SaintPowelly wrote:Yorkshire wasting time batting on, you'd think they would of learnt last week.
hopeforthebest wrote:Warks fragile batting is facing a big test now. I'm also surprised why with the threat of rain around Yorks continued to bat on but we shall see.


D/L wrote:SaintPowelly wrote:2 wickets in an over for Tremlett
Sidebottom doesn't take the new ball for Yorks
Sidebottom's being rested. The others are doing well, though, particularly Plunkett again. Warwickshire 37-3.
Bairstow getting some time behind the stumps in this match. Probably a request from Moores.

SaintPowelly wrote:How the hell does Javid keep getting picked by Warks ??, he's useless

Alviro Patterson wrote:SaintPowelly wrote:Yorkshire wasting time batting on, you'd think they would of learnt last week.hopeforthebest wrote:Warks fragile batting is facing a big test now. I'm also surprised why with the threat of rain around Yorks continued to bat on but we shall see.
Or Yorkshire wanting to get a big enough total to give themselves every chance of beating Warwickshire by an innings. Forecast looks good for Days 3 & 4 and the wicket at Headingley is a result one, unlike the Riverside.
If cricket was played based on weather forecasts, then this match would not have started.
hopeforthebest wrote:Alviro Patterson wrote:SaintPowelly wrote:Yorkshire wasting time batting on, you'd think they would of learnt last week.hopeforthebest wrote:Warks fragile batting is facing a big test now. I'm also surprised why with the threat of rain around Yorks continued to bat on but we shall see.
Or Yorkshire wanting to get a big enough total to give themselves every chance of beating Warwickshire by an innings. Forecast looks good for Days 3 & 4 and the wicket at Headingley is a result one, unlike the Riverside.
If cricket was played based on weather forecasts, then this match would not have started.
The extra 44 runs were unlikely to be required and so it proved. Surely it's common knowledge that Warks batting is fragile and getting into them as soon as possible was the way to go.

Alviro Patterson wrote:hopeforthebest wrote:Alviro Patterson wrote:SaintPowelly wrote:Yorkshire wasting time batting on, you'd think they would of learnt last week.hopeforthebest wrote:Warks fragile batting is facing a big test now. I'm also surprised why with the threat of rain around Yorks continued to bat on but we shall see.
Or Yorkshire wanting to get a big enough total to give themselves every chance of beating Warwickshire by an innings. Forecast looks good for Days 3 & 4 and the wicket at Headingley is a result one, unlike the Riverside.
If cricket was played based on weather forecasts, then this match would not have started.
The extra 44 runs were unlikely to be required and so it proved. Surely it's common knowledge that Warks batting is fragile and getting into them as soon as possible was the way to go.
Keith Barker and Jeetan Patel are no mugs with the bat, who have thwarted Yorkshire with their late innings cameos in recent years.
SaintPowelly wrote:Barker averages 44.86 against Yorks, with a top score of 85
Patel averages 49.50 against Yorks with a top score of 120.
KipperJohn wrote:Bell must be regretting asking Yorks to bat. He,s still there but even a ton might not be anywhere near enough to avoid following on.
Andy Flower wrote:This is going to test my coaching expertise. This is the worst case I've ever seen.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests