-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
English Cricket season
- Thread starter chris.hinton
- Start date
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Kevin Innes - not Kirtley. Case of mistaken identity - still wrongly reported on Ananova and Cricinfo.Rik said:
So much for their scores directly updated from the 'official' scorers.
Of course, I could be wrong.
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Of course I'm not wrong. You wouldn't doubt your uncle LuckyEddie, would you?
This season, a new rule has been introduced, allowing for a player released by England to replace a nominated player from a county side - provided the game has not yet gone into day 3.
Kevin Innes was nominated to be replaced by Kirtley upon his return from Lord's.
Innes DID score the 103*, and Kirtley DID finish with 0-29 bowling in Notts's innings at the close of day 2.
Cricinfo still wrong, Ananova still wrong. The only site containing the correct information (apart from Cricket Web, naturally) is the Sussex CCC website.
I don't think their computer software can handle the concept of 12 named players in an 11.
This season, a new rule has been introduced, allowing for a player released by England to replace a nominated player from a county side - provided the game has not yet gone into day 3.
Kevin Innes was nominated to be replaced by Kirtley upon his return from Lord's.
Innes DID score the 103*, and Kirtley DID finish with 0-29 bowling in Notts's innings at the close of day 2.
Cricinfo still wrong, Ananova still wrong. The only site containing the correct information (apart from Cricket Web, naturally) is the Sussex CCC website.
I don't think their computer software can handle the concept of 12 named players in an 11.
lord_of_darkness
Cricket Web XI Moderator
lol i was thinkin kirtley cant hit a 100..
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
I ended up contacting the Press Association about this last night.
Their reply - and I quote.....
"Oops!"
Mind you, DD's got the REAL explanation.
Their reply - and I quote.....
"Oops!"
Mind you, DD's got the REAL explanation.
lord_of_darkness
Cricket Web XI Moderator
lol i would imagine aye
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Well, it's day 1 of the current round of the county championships.
Here's a few highlights so far as we roll towards tea...
Lancashire 231-5 v Kent
Flintoff 117* from 115 balls
Mark Ealham 4-36 off 15
Surrey 229-3 v Sussex
Thorpe 105*
Worcestershire 224-6 v Derbyshire
Hick 75*
Kevin Dean 3-32 off 17
Mohammad Ali 2-95 off 9 (I kid you not)
Durham 178-4 v Yorkshire
Darren Gough 2-32
Here's a few highlights so far as we roll towards tea...
Lancashire 231-5 v Kent
Flintoff 117* from 115 balls
Mark Ealham 4-36 off 15
Surrey 229-3 v Sussex
Thorpe 105*
Worcestershire 224-6 v Derbyshire
Hick 75*
Kevin Dean 3-32 off 17
Mohammad Ali 2-95 off 9 (I kid you not)
Durham 178-4 v Yorkshire
Darren Gough 2-32
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
I reckon so, Rik, but not a six in sight, amazingly enough.
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Anyone would think that Freddie's suffering from a leg injury and can't run, as opposed to a shoulder injury.
His 150 came off 150 balls, including 17 fours and 8 sixes.
His 150 came off 150 balls, including 17 fours and 8 sixes.
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Well jinxed Marc.
They were 19-9, then a last wicket partnership of 60 between McGill and Malik took it from laughable to just pathetic (79 all out).
They were 19-9, then a last wicket partnership of 60 between McGill and Malik took it from laughable to just pathetic (79 all out).
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Touche.marc71178 said:
However, I can still take the Michael out of Notts big-time (and most likely will).
If I say so myself, the following line pulled out of the match report on CW front page even made me giggle (and I wrote it...)
There was still time for Essex to start their second innings. The only surprise was that only one more wicket fell on a quite farcical day which will have pitch inspectors twitching.
Could have been written by the duck.
<quack> Amateur
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
I went out at 7.30 last night. When I got back, I was amazed to find out that I'd boluxed - the day's play hadn't ended at Trent Bridge.
Fixed it.
How's this?
There was still time for Essex to start their second innings. Start? There was almost time to finish it as three more wickets fell on a quite farcical day which will have ECB pitch inspectors twitching up and down the country.
Fixed it.
How's this?
There was still time for Essex to start their second innings. Start? There was almost time to finish it as three more wickets fell on a quite farcical day which will have ECB pitch inspectors twitching up and down the country.