pasty
A different kind of pasty
What are you going on about? 6 runs ahead with 5 wickets down doesn't make it 6/5!
Hence the use of the word effectively in my original post.
What are you going on about? 6 runs ahead with 5 wickets down doesn't make it 6/5!
Hence the use of the word effectively in my original post.
But it's not effectively 6/5. If we were behind after our first innings, and this was our second innings, giving us a lead of 6, we would effectively be 6/5. But we're effectively 163/5, leading 27, with 5 wickets remaining.Hence the use of the word effectively in my original post.
It would only have been effectively 6 for 4 if we didn't have another innings to go.Hence the use of the word effectively in my original post.
Bit it isn't effectively is it? If we were 6 runs ahead in our SECOND innings then it would be valid.
But it's not effectively 6/5. If we were behind after our first innings, and this was our second innings, giving us a lead of 6, we would effectively be 6/5. But we're effectively 163/5, leading 27, with 5 wickets remaining.
It would only have been effectively 6 for 4 if we didn't have another innings to go.
This is an understable mistake to make after years of watch England attempt to claw back a first innings deficit. As it is, we have 15 wickets left and more runs than the Aussies, who only have 10 wickets left.
Oh bollox to the lot of you - I know what I mean
Or England are effectively 42 for -5 wickets.Yeah, but it is nonsense, right?
The only thing that is effectively is Australia -41 for 0 wicket in their 2nd innings.
What is wrong with them? Make them toil, leave the wide ones. Why do they always throw the bat? There are 11 whole sessions to go in this test, yet three of our batsmen have got out playing stupid shots, two of those once they are set. It is so infuriating.
Oh I'm well aware of our ability to **** it up, I was just surprised you required that much of a collapse for the Aussies to win. If we're skittled out for under 100 I think we'll be in trouble.