View Single Post
Old 14th August 2007, 22:53   #168
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer View Post
Don't wear yourself out with the back-pedalling, FS.
I haven't altered my position one jot, actually. I've just amplified what I previously said.

Quote:
I can't believe that anyone would say that a hypothetical 20* from 80 balls was better than 67 from 65 balls unless the team were 8 or 9 down. The point is that Bell wasn't deliberately trying to score quickly. He was trying to save the match but the runs were there for the taking, and he took them.
The hypothetical 20* from 80 might not have been as good an innings and certainly wouldn't have been as nice to watch. It would have been better at saving the match though. I don't quite grasp how you fail to see that balls faced and survived were all that mattered in terms of saving the game in that situation, apart from minor psychological factors. I'm very pleased that Bell scored so many runs and batted so well (as I've now said about 4 times). I was gleeful when he got the three consecutive 4s (especially when Bearders pointed out he'd never scored 4 overthrows, all run 4, normal 4 in series and thought it was probably unique). That doesn't alter my feeling about the game state though. I certainly wasn't impressed when Pietersen threw his wicket away playing a loose back foot drive, I can tell you.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote