
Alviro Patterson wrote:Can't fault Yorkshire's efforts with the ball, fielding on the other hand has been abysmal. Gubbins should have been caught twice (Rafiq at point, Ballance at slips). Lyth's low drop against Malan was catchable, but not clear cut with the slip cordon that bit closer due to little bounce on the wicket.
If anything, the Somerset game is making it harder for Yorkshire to retain the crown. 400 runs in 110 overs with 4 recognised batsman, including an out of form Gale and an inconsistent top 3 is a huge ask.
budgetmeansbudget wrote:Just seen the Somerset score, complete collapse.
7 wickets for 20 runs after 2 wickets for 302.
cricketfan90 wrote:bonkers that lights are there, and they can't use them,,,just seems ridioclous

cricketfan90 wrote:apparently the new ball done the damage
Alviro Patterson wrote:cricketfan90 wrote:bonkers that lights are there, and they can't use them,,,just seems ridioclous
All to do with planning permission, Middlesex can only switch on the floodlights for so many days a year and it's not that many compared to other counties. For example, Yorkshire can switch the floodlights at Headingley for a maximum of 20 days a year.
hopeforthebest wrote:Warwickshire all out 219 with one bonus point, which in itself is a rare occurrence.
Arthur Crabtree wrote:Nothing with the new ball for Yorks so far. Could be a frustrating day.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest