creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 43601
- 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
But, but, but...we invented the game...I think...jimbo wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:08 amNo. 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.TANGODANCER wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 9:42 amDoes 170-7 ( at this moment) give a little hope we can avoid a total tanking trip up the yellow brick road?
This is our worst ashes with the bat sine 1888…..
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 43601
- 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
Or maybe we’ll roll them over for 60 and then complete a memorable win?
- Harry Genshaw
- Legend
- Posts: 9154
- Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 10:47 pm
- Location: Half dead in Panama
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
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
- Posts: 37062
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
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.
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.
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
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.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:04 pmSome 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.
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 33347
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
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...jimbo wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:08 pmNot 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.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:04 pmSome 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.
- Bruce Rioja
- Immortal
- Posts: 38742
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
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.
Burns has every cricketing historian thumbing Wisden for all the 'shitest ever' records.
May the bridges I burn light your way
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 33347
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
Good news mate. Next year's will have its own ChapterBruce Rioja wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:55 pmCan 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.
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 37062
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
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 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:08 pmNot 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.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:04 pmSome 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.
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
We’ve got a chance here if we can get through to close relatively intact. Really good fight back from the bowlers.
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
Wow. Great start. Australia will be getting twitch and have to drop fields back soon.
- Bruce Rioja
- Immortal
- Posts: 38742
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 43601
- 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
Now 90-3..Come on..
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
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.TANGODANCER wrote: ↑Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:50 amNow 90-3..Come on..
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
4 down. Here comes the collapse!
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 43601
- 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
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
- Posts: 38742
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
On a shot he always plays so well, too. Just caught it too high up the bat. Good catch. Hey ho.TANGODANCER wrote: ↑Sun Jan 16, 2022 10:07 amStokes has saved the day a few times, sadly, today isn't one of them..
May the bridges I burn light your way
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 43601
- 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
Bad to worse. 107-6. I'd love to think we've still a chance...but.....
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
68-0 to 120/9. Embarrassing again.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 77 guests