creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Puskas · Post by **Puskas** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:49 pm

Well, on a positive note, a couple of Lancashire batsmen have remembers how to bat.

Croft and Prince have both made individual personal best scores for Lancs in first class cricket and have the broken the record partnership for Lancs against Northants - closing in on the all-time record 4th wicket partnership.

Oh - and Lancs have a fourth batting point, which hasn't happened very often this season (once so far? I think...)

Puskas · Post by **Puskas** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 6:19 pm

Ah. Croft out. 156.

3rd highest 4th wicket partnership, 9th highest partnership overall - 332.

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 7:10 pm

Sri-Lanka 214-4, much better but far from decided. Should be an interesting day tomorrow.

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 8:29 pm

Oh, and the next time that a Man-o-the-Dales that says what he likes and likes what he bloody well says, interchangeable, bluff Yorkshire c*nt pisses and moans that Eddingly hasn't been awarded a test, remind him of the utterly embarrassing attendances there for this test. The c*nt.

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Mon Jun 23, 2014 12:23 pm

Two wickets in consecutive balls for Plunkett, but he didn't get to bowl his hat-trick ball at the newby because the umpires reckoned that Prasad and Mathews had crossed, the miserable bastards. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO to them. 278 for 7. Game on.

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Mon Jun 23, 2014 12:36 pm

Just tuned in after a spell on the turf myself, ...gardening not cricket, but good news. Come on lads, make em have it...

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Mon Jun 23, 2014 1:08 pm

Well, we'll really have to make em have it after lunch. Really don't want to be chasing many above this 203.

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Mon Jun 23, 2014 1:13 pm

Bruce Rioja wrote:Well, we'll really have to make em have it after lunch. Really don't want to be chasing many above this 203.

No. Like the man said, an intruiging test this that could go either way. My money's on us.

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Mon Jun 23, 2014 1:45 pm

Interesting stat from the commentator:

"Sky tell me that on only three of 26 occasions when a team has been set a target of 200 or above to win a Test at Headingley have they achieved it."

Let's hope this is number four...

BWFC_Insane · Post by **BWFC_Insane** » Mon Jun 23, 2014 2:05 pm

Sun out, pitch has gone dead and again our attack looks blunt.

I still don't see how we can not pick one proper spinner. Be interesting to see how Herath goes for them when bowling.

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Mon Jun 23, 2014 2:10 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote: I still don't see how we can not pick one proper spinner.

So you keep saying. Who is this proper spinner that's being overlooked?

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Mon Jun 23, 2014 2:13 pm

We've got more or less a reversal of the first innings. Could do with breaking these two up pretty soon.

BWFC_Insane · Post by **BWFC_Insane** » Mon Jun 23, 2014 2:23 pm

Bruce Rioja wrote:
BWFC_Insane wrote: I still don't see how we can not pick one proper spinner.
So you keep saying. Who is this proper spinner that's being overlooked?

Presumably Panesar?

Though apparently he's a bad lad and Cook doesn't like him.

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Mon Jun 23, 2014 2:45 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Bruce Rioja wrote:
BWFC_Insane wrote: I still don't see how we can not pick one proper spinner.
So you keep saying. Who is this proper spinner that's being overlooked?
Presumably Panesar?

Though apparently he's a bad lad and Cook doesn't like him.

Well, he's only just put Ali back on.

From what I can gather on 5 Live site updates, Mathews is batting like he's having a net. Brilliant.

I think it's time to look a the England Captaincy again.

thebish · Post by **thebish** » Mon Jun 23, 2014 2:47 pm

maybe.. but it'd difficult in this side to see who is such a sure bet that they'd be in the team on merit...

maybe broad or anderson?? though - neither has distinguished himself this year...

morgan's name is oft-mentioned - but he's by no-means a nailed on starter on merit..

anyone in mind bruce?

BWFC_Insane · Post by **BWFC_Insane** » Mon Jun 23, 2014 2:55 pm

thebish wrote:maybe.. but it'd difficult in this side to see who is such a sure bet that they'd be in the team on merit...

maybe broad or anderson?? though - neither has distinguished himself this year...

morgan's name is oft-mentioned - but he's by no-means a nailed on starter on merit..

anyone in mind bruce?

Broad I'd have thought......

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Mon Jun 23, 2014 3:00 pm

thebish wrote:maybe.. but it'd difficult in this side to see who is such a sure bet that they'd be in the team on merit...

maybe broad or anderson?? though - neither has distinguished himself this year...

morgan's name is oft-mentioned - but he's by no-means a nailed on starter on merit..

anyone in mind bruce?

I'd have thought Broad. And I'd even put Bell's name forward long before that of Morgan. But yes, difficult of course.

I also think it wants looking at for the sake of Cook as a batsman. No test centuries in over a year. Coincidence?

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Mon Jun 23, 2014 3:00 pm

I reckon they could do worse than Prior or Bell having a go. Not long ago Cooke and Trott were setting the world on fire. What happened?

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Mon Jun 23, 2014 3:11 pm

A lead of 275. Can't be long before they chuck us in now. Tea perhaps? When is tea? Anyone know?

thebish · Post by **thebish** » Mon Jun 23, 2014 3:13 pm

Bruce Rioja wrote:A lead of 275. Can't be long before they chuck us in now. Tea? When is tea? Anyone know?

no chance of them declaring!! certainly not under 350!!

creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Who is online

Connect with your social network account

Who is online