Username
Password
Wierdness @ Lord's

Declares on 50?
By Grockle
May 31 2007
After a rain soaked first day and with wickets falling all over the place, Justin Langer has declared our first innings on 50 for 8 90 minutes into the second day. What the hell is going on? Little play on Day 1. 3 balls, off for light and then 90 minutes at the end of the day where we lost 4 wickets for almost nothing has been followed by another four in the first hour of Day 2 for even less!

v Middlesex LVCC2 @ Lords Wednesday 30 May 2007

Scorecard

Charminder Vaas is in for the home side according to the BBC - but not according to the side reported on Cricinfo!!.  No idea about ours at the moment but I don't expect many changes from the side against Gloucestershire.  The only doubt is Marcus Trescothick who may be out with tendonitis in his ankle.

The match can be followed on local radio.  At the moment it seems only to be via RealPlayer at the link below

Radio London - Middlesex CC

Well BBC London haven't started yet but the game seems to have - at least 3 balls have been bowled. Silverwood bowled those and the umpires took them off for bad light!! (Do they actually bother to check before they go out?)

Marcus starts and so Matt Wood misses out again and so does Mark Turner as Steffan Jones returns in his place.  The side is;

Trescothick, Edwards, Langer, Hildreth, White, Blackwell, Trego, Keiswetter, Jones, Caddick, Willoughby

Nothing happened at all for most of the Day as the rain kept them off the pitch until just after 5 when the weather let up and we had the opportunity of getting about an hour in.

Chris Silverwood seemed to be keen for the time but our batsmen didn't with the ball swinging all over the place. Edwards went LBW to the ex-Yorkshireman with only 9 scored but that wasn't it as the skipper then lasted only 6 balls and didn't score before being clean bowled by the same man.  Marcus went 10 runs later to Murtagh and White only stayed around for 5 minutes before he was caught behind off Wright!!  We finished on 36 for 4!!

If you want to see what a person at the ground - with a bit of a home bias - saw of the first day...here you go

The Janet and Ged show

Day 2

A big day for Ian Blackwell and James Hildreth to put this game back in a competitive mode.  Unfortunately, nothing seemed to have changed as far as we are concerned and Hildreth went without adding to the overnight score LBW to Richardson.  IB therefore had to look to Peter Trego to help him establlish something. 

1 run later and he was looking for someone else to help as Trego was LBW to Silverwood at 37.  But with Keiswetter at the crease it didn't help much because Blackie was gone by 43 as he sent a catch to Shah off Richardson.  Into the tail, but Murtagh took the young South African at 48 caught behind and Langer decided enough was enough and DECLARED at 50 for 8.

Taking into account that we criticised David Sales for declaring and denying a bonus point in the game against Northants, was Langer justified in choosing to declare here?  Well the radio commentators have been very kind to him and you have to look at the score and ask "what was the point in asking the bowlers to bat?".  I'm sure that Middlesex will complain and it will probably get them somewhere based on the rule brought in 3 years ago to stop captain's declarations denying the other side bonus points.  I suppose the judges will have to decide whether they feel it was a justified decision or not.  It certainly improved the chances of making a game of it - but would our batting tail have denied Middlesex for much longer anyway?

From a Somerset point of view, should he have declared?  Most definitely and it shows the kind of player he is because he decided not to follow a lost cause and to get his bowlers on the field before the pitch dried out in order to get amongst the opposition front line.

Unfortunately, his bowlers did not respond to the challenge and we have not got the early wickets that our skipper hoped for.  A lunch we haven't instigated the same kind of miserable performance from the 'Sex.  They stand 2 runs ahead of our first innings score with all their wickets intact.  Line and length eluded our attack and although we got tight bowling we haven't had the kind of penetration that Silverwood and Richardson managed last night and this morning.

There is now a 40 minute break for the pitch to dry out even more.  A frank talking to in the dressing room for the Somerset side and unless something changes.....a long day in the field today and probably tomorrow before we have to bat to save a game that we failed to create a chance to win in the first 2 hours.  It doesn't look hopeful and we may well have to rely on the Middlesex unit failing to capitalise rather than the formidable fighting defence of our own players.

It didn't get a whole lot better just after lunch as the Middlesex men started to accelerate away towards the 100. It did start to swing and although Caddick was still bowling too short, Jones looked to take advantage and had Godleman caught by Trescothick on 45 with 97 up.  That started a mini collapse which Willoughby initiated by taking Compton at 105, Shah at 117 and Smith at 125.  Joyce stuck around although Caddick did offer him more than one bouncer which he tried valiantly to hook to a fielder - a problem he's going to have to sort if he wants an international career.

Nash fell first, cheaply to Trego, at 161.  Joyce finally managed to flip a catch to Edwards off Blackwell at 169 before the woefully out of form Dalrymple ushered in Tea by whacking a daft shot to Jones off Trego.  Tea came with a much better situation for us.  Middlesex haven't pushed on the morning score enough.  They lost 7 wickets for 122 runs in the session and are only 125 ahead on a drying pitch at 175 for 7.

IF we can get them out for under 200 - 150-ish ahead - AND then occupy the crease for a day and more then we have a chance in this game and possibly even a winning chance.  It's a long shot but it's more likely than it was at lunchtime today!!

The next session is very crucial to the result of this game!!

The rest of the game is better handled by those who were actually there although the result wasn't what we wanted it to be...

From AG2

"Chris Silverwood was magnificent and by far and away the best bowler on view. I think he took 6 for 50 in our innings and the other bowlers, between them, took something like 5 for 350 on the day. And this was emphatically not an occasion when the stats told any kind of lie. Supreme line, generally pretty good length and consistently got the ball both to move away from the right-hander and to come back down the slope.

Kieswetter again played a dissappointing shot to get out. At least he waited until today to do it, rather than getting out last night. No doubt, he will learn with experience.

Much more dissappointing was Ian's dismissal. Like Kieswetter it was his second soft dismissal of the match. His lack of form in the long-game is beginning to concern me.

Trego got an absolute snorter from Silverwood, so no culpability on his part.

Langer got a pretty good ball from Murtagh and departed with the derision of the home fans ringing in his ears.

Cam and Hildreth then played excellently until lunch and for about 1/2 an hour afterwards. Then Cam followed a slightly wide one, which was swiftly followed by Ian's diffident drive, straight to gully.

Steffan then played enormously well. At the minute, you'd have to say Ian's place in the side would be as a bowler, and Jonah's as a batsman (!).

As soon as the new ball was taken, and Silverwood returned in grim light, it was evident that the end was likely to be nigh - and sure enough it was. The home fans in my section thought that Caddy got a rough decision. I wasn't so sure.

When they batted, Caddy's first over was indescribably bad. After that, he settled okay and bowled fair enough, but with insufficient menace. Willow was 'quite good,' but, again, insufficiently menacing. Trego bowled presentably in a very short spell and got the wicket.

Time to do a rain dance for tomorrow.

Overall, a much more enjoyable day and it was good to see us salvage pride and better still to see Hildreth play."

We fought and Hildreth and Jones played magnificently but that first innings just did us.  It left us far too muchh to do.  The last day they needed 130 ish and although Trego got 2 and Jones took another, they completed the required 138 and beat us by 7 wickets.  Not important but we do need to learn from it very quickly!!

View a Printer Friendly version of this Story.

Bookmark or share this story with:

Wierdness @ Lord's
Posted by: Grockles.com (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 11:58

Wierdness @ Lord's

Re: Wierdness @ Lord's
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 12:39

What is the reason please about Middlesex passing 51. I can see that by declaring with 8 down Middlesex lose a point. Are you saying he should have waited until the 9th wicket or is there a regulation I don't know.
You are allowed an unusual declaration ifs it enchances your
chances of winning. It would seem to me that getting Msex in did that...even if it didn't work.

Re: Wierdness @ Lord's
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 12:49

Nope...ignore me Geordie...it's the pills. The issue about points is the 8 wickets one. Our batting has absolutely nothing to do with Middlesex's bonus situation.(Sm54)



(Sm72)

Re: Wierdness @ Lord's
Posted by: Tony in the Pit of Despair (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 15:13

Listening to the commentary on London Radio. Somerset's bowling described as amateurish and embarassing. Couple that with our batting display and that could truely described as weird

Re: Wierdness @ Lord's
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 15:21

No-one going at more than 3.8.
Reducing them to 161 for 5, which despite our earlier effort is probably a below-par score.
They wouldn't be home commentators, as is the norm with BBC local radio, would they, by any chance?

Re: Wierdness @ Lord's
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 15:27

He seems very fair to be honest. We didn't bowl line and length, Caddick bowled too short and we didn't capitalise on the declaration - which the commentator was defending very strongly.

He also discussed the rule about pitches. He pointed out that if Swansea was docked for being bowler friendly then why haven't other pitches (Taunton included) been docked for being batsman friendly?

He pointed out that points are only supposed to be docked if the pitch is dangerous - Swansea it seems wasn't dangerous and neither is the Lord's wicket.

He also read out my e-mail but can't pronounce 'Babbies' - flaming Londoners!!



(Sm72)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007:05:31:15:28:34 by Grockle.

Re: Wierdness @ Lord's
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 16:06

That seems fair enough Grockle.
I can see that it may have been fair to describe the new ball overs as "amateurish" but it just didn't seem a fair summary of the whole innings, thatb was all.

Re: Wierdness @ Lord's
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 17:25

Yep he must have been refferring to the first hour when we really needed tight decisive bowling and didn't get it. They've just been waxing about Trigger who they know well and see as a real loss for them and recoup for us.



(Sm72)

Re: Wierdness @ Lord's
Posted by: Brother Of (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 17:31

nice one bro mop up another tail.

Re: Wierdness @ Lord's
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 17:47

He may need a good session with the bat as well Bro because we're two down with sod all on the board and 7 overs still to gfo tonight!



(Sm72)

Re: Wierdness @ Lord's
Posted by: Congar (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 18:22

I also thought that the Radio London commentator was quite fair compared with some we have heard. He expressed disappointment with the way Somerset had bowled in the first part of the innings making it clear that he would rather see both sides playing quality competitive cricket rather than what was served up by the bowlers.

He also read my email but had problems pronouncing "Nassau".

Re: Wierdness @ Lord's
Posted by: Botham (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 18:25

My emails would have been x rated, had I not been too busy to send them!

Re: Wierdness @ Lord's
Posted by: Haringey Racer (IP Logged)
Date: 01/06/2007 08:08

Grockle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> He pointed out that points are only supposed to be
> docked if the pitch is dangerous - Swansea it
> seems wasn't dangerous and neither is the Lord's
> wicket.
>
There's a scale of deductions: a 'poor' pitch will cost 8 points for a first offence, but a 'dangerous' pitch is penalised more heavily (25, I think)

Re: Wierdness @ Lord's
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 01/06/2007 08:47

They then went into a long debate about how you define a batsman friendly pitch and kept refering to the Taunton strip as if it was the only one in the country that any runs had been scored on in the last month and a half!!

It's a knotty one but I think the idea that if you aren't using the yardstick of 'danger' then penalising bowler AND batsman friendly strips to provide balance is only fair.



(Sm72)

We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: tufnell parka (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 10:53

genius idea in my view

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 11:00

That is a superb piece of captaincy.

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 11:06

My wife had been shouting for Langer to do the same for most of the morning.
He must have heard her.
I know I did.

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: cow corner (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 11:12

Good on Langer

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 11:17

A shame they didn't get full bonus points isn't it?

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 11:22

So what are we realistically hoping for?
Keep them under 150 and bat a lot better second time around in hopefully more favourable conditions?

Also, with the greatest respect to Caddy, if it's swing doing the damage, might Trigger not have been a better bet first up?

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 11:23

No looking good, come on we want wickets

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Shepton Paul (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 11:31

SPot on, BJ - I guess it's all about league points - we weren't going to get any for our batting and we've deprived them of one...fair enough.

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 11:45

Maybe they've looked at the weather and decided it's not gonna finish in four days and they've got more chance of bowling points than batting ones (pretty obvious that one!)

At 50 for 8 there wasn't a lot of point staying around was there really. If it's a minefield, get them in, if it isn't get our lot off!!



(Sm72)

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Bobstan (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 11:53

The declaration was Bradman-esque.
Unfortunately, when he did it it invariably led to wickets galore for Australia. Not so thus far for us.

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Blub (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 15:01

Would I be correct inthinking that some County did something similar last season and got docked points?

I believe it was considered un-sportsmanlike as they were denying bowling points.

Not saying that this is the same situation, just raising for debate!

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 15:13

Middlesex will complain and may get something. I think we complained about Sales' declaration earlier this season and I think he got something as well.



(Sm72)

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 15:38

It seems to me that the 2 situations are nowhere near the same.
Sales declared immediately he had got full batting points
He was on 150no and was 240 behind (therefore invitinh the follow on)
Langer declared with no points, on a bowlers wicket in the hope of taking wickets and thereby improving Somerset's chances.
Sales had no chance of a win.

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 15:55

And that is basically what the commentator on BBC London said. But Middlesex will still complain I would imagine!



(Sm72)

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Trevor Gard's Box (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 16:05

SCC's has a history with "technicalities" in early declarations though bearing in mind a certain B & H zonal match v. Worc. in 1979. I'm not drawing any comparisons but Brian Rose at least spans the ages. Last time SCC were largely attacked on the basis of their actions being totally against the spirit of the game. I'm not taking sides, just raising the issue. I'm sure that 1979 was a happier, gentler and more sporting time with less at stake and fewer brains thinking along lateral lines in order to gain advantages. It'll be interesting to read the press. I assume we haven't broken any laws/rules/statutes ?

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 16:51

Here is something Mike posted earlier this season after the Sales decleration.

According to the rules Langer did nothing wrong,though of course it is possible to argue otherwise.
We also don't know if the Umpire's were consulted before the decleration so let's get the facts first.

I have simply C=P from the earlier post for ease;

Extraordinary Declarations

An Extraordinary Declaration for the purposes of this
rule is a declaration aimed primarily at denying the
bowling side the opportunity to acquire further bonus
points in that innings, but without enhancing the batting
side's prospects of winning or saving the match.
Such a declaration may, depending on the particular
circumstances, be deemed as bringing the game into
disrepute, penalties for which may include the
deduction of points from the offending team.
A captain who is contemplating an Extraordinary
Declaration may, if he wishes, first approach the
Officiating Umpires, providing due notice of his
intention, in order to request an indicative ruling as to
whether or not such an Extraordinary Declaration is
likely to be deemed as bringing the game into disrepute.
The Officiating Umpires may then request advice from
the ECB Cricket Department who will (in liaison with the
Discipline Standing Committee and time permitting)
provide an indicative ruling to the captain.
ECB Cricket Department may appoint an official to such
matches to facilitate good communication between all
relevant parties.

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Trevor Gard's Box (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 18:06

I appreciate that the Worcs. game might not be a great analogy as that dec. actually decided the outcome of the game outright and prevented the paying public of any cricket that day apart from something like 7 balls. I'm just not wild about the idea of messing about with the game for your own ends. The game often comes back and bites you when you try to dictate terms to it.

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Shepton Paul (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 18:27

Did Sales get punished for last week, does anyone know, and if so, how? If he did, then I'd be less concerned if we do (though the circumstances are totally different). If Sales / Northants weren't punished, there's surely no reason to punish Somerset.

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Botham (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 18:29

I didn't agree with it then and I don't now!

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Glen House (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 19:17

I think it was a bold move and well worth having a dart for a few overs before lunch. Interesting to note that Middlesex put on 54 for the last 2 wickets of their first innings though.

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 19:58

Yes, more than merely 'interesting,' in my opinion, GH.

And before anyone suggests otherwise, i'm not convinced that conditions were radically easier for the Middx tail when they batted. And, as poor a batsman as Willow undoubtedly is, Richardson is hardly a genius.

One other thing that may not be known by anyone here, bar TP. Very shortly before the declaration, Tim Murtagh (I think it was) smugly shouted something about '56 all out,' at our batsmen. I assume that's what Glamorgan mustered last week? Part of me even wondered if we declared in a fit of pique at this comment as the declaration followed, literally within a couple of minutes of this conceit.

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: tufnell parka (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 22:33

thats a very interesting insight a god regarding murtagh's comment, i didnt know that

i did hear steffan's goodbye to godleman though - i think it was borne out of frustration more than anything but i didnt lack for ferocity!!

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 22:51

Apologies to all.It was my fault.

My old mate Caddick went out to bat and, from my pavilion seat, I gave him a cheery wave. As contributors to this site well know, Caddick always greets me warmly by name whenever he sees me. On this occasion he said, "Well, it's my old friend LoL, I do declare". As befits a distinguished graduate of Cambridge University, Ed Smith was very quick off the mark. "In that case we'll bat, thanks" - and that was that.

LoL



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007:05:31:23:09:27 by Loyal of Lhasa..

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 23:03

Good evening LoL.
Did you have a pleasant day?

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 23:10

No BJ - you weren't there for me to abuse.

LoL

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 23:13

I was with you in spirit.
Feel free to abuse that as you wish.

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: BarmierKev (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 23:35

With match potentially rain affected and sure your strong batsman will put up a better performance, I think an extra say 10 runs and 20 mins or so, may be difference between draw or defeat -all for the sake of denying us 1 point. The differential points wise I fell doesn't justify risk.

If this is not the case and you finish 1pt ahead of us end of season, I will eat my words.



Barmy Kev
I'm only here for the tele

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: fRed (IP Logged)
Date: 31/05/2007 23:55

We can win this one (Sm64)

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 01/06/2007 06:49

If we do finish one point ahead of Middx then I, for one, will not be proud of the means by which we gained that advantage. Similarly, few people here would be impressed, I'm sure, if Northants finish one point ahead of SCCC?

p.s LoL - pavillion seat? Are you a member at the ground or did you 'not see,' the signs, chortle, chortle??

How about you, TP, whereabouts is your station in the ground?

Personally, I go for John Edrich upper. Right behind the arm at the Nursery End. From my spot I was able to correctly adjudicate (or at least any time I raised my finger, the umpires soon followed suit) on each and every LBW shout that there was on the day. So, I can faithfully report that we were certainly not on the thick end of any dubious LBWs, nor were we denied any that should have been given to us, IMO.

In the event of bad news today, does anyone fancy a beer to occupy whatever time should have been occupied by the game?

p.s. one straw that we may clutch at. The Hygrometer is closer to 3 O'clock today. Yesterday, at this time, it was at 5 o'clock. That represented 94% humidity. Today's reading is around 80. You never know, that may translate into a little less consistent swing?

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: ozzieian89 (IP Logged)
Date: 01/06/2007 08:11

Either I was mistaken or did not our lower order contribute significantly at Leicester?

Cricket can have odd twists and turns and the objective of the game is to score as many runs/take as many wickets as possible. Bonus points reflect your overall performance and are not the immediate objective which is to try to win the game.

I think the decision was barmy.

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Haringey Racer (IP Logged)
Date: 01/06/2007 08:35

AGod Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------->
> Personally, I go for John Edrich upper. Right
> behind the arm at the Nursery End. From my spot I
> was able to correctly adjudicate (or at least any
> time I raised my finger, the umpires soon followed
> suit)

You must have been right behind (or in front) of me.

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 01/06/2007 08:45

Well we need at least 350 on this track to make a game of this and it does't look all that hopeful on present performances. However, Craig and Pete seemed to be getting a handle on it last night so as long as we can survive the first hour without losing a wicket we do have the batting resources to make a fist of it.



(Sm72)

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 01/06/2007 08:48

Will you be there today? I shall be. If you see somebody responding - positively or negatively - to each and every LBW shout that will be me.

Yesterday, I was sat in the 3rd row from the back (i.e. there were two rows behind me) and,as I say, right behind the arm.

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: tufnell parka (IP Logged)
Date: 01/06/2007 08:49

hi
a god, i was sat in the warner stand upper section i.e when you look at the pavillion to the right
it's a great view and i have a covered bar behind where you can watch the cricket from if you want or keep dry/warm
will you be in the same spot today? it looked glorious when the sun was out in the afternoon
i'll be around for a beer - i need to be at wembley for 7.00pm so if we do get a full day's play i might have to chip off on the dot but my number is on the thread if you want to me give me a call (that goes for you to lol)

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 01/06/2007 08:52

Will do, TP, i'm on 07814 300019. And yes, will be in the Edrich upper again.

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Botham (IP Logged)
Date: 01/06/2007 09:17

The beer in the Old Pavilion is about 50 pence a pint cheaper!

Re: We've declared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Blub (IP Logged)
Date: 01/06/2007 09:48

TP - Lord's, then Wembley?

What a life you lead. Not going to Twickenham tommorrow as well are you?

Goto Thread: PreviousNext
Goto: Forum ListMessage ListLog In

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net
 

Somerset Poll

Where do you expect us to finish in the 2010 Championship Race?