The Cricket Thread 2015-16
- Thread starter TheSecondStain
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
Hampshire have thrown this one away, Briggs has had a mare in bowling and fielding today. Sussex win by 7 wickets. Kent won.
100 off 10 overs with 7 wickets in hand. Most sides should be able to do that. Indeed we ourselves have done it a few times already this season.
Briggs' first two overs were excellent. If Vince (I think) had executed the run out during Briggs' second over, the outcome might have been very different. Unfortunately for Briggs, in the final two overs Cachopa finally decided to attack the short boundary. And unlike Ervine, for example, he was very successful in doing so.
Ultimately your first comment was correct. 157 was never enough. And it would have been even less, had Sussex not dropped four catches. Carberry looked all over the place (strange, given his runs on Thursday night), yet again we failed to score big runs in our final three or four overs batting first (only Middlesex at home have we really finished with a flourish), and as I have alluded to, we failed to take full advantage of the short boundary on one side.
But no worries, we're still second. Three wins from our last six will be enough to qualify, I'm sure. And hey, tbh, I'd rather hand two points to Sussex than to, say, Essex or Somerset or Surrey. I look at what players each side might have available to them come Finals Day, and there's a few there who scare me more than Sussex.
Rain stopped a promising match between England and NZ...now Murray's match stopped for a shower just as it looked like being a good match.
Which is a joke!
7.38 an over required when New Zealand averaged 5.66 over 50 overs.
But you have to take into account that England have 10 wickets still for just 26 overs....If this was a t20 game 7.38 an over would be a doddle.
All England need to do is not get bowled out and they should win easily.
But it's not a 20/20 and 190 isn't a doddle in any 20/20 game.
New Zealand knocked around a few 6s at end got them to where they are. NZ open with a spinner knowing England need to slog it, it's a farce of a match.
Edit: and spoils what has been a good series.
But there are 6 extra overs... Chasing less than 150 is a doddle in t20
England don't need to slog, they just need to keep up with the run rate and keep wickets in hand.
England don't need to slog, they just need to keep up with the run rate and keep wickets in hand.
The rate England need to score would get them 369 in 50 overs. This pitch isn't obviously great for batting hence NZ only getting into the 280s.
England have 24 overs less than NZ to score a total only 90 runs away from their score.
It would've been more of a farce if England had only 140 to chase IMO.....Keeping up with 7.38 over 26 overs is obviously easier than over 50 overs with the same amount of wickets.
I think we had an excellent chance in a 50 over match...the reduction in overs changed it more to a T20 with the different mind set that that entailed. Weather has done for us. Shame.
But that's just it. We don't need to bat for this rate for 50 overs. If we had 50 overs, we wouldn't need to go at 7.38!
Plus an extra man forced to stay in the ring, compared to t20. And two extra powerplay overs, compared to t20.
49 from 30 balls....you know quite well that if the roles were reversed, the opposition would get it, but doubt England will.
- Status