Monty Panesar

A section to discuss matters not related to Chess in particular.
Paul McKeown
Posts: 3735
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)

Re: Monty Panesar

Post by Paul McKeown » Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:16 pm

Well done, Lancashire, deserved champions.

How much time left at Canterbury?

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: Monty Panesar

Post by Alex Holowczak » Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:16 pm

Mick Norris wrote:5:10 pm Champions
The radio said they only run 1, so not sure why it was scored as a 4?

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: Monty Panesar

Post by Alex Holowczak » Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:16 pm

Paul McKeown wrote:Well done, Lancashire, deserved champions.

How much time left at Canterbury?
Close of play scheduled for 9pm.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3735
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)

Re: Monty Panesar

Post by Paul McKeown » Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:20 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Paul McKeown wrote:How much time left at Canterbury?
Close of play scheduled for 9pm.
Geraint Jones has just scored his fifty, but he needs a lot more runs if the close is not scheduled until 9.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: Monty Panesar

Post by Alex Holowczak » Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:24 pm

Paul McKeown wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote:
Paul McKeown wrote:How much time left at Canterbury?
Close of play scheduled for 9pm.
Geraint Jones has just scored his fifty, but he needs a lot more runs if the close is not scheduled until 9.
There was one major oversight with the day-night game. Apparently, "Lunch" was taken at 4pm. :lol:

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3735
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)

Re: Monty Panesar

Post by Paul McKeown » Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:35 pm

I think that is very logical to play these day/night games. T20 has shown that spectators are prepared to turn up after work, so this should provide a financial boost to the Counties Championship.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3735
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)

Re: Monty Panesar

Post by Paul McKeown » Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:54 pm

Kent's last man in has an average of 3.75 and a high score of 5. I predict that Geraint Jones will hog the strike... :lol:

Malcolm Clarke
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 5:53 pm

Re: Monty Panesar

Post by Malcolm Clarke » Thu Sep 15, 2011 6:07 pm

Very exciting finish to season, and Lancashire did well to win their last two games, after their rapid defeat to Worcestershire. Bringing in Simon Kerrigan for the Hampshire match was an inspired choice.

In response to Alex's response to my comments about Hampshire. There is no doubt in my mind that it was the first nine games that cost them, in which they drew 4 and lost 5, and had the points deduction. Their record of winning 3, drawing 3 and losing 1 of their last 7, came just too late to save them.

Hampshire certainly have enough bowlers on their books, as they have lent out David Balcombe and Simon Jones to other counties, and also have David Griffiths on the injury list. The statistics say that Warwickshire made 493 against them in the first innings, but it appeared that Hampshire dropped five catches, the simplest of which would have dismissed Chanderpaul for 36.

All of Hampshire's top six have hit centuries in one of the last five county championship games, although these same batsmen have also had their failures in these games. Interesting to note that 593 of Michael Carberry's runs have come from three innings.

David Robertson

Re: Monty Panesar

Post by David Robertson » Thu Sep 15, 2011 6:17 pm

David Robertson wrote:Unlike Mick, I make Lancashire favorites after their good day yesterday. Warwicks have a poor record against Hants. Either Carberry or Ervine, or someone, always gets runs. Frankly, I don't see Warwicks taking 20 wickets. Conversely, I do see Lancashire taking a further 10 Zummerzet wickets, especially if Lancashire post a monster score. Even if they don't, any target will be gettable. And Hampshire don't look ready to roll over
Above is what I predicted on Wednesday. So well done, me! :)

But very well done, Lancashire. They did all that could be asked of them in the final game. Fair enough. Warwickshire can have no complaints. Their bowlers have played beyond themselves all season. But the magic was worn away on a good strip at the Rose Bowl. And Paul Horton - 1000 runs, but no centuries. That sounds like it might be a record. Remarkable, because he couldn't buy a run at one point mid-season.

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 5251
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: Monty Panesar

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Thu Sep 15, 2011 6:21 pm

To put this into perspective, Lancashire last won the championship before my old man was born, never mind me. I was beginning to think I would be lucky to see it happen, let alone he. So often in the intervening period Lanky have been the best team on paper, only to have bad luck/choke/be denied by the weather :twisted: :twisted:

And like their near neighbours 15 years ago, they have done it with "kids", despite widespread scepticism :)

Hopefully having broken the duck with a young enthusiastic team, a few more will be along in the near future - like the proverbial buses :lol:
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3735
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)

Re: Monty Panesar

Post by Paul McKeown » Thu Sep 15, 2011 6:22 pm

Some stuff in the Graun about some rash promise by Andy Burnham at the start of the season to sing in the Commons if Lancashire were to win the Championship. Hope it isn't true... :shock:

Mick Norris
Posts: 10385
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: Monty Panesar

Post by Mick Norris » Thu Sep 15, 2011 8:24 pm

8 second places since 1934 too
Any postings on here represent my personal views

Mick Norris
Posts: 10385
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: Monty Panesar

Post by Mick Norris » Thu Sep 15, 2011 8:31 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Mick Norris wrote:5:10 pm Champions
The radio said they only run 1, so not sure why it was scored as a 4?
Some people are on the pitch, they think it's all over, it is now :lol:
Any postings on here represent my personal views

Mick Norris
Posts: 10385
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: Monty Panesar

Post by Mick Norris » Thu Sep 15, 2011 8:40 pm

David Robertson wrote:
David Robertson wrote:Unlike Mick, I make Lancashire favorites after their good day yesterday. Warwicks have a poor record against Hants. Either Carberry or Ervine, or someone, always gets runs. Frankly, I don't see Warwicks taking 20 wickets. Conversely, I do see Lancashire taking a further 10 Zummerzet wickets, especially if Lancashire post a monster score. Even if they don't, any target will be gettable. And Hampshire don't look ready to roll over
Above is what I predicted on Wednesday. So well done, me! :)

But very well done, Lancashire. They did all that could be asked of them in the final game. Fair enough. Warwickshire can have no complaints. Their bowlers have played beyond themselves all season. But the magic was worn away on a good strip at the Rose Bowl. And Paul Horton - 1000 runs, but no centuries. That sounds like it might be a record. Remarkable, because he couldn't buy a run at one point mid-season.
Well done David - Warks would have finished second without the points deduction, so no argument

6 games at Aigburth and 1 each at Blackpool and Southport have made a difference, but the weather has helped - back at Old Trafford next season

As Jim Cumbes said all they need now is to be allocated a 2013 Ashes Test next Thursday
Any postings on here represent my personal views

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 5251
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: Monty Panesar

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Thu Sep 15, 2011 10:12 pm

David Robertson wrote:
David Robertson wrote:And Paul Horton - 1000 runs, but no centuries. That sounds like it might be a record.
I doubt if it has been done much in recent times - but it was surely more common in the "good old days" of more matches and uncovered pitches??
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)