually fairly obvious (and sometimes the captain will say before the game) but I remember there was a spell where we never really knew whether Root would be in at 3 or 4.

Could be Bairstow at 6 and Lawrence 5? Feck knows. The lack of batting means it looks very tough to balance that side without Stokes.

Guessing we've also decided that given we haven't got a top class spinner and they've got at least two we'll make it as green as possible.

Think I've got a ticket for Lords next Thursday.
Team sheet is submitted to the umpires before the toss, you can't change the names once submitted without consent of the oppo. Typically, this is submitted in "batting order", but there's no specific laws to say that it needs to be, and given it's up to the skipper who to send in and when, it doesn't have any formal standing in relation to who bats where. So yes - could be Bairstow - 6 / Lawrence - 5.

All for making it green, let's be fair, if they can make it spin after lunch on the first day, we should make it green.

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 25750
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Wed Aug 04, 2021 12:56 pm

We might be finding out sooner that we'd like if Bairstow is at 5...again.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests