On 17 Sep 2010 at 9:15, Robert Heath wrote: > Didn't I tell you? > > All those Wanks had to do was bat out 18 overs without losing 3 wickets to > prevent Notts from being champions. And?.............11 for 3 after 5 > overs. Pathetic.
You jest "all they had to do ... " Notts have got a pretty good team so it's not really a surprise, after all with the frustation of rain and so much play lost they where up for it and Lancs did a fairly good job, nearly denied them the last batting bonus point which would have been interesting as they'd have needed two bowling bonus points. Interesting would have been if Lancs had forfeited their first inning or declared when two wickets down but then things would have smelt fishy and Notts would have good cause to feel agrieved Of course if Somerset had got a better grip and bowled Durham out for less in the second innings they'd have won and none of this would have mattered. Even better would have been the Somerset result staying as it was and Yorkshire winning against Kent, which they should have. They'd have then finished on 216 points. Even if Notts had bowled Lancs out they would have only equalled that total. Wins would have been the same but Yorkshire would have lost less giving them the title so why did Yorkshire let it slip ... guy _______________________________________________ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email [email protected] MARCHING ON TOGETHER
