26 Nov 2006 03:33:57
Marty
Score

England 3 for 91.




26 Nov 2006 06:25:53
Marty
Re: Score

England 4 for 244




26 Nov 2006 07:04:41
Marty
Re: Score

England 5 for 271.




26 Nov 2006 07:02:40
Mad Dog anti EU
Re: Score

Marty wrote:
|| England 5 for 271.

They need to cool it now and see the day out.

--
"A horse a horse my kingdom for a horse, I haven't had a winner in six
months".

MD





26 Nov 2006 08:57:16
Reece Bythell
Re: Score

Mad Dog anti EU wrote:
> Marty wrote: || England 5 for 271.
>
> They need to cool it now and see the day out.

The odd thing now is that if England managed to bat for the whole day
tomorrow, even though they only have five wickets left, they would win the
test match!

Reece



26 Nov 2006 09:23:25
James Farrar
Re: Score

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 08:57:16 +0000, Reece Bythell
<[email protected] > wrote:

>Mad Dog anti EU wrote:
>> Marty wrote: || England 5 for 271.
>>
>> They need to cool it now and see the day out.
>
>The odd thing now is that if England managed to bat for the whole day
>tomorrow, even though they only have five wickets left, they would win the
>test match!

That would be a stretch. They'd have to bat with the intention to win
or lose, which would make losing even more likely than it already is.

Bizarrely, I'm satisfied with the way this match has panned out.
England are going to end up comfortably beaten, but not thrashed. Last
time, Australia won the 1st Test by 239 runs, and unless England
totally collapse in the morning of Day 5, this match is going to end
up with a result fairly close to that.


26 Nov 2006 11:30:24
Marty
Re: Score

England are bo chance - it will be all over by lunch.

England's tail cannot cope with Warne, Clark, Lee and McGrath.




27 Nov 2006 00:43:34
Serge
Re: Score


"James Farrar" <[email protected] > wrote in message
>
> Bizarrely, I'm satisfied with the way this match has panned out.
> England are going to end up comfortably beaten, but not thrashed. Last
> time, Australia won the 1st Test by 239 runs, and unless England
> totally collapse in the morning of Day 5, this match is going to end
> up with a result fairly close to that.

Now let's see...

You'll be satisfied if England *only* gets beaten by 230 odd runs?
(huge snigger)

Incidentally, what constitutes a thrashing in your view?





26 Nov 2006 14:11:38
James Farrar
Re: Score

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 00:43:34 +1100, "Serge" <[email protected] > wrote:

>
>"James Farrar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> Bizarrely, I'm satisfied with the way this match has panned out.
>> England are going to end up comfortably beaten, but not thrashed. Last
>> time, Australia won the 1st Test by 239 runs, and unless England
>> totally collapse in the morning of Day 5, this match is going to end
>> up with a result fairly close to that.
>
>Now let's see...
>
>You'll be satisfied if England *only* gets beaten by 230 odd runs?

Considering the position at the end of day 2, damn right I'll
satisfied with losing by less than 300 runs.

>Incidentally, what constitutes a thrashing in your view?

An innings.

I would think for a win by runs, 300 would be a figure as a rule of
thumb, but it depends on the circumstances.

[Watch England collapse now, and lose by 300+...]


26 Nov 2006 23:38:54
David North
Re: Score

"James Farrar" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 00:43:34 +1100, "Serge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"James Farrar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Bizarrely, I'm satisfied with the way this match has panned out.
>>> England are going to end up comfortably beaten, but not thrashed. Last
>>> time, Australia won the 1st Test by 239 runs, and unless England
>>> totally collapse in the morning of Day 5, this match is going to end
>>> up with a result fairly close to that.
>>
>>Now let's see...
>>
>>You'll be satisfied if England *only* gets beaten by 230 odd runs?
>
> Considering the position at the end of day 2, damn right I'll
> satisfied with losing by less than 300 runs.

I don't agree with that. From where they were after day 2, a couple of good
innings could have put England in a position where they had a decent chance
of saving the match.

Starting from the position after 3 days, however, limiting the margin was
the best they could reasonably expect to do. Having said that, if Strauss
and Collingwood hadn't given it away, a draw might not now seem quite so
unlikely.
--
David North




26 Nov 2006 23:42:34
James Farrar
Re: Score

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 23:38:54 -0000, "David North"
<[email protected] > wrote:

>"James Farrar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 00:43:34 +1100, "Serge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"James Farrar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> Bizarrely, I'm satisfied with the way this match has panned out.
>>>> England are going to end up comfortably beaten, but not thrashed. Last
>>>> time, Australia won the 1st Test by 239 runs, and unless England
>>>> totally collapse in the morning of Day 5, this match is going to end
>>>> up with a result fairly close to that.
>>>
>>>Now let's see...
>>>
>>>You'll be satisfied if England *only* gets beaten by 230 odd runs?
>>
>> Considering the position at the end of day 2, damn right I'll
>> satisfied with losing by less than 300 runs.
>
>I don't agree with that. From where they were after day 2, a couple of good
>innings could have put England in a position where they had a decent chance
>of saving the match.

From 53/3 needing another 350 to avoid the follow-on? I must admit, I
can't see it myself.

My first "game over" comment of the match came when Cook got out in
the 1st innings.


27 Nov 2006 22:46:58
Mad Hamish
Re: Score

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:23:25 +0000, James Farrar
<[email protected] > wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 08:57:16 +0000, Reece Bythell
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Mad Dog anti EU wrote:
>>> Marty wrote: || England 5 for 271.
>>>
>>> They need to cool it now and see the day out.
>>
>>The odd thing now is that if England managed to bat for the whole day
>>tomorrow, even though they only have five wickets left, they would win the
>>test match!
>
>That would be a stretch. They'd have to bat with the intention to win
>or lose, which would make losing even more likely than it already is.
>
>Bizarrely, I'm satisfied with the way this match has panned out.
>England are going to end up comfortably beaten, but not thrashed. Last
>time, Australia won the 1st Test by 239 runs, and unless England
>totally collapse in the morning of Day 5, this match is going to end
>up with a result fairly close to that.

Although you might want to consider that Australia did only lose 10
wickets in the entire test...
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001

Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
[email protected]