Scoring enough runs in one-day cricket and defending not quite enough runs

1. I can’t say I agree with your depressingly cynical view of the world – that Penn and Teller show on ITV isn’t too bad.

2. “Saturday night TV is rubbish. The Lovell Telescope is the only Grade I listed building that does cutting edge science. England will never quite score enough runs and will never be able to defend whatever total they do make.”

   Took me three reads to understand the point!

   As I see it, the problem with the England team is that in one dayers, the captain seems to be the best performer. May be a good time to say “KP, you the man!” ?

3. 20 years ago England woz OK @ ODIs.

   Just give it time.

   1. Quite, Ged. It’s still a new game, this “Limited Overs” cricket, or whatever it’s called. I don’t think anyone has worked out the tactics yet, or even the basics like how many runs is a decent score. I reckon 120 should win most matches, but I’m prepared to be proved wrong – I know the modern fashion is for some players to score at more than 4 an over, so who knows what could happen.

   2. Bert, quick, those neighbourhood kids are running around in your lawn again.

   3. Eh, what’s that? Damn them, the little oiks! I’d give them what for, if I were twenty years younger. A clip round the ear, that’s what they need. I blame the parents. Is Countdown on yet? He’s good, that Richard Whiteley, but I don’t like his new face.

   4. When I were a lad in the 60’s 3 an over was a reasonable score, 4 would be a match winner and 5 was sensational and win you the match by umpteen runs. If it was good enough in 1963 it’s good enough now (and it was 65 overs, proper cricket that ).

   5. Sunil Gavaskar had the right idea: bat out 60 overs for 36*. The fact that Dennis Amiss alone scored more than India did was against the spirit of the game.

4. England lack the game changers.

5. Remember when England won that one match by 110 runs?

   Jeez, that must have been ages ago.

6. As long as ODIs continue to be pointless, England fans continue to not really care about bad performances (a bit of disgruntled chuntering doesn’t count), and we don’t create pitches that play to our strengths (i.e. low scoring matches where swing bowling is king), we’ll continue to lose more than we win. And no-one will really mind, as long as we win the Ashes next time it comes around.

   On the plus side, it’s only an ODI series against a team that we’ve already beaten in the form that matters, so who cares? I’m not sure why they’re even still here, unless it’s to waste good weather so the India test series gets ruined by rain as well.

7. I thought some and then I thought some more. And just in case I went back and thought about what I’d thought about.

   And having thought about it at length I have reached the conclusion that I just don’t give a shit about England’s ODI cricket. Worse, it wasn’t until yesterday afternoon that I even realised there was a match on.

8. Watching England defend not many against South Africa in the last world cup was AMAZING.

   Is the fact that we don’t even play 50 over cricket domestically too hackneyed and obvious to state again?

   1. South Africa don’t either. The less said about the atrocity that is the Aussie limited overs domestic game the better too.

      Despite words to the contrary, England have never cared about the limited overs game. It’s Tests all the way.

9. P.S. I’m having to go elsewhere to get the important cricket news. You let Sussex’s star-packed game v Hampshire pass without comment on Rana Naved’s hair. Missed opportunity.
   http://www.flamingbails.com/t10475-the-stunning-story-that-is-rana-naved-s-hair

   1. Cricketers really like having hair, don’t they?

   2. From slaphead to “The Full Dhoni”.

      That’s really something.

   3. He’s done an Elton John/Paul Rodgers/Shane Warne/Michael Vaughan (delete as appropriate, depending on who you want to laugh at more).

10. the flaming lips

    1. Add a verb and some other words.

    2. soft and moaning

Comments are closed.