captaincolly wrote:Good. Mitchell out in the first over.
Durhamfootman wrote:captaincolly wrote:Good. Mitchell out in the first over.
the dangerous Mitchell!
273......... that feels like a thousand runs, or something.
captaincolly wrote:273 all out. Could have been worse I suppose but probably should have been better.
6 overs left so a tricky little period for Worcs to bat.
captaincolly wrote:Durhamfootman wrote:captaincolly wrote:Good. Mitchell out in the first over.
the dangerous Mitchell!
273......... that feels like a thousand runs, or something.
Must only have been 2 overs left not 6. 1/1 at the close.
Durhamfootman wrote:captaincolly wrote:273 all out. Could have been worse I suppose but probably should have been better.
6 overs left so a tricky little period for Worcs to bat.
only 2 overs
we batted for 92 overs..... imagine that.... 92 overs!
Feels like a very long time since we've even managed to bat long enough to warrant a second new ball. 50 overs feels more normal.
captaincolly wrote:Durhamfootman wrote:captaincolly wrote:273 all out. Could have been worse I suppose but probably should have been better.
6 overs left so a tricky little period for Worcs to bat.
only 2 overs
we batted for 92 overs..... imagine that.... 92 overs!
Feels like a very long time since we've even managed to bat long enough to warrant a second new ball. 50 overs feels more normal.
Yep. Duff info from Martin Emmerson about 6 overs!
14/3 had all the makings of a total fiasco so I agree, excellent recovery.
westoelad wrote:captaincolly wrote:Durhamfootman wrote:captaincolly wrote:273 all out. Could have been worse I suppose but probably should have been better.
6 overs left so a tricky little period for Worcs to bat.
only 2 overs
we batted for 92 overs..... imagine that.... 92 overs!
Feels like a very long time since we've even managed to bat long enough to warrant a second new ball. 50 overs feels more normal.
Yep. Duff info from Martin Emmerson about 6 overs!
14/3 had all the makings of a total fiasco so I agree, excellent recovery.
And I taught Marty maths
captaincolly wrote:Excellent partnership but Bancroft out lbw and now Burnham has gone too. Now for the rest of them to get this score up to at least 300. No doubt they will have no problem.
Durhamfootman wrote:captaincolly wrote:Excellent partnership but Bancroft out lbw and now Burnham has gone too. Now for the rest of them to get this score up to at least 300. No doubt they will have no problem.
Burnham seemed to be the more aggressive batsmen early doors, but Bangers must have cracked on later because their scores were very similar in the end and Bangers fell first
How often does a set pairing find both batsmen out within a few balls of each other? I wonder if the demise of one leads to a loss of concentration for the other. Boycott's add 2 wickets to the score rule
Durhamfootman wrote:If we can start the day with 2 early top order wickets, I won't mind Morris scratching about for a bit... especially if one of those wickets is blooming Wessels
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 94 guests