Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
England Cricket 2025
Comments
-
Why is it less? It's more like a T31 than a T50 so more like a T20 when the run rate is higher and you have less time to lose wicketsAddick Addict said:133-9 (31) with 54 runs scored off those 6 overs. Waiting for confirmation of Pakistan's target but it's probably going to be 20 or so runs less than our total.
The one area of concern might be the ability to grip the ball especially for the spinners. Pakistan's certainly struggled to land it in the right place post the break for rain.0 -
And they are off again for rain.0
-
It's less because we were 79-7 off 25 when the rain came i.e. the calculation takes into account the fact we were unlikely to see out 50 overs or post a meaningful target even if we had done so. Had we been 79-0, for example, then the target would have been more than the 133 we eventually posted.PrincessFiona said:
Why is it less? It's more like a T31 than a T50 so more like a T20 when the run rate is higher and you have less time to lose wicketsAddick Addict said:133-9 (31) with 54 runs scored off those 6 overs. Waiting for confirmation of Pakistan's target but it's probably going to be 20 or so runs less than our total.
The one area of concern might be the ability to grip the ball especially for the spinners. Pakistan's certainly struggled to land it in the right place post the break for rain.0 -
ah okAddick Addict said:
It's less because we were 79-7 off 25 when the rain came i.e. the calculation takes into account the fact we were unlikely to see out 50 overs or post a meaningful target even if we had done so. Had we been 79-0, for example, then the target would have been more than 131.PrincessFiona said:
Why is it less? It's more like a T31 than a T50 so more like a T20 when the run rate is higher and you have less time to lose wicketsAddick Addict said:133-9 (31) with 54 runs scored off those 6 overs. Waiting for confirmation of Pakistan's target but it's probably going to be 20 or so runs less than our total.
The one area of concern might be the ability to grip the ball especially for the spinners. Pakistan's certainly struggled to land it in the right place post the break for rain.0 -
We have to bowl another 13.1 overs for a match. The irony is that had this match been reduced to 25 overs then Pakistan's target would have been about 60 off 20 overs which they would have reached before this latest deluge.0
-
Looks like my Red position might be (luckily) nulled.0
-
DLS is a very clever (and fair) algorithm.PrincessFiona said:
ah okAddick Addict said:
It's less because we were 79-7 off 25 when the rain came i.e. the calculation takes into account the fact we were unlikely to see out 50 overs or post a meaningful target even if we had done so. Had we been 79-0, for example, then the target would have been more than 131.PrincessFiona said:
Why is it less? It's more like a T31 than a T50 so more like a T20 when the run rate is higher and you have less time to lose wicketsAddick Addict said:133-9 (31) with 54 runs scored off those 6 overs. Waiting for confirmation of Pakistan's target but it's probably going to be 20 or so runs less than our total.
The one area of concern might be the ability to grip the ball especially for the spinners. Pakistan's certainly struggled to land it in the right place post the break for rain.
0 -
England will be top of the table should it be rained off due to NRR above OZ0
-
Come on Fanny get those dancing shoes on.0
-
Hmmm. I know that the S enhanced the DL methodZulu said:
DLS is a very clever (and fair) algorithm.PrincessFiona said:
ah okAddick Addict said:
It's less because we were 79-7 off 25 when the rain came i.e. the calculation takes into account the fact we were unlikely to see out 50 overs or post a meaningful target even if we had done so. Had we been 79-0, for example, then the target would have been more than 131.PrincessFiona said:
Why is it less? It's more like a T31 than a T50 so more like a T20 when the run rate is higher and you have less time to lose wicketsAddick Addict said:133-9 (31) with 54 runs scored off those 6 overs. Waiting for confirmation of Pakistan's target but it's probably going to be 20 or so runs less than our total.
The one area of concern might be the ability to grip the ball especially for the spinners. Pakistan's certainly struggled to land it in the right place post the break for rain.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Rained off.0
-
The S is Stern who updated and improved the DL method in 2014.PrincessFiona said:
Hmmm. I know that the S enhanced the DL methodZulu said:
DLS is a very clever (and fair) algorithm.PrincessFiona said:
ah okAddick Addict said:
It's less because we were 79-7 off 25 when the rain came i.e. the calculation takes into account the fact we were unlikely to see out 50 overs or post a meaningful target even if we had done so. Had we been 79-0, for example, then the target would have been more than 131.PrincessFiona said:
Why is it less? It's more like a T31 than a T50 so more like a T20 when the run rate is higher and you have less time to lose wicketsAddick Addict said:133-9 (31) with 54 runs scored off those 6 overs. Waiting for confirmation of Pakistan's target but it's probably going to be 20 or so runs less than our total.
The one area of concern might be the ability to grip the ball especially for the spinners. Pakistan's certainly struggled to land it in the right place post the break for rain.1 -
Yep, aware of that and the change happening, just not up to speed with the algorithm - I was just being lazy and using just the initials and not the full names!Zulu said:
The S is Stern who updated and improved the DL method in 2014.PrincessFiona said:
Hmmm. I know that the S enhanced the DL methodZulu said:
DLS is a very clever (and fair) algorithm.PrincessFiona said:
ah okAddick Addict said:
It's less because we were 79-7 off 25 when the rain came i.e. the calculation takes into account the fact we were unlikely to see out 50 overs or post a meaningful target even if we had done so. Had we been 79-0, for example, then the target would have been more than 131.PrincessFiona said:
Why is it less? It's more like a T31 than a T50 so more like a T20 when the run rate is higher and you have less time to lose wicketsAddick Addict said:133-9 (31) with 54 runs scored off those 6 overs. Waiting for confirmation of Pakistan's target but it's probably going to be 20 or so runs less than our total.
The one area of concern might be the ability to grip the ball especially for the spinners. Pakistan's certainly struggled to land it in the right place post the break for rain.0 -
BAN v AUS today - BAN 73-1 off 17 yet AUS havnt moved from 1.04 all day !0
-
Australia won by 10 wickets with 202-0 off just 24.5 overs0
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-15193843/England-coach-Ashes-Paul-Collingwood-disappearance-antics-voice-note.htmlPrincessFiona said:
I have a guess, not sure why. Not really based on anything other than they are in their 40's, done a bit of commentating but not recently. But not based on anything concrete at the momentRudders22 said:
I saw your comment and just had a look. Just says renowned English cricketer?PrincessFiona said:Any ideas who the cricketer in his 40s in the news is? Clues not names if more appropriate?
Maybe?0 -
Whats this in relation to again?PrincessFiona said:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-15193843/England-coach-Ashes-Paul-Collingwood-disappearance-antics-voice-note.htmlPrincessFiona said:
I have a guess, not sure why. Not really based on anything other than they are in their 40's, done a bit of commentating but not recently. But not based on anything concrete at the momentRudders22 said:
I saw your comment and just had a look. Just says renowned English cricketer?PrincessFiona said:Any ideas who the cricketer in his 40s in the news is? Clues not names if more appropriate?
Maybe?0 -
Was a former player in their 40s under investigation earlier in the summer for an incident at a pub a few of the current squad own. Think Colly is probably too well known though for it to be him.cantersaddick said:
Whats this in relation to again?PrincessFiona said:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-15193843/England-coach-Ashes-Paul-Collingwood-disappearance-antics-voice-note.htmlPrincessFiona said:
I have a guess, not sure why. Not really based on anything other than they are in their 40's, done a bit of commentating but not recently. But not based on anything concrete at the momentRudders22 said:
I saw your comment and just had a look. Just says renowned English cricketer?PrincessFiona said:Any ideas who the cricketer in his 40s in the news is? Clues not names if more appropriate?
Maybe?1 -
was just a thought when I saw the article todayMarcusH26 said:
Was a former player in their 40s under investigation earlier in the summer for an incident at a pub a few of the current squad own. Think Colly is probably too well known though for it to be him.cantersaddick said:
Whats this in relation to again?PrincessFiona said:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-15193843/England-coach-Ashes-Paul-Collingwood-disappearance-antics-voice-note.htmlPrincessFiona said:
I have a guess, not sure why. Not really based on anything other than they are in their 40's, done a bit of commentating but not recently. But not based on anything concrete at the momentRudders22 said:
I saw your comment and just had a look. Just says renowned English cricketer?PrincessFiona said:Any ideas who the cricketer in his 40s in the news is? Clues not names if more appropriate?
Maybe?0 -
So yet another game heading for abandonment. If you were South Africa you might be pretty damn furious with Sri Lanka 46-2 and England heading for defeat before their game was curtailed.
Who could have been able to predict such weather at this time of year in what is Sri Lanka's monsoon season. Certainly not the ICC.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Sunny all day until just after the toss apparently tooAddick Addict said:So yet another game heading for abandonment. If you were South Africa you might be pretty damn furious with Sri Lanka 46-2 and England heading for defeat before their game was curtailed.
Who could have been able to predict such weather at this time of year in what is Sri Lanka's monsoon season. Certainly not the ICC.0 -
I checked and October is one of the wettest months in Colombo.Addick Addict said:So yet another game heading for abandonment. If you were South Africa you might be pretty damn furious with Sri Lanka 46-2 and England heading for defeat before their game was curtailed.
Who could have been able to predict such weather at this time of year in what is Sri Lanka's monsoon season. Certainly not the ICC.
Anyone would think it was an advantage to any team only playing there once with the other teams playing at least twice in Sri Lanka - a high chance at least 1 if not 2 of the other top teams would lose a point or 2 from a no result, meaning more chance the team only playing there once would read the semis0 -
England have appointed David Saker as their fast-bowling coach for the Ashes. Southee, England’s present fast-bowling coach, will leave the squad after the first Test in Australia to play T20 cricket in the UAE. Saker will be in place for England’s warm-up fixture against the Lions, where he and Southee will work together until Southee departs.
England have also confirmed that Paul Collingwood, who was absent from the coaching staff this summer owing to personal reasons, will not be part of the touring party.
0 -
England put in by NZ and are 12-10
-
The England side is a procession of hitters - Salt, Buttler, Bethell, Brook, Banton, Curran, Cox, Carse, Dawson, Rashid & Wood (L). They won't die wondering that's for certain.0
-
64-3 (8.1) with Bethell and Brook the latest to depart0
-
75-3 (10)
Buttler 26* (21)
Banton 9* (8)0 -
Banton goes first ball after drinks0
-
81-5 (11.2). Buttler the latest to go. There's a danger we won't be using up our overs!0
-
We're really struggling to score off the slower ball cutters that NZ have utilised as their stock ball
109-5 (16)0
