Sussex team for Worcs

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

L Wright 82 runs from 48 balls so far.

So we'll give them two sessions to get around 300.

 

[The Large One]

Well this game has turned into a right throwback to the days of 3-day cricket and contrived results. 65 scored in the last four overs of what I expect is complete dross bowling and helpful fields.

I remember Murray Goodwin scoring 150 in about 65 balls three or four years back.

It did count as a century against his name, but didn't count in the records as his 'fastest century'.

 

[The Large One]

Sussex 264/4 dec

Worcs need 300 to win.

 

[Carrot Cruncher]

I see Solanki's one over went for 19!

 

[Brovion]

Bit rough on Wright isn't it? Declaring with him on 94 not out? They way he was batting it would only have taken him another over to reach his century.

 

[Was not Was]

I remember Murray Goodwin scoring 150 in about 65 balls three or four years back.

It did count as a century against his name, but didn't count in the records as his 'fastest century'.

Middlesex at Southgate if memory serves. Middx failed dismally in their chase (surprise!) but it finished a draw as Mushy couldn't quite finish them off in time - they finished 9 down.

 

[Nathan]

See all the Worcestershire team had a go at bowling (apart from wk keeper), ahhh isn't that nice.

 

[Gwylan]

Sussex 264/4 dec

Worcs need 300 to win.

pedant alert

It's 301

 

[Carrot Cruncher]

Bit rough on Wright isn't it? Declaring with him on 94 not out? They way he was batting it would only have taken him another over to reach his century.

Was going to post the same thing, except I reckon it would've only taken 2 balls!

 

[Left Footer]

i bet glamorgan are chuffed.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Bit rough on Wright isn't it? Declaring with him on 94 not out? They way he was batting it would only have taken him another over to reach his century.

Wonder if he's pissed at not having the stat against his name, or would have been embarrassed at having been gifted it. Either way, would have been unfair on Worcs who served up that bowling with an agreed target

 

[The Large One]

i bet glamorgan are chuffed.

If Glamorgan were in Worcestershire's place, they'd insist on the same.

 

[The Great Cornholio]

Bit rough on Wright isn't it? Declaring with him on 94 not out? They way he was batting it would only have taken him another over to reach his century.

Annoys me as it shows that there was collusion and a target of 300 was agreed. So much for the saying "It's not cricket". I know it has gone on for years but doesn't make it right. When a football team needs to overturn a 12 goal deficit, you don't see their opponents let them walk 6 goals in in the first 10 minutes to give them a sporting chance. At least let Wright get his hundred and make some attempt at hiding the agreement.

 

[The Large One]

Anyone know how many overs left today?

I reckon it must be about 70.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Anyone know how many overs left today?

I reckon it must be about 70.

According to BBC Hereford and Worcester ... the target is 301 runs off a minimum of 70 overs. Lots of spin could mean more overs, though.

 

[Simster]

Annoys me as it shows that there was collusion and a target of 300 was agreed. So much for the saying "It's not cricket". I know it has gone on for years but doesn't make it right. When a football team needs to overturn a 12 goal deficit, you don't see their opponents let them walk 6 goals in in the first 10 minutes to give them a sporting chance. At least let Wright get his hundred and make some attempt at hiding the agreement.

But that's not a fair comparison at all.

I'd say a more reasonable comparison would be where two teams are playing, and a draw is no good to either of them, so their captains huddle together with 75 minutes played and the score at 0-0, and both teams agree to play without a goalkeeper. No guarantee of a result, but with goals at less of a premium the chance is much higher.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Annoys me as it shows that there was collusion and a target of 300 was agreed. So much for the saying "It's not cricket". I know it has gone on for years but doesn't make it right. When a football team needs to overturn a 12 goal deficit, you don't see their opponents let them walk 6 goals in in the first 10 minutes to give them a sporting chance. At least let Wright get his hundred and make some attempt at hiding the agreement.

The BBC Hereford and Worcester version of what happened is that it was Wright who made the declaration, by walking off when the target was reached - not even waiting for Goodwin's word from the balcony.

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

Wright didn't necessarily deserve a ton because it was served up on a plate - so didn't really miss out. Just gets 94 easy runs onto his career stats. He won't be unhappy.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

Annoys me as it shows that there was collusion and a target of 300 was agreed. So much for the saying "It's not cricket". I know it has gone on for years but doesn't make it right. When a football team needs to overturn a 12 goal deficit, you don't see their opponents let them walk 6 goals in in the first 10 minutes to give them a sporting chance. At least let Wright get his hundred and make some attempt at hiding the agreement.

Not really the same. That analogy applied to cricket would be more like getting a team 6 wickets down and then instructing your bowlers to bowl shit for a bit to let them get back in the game.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Annoys me as it shows that there was collusion and a target of 300 was agreed. So much for the saying "It's not cricket". I know it has gone on for years but doesn't make it right. When a football team needs to overturn a 12 goal deficit, you don't see their opponents let them walk 6 goals in in the first 10 minutes to give them a sporting chance. At least let Wright get his hundred and make some attempt at hiding the agreement.

Your analogy doesn't work as others have said. A better one is two football teams needing a draw to get promoted, and then colluding to produce a 0-0. None of us are happy about that going on (didn't it affect us once?) so I do see your point. Equally Sussex has nothing to gain from doing this, so we are favouring Worcs. Again in football terms, its like Man Utd fielding a weakened team last game of the season thus helping West Ham stay up. Thus you've convinced me this is not on.

If Worcs chase these runs down, and Glamorgan fight for a draw, Glamorgan would be well pissed off.