CPFC BBS

CPFC BBS (https://www.cpfc.org/forums/index.php)
-   World of Sport (https://www.cpfc.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   Cricket Thread (https://www.cpfc.org/forums/showthread.php?t=147275)

Baloo 26-01-2007 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ozeagle
Nick, come off it, name them?

The chav is all class, no arguments there, and Flintoff is top line.

Collingwood's handy, and a good fielder. Anderson bowls o.k.

The rest of them are shit.

Strauss, dud.
Loye, backyarder
Nixon, FFS.
Bell, retard.
Joyce, unproven.
Dalrymple, *******
Lewis, pedestrian
Panesar, test player.

we could roll out a 5ths side that would beat your mob of village green hacks.


:bash:

Okay, after the latest embarrassment, I'm forced to agree with you in respect of most of the above comments, although I would keep Bell, Dalrymple and Panesar. And Strauss, as well, as we know he can bat (although, for reasons unknown to us all, he's consistently forgetting that fact).

So, in fact, I'm only agreeing with you about Loye, Nixon, Joyce and Lewis - all newcomers. We're stuffed if we do and stuffed if we don't, etc etc.

Talking of newcomers, what the f**k happened to Stuart Broad? Our most promising youngster last summer and he's nowhere to be seen! Is he injured?

Adlerhorst 26-01-2007 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Baloo
Talking of newcomers, what the f**k happened to Stuart Broad? Our most promising youngster last summer and he's nowhere to be seen! Is he injured?
Not to my knowledge. Was at the academy. Apparently had another growth spurt, which given he was 6'7'' to start with will make life interesting for batsmen. Also heard rumours he was getting quicker. Last summer he was bowling mid eighties, summer before he was high seventies. Supposing he gets to 6'9'' and 90 mph, we have something seriously special on our hands.

kolinkins 26-01-2007 11:05 AM

Pick 4th rate players - Joyce, Loye, Nixon, Tremlett - you get 4th rate results.

Pick those along with players not cut out for the ODI game - Plunkett, Bell, Strauss

You get the sort of result England had today.

Latvian Eagle 26-01-2007 11:27 AM

I thought Tremlett was highly rated, and he's about 6'8" as it is?! I know fast bowlers are usually tall but 6'8" and 6'9" respectively is exceptionally tall even for a pace bowler is it not?! :confused:

Men At Work 26-01-2007 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steve in Phoenix
So perhaps you're not the best person to throw stones at other posters? Especially with such Australian posters as..

MAW going from 45 to 294

You may need a bit more analysis before casting aspersions. I didn't post anything on the BBS for a number of months from late June 2005 because I became sick of a lot of nasty stuff posted in GCC (although most of those posters have since thankfully been banned). I gave the BBS up while the ODIs were on (and Aus were winning at the time - Bangladesh games excepted) apart from a quick check on certain people when the bombs went off. Other than that I didn't look at it for about six months. It's a bit hard to post in that situation.

GDP 26-01-2007 11:42 AM

Just heard Madness' - 'You're an embarrassment' played on the radio!

How very appropriate!!

kolinkins 26-01-2007 11:46 AM

My lot arent doing much better!

Men At Work 26-01-2007 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by kolinkins
England will struggle at ODI cricket while they struggle to get into the team players capable of big hitting in the last 10 overs of a match.
It's even more difficult if your innings ends well before the 50.

If we're stuck with the ODIs why can't they modify this 'powerplay' to make it a little more tactical? If the bowling team had to choose a five over spell betwen the 10th and 40th overs and the batting team had to choose one between the 10th and 50th over then it might make the game more interesting. Why not give them two each and remove the mandatory restrictions in the first ten overs? It would provide some relief from the thump for 15 overs, nudge for 25 overs, slog for 10 overs we currently get.

I'm glad to see they've dropped the stupid supersub this season although allowing teams to pick a squad of 12 and to choose their 11 after the toss would help to even up games without imposing artificial constraints.

kolinkins 26-01-2007 11:53 AM

I disagree with powerplays - it's making it too hard for bowlers.

I mean, imagine telling a batting team you can only hit one cover drive per over (like the bouncer limit), and you can only hit the ball outside the circle twice an over for the first 15 overs.

such nonsense.

The first 5 and last 5 overs should have fielding restrictions. That's it.

Godstone Eagle 26-01-2007 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kolinkins
My lot arent doing much better!
To be fair, theyre batting on a shocker of a pitch. Yousuf is batting extremely well.

Men At Work 26-01-2007 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kolinkins
I disagree with powerplays - it's making it too hard for bowlers.
But runs are what sells the game. Although I do remember Pakistan being bowled out for just over 100 and the Windies scraping in by one wicket as the most gripping ODI game I've seen.

The idea of having both teams able to choose when the fielding restrictions are in is that it allows a far greater tactical aspect to the game which should (theoretically) provide greater variety. Good bowlers can handle restrictive fields. Bad ones are going to get tonked regardless of how many fielders are on the boundary.

kolinkins 26-01-2007 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Godstone Eagle
To be fair, theyre batting on a shocker of a pitch. Yousuf is batting extremely well.
Havent seen any of it, so I will take your word for it :p

ozeagle 26-01-2007 12:23 PM

dud fails again.

Strauss = first class *******. end of. must go.

if he's the future captain of england, roll on a LOT of 5-0's

:D

Raoul Duke 26-01-2007 12:23 PM

worst 'looking' pitch I've ever seen.

As for the One Day Cricket, well it's been an absolute bore. Poor old England just want to go home. :(

maestro 26-01-2007 03:10 PM

I think England have given up,

72-2 to 110 all out is bloody ridiculous, a county team could do better.

The players dont really want to be their, hardly any of them seem to have any character and backbone about them, they all look scared to death.

I suggest England field first just to make the games last longer!

Oisin 26-01-2007 09:26 PM

I saw on the table in the evening paper that NZ have a bonus point in this tri series. What is a bonus point for?

calne eagle 26-01-2007 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oisin
I saw on the table in the evening paper that NZ have a bonus point in this tri series. What is a bonus point for?
Not being England?

Raoul Duke 26-01-2007 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oisin
I saw on the table in the evening paper that NZ have a bonus point in this tri series. What is a bonus point for?
By beating England in the last match by 90 odd runs.

In order to try and make one sided games more interesting the ACA have put in place a system that a team can win a bonus point if they finish the match quickly. For example, say by some miracle England score 200 in 50 overs and Gilly and Haydos come out and hit 100 off the first 15 overs then in the past the match would just finish with Australia drifting to the winning total. The bonus point encourages Australia to get the total within 40 overs.

I hope this helps, I know you don't know much about Cricket ;)

Oisin 26-01-2007 10:27 PM

So the point is for the massive win rather than the close loss to England.
One sided ODI are never interesting. It's a flaw in the format.

bunghole 27-01-2007 11:21 AM

Australia missed out on a spot in the finals a few years ago due to the bonus point system. That's the only time that it's ever come into play. It's not flawed, just pointless most of the time.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.