It's just not cricket

[djewesbury]

A quota system in Cricket South Africa denied him the opportunity there.

Does that mean "KP wasn't good enough to qualify for the section of the quota for which he was ethnically eligible."?

There are those who would agree with you, yes. I couldn't possibly comment. But yes. Is one of the possible answers. He also doesn't make friends very easily. Or rather he loses them rather easily.

[benread]

Correct. He was a bowler by trade in those days though.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[DRT]

He also doesn't make friends very easily. Or rather he loses them rather easily.

AHB and I had the pleasure of spending a few hours just a few feet away from him when he was fielding at The Oval last summer. My conclusion was that he is a complete anchor, or something that rhymes with that.

[DRT]

This just isn't cricket!

[djewesbury]

This just isn't cricket!

I always look forward to that huge Canada v UAE grudge match...

[DRT]

This just isn't cricket!

I always look forward to that huge Canada v UAE grudge match...

Not that. It is a flag issue.

[djewesbury]

This just isn't cricket!

I always look forward to that huge Canada v UAE grudge match...

Not that. It is a flag issue.

Oops. Where was that? Not a usual error..

[DRT]

http://england.cricketworld4u.com/

[djewesbury]

Brilliant. Got the sound from TMS synced up with the video stream on the laptop. The simulcast starts here.

[djewesbury]

http://england.cricketworld4u.com/

Maintained by Frenchmen clearly.

[DRT]

http://england.cricketworld4u.com/

Maintained by Frenchmen clearly.

Zut alors!

Question 2: Why is Tim Bresnan not playing. He is one of the best ones at chucking it that I have seen.

[djewesbury]

http://england.cricketworld4u.com/

Maintained by Frenchmen clearly.

Zut alors!

Question 2: Why is Tim Bresnan not playing. He is one of the best ones at chucking it that I have seen.

You know much more than you let on don't you.

[DRT]

Question 2: Why is Tim Bresnan not playing. He is one of the best ones at chucking it that I have seen.

You know much more than you let on don't you.

[djewesbury]

I bet AHB has even explained Duckworth-Lewis to you. This is how it starts Derek. Before you know it you'll be googling Len Hutton.

[DRT]

I bet AHB has even explained Duckworth-Lewis to you.

I have some knowledge of that subject but don't understand the maths.

Not a great start for Broad. Cheats seldom prosper, as my mother used to say.

[djewesbury]

Watch it.

[djewesbury]

"And that's a great start for Broad..."

[DRT]

I knew the outcome as soon as I hit submit.

[benread]

Not a great start for Broad. Cheats seldom prosper, as my mother used to say.

It just got a whole lot better for him! Only a shame it wasn't Warner.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[LGTrotter]

Not a great start for Broad. Cheats seldom prosper, as my mother used to say.

It just got a whole lot better for him! Only a shame it wasn't Warner.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

+1

[Glenn E.]

In the US, we describe baseball as 5 minutes of action dragged out over 3 hours. My understanding of cricket is that it is 5 minutes of action dragged out over 5 days.

Haven't you guys posted more action here than has occurred during the match?

[DRT]

Haven't you guys posted more action here than has occurred during the match?

You don't understand, Glenn. A few minutes ago the chucker chucked his ball and hit the batter's leg. Three guys then debated whether or not to ask the referee to send someone off and then decided not to. It was riveting stuff.

[djewesbury]

Port just mentioned on TMS. But then boyks says 'people don't use decanters much these days'....
????

[DRT]

Port just mentioned on TMS. But then boyks says 'people don't use decanters much these days'....
????

Are you on the wireless? I'm all Skyed-up and enjoying the sunshine.

With a nod to another popular thread: How long would Graeme Swann have stayed upright if he had played cricket at my school with his collar up and his Top Gun sunglasses on?

[djewesbury]

Port just mentioned on TMS. But then boyks says 'people don't use decanters much these days'....
????

Are you on the wireless? I'm all Skyed-up and enjoying the sunshine.

Sound from bbc, picture from sky. Fiddle about a bit and get them playing at the same time.. Perfect.

With a nod to another popular thread: How long would Graeme Swann have stayed upright if he had played cricket at my school with his collar up and his Top Gun sunglasses on?

The opposite of long? His turned up collar always amuses me. He's not a looker, Swannie.

[DRT]

Port just mentioned on TMS. But then boyks says 'people don't use decanters much these days'....
????

Are you on the wireless? I'm all Skyed-up and enjoying the sunshine.

Sound from bbc, picture from sky. Fiddle about a bit and get them playing at the same time.. Perfect.

But then I wouldn't be able to enjoy Bumble's hilarious Lancashire wit.

With a nod to another popular thread: How long would Graeme Swann have stayed upright if he had played cricket at my school with his collar up and his Top Gun sunglasses on?

The opposite of long?

Not as long as that. He would have taken one mid-wicket before leaving the dressing room and then gone off to join the netball team.

[djewesbury]

Port just mentioned on TMS. But then boyks says 'people don't use decanters much these days'....
????

Are you on the wireless? I'm all Skyed-up and enjoying the sunshine.

Sound from bbc, picture from sky. Fiddle about a bit and get them playing at the same time.. Perfect.

But then I wouldn't be able to enjoy Bumble's hilarious Lancashire wit.

Oof. Yes that is deathless.

With a nod to another popular thread: How long would Graeme Swann have stayed upright if he had played cricket at my school with his collar up and his Top Gun sunglasses on?

The opposite of long?

Not as long as that. He would have taken one mid-wicket before leaving the dressing room and then gone off to join the netball team.

[DRT]

I'm going to bed at 2am. Before I go to bed we need to predict what the score will be by close of play.

My guess is 296 for 3.

[djewesbury]

I'm going to bed at 2am. Before I go to bed we need to predict what the score will be by close of play.

My guess is 296 for 3.

I am also going to bed at 2. I predict 200-5.

[djewesbury]

I'm going to bed at 2am. Before I go to bed we need to predict what the score will be by close of play.

My guess is 296 for 3.

I am also going to bed at 2. I predict 200-5.

Sorry. Mistyped. Not 200. Was going to write 300. You have written that however. Let me say 350.

[DRT]

I'm going to bed at 2am.

I'm also going to bed at 2am.

For those who were thinking the worst: No.

[djewesbury]

I'm going to bed at 2am.

I'm also going to bed at 2am.

For those who were thinking the worst: No.

Oh. I'll turn my collar down then.

[DRT]

So 296-3 plays 350-5.

Winner gets bragging rights.

[djewesbury]

So 296-3 plays 350-5.

Winner gets bragging rights.

See you here in the morning...

[DRT]

So 296-3 plays 350-5.

Winner gets bragging rights.

See you here in the morning...

Glad to see you have the correct number of dots in your ellipsis this time.

[DRT]

So 296-3 plays 350-5.

Do we need to agree a weighting system to balance runs v wickets?

We could call it the Turnbull-Jewesbury Method.

[djewesbury]

So 296-3 plays 350-5.

Winner gets bragging rights.

See you here in the morning...

Glad to see you have the correct number of dots in your ellipsis this time.

..................................................................................................!

[DRT]

So 296-3 plays 350-5.

Winner gets bragging rights.

See you here in the morning...

Glad to see you have the correct number of dots in your ellipsis this time.

..................................................................................................!

Which is not the same as!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DRT]

So 296-3 plays 350-5.

Do we need to agree a weighting system to balance runs v wickets?

We could call it the Turnbull-Jewesbury Method.

This is more important than the ellipsis fiasco.

[djewesbury]

So 296-3 plays 350-5.

Do we need to agree a weighting system to balance runs v wickets?

We could call it the Turnbull-Jewesbury Method.

Good God, you want to devise a mathematical equation? On the Port Forum??

[djewesbury]

So 296-3 plays 350-5.

Winner gets bragging rights.

See you here in the morning...

Glad to see you have the correct number of dots in your ellipsis this time.

..................................................................................................!

Which is not the same as!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My last three were one ellipsis. The rest were just scummy little dots.

[djewesbury]

Person closest in wickets gets 2 pts.
Person closest in runs gets 1 pt.

Oohhhh! Nice wicket for Broad.

[DRT]

So 296-3 plays 350-5.

Do we need to agree a weighting system to balance runs v wickets?

We could call it the Turnbull-Jewesbury Method.

Good God, you want to devise a mathematical equation? On the Port Forum??

Yes. Whilst all the mathematicians are sleeping.

I propose that runs are more important than wickets in this game, so the nearest run score wins. In the event of a tie, as defined below, the nearest wicket score wins.

A tie is where two or more guesses are within 30 runs of the real score.

[DRT]

Person closest in wickets gets 2 pts.
Person closest in runs gets 1 pt.

So wicket score wins every time?

[DRT]

We have 1 minute to agree.

[djewesbury]

We want wickets. We want them not to score runs. In your method runs win every time.

What about... We just split the honours and take a point each if appropriate?

It's lunchtime. Time for bed. As I say every day of the week.

[DRT]

We want wickets. We want them not to score runs. In your method runs win every time.

I will tackle the "we" tomorrow.

My proposal means that everyone (and there could be more than two) who guesses within 30 runs of the total goes to the tie-break and then wickets decide. That, dear boy, is more akin to cricket than your ridiculous suggestion.

[djewesbury]

We want wickets. We want them not to score runs. In your method runs win every time.

I will tackle the "we" tomorrow.

My proposal means that everyone (and there could be more than two) who guesses within 30 runs of the total goes to the tie-break and then wickets decide. That, dear boy, is more akin to cricket than your ridiculous suggestion.

Hmm. We shall try it your way...
Good night!

EDIT: Deleted one dot.

[DRT]

I declare.

[Alex Bridgeman]

And the good news is that Radio 5 Sports Extra is repeating the entire day's commentary from 11am. Gents, you can do this all over again - even your competition to guess what the close of play score will be.