Cricket

[gumboots]

Love listening to the cricketers after matches. Respect all round. Coherent speech. And never satisfied with their performance even after a match like that. Such a contrast to footballers.

[Baz]

The A team had a decent day too.

http://www.ecb.co.uk/scorecard/39573

Just the 425 for 1 off 50 overs, including a 220 not out, and a 175 not out.

Edited July 25, 2016 by Baz

[Hanks]

Love listening to the cricketers after matches. Respect all round. Coherent speech. And never satisfied with their performance even after a match like that. Such a contrast to footballers.

It's also the case in the commentary box as well, the quality of the ex pros like Boycott, Botham Holding and Lloyd puts their equivalents in football to shame.

[Husky]

As I said. We get to a proper cricket ground and England are back in the jive.

Feed the snake!

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Well, I suppose the England too brass could say not enforcing the follow on turned out to be the right decision. I suppose teams are just ultra-protective of fast bowlers these days and give them a rest whenever possible.

Pakistan's 2 innings together lasted almost as long overs-wise as England's first, and Pakistan bowled their spinner into the ground during that to protect their quickies, an England wouldn't have had. And what's to say whether without that break England would have struggled to bowl Pakistan out for 234 the second innings and they'd have ended up on 350 or 400 instead? Our lads would then have had to bowl for maybe 200 consecutive overs.

What with 2 fast bowlers coming back from injury and 2 more tests in the series to go, I'm starting to think the England top brass made the right decision.

[gumboots]

And Stokes still did his calf, even without bowling 2 innings running

[oldjamfan1]

Well, I suppose the England too brass could say not enforcing the follow on turned out to be the right decision. I suppose teams are just ultra-protective of fast bowlers these days and give them a rest whenever possible.

Pakistan's 2 innings together lasted almost as long overs-wise as England's first, and Pakistan bowled their spinner into the ground during that to protect their quickies, an England wouldn't have had. And what's to say whether without that break England would have struggled to bowl Pakistan out for 234 the second innings and they'd have ended up on 350 or 400 instead? Our lads would then have had to bowl for maybe 200 consecutive overs.

What with 2 fast bowlers coming back from injury and 2 more tests in the series to go, I'm starting to think the England top brass made the right decision.

We can only speculate what might or might not have happened, and you can argue either way really. Bottom line is we won comfortably so all is well in the end. However, that notwithstanding the reasons they gave for not enforcing the follow on were utterly ridiculous given the match situation and the nigh-on 400 first innings lead. If it was actually to protect someone or there was a niggle or other injury we were not privy to, then it would be more understandable I suppose. Without the benefit of any of that inside knowledge, to me, on the face of it, you should always minimise risk, and the best way to do that would have been to get Pakistan back in to bat straight away - it was telling that Pakistan couldn't believe what they had just been told by Cook. Good win in the end though, let's give them another two doings in the final two tests now.

Edited July 26, 2016 by oldjamfan1

[gumboots]

If its to protect a potentially injured player, they're not going to say that are they. Stokes may have said his calf was sore but we wouldn't want our opponents to know that would we

[oldjamfan1]

If its to protect a potentially injured player, they're not going to say that are they. Stokes may have said his calf was sore but we wouldn't want our opponents to know that would we

That is pretty much what I meant GB

[Husky]

And Stokes still did his calf, even without bowling 2 innings running

Sicknote's finished.

[Gav]

Derbyshire v Lancs today on sky 2pm if the weather holds out.

[MCMC1875]

Derbyshire v Lancs today on sky 2pm if the weather holds out.

SS2 2.00 - 10.00 Weather looks fine!

[matt83]

Yesterday was pretty grim for Lancs so hopefully today's happier hunting. But 34-2 off 10 overs of power play isn't great.

This season has been a disaster for Lancs bottom of 50 overs, 2nd bottom of t20, 4th in county championship but heading backwards at the rate of knots.

1st team record this season in all formats:

Played: 28

Won: 8

Tied/No Result: 6

Lost: 13

Win rate: 29%

And we've won 3 out of our last 9 games.

[broadsword]

Main thing is to finish as high as possible in championship

[MCMC1875]

Derby falling behind on run rate and wickets down.

They need 59 from 5 overs with 3 wickets left.

Edited July 27, 2016 by MCMC1875

[MCMC1875]

Lancs win by 27 runs.

Edited July 27, 2016 by MCMC1875

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Nice one!

[Gav]

Awful batting by Derbyshire, completely in control and heads went, but still good for Lancs

[Husky]

Just read the headlines:

LANCS IN ONE DAY VICTORY SHOCK!

[Gav]

I think the standard of commentary on Sky's cricket coverage is pretty good, certainly compared to football which is sterile non confrontational rubbish mostly.

But I do have an issue with Rob Key, he's increasingly getting on my nerves, trying to be funny but comes across as arrogant, maybe it's just me.....

[oldjamfan1]

I can't take to Nick Knight either Gav. Agree that for the most part the team is excellent though.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

I agree on the whole excellent, find Ian Ward irritating though, just seems unnecessarily spikey and slightly aggressive the whole time. Don't know whether he's insecure being a nobody as a cricketer compared to the rest of them (except perhaps Bumble) or whether he's just like that.

[matt83]

I don't particularly like ward either. Not sure why.

Bit harsh on bumbles cricketing credentials though scored a double hundred in a test for england with a healthy career average. Plus played over 400 times for Lancs and managed both Lancashire and England. Also he umpired in the game. So bumble to ward is like ward to a local league player. But as a player I do agree he's perhaps not at the calibre of most of his co-commentators.

[onlyonejackwalker]

I don't particularly like ward either. Not sure why.

Bit harsh on bumbles cricketing credentials though scored a double hundred in a test for england with a healthy career average. Plus played over 400 times for Lancs and managed both Lancashire and England. Also he umpired in the game. So bumble to ward is like ward to a local league player. But as a player I do agree he's perhaps not at the calibre of most of his co-commentators.

Decent player Bumble. Played when pitches were left uncovered mid-week, hard hats were a thing of the future, the Aussies had Thompson and Lillee and the Indies had Holding, Marshall, Croft, Garner, Patterson etc. Sh*t your pants bowlers with no helmets with variable bounce. I think I'd pass at that!

[oldjamfan1]

Bumble never seems to age!

Maybe I'm biased because he's a Lancastrian but I could listen to Michael Atherton talk cricket all day. He's an excellent writer too.