|
By:
where have u been eckers ?? haven't seen you for ages
|
|
By:
I think England should have batted first.
|
|
By:
forrest & bailey are pants... eng should be 1.2 here, if warner goes this is over, kaput!!
|
|
By:
Srichaphan or Ancic? 10 Jul 12 17:38
I think England should have batted first. you couldn't make it up. from a guy who's recently been criticising D/L. |
|
By:
how many over match is it now
|
|
By:
32 overs each trevor ( if no further rain interventions )
|
|
By:
Never underestimate Australia, in any sport.
|
|
By:
ty
|
|
By:
warner utterly hopeless.
|
|
By:
hahah cabr score a run.... bye bye oz
|
|
By:
need to be a bit more proactive the aussies imho
|
|
By:
Too busy with my spreadsheets to sully my hands with the Forum nickers.
Keeping an eye on you all mind - the quality of poster not improving. |
|
By:
OK having watched the opening overs I *DO REGRET* getting on Aus at North of 2.5, I should have been looking for North of 3.0........................never mind that boundary helped! Still Time!
|
|
By:
Toss was crucial Cardinal.
|
|
By:
Anyone putting money on England at 1.4s could be getting themselves in a muddle.
|
|
By:
why... 9 from thr pp... oz are pathetic
|
|
By:
England will be no different here. It is about wickets at the moment.
|
|
By:
no different? like the lat game u mean?
|
|
By:
No relevance to this.
|
|
By:
36/0 wood be a brilliant start hear imv.
A long way off mind. |
|
By:
*36/0 after 12
|
|
By:
SoA, on what basis do you think England should have batted first here? Given that the ball is swinging around a lot early, batting is likely to become easier as the pitch dries out and that there may be further reductions, and D/L suits the side batting last
|
|
By:
I think S or A is confused and to be fair I had to have Duckworth Lewis explained to me as well one time. wickets re irrelevant in the first innings if (and we must assume) Australia play their 32 Overs.
I am not watching this live so can't comment on conditions but a run rate of 2 after 6 overs in a shortened game is insane. Since I started typing this they seem to be trying to pick it up a bit now their play in the first 6 innings is inexplicable imo |
|
By:
A 100% bowl first toss.
|
|
By:
Unbelievable that there hasn't been a wicket yet!
|
|
By:
What I meant is it is important for them not to chuck their wickets away. They know that if they bat for long enough, they can afford to smash it around, as there will be less risk of their team being bowled out, even if they get out.
|
|
By:
Only hope for Oz is to get Cook/Bell/Trott out of their comfort zones by setting more than a run a ball.
|
|
By:
It seems unlikely from the radar, that this will be affected by the weather, at least for this innings.
|
|
By:
FWIW I think Australian cause is lost already after acting the eejit for the first 6 overs. Granted losing the toss again just plain unlucky but to only get 13 runs in the first 6 overs is insane in a game that could end up very short.
did they forget it is only a 32 over game ? |
|
By:
Cook yet another mug skipper. That was a second slip catch and yet Cook has to have his default field setting.
![]() |
|
By:
hey S or A , thanks for organising the wimbledon comp !! got squeezed out the frame by the TB question
if murray had won , i would have grabbed second spot![]() |
|
By:
Him and Strauss are reactive captains - the best are instinctive.
Early days but Cook does not appear to have the instinct. |
|
By:
Very few do Ek. Very depressing. One area of the game that's going backwards fast.
|
|
By:
yep you were in with a chance.
|
|
By:
quite extraordinary how australia are without loss here
|
|
By:
look forward to forrest's strike rate here
![]() |
|
By:
how are oz sp here..?
|
|
By:
Because they should be 2 down and are not. 175 is competitive.
|
|
By:
what.. well there not 2 down are they..
|
|
By:
How poor does Wade look?
|