• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

The Cricket Thread

markysimmo said:
Onto Lords where they are normally very strong against us
I doubt Moen will play
I think they will go for Wood
Click to expand...

Yeh and TBH I think Roots bowling is on a par so no need for him.

They apparently don't have plans to play Broad and Anderson full tilt so not sure if that means a rest for Ando next
 
Aren't Test pitches supposed to be sort of unplayable by the 5th day? This pitch barely deteriorated did it? Honest question, I like cricket but Im no expert
 
Grays_1890 said:
Yeh and TBH I think Roots bowling is on a par so no need for him.

They apparently don't have plans to play Broad and Anderson full tilt so not sure if that means a rest for Ando next
Click to expand...
Anderson looked rusty and out of rythym so I would play him at Lords or maybe even Woakes
Woakesy has an incredible record at Lords
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
What did BT Barnum say? Never give a sucker an even break. We gifted that game to Australia.
Click to expand...

We did, I still maintain the declaration was correct to force a result and Stokes did everything he could probably per ball to force wickets. You could argue against the style of play but that's what it is, it's about result and exciting cricket playing to strengths, we could have easily dug in to draw from day one but that's just not what this team wants to do. And in a weird way I think fans walk away from that on both sides knowing they saw something special.

Our style being our style it was lost with too many dropped catches, reliance on Ali who hasn't played in years which took its toll. Root actually bowled better for his wicket and was alot less expensive.
 
Surrey v Middlesex in the blast this evening.

Surrey lose their first wicket on 177 after 12,3 overs.

In comes Sam Curran.
 
I've watched a bit of the Womens Test, some absolute class players

Tammy Beaumont has looked so good, same with Ecclestone the spinner

England did well today so get 10 wickets by tea and now need 268 to win the only test
 
I keep hearing the women's test v Australia being described as the Women's Ashes. Which is totally wrong (right?). I mean I am all for promoting the women's game but women's cricket has a pretty long and successful history in its own right, but the Ashes are the Ashes and there's a very specific reason why it's called the 'Ashes'.
Not meaning to denigrate from the women's game at all, but it's not the "Ashes", it's good enough to stand in it own right.

But, talking of the Ashes, we (me and Mr GL) need loads of GG good vibes for Wednesday. Weather has been looking very iffy, although looks a bit better now but we have an awful record at Lords in recent years for rain, so need a lot of sun-dancing over the next few days
 
Glenda's Legs said:
I keep hearing the women's test v Australia being described as the Women's Ashes. Which is totally wrong (right?). I mean I am all for promoting the women's game but women's cricket has a pretty long and successful history in its own right, but the Ashes are the Ashes and there's a very specific reason why it's called the 'Ashes'.
Not meaning to denigrate from the women's game at all, but it's not the "Ashes", it's good enough to stand in it own right.

But, talking of the Ashes, we (me and Mr GL) need loads of GG good vibes for Wednesday. Weather has been looking very iffy, although looks a bit better now but we have an awful record at Lords in recent years for rain, so need a lot of sun-dancing over the next few days
Click to expand...
They do play for the ashes got this from lords website
The women's Ashes, created in 1998, is a hollow wooden ball, containing the ashes of a miniature bat signed by both the Australian and England teams and those of a copy of the Women's Cricket Association rules and constitution, burnt in a ceremony at Lord's.
 
kb 1984 said:
They do play for the ashes got this from lords website
The women's Ashes, created in 1998, is a hollow wooden ball, containing the ashes of a miniature bat signed by both the Australian and England teams and those of a copy of the Women's Cricket Association rules and constitution, burnt in a ceremony at Lord's.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Happy to stand corrected that it does have a meaning, albeit maybe contrived.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back