Durhamfootman wrote:First defeat for the Wobblers, I reckon. Just couldn't cope with 12 wicket Mags, in the end. I was in a fairly good position, this morning, because I had 2 quality bowlers with whole innings to bowl, but sadly they didn't deliver the wickets, and not that many were even needed. The declaration by Worcs didn't help when I had a batsman in the runs and a bowler in the wickets. It was unfortunate that Gary Wilson was away with Ireland because the match ended up being so close that Foakes' 5 dismissals behind the stumps were the difference between winning and losing, but ultimately it was the managers fatal and surprising error to leave 8 wicket Raine on the bench, when he thought he'd including him, that ultimately cost his team the win. Well played to SP, his 10 men were better than my 11 in this match
Any errors, please let me know
sussexpob wrote:Any errors, please let me know
Stuart Meaker took three wickets..... the RPW difference that DFM won by was less than a boundary..... approximately 0.15 runs per wicket difference
It was 10 v 11 too.... incredible really. Had Palladino not come in for one over at the end and scored 5 I would have won!!!
Less than a FRIGGING BOUNDARY
hopeforthebest wrote:Ian, for crying out loud can't you post a simple table of points rather than these confusing tables of innumerable columns of carried forwards and ratios that mean nothing unless there's a tie on points at the end of the competition. I have no idea how many points I have from theses tables. If there is such a thing as too much information those tables prove it.
ianp1970 wrote:hopeforthebest wrote:Ian, for crying out loud can't you post a simple table of points rather than these confusing tables of innumerable columns of carried forwards and ratios that mean nothing unless there's a tie on points at the end of the competition. I have no idea how many points I have from theses tables. If there is such a thing as too much information those tables prove it.
Like this?
sussexpob wrote:ianp1970 wrote:hopeforthebest wrote:Ian, for crying out loud can't you post a simple table of points rather than these confusing tables of innumerable columns of carried forwards and ratios that mean nothing unless there's a tie on points at the end of the competition. I have no idea how many points I have from theses tables. If there is such a thing as too much information those tables prove it.
Like this?
Perfect
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 70 guests