Off Topic The Ashes

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
****s sake. One game I put a few quid on them to win.

They did well to make a bit of a game of it after that start.
 
Unfortunately the way we play this is going to happen now and again, but we showed fight. It is so obvious that in this format we believe we can win no matter what the position, where as in the tests we never looked like we believed in ourselves.
 
Unfortunately the way we play this is going to happen now and again, but we showed fight. It is so obvious that in this format we believe we can win no matter what the position, where as in the tests we never looked like we believed in ourselves.
Absolutely. I find it incredible with the modern strokeplay and high scores that they are so consistent
 
just watching the scores tick over - aus need one run, but one of their players is 97no...

...6 settles it all.
 
England win the 5 match series 3-2 by winning the last game against NZ. Bairstow scored 104 in 58 balls.

New Zealand 223 (49.5 overs):
Santner 67, Woakes 3-32, Rashid 3-42
England 229-3 (32.4 overs): Bairstow 104, Hales 61
 
Can't quite believe that England have just been bowled out for 58 in their first innings against NZ.

Cook c Latham b Boult 5
Stoneman c Watling bSouthee 11
Root b Boult 0
Malan c Watling b Boult 2
Stokes b Boult 0
Bairstow c & b Southee 0
Moeen b Southee 0
Woakes b Boult 5
C Overton not out 33
Broad c Williamson b Southee 0
Anderson c Nicholls b Boult 1
Extras 0nb 0w 0b 1lb 1

All out 58

<yikes><yikes><yikes><yikes><yikes><yikes><yikes><yikes><yikes>
 
58 was a relief after they got to 27/9.

i followed progress via the web. england were in danger of
1. beating the lowest ever test score (26 by nz)
2. beating england's lowest ever test score (45)
both looked very possible.


(edit: corrected lowest ever to 45 from 46)
 
Last edited:
Can't quite believe that England have just been bowled out for 58 in their first innings against NZ.

Cook c Latham b Boult 5
Stoneman c Watling bSouthee 11
Root b Boult 0
Malan c Watling b Boult 2
Stokes b Boult 0
Bairstow c & b Southee 0
Moeen b Southee 0
Woakes b Boult 5
C Overton not out 33
Broad c Williamson b Southee 0
Anderson c Nicholls b Boult 1
Extras 0nb 0w 0b 1lb 1

All out 58

<yikes><yikes><yikes><yikes><yikes><yikes><yikes><yikes><yikes>
Jeeeeez!! Now that' embarrassing
 
58 was a relief after they got to 27/9.

i followed progress via the web. england were in danger of
1. beating the lowest ever test score (26 by nz)
2. beating england's lowest ever test score (46)
both looked very possible.

Thanks to Overton then who got 57% of the whole innings runs himself.
 
I was toying with the idea of stopping up to watch this. Thank **** I didn't. I don't even know if it was one of those unplayable wickets or England being ****. Can't bring myself to watch it.

We're going to kill off red ball cricket if we carry on messing around with CC and focusing on limited over cricket. Surely there's a place for both forms?
 
Thanks to Overton then who got 57% of the whole innings runs himself.

someone had suggested that if anderson could hang about, overton might even beat the record %age (67.35%) for a complete innings, which still stands from the very first test innings, when charles bannerman (who opened and faced the first ever ball in test cricket, scored the first run and the first century) scored 165 out of australia's 245. that game and two others on the same tour where retrospectively made tests, so he wouldn't have known at the time, bannerman was born in kent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Bannerman