Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
153 or 172 for first innings of the match.What's the lowest first innings that has ever resulted in an innings win?
153 or 172 for first innings of the match.What's the lowest first innings that has ever resulted in an innings win?
Fair enough, uncovered wickets I guess?153 or 172 for first innings of the match.
Was in 1888 so probably.Fair enough, uncovered wickets I guess?
What about since 1950?Fair enough, uncovered wickets I guess?
269 by England vs NZ at Lord's 1958.What about since 1950?
1 billion Indians against this team.Spinner's dream but all 4 wickets to seam
That shot from Angelo makes me cream
Hawkeye's rigged, Star Sports is screwing this team
Can't if they get past 52 though.Asalolka.
If SL are bowled out <100 should Rohit enforce the follow on? Yes IMO. Would be hilarious to win by an innings here.
A lead of 200 is required to enforce follow on.Asalolka.
If SL are bowled out <100 should Rohit enforce the follow on? Yes IMO. Would be hilarious to win by an innings here.
Wasn't it Australia in the Ashes not too long ago? It was one of them anyway.What's the lowest first innings that has ever resulted in an innings win?
Batting first it's 172 by England vs Australia at Old Trafford 1888, bowling first it's 153 by Australia vs South Africa at MCG 1932.Wasn't it Australia in the Ashes not too long ago? It was one of them anyway.