England v Australia, Only Test, Wormsley, 11-14 August 2013

They're Fin' the Poms in the kin' A!

Showing their "Women" (pace Mokehh) up at CLS the way to do it.

Women showing the men how to do it. Started after the men and bowled 100 overs before they finished.

Australia 3/243 at stumps. Sarah Elliott to have a restless night you'd reckon.

Gary 111 wrote:What do we call the bat wielding persons?

Batsperson? Batswoman? Batter? Still Batsman? Batchick?

The women almost always say batsman.

"Man" used generically (= human) rather than male of the species. Or possibly to avoid something that might sound awkward/ridiculous.

Man is mankind. Woman comes from the Saxon 'wife man'.

Which is why a lot of the feminists sound stooped.

Not looking good for the English Roses. 4 down now.

Gary 111 wrote:What do we call the bat wielding persons?

Batsperson? Batswoman? Batter? Still Batsman? Batchick?

batf**k returns

not chicks ... battery hens?

Stop being so poultrist.

lardbucket wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:I'm a big fan of Ellyse Perry. Although you have to get past the fact she looks a little bit like Stuart Broad.

After yesterday you'd probably boff him anyway, surely.

Aye, would deserve a good noshing after that Test. Although he was too busy PENETRATING the Oz lower regions today.

Time for Ellyse to get stuck in tomorrow.

Currently:

Australia Women 331/6 (dec; 124 overs)
England Women 286/8 (125 overs)

Because of a 4-day format, an early declaration. But looks like some good old-fashioned Yorksher batting. Maybe the England and Aus (Men's) top orders should be there to larn sumpn.

(To be less arch - the England Women's batting collapsed atrociously too, and the scorecard is even more lopsided than the Men's - saved by Heather Knight's 157 and Laura Marsh's 43 not so far.)

Sporting declaration by Australia, esp bearing in mind this is the only Test:

EW set 249 off 45 to win.

Not sure they have the firepower to get it - or (unless they get a flying start, without the bails flying) even go for it for very long.

Looks like it was a solid game of cricket.

Well done to them.

Why couldn't they have had a fifth day?

beamer wrote:Why couldn't they have had a fifth day?

I almost read that as a filth Day, but yes I agree.

They should have one of those, too.

When they've got that and those, why would they need that too?

Oh.