Stanford 20:20 For 20m Spoilers

regulus · 1 Nov 2008 at 22:01

It's up to Pietersen now to save us. If he goes, it'll be next to impossible to get a decent score.

regulus · 1 Nov 2008 at 22:06

Not many boundries at all. Think I remember seeing 3 "fours". I've seen quicker scoring in Tests.

regulus · 1 Nov 2008 at 22:06

Pietersen out

Edit. Like a novice he goes and open his leg stumps. I've seen better batting from a pub team

Rotty · 1 Nov 2008 at 22:09

great

never mind an England win it looks like we are going to be deprived of a decent game too :mad:

cymatty · 1 Nov 2008 at 22:12

This is poor.

regulus · 1 Nov 2008 at 22:22

*sighs*

ringo747 · 1 Nov 2008 at 22:24

I always thought england wouldn't win...this is getting embarrasing.

regulus · 1 Nov 2008 at 22:24

This shocking, pathetic, slow and rubbish English performance is only winding me up. Pray that our scum puts up a half decent bowling performance.

regulus · 1 Nov 2008 at 22:26

Oh, didn't even finish my last beer before we dropped another wicket. It'll be a result if we get 80 runs all out and last until the 10th over in their batting innings. As usual, we've bottled it when the pressure is on.

regulus · 1 Nov 2008 at 22:31

Haha, another one

59-7

Words fail me..

regulus · 1 Nov 2008 at 22:34

double post

Fothsn · 1 Nov 2008 at 23:06

All out for 99! WOW what a performance for England :rolleyes:

sunama · 1 Nov 2008 at 23:16

2 questions:
1. I dont watch 20-20 cricket, but what would be a respectable score in a 20-20 match?
2. Given that England arent the best cricketing side in the World (I believe that that accolade belongs to Australia), why have England and not Australia, been pitted against the Superstars?

Psycho Ned · 1 Nov 2008 at 23:24

England could have already had 2 wickets, need to take those chances if you're going to win with such a dire score.

Rotty · 1 Nov 2008 at 23:26

sunama said:
2 questions:
1. I dont watch 20-20 cricket, but what would be a respectable score in a 20-20 match?
2. Given that England arent the best cricketing side in the World (I believe that that accolade belongs to Australia), why have England and not Australia, been pitted against the Superstars?

1. 180 ish

2.bigger TV audience

sunama · 1 Nov 2008 at 23:32

Rotty said:
1. 180 ish

Oh dear.
Then 99 all out, is definitely a poor effort.

Perhaps it was down to the fact that the team are suffering from food poisoning?

Psycho Ned · 1 Nov 2008 at 23:43

Food poisoning? Lack of any ability in limited overs cricket is probably nearer the truth!

Being made to look total mugs now the Superstars just slogging them all over the field.

sunama · 1 Nov 2008 at 23:56

regulus said:
Not many boundries at all. Think I remember seeing 3 "fours". I've seen quicker scoring in Tests.

regulus said:
Pietersen out

Edit. Like a novice he goes and open his leg stumps. I've seen better batting from a pub team

Rotty said:
great

never mind an England win it looks like we are going to be deprived of a decent game too

regulus said:
Haha, another one

59-7

Words fail me..

Fothsn said:
All out for 99! WOW what a performance for England

Psycho Ned said:
Food poisoning? Lack of any ability in limited overs cricket is probably nearer the truth!

Being made to look total mugs now the Superstars just slogging them all over the field.

This is the first time I've read a cricket thread, but you guys are a tough audience.

sunama · 1 Nov 2008 at 23:59

71-0 after 8 overs.
That score kind of makes England's score look very pathetic.

wedgie · 2 Nov 2008 at 00:04

sunama said:
That score kind of makes England's score look very pathetic.

Nah, Englands score looks pathetic on it's own.

Stanford 20:20 For 20m **Spoilers**

Stanford 20:20 For 20m Spoilers