Author Topic: v Surrey  (Read 13369 times)

Offline mawallace

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 987
Re: v Surrey
« Reply #15 on: May 21, 2016, 03:54:23 PM »
With the introduction of the Sky pod , where were the disabled spectators relocated ?

I'm told that every one was relocated. What I want to know is if Sky are paying for the right to be on the pitch, as no doubt we built there studio at our expense

alji

  • Guest
Re: v Surrey
« Reply #16 on: May 21, 2016, 05:26:49 PM »
Very much doubt that. ECCC just  give Sky access to the ground and they bring their pod and kit with them, build their own scaffolding etc.

Offline IlfordEagle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2248
Re: v Surrey
« Reply #17 on: May 21, 2016, 08:53:32 PM »
A disappointing result given Sorry were 87-6 but credit Curran & Azhar with pulling them round, impressed with Quinn's bowling & got just reward (he looks a bit like a younger Masters, bowling action not dissimilar either), Dixon needs to cut out the wides (not the only one though), Zaidi impressed with the bat & no 6 was ideal for him, Westley played very well & his LBW looked questionable as did Zaidi's. Tendo took a bit too long to get going but given he came in at 26-3 probably understandable, Ravi shouldn't open, he should go back to no 4, suggestion of Fossie to open is not a bad idea.
One other thing, can anyone explain why Sorry didn't get a 6 run penalty when they hadn't even started the final over by cutoff time of first 10.10pm & 10.11pm & the time on the scoreboard showed first 22.11 & then 22.12 thus Sorry were running late. If it is possible to timewaste in T20 then Batty made sure Sorry did, to be fair he did bowl well though, Sangakkara looked what he is - a class batsman still.

Essex Way

  • Guest
Re: v Surrey
« Reply #18 on: May 22, 2016, 04:57:56 AM »
The LBW decisions which resulted in our two highest scorers, Westley and Zaidi,  being given out when well set were both shown by SKY to be incorrect.
Result changing decisions.
Nick Browne, when fit again, would add some solidity to the batting in the middle order.

Offline nat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7616
Re: v Surrey
« Reply #19 on: May 22, 2016, 04:19:08 PM »
The LBW decisions which resulted in our two highest scorers, Westley and Zaidi,  being given out when well set were both shown by SKY to be incorrect.
Result changing decisions.
Nick Browne, when fit again, would add some solidity to the batting in the middle order.

NB won't play 20-20. Not his type of game.
MEGA (Make Essex Great Again)

alji

  • Guest
Re: v Surrey
« Reply #20 on: May 22, 2016, 05:36:14 PM »
I thought that, until I saw Ravi's benefit match.

Offline nat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7616
Re: v Surrey
« Reply #21 on: May 26, 2016, 07:21:34 PM »
Watching Slurry losing to Glamorgan. How the **** did Essex lose to this shower?!
MEGA (Make Essex Great Again)

Offline Andy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7973
Re: v Surrey
« Reply #22 on: May 26, 2016, 07:55:43 PM »
Watching Slurry losing to Glamorgan. How the **** did Essex lose to this shower?!

I know. Hilarious though.

Offline IlfordEagle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2248
Re: v Surrey
« Reply #23 on: May 27, 2016, 09:43:57 PM »
Watching Slurry losing to Glamorgan. How the **** did Essex lose to this shower?!
By Westley & Zaidi both being given out incorrectly LBW when they were going well (plus we allowed them to recover from 87-6 & got ourselves into trouble at 26-3!!)