• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

LVCC D1 - Durham v Middlesex

Status
Not open for further replies.

brandon said:
Perhaps, but all rather average on the face of it. Doesn't matter how long the batting order is. We lost 4 for 41 during a time when the ball should be old enough that it isn't doing a lot. What's more, Smith is 12 from 57 balls or summit. What's that all about? The lads made hay in the morning session scoring just under 4 an over, what's that tell you?
Click to expand...

What a massive contradictory post, you moan that we throw away 4 wickets then moan that we have a player protecting his wicket when there is chaos around him??
 
johnson said:
What a massive contradictory post, you moan that we throw away 4 wickets then moan that we have a player protecting his wicket when there is chaos around him??
Click to expand...

Is it fuck. I stated earlier that the lads in the first session scored at near 4 an over and had us 108-1. What I was getting at is that I was worried lads were becoming sitting ducks by batting negatively.

Apparently Jennings got a stinker mind.
 
Last edited:
brandon said:
Is it fuck. I stated earlier that the lads in the first session scored at near 4 an over and had us 108-1. What I was getting at is that I was worried lads were becoming sitting ducks by batting negatively.

Apparently Jennings got a stinker mind.

With any luck Smith will get a ton and prove me wrong again.
Click to expand...

Smith got another valuable 40, I don't get your point at all.

Wickets were falling around him and he has dug in and built a partnership, why would he be trying to get 4 an over when we had lost 4 quick wickets? Only day one, makes no sense
 
It seems to be a prevailing theme in todays round of games in both divisions that teams are losing a clatter of wickets after a decent partnership. Essex and Sussex along with ourselves had all built a good partnership only for wickets to tumble once that partnership was broken
 
Smith made 37 from 107 balls. Whilst I'll admit I'd settle for him scoring that EVERY innings, if he'd have scored at a strike rate of 50 he'd have score a half century.
 
brandon said:
Smith made 37 from 107 balls. Whilst I'll admit I'd settle for him scoring that EVERY innings, if he'd have scored at a strike rate of 50 he'd have score a half century.
Click to expand...

Jennngs got 38 off 112

Which is worse than Smith
 
brandon said:
That's correct. He's also missed out then. What's your point? Borthwick scored a half century with a strike rate of 59.
Click to expand...

My point is only Borthwick scored at that rate, you were clearly insuating everyone was scoring at a faster rate than Smith and that he slowed the innings down.

Can always do better but we are on the way to posting a decent total

Edit: Breeze gone!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
johnson said:
My point is only Borthwick scored at that rate, you were clearly insuating everyone was scoring at a faster rate than Smith and that he slowed the innings down.

Can always do better but we are on the way to posting a decent total

Edit: Breeze gone!
Click to expand...

I was insinuating that Smith ALWAYS scores slowly and posing the question for debate of whether he doesn't score the runs he should as a result of a poor strike rate. It's been well highlighted on here over the years that Smith scores slowly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top