I haven't been able to see a thread, apologies if there is one, which is a sign that the Red Rose is wilting.
The Yorkies declared this morning on 448 for 8, Jack Brooks undefeated on a career best 109. He has then bowled Hameed for a duck as Lancashire reply. Currently 10 for 1. I still think a draw is the most likely result.

Make that 17 for 2. Livingstone out cheaply. Mind you Yorkshire were 9 for 2 so still a long way to go.

46 for 3. Lankys favourite pie chucker Bresnan has got one in his first over.
No doubt he will have bought it with a terrible delivery!

Finished a draw but Lanky take 10 points to the puddings 9.

Good result for Lancs after losing their key player in the first morning.

Yorkshire not running away with it like I thought they would do with their squad.

Bordeauxclaret wrote: Yorkshire not running away with it like I thought they would do with their squad.

Suggest you look at the composition of the England squad where you may well find the reason.

BedfordsDad wrote:Suggest you look at the composition of the England squad where you may well find the reason.

Any of them a record wicket taker?

Well aware of the England squad.
Discounted those before the season but thanks for the concern as always.

BedfordsDad wrote:Suggest you look at the composition of the England squad where you may well find the reason.

Ah come on, You've still got Pies, The Flat Track Zimbabwean Bully and The Tiny Lad.....

Bin Ont Turf wrote:Any of them a record wicket taker?

Sure he only got the record number of wickets because of the bowler at the other end. That's how you clowns have rewritten history in the past eh!

OOOOOHHH, a bit of needle.

I don't know what you're talking about though.

bedfords wrote:Sure he only got the record number of wickets because of the bowler at the other end. That's how you clowns have rewritten history in the past eh!

??????????????????????????????????????

bedfords wrote:Sure he only got the record number of wickets because of the bowler at the other end. That's how you clowns have rewritten history in the past eh!

Clowns

Surely he only got credited with the wickets that fell when the bowler at the other end wasn't bowling? Or do you do things differently on the dim side of the Pennines?

bfcmik wrote:Surely he only got credited with the wickets that fell when the bowler at the other end wasn't bowling? Or do you do things differently on the dim side of the Pennines?

It was a reference to Lancs fans historically not being able to credit record breakers. Any reasonable cricket fan would accept being England's record wicket taker speaks for itself.

Frustrating last couple of days, hopefully the 1st XI does better on Wednesday.

Anyone any idea???

http://www.lccc.co.uk/cricket/
I assume Bedfords is talking about the England v South Africa 1 dayer. England currently 130/3 from 24.0 overs
https://sports.ndtv.com/cricket/scorebo ... 2017181608

I think it's the first bit of his bumbling post.