Durhamfootman wrote:well you say that, but we haven't had the obligatory century stand between the last recognised batsman and one of the tail enders yet
if we get one of those, this will be done and dusted by lunch tomorrow
westoelad wrote:Durhamfootman wrote:well you say that, but we haven't had the obligatory century stand between the last recognised batsman and one of the tail enders yet
if we get one of those, this will be done and dusted by lunch tomorrow
I admire your optimism that it'll last that long. Admire that Yorkies appear to be reverting to old in fielding an almost entirely Yorkshire born XI.
Would Durham not have been better off by the likes of Steel S, Trevaskis, Jones been given opportunities in what is an essentially meaningless competition?
captaincolly wrote:Finally out for a lead of 96. I think it is probably worth about 296. Second innings fightbacks have been a speciality but I'm on the verge of writing this off!
westoelad wrote:captaincolly wrote:Finally out for a lead of 96. I think it is probably worth about 296. Second innings fightbacks have been a speciality but I'm on the verge of writing this off!
If their rooky last pair can last 12 overs the Yorkies will never get our lot out
Durhamfootman wrote:I suppose our inability to rattle through a tail has something to do with our lack of a spinner of any sort of quality. Hants were able to bring on Mason Crane in their game and he ran through 9, 10, Jack. We can't do that.
Maybe next year we need to sign Roston Chase to fill the Blackwell role of old..... save us every time we struggle with the bat and then help us tidy up with the ball
Arthur Crabtree wrote:Sides level with the side batting third losing two wickets. That's my usual formula for a game being all square.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests