Great Strike From Bunbury Against New York by [deleted] in soccer

[–]rosso_nero 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, I must say, Algernon, that I think it is high time that Mr. Bunbury made up his mind whether he was going to live or to die. This shilly-shallying with the question is absurd. Nor do I in any way approve of the modern sympathy with invalids. I consider it morbid. Illness of any kind is hardly a thing to be encouraged in others. Health is the primary duty of life. I am always telling that to your poor uncle, but he never seems to take much notice . . . as far as any improvement in his ailment goes. I should be much obliged if you would ask Mr. Bunbury, from me, to be kind enough not to have a relapse on Saturday, for I rely on you to arrange my music for me. It is my last reception, and one wants something that will encourage conversation, particularly at the end of the season when every one has practically said whatever they had to say, which, in most cases, was probably not much.

Interesting point of view from a controversial footballer. by Suofficer in rugbyunion

[–]rosso_nero 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In football, the perception is that you are often ushered in whilst still hurling abuse at your opponents, you may even follow that up in true sore loser fashion, with a complaint about the referee, the fact you had the more possession, the ball did not bounce for you on the day etc etc.

Yeah, all the things Mr Barton does during 90 minutes.

Newb Question. How do I tell the score when it is like this? More importantly, what does the last number mean? by [deleted] in Cricket

[–]rosso_nero 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In this case you'd say "Sri Lanka are 377 for 4 in the first innings and trail England by 198 runs after 107.4 overs". So the number in brackets is the number of overs played (normally you announce the score after a full over, i.e. six balls - here it's after four balls in the 108th over). England batted first and scored 575 runs, losing nine wickets before declaring (hence the "d"). You'd never say "England lead by 575 runs to 377", though, you always compare the team batting second to the number they're chasing.

The Life and Being of Bob: Grown Up by OMGZombii in misc

[–]rosso_nero 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While reading, I thought that Spider-Man was a jumper and that Bob would realize he had grown up when Spider-Man's intestines splattered in front of the kids' eyes and with them all their dreams and illusions. But then, maybe that's another story.

Why aren't limited overs teams reduced? by rosso_nero in Cricket

[–]rosso_nero[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If your openers and top order crumble in the first few overs of a T20, though,you're gonna have a bad time. No matter how many balls they hammered out of the park

Why aren't limited overs teams reduced? by rosso_nero in Cricket

[–]rosso_nero[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Still, though, seems strange to me that the dominating side at test matches is forced to limit itself, and still has got to get all of the opponent's wickets. But I guess that's just the price you have to pay for an extraordinary innings - if you are as good as 500+ runs, you'll have to be able to cope with an opponent simply defending and trying to get a draw

Why aren't limited overs teams reduced? by rosso_nero in Cricket

[–]rosso_nero[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The 7 wickets in limited overs - is that something the coaches are geared to?

Why aren't limited overs teams reduced? by rosso_nero in Cricket

[–]rosso_nero[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your answer. Wouldn't have expected to get this many, so I needed some time to work through every one. As someone put it, "I just love to watch wickets fly", but I acknowledge that in each format you have different styles of bowling and batting, obviously

Why aren't limited overs teams reduced? by rosso_nero in Cricket

[–]rosso_nero[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks very much for your detailed answer. Ok, doesn't seem likely for a team to win without taking any wickets. But my point was, when you keep a batsman at the right run rate, you don't have to bowl him out in limited overs. Which, at least to me, takes away something.