I see that Jofra Archer got 6-27 and knocked Gloucestershire's stiffs over for 79. :furious:
I see that Jofra Archer got 6-27 and knocked Gloucestershire's stiffs over for 79. :furious:
I know their first XI physio well. He was there and said Jofra only bowled at 60-70%. Even came off a short run.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
He's just hit a ton, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
That will have Smith quaking in his boots!Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
What annoyed me was Root describing the injury as a freak. I see a job for him on the front benches of Westminster. Either side.
So if he was bowling off a shorter run and only bowling at 60-70% how does that show he is fit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich
So what? Anderson passed all the fitness tests before the last match, do we know a week ago if Archer was fit enough to play?Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
SOS to Tymar Mills imo
Well he played in a T20 for Sussex, so he was definitely fitter than Anderson, who broke down after 4 overs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokster
Which would suggest that the 'fitness tests' were worth the square root of fúck all.
T20 isn't proof of anything... Anderson could have played a T20 and every chance we wouldn't have known he wasn't fitQuote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Agree about the fitness tests, obviously not good enough
It proves that - unlike Anderson - he was fit enough to bowl for four overs without breaking down. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokster
The thing with fitness tests is that they're often exercises in confirmation bias. After all, everyone involved wants the subject to pass them and thus will tend to overlook red flags that an objective eye would pick up on immediately
Anderson might have played a T20 and not broken down, less intense etc etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
He knows his own body better than anyone and can't see him saying he was fit when he knew he wasn't.
Always a risk in test cricket....if we had batted first he MIGHT have been ok to bowl (if we weren't all out in 30 overs)
Possibly true in cricket, not so much in other sports these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Bit ****ing rich you moaning about Jimmy as you wanted two injury doubts in the team to start.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Anyway Stone injured now. Stone, Wood - ffs, what are these guys made of (or if you prefer, of what are these guys made :rolleyes: )?
Glass, it seems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luis Anaconda
Yeah, I know we already did this.
If fück all is a positive amount but less than one, as seems likely, wouldn't the square root of fück all be larger than just fück all itself?Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
No. it wouldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult
:nono: In fact it Wood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
X SQRT(X)
0.1 0.32
0.2 0.45
0.3 0.55
0.4 0.63
0.5 0.71
0.6 0.77
0.7 0.84
0.8 0.89
0.9 0.95
1 1
It would. Didn't you do this in maths at school?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
And ironically, the closer **** all gets to zero, the larger the ratio of the square root of **** all / **** all becomes.
O.1^2=0.01
0.01^2=0.0001
So assuming 0<**** all<1, it would be better to say X means **** all squared.
Maths is not a subject for a gentleman, g. Msths is the preserve of accountants and other chaps in trade. :shudder:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult
:noah:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult
But well done anyway for getting Peter to nick that one to first slip. Can you believe this man works in the education sector?
You might have miss-classed Peter there, old man. I know he's Blairite but deep down he's an honest toiler.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C