• 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.

*Official* Fourth Test at Chester-le-Street

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Quality Test, this

The cricket might not have been of the highest rank throughout the series but other than Lord's it's been gripping stuff really.

If we can bat through the first session in the morning then we'll win.
 

Riggins

International Captain
i'm firmly of the opinion that it doesn't matter at all what you score. it's all whether you can dismiss clarke. i guess a higher chase will mean more balls to get him with, i just hope we manage to protect him for the first 25 overs.

without the 40 odd overs of reverse swing that we've seen in the last few tests on off here, the new ball has proved extremely crucial. hopefully rogers manages to see it off again when we get another hit.
 

LegionOfBrad

International Debutant
It was more he "looked" a Test Batsman, which is more then he's done with even higher scores in this series. I would still send him back to his county, but I think the selectors will stick. Mind you if we lose that might be different.
If we lose he is gone for certain. Root might be moved down the order as well.
 

L Trumper

State Regular
i'm firmly of the opinion that it doesn't matter at all what you score. it's all whether you can dismiss clarke. i guess a higher chase will mean more balls to get him with, i just hope we manage to protect him for the first 25 overs.

without the 40 odd overs of reverse swing that we've seen in the last few tests on off here, the new ball has proved extremely crucial. hopefully rogers manages to see it off again when we get another hit.
What about Warner? surely he is due :ph34r:
 

Riggins

International Captain
What about Warner? surely he is due :ph34r:
i guess all of them are due, in the fact that they haven't scored any runs (for) ever. my general thinking on our score is that it will be double what clarke scores. if he makes 200 we might be able to chase 400, i guess. etc.
 

greg

International Debutant
I wonder if Watson will be fit enough to run between the wickets? (not that this is necessarily a handicap for him!)

Anyway just an excuse to post my view on the silly ban on runners introduced which i haven't heard expressed anywhere else.

When the rule was introduced it was justified partly on the grounds that "you can't replace an injured bowler, so why can you 'replace' an injured batsman"? The answer of course is simple:

Running is akin to fielding, batting is akin to bowling. If a bowler is injured you can't replace them, but then neither can you replace an injured batsman. However you can replace an injured fielder, so logically you should be able to replace the running portion of a batsman's job. I would even go so far as to suggest that debates about batsmen being allowed runners for cramp (the other thing cited in favour of the ban) is misguided as long as the rules on fielding substitutes are so lax.

And anyway, runners are always entertaining for the crowd.
 

Riggins

International Captain
yeah, batting with a runner is seriously hard work.

obviously it was introduced to stop people getting runners who weren't really injured, but i think there are better ways to stamp that out than just banning them altogether.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
I wonder if Watson will be fit enough to run between the wickets? (not that this is necessarily a handicap for him!)

Anyway just an excuse to post my view on the silly ban on runners introduced which i haven't heard expressed anywhere else.

When the rule was introduced it was justified partly on the grounds that "you can't replace an injured bowler, so why can you 'replace' an injured batsman"? The answer of course is simple:

Running is akin to fielding, batting is akin to bowling. If a bowler is injured you can't replace them, but then neither can you replace an injured batsman. However you can replace an injured fielder, so logically you should be able to replace the running portion of a batsman's job. I would even go so far as to suggest that debates about batsmen being allowed runners for cramp (the other thing cited in favour of the ban) is misguided as long as the rules on fielding substitutes are so lax.

And anyway, runners are always entertaining for the crowd.
Rubbish.

Running has everything to do with batting. What is it that batsmen score? Runs. The clue's in the ****i g name.

If you can't run then hit boundaries. Getting someone else to do the running for you is a ****ing joke.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Ding Dong's always been a joy to watch and is finally putting the numbers up that do justice to his talent.

Think I'm right in saying Sydney was his first ton vesus the crims too; like waiting for a bus, etc.

Meanwhile, slightly worried about Harris's workload. He's a game old ****, but with his knee he needs more careful husbandry than he's getting, IMHO.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Ding Dong's always been a joy to watch and is finally putting the numbers up that do justice to his talent.

Think I'm right in saying Sydney was his first ton vesus the crims too; like waiting for a bus, etc.

Meanwhile, slightly worried about Harris's workload. He's a game old ****, but with his knee he needs more careful husbandry than he's getting, IMHO.
Us superheroes have no need for cartilage.
 

BeeGee

International Captain
I've always hated runners and I'm glad they're gone.

Personally I kind of like the idea of substitute players (virtually every other team sport has them). Bloody hard to implement in test cricket though, so will probably never happen.
 

LegionOfBrad

International Debutant
I've always hated runners and I'm glad they're gone.

Personally I kind of like the idea of substitute players (virtually every other team sport has them). Bloody hard to implement in test cricket though, so will probably never happen.
If they were just for injuries it would be abused too much if a bowler was having a mare.
 

Top