Re: World Cup 2015

by Blackadder Fri 20 Feb 2015, 04:20

FMD, Are the Snoozies THAT good, or the Poms THAT bad. jawdrop

by horace Fri 20 Feb 2015, 04:20

The RRR is 0.57 runs per over

by Paul Keating Fri 20 Feb 2015, 04:21

Farkin Guptil farks up any chances of a world record 100.

by embee Fri 20 Feb 2015, 04:21

Poms leading something ....

Innings by innings list
Player Overs BPO Mdns Runs Wkts EconDescending Inns Opposition Ground Start Date
ST Finn (Eng) 2.0 6 0 49 0 24.50 2 v New Zealand Wellington 20 Feb 2015 investigate this query
R Rampaul (WI) 3.0 6 0 64 0 21.33 1 v New Zealand Queenstown 1 Jan 2014 investigate this query
Shahadat Hossain (Ban) 2.0 6 0 38 0 19.00 2 v New Zealand Queenstown 31 Dec 2007 investigate this query
E Chigumbura (Zim) 2.0 6 0 36 0 18.00 1 v India Bulawayo 28 May 2010 investigate this query
JF Mooney (Ire) 2.0 6 0 35 0 17.50 2 v Netherlands Ayr 8 Aug 2006 investigate this query
Akram Khan (Ban) 2.0 6 0 34 0 17.00 1 v Sri Lanka Colombo (SSC) 22 Jul 1997 investigate this query
PA Strang (Zim) 2.0 6 0 34 0 17.00 2 v South Africa Nairobi (Gym) 28 Sep 1999 investigate this query
DR Smith (WI) 4.0 6 0 68 0 17.00 1 v South Africa Johannesburg 18 Jan 2015 investigate this query
AJ Hollioake (Eng) 2.0 6 0 33 0 16.50 1 v West Indies Port of Spain 8 Apr 1998 investigate this query
A Codrington (Can) 2.0 6 0 33 0 16.50 2 v New Zealand Benoni 3 Mar 2003 investigate this query
H Osinde (Can) 2.0 6 0 33 1 16.50 2 v Bermuda Nairobi (Gym) 2 Feb 2007 investigate this query
CH Gayle (WI) 2.0 6 0 33 0 16.50 1 v Australia Basseterre 6 Jul 2008 investigate this query
Dolar Mahmud (Ban) 3.0 6 0 49 0 16.33 1 v Sri Lanka Lahore 25 Jun 2008 investigate this query
EL Gouka (Neth) 2.0 6 0 32 1 16.00 1 v South Africa Rawalpindi 5 Mar 1996 investigate this query
Shahid Nazir (Pak) 2.0 6 0 32 0 16.00 2 v Sri Lanka Nairobi (Gym) 4 Oct 1996 investigate this query
DL Hemp (Ber) 2.0 6 0 32 0 16.00 1 v India Port of Spain 19 Mar 2007 investigate this query
S Sreesanth (India) 3.0 6 0 48 0 16.00 2 v Sri Lanka Canberra 12 Feb 2008 investigate this query
RA Jadeja (India) 2.4 6 0 41 0 15.37 1 v Australia Melbourne 5 Feb 2012 investigate this query
Suhrawadi Shuvo (Ban) 3.0 6 0 46 0 15.33 2 v Australia Dhaka 11 Apr 2011 investigate this query
LN Onyango (Kenya) 3.0 6 0 45 1 15.00 1 v South Africa Nairobi (Gym) 3 Oct 1996 investigate this query
LP van Troost (Neth) 4.0 6 0 59 1 14.75 1 v South Africa Basseterre 16 Mar 2007 investigate this query
SO Tikolo (Afr) 4.0 6 0 59 0 14.75 1 v Asia XI Chennai 10 Jun 2007

by embee Fri 20 Feb 2015, 04:26

well that spoils the fun

by embee Fri 20 Feb 2015, 04:26

Paul Keating wrote:Mathematically McCullum can still get the fastest hundred.

Just needs his partner not to score any runs and to hit a boundary when on 99.

nice pinko maths

by lardbucket Fri 20 Feb 2015, 04:33

Good grief, Charlie Brown - utter carnage.

by skully Fri 20 Feb 2015, 04:33

40 min break to wait for the 12 NZ need to win. Laughing

by Blackadder Fri 20 Feb 2015, 04:36

skully wrote:40 min break to wait for the 12 NZ need to win.

Edge of our seat stuff, the big question is how manly balls of the next over after the lunch break will be bowled.

by lardbucket Fri 20 Feb 2015, 04:42

Rain could yet intervene to give England 2 points.

by Paul Keating Fri 20 Feb 2015, 04:42

embee wrote:
Paul Keating wrote:Mathematically McCullum can still get the fastest hundred.

Just needs his partner not to score any runs and to hit a boundary when on 99.

nice pinko maths

I meant hit a boundary when the team score was on 123.

BM would probably have been on 94 or 96 runs at that stage.

by embee Fri 20 Feb 2015, 04:44

Paul Keating wrote:
embee wrote:
Paul Keating wrote:Mathematically McCullum can still get the fastest hundred.

Just needs his partner not to score any runs and to hit a boundary when on 99.

nice pinko maths

I meant hit a boundary when the team score was on 123.

BM would probably have been on 94 or 96 runs at that stage.

yes Mr Bowen

by tricycle Fri 20 Feb 2015, 04:47

taipan wrote:NRR is going to be interesting.

It shall be fondly remembered.

by lardbucket Fri 20 Feb 2015, 04:50

embee wrote:
Paul Keating wrote:
embee wrote:
Paul Keating wrote:Mathematically McCullum can still get the fastest hundred.

Just needs his partner not to score any runs and to hit a boundary when on 99.

nice pinko maths

I meant hit a boundary when the team score was on 123.

BM would probably have been on 94 or 96 runs at that stage.

yes Mr Bowen

It is slightly alarming arithmetic.

by horace Fri 20 Feb 2015, 04:54

embee wrote:
Paul Keating wrote:
embee wrote:
Paul Keating wrote:Mathematically McCullum can still get the fastest hundred.

Just needs his partner not to score any runs and to hit a boundary when on 99.

nice pinko maths

I meant hit a boundary when the team score was on 123.

BM would probably have been on 94 or 96 runs at that stage.

yes Mr Mad Monk

by horace Fri 20 Feb 2015, 04:58

I actually hope the Big Cheese shuts the forum for 24 hours to protect our English mates and as some sort of respectful memorial for English cricket

by Paul Keating Fri 20 Feb 2015, 04:58

lardbucket wrote:
embee wrote:
Paul Keating wrote:
embee wrote:
Paul Keating wrote:Mathematically McCullum can still get the fastest hundred.

Just needs his partner not to score any runs and to hit a boundary when on 99.

nice pinko maths

I meant hit a boundary when the team score was on 123.

BM would probably have been on 94 or 96 runs at that stage.

yes Mr Bowen

It is slightly alarming arithmetic.

What is alarming about it. At the time there was 40 or so runs left to get. Enough for a hundred. Even the commentators were saying it.

by lardbucket Fri 20 Feb 2015, 04:59

was not complicated ... the ball before Mukka was dismissed:

>>>

McCullum is 77 (needing 23). NZ need 19. If he hits four sixes and takes no other runs, he just gets the hundred

<<<

England only needed to bowl a wide or two to stop him, or concede some runs to Guptill, and that was always highly likely.

by embee Fri 20 Feb 2015, 04:59

horace wrote:
embee wrote:
Paul Keating wrote:
embee wrote:
Paul Keating wrote:Mathematically McCullum can still get the fastest hundred.

Just needs his partner not to score any runs and to hit a boundary when on 99.

nice pinko maths

I meant hit a boundary when the team score was on 123.

BM would probably have been on 94 or 96 runs at that stage.

yes Mr Mad Monk

wow h ...that's a bigger fail than ponts ...are you BS?

by Paul Keating Fri 20 Feb 2015, 05:03

lardbucket wrote:was not complicated ... the ball before Mukka was dismissed:

>>>

McCullum is 77 (needing 23). NZ need 19. If he hits four sixes and takes no other runs, he just gets the hundred

<<<

England only needed to bowl a wide or two to stop him, or concede some runs to Guptill, and that was always highly likely.

I posted well before the second last ball that BM faced.

And I said that Guptil stuffed up any chance of a record ton in any case.

by Paul Keating Fri 20 Feb 2015, 05:03

I posted when they needed 40 runs to get NOT 19 runs. Pretty simple.

by Blackadder Fri 20 Feb 2015, 05:04

by furriner Fri 20 Feb 2015, 05:06

This world cup- Fear and Loathing In The Antipodes.

by lardbucket Fri 20 Feb 2015, 05:09

when the ball he got out on was bowled, the mathematical possibility of a hundred was still there, but there was no chance of him making 99, 94*, or 96 and still getting there.

*Not unless we get into silly 'one short' or deliberate sacrificial run-out of partners running scenarios.

by horace Fri 20 Feb 2015, 05:09

embee] are you BS? [embee

now that is plain nasty...akin to suggesting you were the financial adviser to Alan Bond and Brian Burke

by Sponsored content