Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

st_brendy wrote:

Durhamfootman wrote:how are we fancying our chances, tonight?

So long as you don't bat Stokes down at no.8, use nine different bowlers, and go all-out-pace in the PP, you've got a chance.

Have you been eavesdropping on the team planning meeting!

We're bowling first.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/scorecard/ECKO42910

captaincolly wrote:

st_brendy wrote:

Durhamfootman wrote:how are we fancying our chances, tonight?

So long as you don't bat Stokes down at no.8, use nine different bowlers, and go all-out-pace in the PP, you've got a chance.

Have you been eavesdropping on the team planning meeting!

Seven bowlers. So not far off from nine.

What is Pringle like with the bat in t20? If nothing special, then couldn't his two overs have been bowled by Smith, with an extra batter coming in instead?

st_brendy wrote:

captaincolly wrote:

st_brendy wrote:

Durhamfootman wrote:how are we fancying our chances, tonight?

So long as you don't bat Stokes down at no.8, use nine different bowlers, and go all-out-pace in the PP, you've got a chance.

Have you been eavesdropping on the team planning meeting!

Seven bowlers. So not far off from nine.

What is Pringle like with the bat in t20? If nothing special, then couldn't his two overs have been bowled by Smith, with an extra batter coming in instead?

I'd have thought so.
Out tonight so not following this closely but no chance of getting these runs imo unless Stokes gets half of them!

100 runs off the last 9 overs-12+ per over

Have they forgotten this is T20 not RL 50? Colly's woes continuing too.

How can you need 65 runs from an over and a half with 6 wickets left?!
Bizarre innings from Stokes - scoring far too slowly although I wouldn't be surprised if 200 was about 30 over par.

Stokes limping according to Emmerson so he is absolved of any blame!

st_brendy wrote:

captaincolly wrote:

st_brendy wrote:

Durhamfootman wrote:how are we fancying our chances, tonight?

So long as you don't bat Stokes down at no.8, use nine different bowlers, and go all-out-pace in the PP, you've got a chance.

Have you been eavesdropping on the team planning meeting!

Seven bowlers. So not far off from nine.

What is Pringle like with the bat in t20? If nothing special, then couldn't his two overs have been bowled by Smith, with an extra batter coming in instead?

19 off 20, in a run chase with wickets in hand, probably gives me my answer.

Better off getting out first ball.

st_brendy wrote:

st_brendy wrote:

captaincolly wrote:

st_brendy wrote:

Durhamfootman wrote:how are we fancying our chances, tonight?

So long as you don't bat Stokes down at no.8, use nine different bowlers, and go all-out-pace in the PP, you've got a chance.

Have you been eavesdropping on the team planning meeting!

Seven bowlers. So not far off from nine.

What is Pringle like with the bat in t20? If nothing special, then couldn't his two overs have been bowled by Smith, with an extra batter coming in instead?

19 off 20, in a run chase with wickets in hand, probably gives me my answer.

Better off getting out first ball.

Losing by 44 runs with 6 wickets in hand is a real shambles even taking into account the injury to Stokes.

who'd have thought that a team full of bowlers with an average economy rate in the double digits would concede 200 runs

thank goodness I wasn't daft enough to buy a T20 season ticket.... let alone the 3 that I bought last year

going to be a long competition

captaincolly wrote:

st_brendy wrote:

captaincolly wrote:

st_brendy wrote:

Durhamfootman wrote:how are we fancying our chances, tonight?

So long as you don't bat Stokes down at no.8, use nine different bowlers, and go all-out-pace in the PP, you've got a chance.

Have you been eavesdropping on the team planning meeting!

Seven bowlers. So not far off from nine.

What is Pringle like with the bat in t20? If nothing special, then couldn't his two overs have been bowled by Smith, with an extra batter coming in instead?

I'd have thought so.
Out tonight so not following this closely but no chance of getting these runs imo unless Stokes gets half of them!

Stokes did indeed get almost half of the required runs, but nobody else had any runs in them, and Stokes was just concentrating on getting his eye in for England.... which he will have been told to do by the England bods

one match in and I'm already thinking that it's just T20

Stokes limping during his innings so he must be injured. That might explain his strange but doesn't excuse the rest of them - unless that score of 200 was way above par and that must be a distinct possibility.

Stokes hit on the toe a couple of times according to Marty so not a recurrence of his leg injury.