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
User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 39928
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by TANGODANCER » Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:17 am

jimbo wrote:
Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:08 am
TANGODANCER wrote:
Sat Jan 15, 2022 9:42 am
Does 170-7 ( at this moment) give a little hope we can avoid a total tanking trip up the yellow brick road?
No. Not when it turns to 188 all out. They’ll likely pile on a huge lead and we’ll be lucky to make 200 again. It’s just so frustrating watching the same mistakes. Pope will always have a nibble after 3-4 dot balls.
This is our worst ashes with the bat sine 1888…..
But, but, but...we invented the game...I think... :shock:
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 39928
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by TANGODANCER » Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:23 am

Hello, 5-2....Is that a typo..?
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?

jimbo
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2914
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:34 am

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by jimbo » Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:28 am

Or maybe we’ll roll them over for 60 and then complete a memorable win?

Harry Genshaw
Legend
Legend
Posts: 8299
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 10:47 pm
Location: Half dead in Panama

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Harry Genshaw » Sat Jan 15, 2022 11:09 am

I'll confidently predict that having got him out cheaply in the first innings, Smith will hit a century in this one.
"Get your feet off the furniture you Oxbridge tw*t. You're not on a feckin punt now you know"

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 30101
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by BWFC_Insane » Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:04 pm

Some context. England’s openers Burns and Crawley who have both played enough tests to make this relevant average 30.8 and 28.3 respectively. Woakes who comes in at NUMBER 8, yes 8, 8, currently averages 27.7 at test level.

I’m not sure it’s controversial to suggest that Woakes is a better batsman at test level than any of our top 3. And of course his average is lowered as he comes in lower down the order.

jimbo
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2914
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:34 am

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by jimbo » Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:08 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:04 pm
Some context. England’s openers Burns and Crawley who have both played enough tests to make this relevant average 30.8 and 28.3 respectively. Woakes who comes in at NUMBER 8, yes 8, 8, currently averages 27.7 at test level.

I’m not sure it’s controversial to suggest that Woakes is a better batsman at test level than any of our top 3. And of course his average is lowered as he comes in lower down the order.
Not sure I’d say Woakes’ average is lowered by coming in down the order as there’ll be enough red inkers to boost it up. He can obviously play, but scoring tail end runs is very different to facing a new ball and fresh bowlers.

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 26559
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:19 pm

jimbo wrote:
Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:08 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:04 pm
Some context. England’s openers Burns and Crawley who have both played enough tests to make this relevant average 30.8 and 28.3 respectively. Woakes who comes in at NUMBER 8, yes 8, 8, currently averages 27.7 at test level.

I’m not sure it’s controversial to suggest that Woakes is a better batsman at test level than any of our top 3. And of course his average is lowered as he comes in lower down the order.
Not sure I’d say Woakes’ average is lowered by coming in down the order as there’ll be enough red inkers to boost it up. He can obviously play, but scoring tail end runs is very different to facing a new ball and fresh bowlers.
Aye, that's why we have batters and bowlers. We know the batting shit if we're defending some red inkers for the bowlers, to explain the averages...

Bruce Rioja
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 37502
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Bruce Rioja » Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:55 pm

Can anyone tell me the last time a opening batsman was ran out for 0 in test cricket.
Burns has every cricketing historian thumbing Wisden for all the 'shitest ever' records.
May the bridges I burn light your way

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 26559
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Sat Jan 15, 2022 2:31 pm

Bruce Rioja wrote:
Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:55 pm
Can anyone tell me the last time a opening batsman was ran out for 0 in test cricket.
Burns has every cricketing historian thumbing Wisden for all the 'shitest ever' records.
Good news mate. Next year's will have its own Chapter

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 30101
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by BWFC_Insane » Sat Jan 15, 2022 5:34 pm

jimbo wrote:
Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:08 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:04 pm
Some context. England’s openers Burns and Crawley who have both played enough tests to make this relevant average 30.8 and 28.3 respectively. Woakes who comes in at NUMBER 8, yes 8, 8, currently averages 27.7 at test level.

I’m not sure it’s controversial to suggest that Woakes is a better batsman at test level than any of our top 3. And of course his average is lowered as he comes in lower down the order.
Not sure I’d say Woakes’ average is lowered by coming in down the order as there’ll be enough red inkers to boost it up. He can obviously play, but scoring tail end runs is very different to facing a new ball and fresh bowlers.
Technically he’s as good as the openers. That’s my point. And runs wise too. He’s not a test opener. He’s as much of one as Burns or Crawley. What I’m saying is our openers are no better than our number 8. That sums up how dire it is.

jimbo
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2914
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:34 am

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by jimbo » Sun Jan 16, 2022 7:32 am

We’ve got a chance here if we can get through to close relatively intact. Really good fight back from the bowlers.

jimbo
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2914
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:34 am

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by jimbo » Sun Jan 16, 2022 8:15 am

Wow. Great start. Australia will be getting twitch and have to drop fields back soon.

Bruce Rioja
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 37502
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Bruce Rioja » Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:42 am

jimbo wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 7:32 am
We’ve got a chance here if we can get through to close relatively intact. Really good fight back from the bowlers.
Green at 3-19 says otherwise. ☹
May the bridges I burn light your way

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 39928
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by TANGODANCER » Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:50 am

Bruce Rioja wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:42 am
jimbo wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 7:32 am
We’ve got a chance here if we can get through to close relatively intact. Really good fight back from the bowlers.
Green at 3-19 says otherwise. ☹
Now 90-3..Come on.. :oyea:
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?

jimbo
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2914
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:34 am

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by jimbo » Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:53 am

TANGODANCER wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:50 am
Bruce Rioja wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:42 am
jimbo wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 7:32 am
We’ve got a chance here if we can get through to close relatively intact. Really good fight back from the bowlers.
Green at 3-19 says otherwise. ☹
Now 90-3..Come on.. :oyea:
We were rattling along nicely at 68-0. Slumped to 82-3 thanks to Cam Green. Hopefully stokes and root can rebuild and take us up towards 180.

jimbo
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2914
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:34 am

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by jimbo » Sun Jan 16, 2022 10:01 am

4 down. Here comes the collapse!

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 39928
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by TANGODANCER » Sun Jan 16, 2022 10:07 am

jimbo wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 10:01 am
4 down. Here comes the collapse!
Stokes has saved the day a few times, sadly, today isn't one of them.. :(
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?

Bruce Rioja
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 37502
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Bruce Rioja » Sun Jan 16, 2022 10:19 am

TANGODANCER wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 10:07 am
jimbo wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 10:01 am
4 down. Here comes the collapse!
Stokes has saved the day a few times, sadly, today isn't one of them.. :(
On a shot he always plays so well, too. Just caught it too high up the bat. Good catch. Hey ho.
May the bridges I burn light your way

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 39928
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by TANGODANCER » Sun Jan 16, 2022 10:38 am

Bad to worse. 107-6. I'd love to think we've still a chance...but.....
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?

jimbo
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2914
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:34 am

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by jimbo » Sun Jan 16, 2022 10:55 am

68-0 to 120/9. Embarrassing again.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests