Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2015 7:32:06 GMT
So to have the courage to bat again and not follow on is wrong, Borderman, even though both captains were proved right as their sides won? Not a lot of logic there then. The fact that Middlesex were 37-7 is utterly irrelevant. Look at the result.Spymaster - excellent analysis. lol! Unbelievable comment of the week...the sort of thing Kitchener might have said after the Battle of the Somme! |
|
|
|
Post by howardh on May 7, 2015 9:56:39 GMT
Be alert - your country needs lerts!
|
|
|
|
Post by deepfineleg on May 7, 2015 11:33:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on May 7, 2015 11:39:31 GMT
Thanks dfl. I also came across the Salford Business School report - clearly not the kind of analysis of anyone interested in cricket, but a fascinating piece of academic methodology!  |
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on May 7, 2015 13:35:29 GMT
Thanks dfl. I also came across the Salford Business School report - clearly not the kind of analysis of anyone interested in cricket, but a fascinating piece of academic methodology! Epidemic what? Slow down Einstein. Put simply, it is usually correct to enforce the follow on but on occasions it isn't - like if your bowlers are shagged out. Joyce and Voges were wrong to not enforce, regardless of the result - they unnecessarily opened a door or two, in my book; The Big Book of Unnecessarily Opening a Door or Two - available at all minor bookshops. P.S. The criticism was pretty tepid Howard, let's not turn this into the molly-coddled old Board. |
|
|
|
Post by howardh on May 7, 2015 18:52:36 GMT
Try this for tepid criticism ..
In which positions are Middlesex and Sussex?
That will be first and second then. Negative.. schmegitive.
Big up for Adam and Ed.
|
|
