View Full Version : How About These For Some Bowling Figures!
Ryan Sidebottom of Yorkshire (I'm not sure if he played against Australia in 2001, he's a crappy left armer who's not very quick & has ridiculous long curly gingery hair) had these figures in a 1 dayer versus Glamorgan the other day(it was a proper competitive match).
0.1-0-11-0
Yeah that's right he bowled 1 ball for 11 runs, apparently it was wide, wide, 6, wide ,wide, wide, then he went off injured.
At that rate he'd have gone for 66 an over & 660 off his ten with the team total at 3300!:D
EagleBlue
30 May 2003, 08:59
Originally posted by DIPPER
then he went off injured.
D
I dont think so !!!!!:D
St-KriS
30 May 2003, 10:53
If he hadnt of gotten injuried, Im sure his captain would have made sure he was literally injuried later on!
crudbucket
30 May 2003, 18:39
1 test v Pakistan in 2001, his figures were 20 overs, 2 maidens, 64 runs, 0 wickets.
The bloke also played a large part in making an utter joke of my Yorkshire captaincy while playing International Cricket Captain on the computer. Couldn't buy a wicket, this fella! :D
Originally posted by Darky
The bloke also played a large part in making an utter joke of my Yorkshire captaincy while playing International Cricket Captain on the computer. Couldn't buy a wicket, this fella! :D
Well you have to give them 10 out of 10 for realism, they obviously did their research thoroughly.
Hey Darky do you fancy a trip back to the Allies in the BFCC, I'm the new captain there now & we're reigning premiers so if you fancy a return the doors always open to you, you could return behind the stumps or even as a front line batsman.
It's still a better economy rate than David Gower in one particular Test: 0-0-4-0
Originally posted by DaveW
It's still a better economy rate than David Gower in one particular Test: 0-0-4-0
If that's the ball that I'm thinking of agaisnt NZ where I think Martin Crowe hit him for 4 to win the match then there's some controversy attatched to it.
Gower clearly chcuked it & was no-balled, NZ only needed 1 run to win & so the commentators had a discusion as to whether the match was over at the point & whether the 4 runs should have counted.
Answers on a post card to Richie Benaud CO Channel 4 Television London.
ajackett110
5 Jun 2003, 00:51
If it was a no-ball and 4, shouldn't it be 5 runs?
Originally posted by ajackett110
If it was a no-ball and 4, shouldn't it be 5 runs? Not back then. If runs were scored off a no-ball the only penalty incurred was re-bowling the ball. This was changed in the late ninties.