Langeveldt
Soutie
Sticks and stones ehjot1 said:And once, in Australia, when poor Symcox was fielding, they threw a dead chicken at him.
Sticks and stones ehjot1 said:And once, in Australia, when poor Symcox was fielding, they threw a dead chicken at him.
Fastest by an Englishmen* but only the 9th fastest of all time (level with Sehwags fastest ever).jot1 said:Seems Pieterson's put in the fastest 100 ever in an ODI
Only ! Pretty good achievement in my book!SpaceMonkey said:Fastest by an Englishmen* but only the 9th fastest of all time (level with Sehwags fastest ever).
Yeah it is, so many sixes over long on, unbelievable hitting.Langeveldt said:Shahid Afridi's 37 ball 100 against Sri Lanka must have just been incredible...
NZ and Sri Lanka are clearly the two best ODI sides after AUS IMO.Swervy said:the fact that England are now ranked 7th just goes to show how closely bunched that middle pack are...each one of those teams could easily be ranked 3rd soon enough
how the hell is SL clearly better than everyone else?Blaze said:NZ and Sri Lanka are clearly the two best ODI sides after AUS IMO.
4-8 are all closely bunched though..
The limit of what can possibly ever be anything vaguely resembling good.marc71178 said:Under the 4.5 limit.
Don't disagree with the rest of the post but must take issue with this: Strauss has batted at four in 22 out of his 27 ODIs - including the part when he was most successful. Until this tour everyone was saying he should bat four because he batted well with Flintoff a couple of times.Barney Rubble said:Strauss doesn't like no4
which teams DO u like?tooextracool said:how the hell is SL clearly better than everyone else?
as far as i remember they are still rubbish away from home in ODIs.
That's got nothing to do with anything - Sri Lanka have a dismal, dismal away record.Hit4Six said:which teams DO u like?
All that shows is how close the middle ranked sides are.zinzan12 said:To think there were people arguing that they should be 3rd
ranked ?
No, it is not - because the game doesn't potter along at 4-4.2 an over any more.Richard said:4.41-an-over, while less than 4.5-an-over, is still very poor.
And of course I put that slogan under my name, didn't I?Pinkline Jones said:Richard you're about as close to a "Cricketing God" as ... BLAH BLAH BLAH
Because the bowlers aren't good enough at present to keep it down to that.marc71178 said:No, it is not - because the game doesn't potter along at 4-4.2 an over any more.
Nope, not at all.tooextracool said:so why is that even the limit then if anything less than that is still poor? basically it all comes down to whether or not you like the player and if he has a successful domestic record.
It does - it's one of these things like Global warming - when you think about it it's great that we've got such a long break - but it gets boring when you're just contemplating it casually.SpaceMonkey said:Seems weird having so long with no English cricket now considering how jam packed the calendar normally is