SA Footy

Trader wrote:In my journeys around the parklands I noticed a few groundsmen prepping wickets on Wednesday, then getting the covers down on Wednesday night / Thursday morning, you'd expect them to play.

Those that haven't done a lot of work early in the week might struggle.

whufc wrote:

Trader wrote:In my journeys around the parklands I noticed a few groundsmen prepping wickets on Wednesday, then getting the covers down on Wednesday night / Thursday morning, you'd expect them to play.

Those that haven't done a lot of work early in the week might struggle.

Still anywhere up to 10ml to come tomorrow as well hey??

Trader wrote:

whufc wrote:

Trader wrote:In my journeys around the parklands I noticed a few groundsmen prepping wickets on Wednesday, then getting the covers down on Wednesday night / Thursday morning, you'd expect them to play.

Those that haven't done a lot of work early in the week might struggle.

Still anywhere up to 10ml to come tomorrow as well hey??

Expected rainfall over the next 36 hours is 3mm.

helicopterking wrote:

heater31 wrote:

bloods08 wrote:Just looking for others thoughts on this.

In A2 Gepps Cross v Fulham, Gepps had bowled 79 overs by 5.48 and were ready to bowl their 80th, when Fulham declared meaning Gepps had to bat for 1 over. Previously if a team got bowled out or declared after 5.30, the opposition didn’t have to bat. In my opinion this should not be happening as it doesn’t encourage teams to get through their overs quickly. If Gepps had gone the other way and bowled slowly they get fined or lose points. What makes it worse is that one of the umpires (who has been umpiring in the league for years) didn’t know the by law had changed as he doesn’t have Facebook.

What Fulham did was within the rules, but I feel is not within the spirit of the game. Just looking for others opinions.

Nope fair play to Fulham. Show intent that they want to play aggressive cricket and win.

That rule didn’t bother Fulham this week against SHOC
21/140 for the days play.
Woody Sth with another big score batting first.

thevoice wrote:

helicopterking wrote:

heater31 wrote:

bloods08 wrote:Just looking for others thoughts on this.

In A2 Gepps Cross v Fulham, Gepps had bowled 79 overs by 5.48 and were ready to bowl their 80th, when Fulham declared meaning Gepps had to bat for 1 over. Previously if a team got bowled out or declared after 5.30, the opposition didn’t have to bat. In my opinion this should not be happening as it doesn’t encourage teams to get through their overs quickly. If Gepps had gone the other way and bowled slowly they get fined or lose points. What makes it worse is that one of the umpires (who has been umpiring in the league for years) didn’t know the by law had changed as he doesn’t have Facebook.

What Fulham did was within the rules, but I feel is not within the spirit of the game. Just looking for others opinions.

Nope fair play to Fulham. Show intent that they want to play aggressive cricket and win.

That rule didn’t bother Fulham this week against SHOC
21/140 for the days play.
Woody Sth with another big score batting first.

Didn’t bother your team Marion this week either. All out for under 50 and destroyed! Fulham get the reverse outright lol

The Bedge wrote:Only early in the week, but forecast some significant rain on Saturday.

Been a very wet start to the year!

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:We are at the mercy of the negative Indian Ocean dipole.

The Bedge wrote:

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:We are at the mercy of the negative Indian Ocean dipole.

It'll be interesting to see if conditions remain neutral, or if a La Nina develops.

tigerpie wrote:Wet tracks up north?
Marion in all sorts and pooraka losing early wickets. (Hanson hasn't batted yet).

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:

tigerpie wrote:Wet tracks up north?
Marion in all sorts and pooraka losing early wickets. (Hanson hasn't batted yet).

3 to 4mm overnight and poor drying conditions didn't help. Marion had the Hornets in a spot of bother at 8 for 97, but they scrambled to 148 on the back of a solid 63 from Curtis Wordsworth, who batted at 8. What a luxury!. The Marion bats were like rabbits in the headlights .... 7 for 19 off 29 overs.
Remarkable performance by Nathan Fox in A2. Took 8 for 18 including the last 4 wickets in 4 balls.

tigerpie wrote:

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:

tigerpie wrote:Wet tracks up north?
Marion in all sorts and pooraka losing early wickets. (Hanson hasn't batted yet).

3 to 4mm overnight and poor drying conditions didn't help. Marion had the Hornets in a spot of bother at 8 for 97, but they scrambled to 148 on the back of a solid 63 from Curtis Wordsworth, who batted at 8. What a luxury!. The Marion bats were like rabbits in the headlights .... 7 for 19 off 29 overs.
Remarkable performance by Nathan Fox in A2. Took 8 for 18 including the last 4 wickets in 4 balls.

Wasn't it covered overnight?

Harry49 wrote:

tigerpie wrote:

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:

tigerpie wrote:Wet tracks up north?
Marion in all sorts and pooraka losing early wickets. (Hanson hasn't batted yet).

3 to 4mm overnight and poor drying conditions didn't help. Marion had the Hornets in a spot of bother at 8 for 97, but they scrambled to 148 on the back of a solid 63 from Curtis Wordsworth, who batted at 8. What a luxury!. The Marion bats were like rabbits in the headlights .... 7 for 19 off 29 overs.
Remarkable performance by Nathan Fox in A2. Took 8 for 18 including the last 4 wickets in 4 balls.

Wasn't it covered overnight?

Pitch was covered when it was still slightly damp. Delayed start due to the surrounds.
The pitch was a little sticky, most wickets in Para Hills innings were due to going through a drive to early. I think 7 of the 10 wickets were caught between cover and mid-on. For most parts of the day it was good swinging conditions, lots of movement around.

tigerpie wrote:Wet tracks up north?
Marion in all sorts and pooraka losing early wickets. (Hanson hasn't batted yet).

no_remorse28 wrote:Gee whiz that Rollings bowled well it seemed

no_remorse28 wrote:Gee whiz that Rollings bowled well it seemed