so you'd expect eng to have traded at least 1.25 - 1.30 in those moments,
)Sep 21, 2012 -- 3:16PM, YOMOMMA wrote:
Sep 21, 2012 -- 3:15PM, nigelpm1 wrote:Sep 21, 2012 -- 3:14PM, YOMOMMA wrote:What match are you watching, they've got 11 runs after 3.2 overs and lost a wicket.have you ever played cricket? You are aware of the new ball yeah?It's people like you who I disagree with who match my bets so keep it coming.
what's that supposed to mean. ENG often get off to a bad start - it's in their nature - you can't tell much from 3.2 overs - if the RR is still this low after 10 overs I might agree with you.
Sep 21, 2012 -- 3:24PM, nathanieli wrote:
hope you got your money out suckerssss
nah, they were too busy posting on here telling me how I knew nothing!
Sep 21, 2012 -- 3:37PM, d13phe wrote:
not sure luke wright will be able to do this against some of the better bowlers in the tourney
Or Hales for that matter. But against weak opposition it's a push over.
Sep 21, 2012 -- 3:45PM, Kevbetting superstar wrote:
Wicket coming here.........
Nah, just a hatful of more runs I suspect. Wicket won't have much impact anyway
Sep 21, 2012 -- 4:00PM, pixie wrote:
Just think, it could so easily have been Bopara out at the wicket instead of Wright. Thank goodness for the Saffers tour.
haha - good point
Sep 21, 2012 -- 4:46PM, cnman wrote:
LOL 2/2, the minnows really have been terrible this tournament aside from a few lucky hits from the Afghans against India's terrible bowling
Yeah, as I said on here earlier the Indians are really weak right now in T20.
Sep 21, 2012 -- 4:21PM, nigelpm1 wrote:
they didn't have a chance of 100 - WCE!
Might not get 50 here!
Sep 21, 2012 -- 5:12PM, iamthegame wrote:
how stupid are stanjames putting afgan inplay players @ under 17.5 runs @ 1.83 lol.
don't look a gift horse and all that. Mind you - they'll probably close your account if you make money from them - four days for me.