Good comfortable winning the end. And deserved after 2 unlucky losses. Even better with Dernbach unavailable. Well done Rampaul for stepping up in his absence.
Foakesy is doing very well in this format. Impressive.
Would have liked to have seen Pope get a but but glad he wasn't needed in the end.
We're playing again today. Against Sussex at Hove. Sangakkara is out with a groin strain and Dernbach is still out with a back complaint. These are two big losses for a side which are already missing Roy and are still adjusting to the loss of Ansari.
We won the toss and decided to bowl. Sussex are 54-0
It was a poor display by Surrey, to be honest. The Currans didn't bowl well and helped to give Sussex a good start. The bowling only tightened up nearly the end with Rampaul and Borthwick being the pick of the bowlers. I still thought 300 was gettable but only Stoneman and Pope showed resilience. Stoneman struggled at first, but then looked set for a ton until he played a loose shot and was caught at deep square leg. Sussex took some good catches and ran out comfortable winners. Being a Sussex supporter, I won't gloat over the win. Sussex are a fairly poor team at the moment, but just had a day when things went well for them.
With the stream it's much better to get it through the club's YouTube channel rather than the club's site as the traffic on it keeps making the club website freeze.
No I'm no genius but I'm studying an economics degree and I've worked as a data analyst so I feel I have a good understanding of maths and logic. I usually understand D/L in cricket but I just don't get it today.
Our score has been adjusted DOWN to 147 so Kent need 148 to win off 41.
So we batted 10 overs believing it was a 50 over game before it was adjusted down to 46 then 41. So surely that would mean our score would get adjusted up? Why down?
No I'm no genius but I'm studying an economics degree and I've worked as a data analyst so I feel I have a good understanding of maths and logic. I usually understand D/L in cricket but I just don't get it today.
Our score has been adjusted DOWN to 147 so Kent need 148 to win off 41.
So we batted 10 overs believing it was a 50 over game before it was adjusted down to 46 then 41. So surely that would mean our score would get adjusted up? Why down?
No I'm no genius but I'm studying an economics degree and I've worked as a data analyst so I feel I have a good understanding of maths and logic. I usually understand D/L in cricket but I just don't get it today.
Our score has been adjusted DOWN to 147 so Kent need 148 to win off 41.
So we batted 10 overs believing it was a 50 over game before it was adjusted down to 46 then 41. So surely that would mean our score would get adjusted up? Why down?
Beyond me?
Pretty sure it's 248 to win, not 148
That's what I meant. 248. Although now the commentators are saying 249. Everyone is confused but no one dares argue.
No I'm no genius but I'm studying an economics degree and I've worked as a data analyst so I feel I have a good understanding of maths and logic. I usually understand D/L in cricket but I just don't get it today.
Our score has been adjusted DOWN to 147 so Kent need 148 to win off 41.
So we batted 10 overs believing it was a 50 over game before it was adjusted down to 46 then 41. So surely that would mean our score would get adjusted up? Why down?
Beyond me?
Pretty sure it's 248 to win, not 148
That's what I meant. 248. Although now the commentators are saying 249. Everyone is confused but no one dares argue.
No I'm no genius but I'm studying an economics degree and I've worked as a data analyst so I feel I have a good understanding of maths and logic. I usually understand D/L in cricket but I just don't get it today.
Our score has been adjusted DOWN to 147 so Kent need 148 to win off 41.
So we batted 10 overs believing it was a 50 over game before it was adjusted down to 46 then 41. So surely that would mean our score would get adjusted up? Why down?
Beyond me?
Pretty sure it's 248 to win, not 148
That's what I meant. 248. Although now the commentators are saying 249. Everyone is confused but no one dares argue.
Club Twitter says 252!!!!!!!
All over the place... hope the players know what they are chasing!
Comments
Hope we send Foakes in 4. He is in great firm so let's give him as long in the middle as possible.
Stoneman out for 10, bowled by Roland-Jones.
Sanga 46 off 48
Borthwick 42 off 57
Keep it up!
Burns 21* Foakes 17*
157/3(33overs) https://t.co/Mdp8oEjfz3
Foakesy is doing very well in this format. Impressive.
Would have liked to have seen Pope get a but but glad he wasn't needed in the end.
We won the toss and decided to bowl. Sussex are 54-0
107/1 (20 overs)
#SUSvSUR https://t.co/7YmrpJ7ELF
Not a great start today!!!!
52/1 (8.5 overs)
Stoneman - 34
Sibley - 14 https://t.co/aGVtA8IgTg
139/6 (29.1 overs)
Game over really
Also Roy is back
Roy in for Sibley
Sanga in for Pope
Dernbach still injured is a massive loss..
Roy and Rocky got us off to a great start. But Rocky has just gone. 34/1 off 3.5 overs.
expect Foakes to kick on strong soon thougj
Foakes was averaging 150 in this competition before this match.
TC caught behind as I type this.
Our score has been adjusted DOWN to 147 so Kent need 148 to win off 41.
So we batted 10 overs believing it was a 50 over game before it was adjusted down to 46 then 41. So surely that would mean our score would get adjusted up? Why down?
Beyond me?