debut: 1/12/04
35,685 runs
Then without a doubt you ain't gonna mek any runs... That's a pickney dolly catch !
Forums:
The Rum Shop
The Back Room
Campbell You Drop Those
debut: 11/26/06
62,421 runs
In reply to Raggs
Man I just heard the comms on the radio say he dropped an easy one….steupse
Man I just heard the comms on the radio say he dropped an easy one….steupse
debut: 1/12/04
35,685 runs
In reply to chantilly
Dat man is dreaming about something beyond the game of cricket..He ain't with the cricket fairy..
Dat man is dreaming about something beyond the game of cricket..He ain't with the cricket fairy..
debut: 1/20/04
91,806 runs
In reply to Raggs
Campbell Soup get away!
Seales to Green, OUT
edged and taken this time! Campbell breathes a sigh of relief, and Seales lets out a massive celebratory cry!
Cameron Green c Chase b Seales 26 (37b 4x4 0x6) SR: 70.27
Campbell Soup get away!
Seales to Green, OUT
edged and taken this time! Campbell breathes a sigh of relief, and Seales lets out a massive celebratory cry!
Cameron Green c Chase b Seales 26 (37b 4x4 0x6) SR: 70.27
debut: 9/18/09
887 runs
In reply to voiceofreason
No, Campbell didn’t “get away”
Had he taken Green, the catch that eventually got Green may have gotten Webster instead….and they’d be 5 down!!
No, Campbell didn’t “get away”
Had he taken Green, the catch that eventually got Green may have gotten Webster instead….and they’d be 5 down!!
debut: 1/24/04
16,422 runs
In reply to Raggs
I don't know what they see in this Campbell guy.
It's clear as daylight he can't bat at this level and his fielding is beyond atrocious.
I don't know what they see in this Campbell guy.
It's clear as daylight he can't bat at this level and his fielding is beyond atrocious.
debut: 4/28/03
60,893 runs
In reply to Da-Vincy
Webster would have left that alone. Having just lost a wicket, that's also a possibility.
Webster would have left that alone. Having just lost a wicket, that's also a possibility.
debut: 6/29/10
5,583 runs
In reply to SnoopDog
Man, does look like he could get out every ball he face.
Man, does look like he could get out every ball he face.
debut: 11/13/02
80,343 runs
In reply to Da-Vincy
That is some next level stretching there sah
Had he taken Green, the catch that eventually got Green may have gotten Webster instead….and they’d be 5 down!!
That is some next level stretching there sah
debut: 1/20/04
91,806 runs
In reply to Da-Vincy
So you saying the ball that got Green would have gotten Webster providing he had the same reaction?
Had he taken Green, the catch that eventually got Green may have gotten Webster instead….and they’d be 5 down!!
So you saying the ball that got Green would have gotten Webster providing he had the same reaction?
debut: 2/15/09
4,992 runs
In reply to imusic
That is some next level stretching there sah
You are being nice, that is the absolute worse excretion I have heard on this board and VOR functions on this board.
That is some next level stretching there sah
You are being nice, that is the absolute worse excretion I have heard on this board and VOR functions on this board.
debut: 9/18/09
887 runs
In reply to JoeGrine
In reply to imusic
It’s both of you who are full of shite.
It’s absolutely within the realm of possibility that a wicket-taking ball could have taken the wicket of whoever the batsman happened to be.
More specific to this particular case, you must be aware that there are multi-wicket overs, wickets off consecutive balls, hat tricks, etc.
Most of those would not have been realized if you dropped a batsman, but then got him out a few balls later.
The eventual dismissal never “rights” the initial let-off. The let-off simply reduces your range of possible outcomes for that over.
Got it??
In reply to imusic
It’s both of you who are full of shite.
It’s absolutely within the realm of possibility that a wicket-taking ball could have taken the wicket of whoever the batsman happened to be.
More specific to this particular case, you must be aware that there are multi-wicket overs, wickets off consecutive balls, hat tricks, etc.
Most of those would not have been realized if you dropped a batsman, but then got him out a few balls later.
The eventual dismissal never “rights” the initial let-off. The let-off simply reduces your range of possible outcomes for that over.
Got it??
Forums:
The Rum Shop
The Back Room
Search
Live Scores
- no matches