ThePortForum.com

DRT wrote:

djewesbury wrote:The problem was not the timing. LCCC have spent thousands on drains which didn't work. I ruled AHB's whinge out of order because he failed to use the phrase 'what's The Point'?

One could also as what's the point of having a cricket ground in Manchester at all. Not only is it dull and manky, it is one of the wettest places in the UK. It doesn't need drains, it needs a roof.

I think that's 'Mancy'. But Old Trafford has produced some of the most memorable Tests and some of the greatest players. Yes, it was bizarre that for so long it didn't have one covered stand; I remember getting soaked the first time I went there, to see Eng v Pak about 15 or so years ago..

djewesbury wrote:

DRT wrote:Not only is it dull and manky

I think that's 'Mancy'.

OED wrote:Manky
Adjective (mankier, mankiest): - Dirty and unpleasant.

I'll stick with manky.

DRT wrote:

djewesbury wrote:

DRT wrote:Not only is it dull and manky

I think that's 'Mancy'.

OED wrote:Manky
Adjective (mankier, mankiest): - Dirty and unpleasant.

I'll stick with manky.

I think mine conveys that it's full of Mancs.
No, wait, he's almost got it.. Just a little tap here. And a drop of Batailley in there.. There, should work now.

So gents, who do we drop in order to bring Finn back into the side?

Broad. He shouldn't play in a mask.

Any of the second string bowlers apart from Mo.

I never got why they didn't play Finn in the first place.

I think that Broad in a mask has potential. Potential for him to look like an eejut.

Having been in Venice recently, I'd like to suggest Broad uses on of those falcon masks with the cruel, curved noses.

Or a Hannibal Lecter mask. That would be quite good as well.

AHB wrote:Having been in Venice recently, I'd like to suggest Broad uses on of those falcon masks with the cruel, curved noses.

Steady Alex, I've already had to upbraid you for your penchant for dressing as an owl, I should not like to have to bring up falcons.

Woakes would seem to be favourite for the chop. But as Moaner-in-Chief I would expect you to be telling us that they are all rubbish.

djewesbury wrote:I think that's 'Mancy'.

To rhyme with 'Nancy'?

LGTrotter wrote:

djewesbury wrote:I think that's 'Mancy'.

To rhyme with 'Nancy'?

To rhyme with 'Poncy'?

LGTrotter wrote:

AHB wrote:Having been in Venice recently, I'd like to suggest Broad uses on of those falcon masks with the cruel, curved noses.

Steady Alex, I've already had to upbraid you for your penchant for dressing as an owl, I should not like to have to bring up falcons.

Woakes would seem to be favourite for the chop. But as Moaner-in-Chief I would expect you to be telling us that they are all rubbish.

Hold on there, Sparky. You can't drop the Moaner-in-Chief gig onto AHB that easily.

You remain in office until de-selected by the Pyramid Teabag Party.

Another good day at the office then Derek?

LGTrotter wrote:Another good day at the office then Derek?

Erm? Yes.

It's off and running again...

India all out for 148 on day 1 at an overcast Oval.

It's England's to lose.

Bit overcast here though and I sense England rattled by that last wicket stand. Need Cook to get runs I feel.

Anecdotally, without bothering to marshal numerical evidence, it seems that in the last few years last-wicket stands have had many more runs than previously. Or am I imagining it?

jdaw1 wrote:Anecdotally, without bothering to marshal numerical evidence, it seems that in the last few years last-wicket stands have had many more runs than previously. Or am I imagining it?

A record was broken in this test, with the total last wicket runs in the series reaching a new high for a series. Can't remember the exact date of the previous record but something like 1927.

flash_uk wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:Anecdotally, without bothering to marshal numerical evidence, it seems that in the last few years last-wicket stands have had many more runs than previously. Or am I imagining it?

A record was broken in this test, with the total last wicket runs in the series reaching a new high for a series. Can't remember the exact date of the previous record but something like 1927.

Hurray, a series renowned for the inability for either side to bowl the tail out. Says it all really, there's been no bowling and precious little batting.

It's bound to rain.

Not enough tail end 'bunnies' about any more But the bowling quality can't be up to much if even Anderson's getting runs!

On Sunday Eddie (my 6yo son) and I are attending the test. I'm hoping for lots of excitement!

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

benread wrote:On Sunday Eddie (my 6yo son) and I are attending the test. I'm hoping for lots of excitement!

Looks like you've had lots of runs, now for lots of wickets.

LGTrotter wrote:

benread wrote:On Sunday Eddie (my 6yo son) and I are attending the test. I'm hoping for lots of excitement!

Looks like you've had lots of runs, now for lots of wickets.

A good start at 9-2 - Eddie should either see the first England victory or his first England bowling collapse today

But now it's raining

LGTrotter wrote:

djewesbury wrote:I think that's 'Mancy'.

To rhyme with 'Nancy'?

No, Mancy to rhyme with lanky, as shortened form of Mancunian, demonym for people from Manchester.

PhilW wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:

djewesbury wrote:I think that's 'Mancy'.

To rhyme with 'Nancy'?

No, Mancy to rhyme with lanky, as shortened form of Mancunian, demonym for people from Manchester.

At last, a voice of sense, intelligence and reason. Exactly what I was getting at, but which seemed so elusive to all but you.

djewesbury wrote:

PhilW wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:

djewesbury wrote:I think that's 'Mancy'.

To rhyme with 'Nancy'?

No, Mancy to rhyme with lanky, as shortened form of Mancunian, demonym for people from Manchester.

At last, a voice of sense, intelligence and reason. Exactly what I was getting at, but which seemed so elusive to all but you.

It did not allude me. I preferred my form of spelling because I was implying that it is a place of very little or no aesthetic merit. Your spelling in the context of my post would imply that the fine citizens of that rather unfortunate place are unclean. I would never dream of implying such a thing.

Is this Indian collapse as pathetic as it seems just from the score line or is the bowling really that good? I suspect the former. Which would be very bad news for test cricket.

India were pathetic.

England have beaten them to death in the last two tests but it must be said it was like shooting fish in a barrel.

Still, they can now persuade themselves that they are masters of the universe and everyone can act surprised when they get thumped by the first decent team they meet.

DRT wrote:It did not allude me.

*wince*

Eddie got to meet these two characters as well as being very excited by the win!

Nice crown shots Ben!

Glenn E. wrote:

DRT wrote:It did not allude me.

*wince*

{shame}

DRT wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:

DRT wrote:It did not allude me.

*wince*

{shame}

I didn't want to say... But I read this as I walked down the street and my knees crumpled. I hit my head and lost consciousness and when I came round a grammarian was pointing at my screen and crying. I'm recovering, the nurses are lovely, but please, no more.. I'm still quite weak.

An innings and 244 runs: surely a reporting mistake.

Ben chose his day well.

jdaw1 wrote:An innings and 244 runs: surely a reporting mistake.

Ben chose his day well.

Did he though? It sounds like it was a coconut shy.

(Please, anyone who wishes to make a joke about this, don't.)

I've never been more fed up at the end of an England series victory. It's really a disgraceful state of affairs. If only I was whinger-in-chief I'd tell you more.

djewesbury wrote:I've never been more fed up at the end of an England series victory. It's really a disgraceful state of affairs. If only I was whinger-in-chief I'd tell you more.

Go on...

LGTrotter wrote:

djewesbury wrote:I've never been more fed up at the end of an England series victory. It's really a disgraceful state of affairs. If only I was whinger-in-chief I'd tell you more.

Go on...

Well, since you insist.
1. How did we ever manage to lose a game to a team as dire as this, quite as badly as we did?
2. How did we manage to draw against a team as dire as this, etc?
3. What in God's name has happened to the biggest nation in world cricket (I mean India, not England), that paying fans^* are dished up this cold dog's dinner, this pathetic excuse for competitive Test cricket? Anybody who paid to watch this should be refunded.
4. Why in God's name are England not playing another Test match until April (and that at a ground that hasn't been used since its first use, when the match was abandoned)? Is it because they're so good and can't possibly benefit from a bit more match practice? Or is it because we have something blocking up the fixtures which is a complete waste of time and which is actively undermining the highest level of the game?
4. How do you think any of this fragile England batting line-up will stand up to Mitchell Johnson and Peter Siddle next year? Never mind Mornay Morkel and Dale Steyn whenever we have to play them...
5. Gahh!

* Whether they're paying to be at the ground or paying for a Sky subscription, since the ECB are unable to find a way to put this on terrestrial TV and simultaneously maintain the incredible infrastructure that has brought us such unbelievable talents as Sam Robson.

The BBC has a report from an unhappy “Indian parliamentarian”.

jdaw1 wrote:The BBC has a report from an unhappy “Indian parliamentarian”.

Marvellous reading it is too, notwithstanding my unanswered grumbles above. I wonder, has Michael Vaughan offered any apology for calling for the head of Alistair Cook and the coronation of, ahem, Eoin Morgan?

djewesbury wrote:I wonder, has Michael Vaughan offered any apology for calling for the head of Alistair Cook and the coronation of, ahem, Eoin Morgan?

He did apologise, and conceded he had been wrong.

flash_uk wrote:

djewesbury wrote:I wonder, has Michael Vaughan offered any apology for calling for the head of Alistair Cook and the coronation of, ahem, Eoin Morgan?

He did apologise, and conceded he had been wrong.

Crikey. Was that on TMS?

djewesbury wrote:

flash_uk wrote:

djewesbury wrote:I wonder, has Michael Vaughan offered any apology for calling for the head of Alistair Cook and the coronation of, ahem, Eoin Morgan?

He did apologise, and conceded he had been wrong.

Crikey. Was that on TMS?

Here.

The FT: Sporting Life: Cricket faces crisis as it loses appeal, by Matthew Engel. If you can’t see it I have a few gift articles remaining, but only a few.

I can't see it. I would like to. Would it breach copyright to post the text here?

An FT subscription allows a few articles to be ‘gifted’. Your gift is in your email.

Thank you. A very interesting short article too, which makes me feel slightly better: if a former editor of Wisden who didn't listen to the matches says that the world is ending, everything is in order and the world is in balance.

I live in Somerset. We all still go to the cricket. The world has not ended.

And yet everything is perpetually in peril. Thank god.

I am content. All is right in the world. The temporary aberration that caused me to question reality has now gone.

England are back to their normal form, several classes below most other long-established test nations. Hurrah!

American football anyone? Something to take our minds off Alastair Cook and his band of hopeless men?