Yes, another one. Still, the Ashes Series will be over by Monday at the latest... and, the way things have gone so far today, it might be over well before then.England were all out after half an hour's play - I missed this because of some stuff I had to do after Mass... yes, I realise that means I'm not a real cricket buff... a real one would have moved heaven and earth to ensure being present at the start of play. I arrived home at 1pm to find that the Great British Summer had intervened, and everyone had stopped for an early lunch, with Australia at 61 runs without any losses - I don't know what the correct term for that is.
Luckily, the rain didn't last, and play resumed at 2:30pm. The first wicket fell within ten minutes (woo-hoo) followed by seven more in pretty quick succession. By teatime Australia had just averted the follow-on...
...but the remaining two wickets went down pretty quickly after play had resumed, leaving England in the lead by 172 runs...
...unfortunately, England's first wicket has just gone down. The pitch is deteriorating (Lord only knows what that means!) Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some cricket to listen to...
Not "without any losses" , but "without loss". It's very simple. Please keep up.
ReplyDeleteI hope you were paying attention to "you are the umpire" during the fortunately extended lunch break.
And the meaning and purpose of the phrase "the pitch is deteriorating" is to show that the batters are still in charge.
Keep up the commentary, Mac. I don't know what the heck you're talking about but it makes me laugh.
ReplyDeleteSimon - thanks for that... though how the batters are in charge still escapes me...
ReplyDeleteBob - I'm not entirely sure that I know what I'm talking about... but it's not very gentlemanly of you to draw attention to that fact... in fact, I might go as far as to say that it's just not cricket, dear chap...
;-P
If they get another 120 and Broad is on fire again, the Aussies have had it.
ReplyDeleteI gather there were a couple of controversial dismissals yesterday. Perhaps you might offer your view on these during today's commentary.
ReplyDeleteSimon,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your comment on 'without loss' but personally I really don't like the 'modern' usage of referring to those defending the wicket as 'batters'. I was always brought up to refer to those 'wielding the willow' as 'batsmen' and 'batters' just really grates on my ear. Showing my age - again! - Jolly good fun, either way though, at the moment. Long may it last! :-)
Is "batter" modern? I shall stop it at once if so!
ReplyDeleteSorry!
It seems Miss Ellen E. may have a point. The OED's earliest exemplar for "batsman", from the Gentleman's Magazine, dates from 1756, whereas no reference to the neologism "batter" could be found to predate a poem from 1773.
ReplyDeleteOn the debit side, "batsman" appears also to be used in (whisper it) baseball.
Thanks for the research Simon. At least they haven't started referring to the bowler as the 'pitcher' yet, as in (sotto voce) baseball! :-) . . . Ponting's just been run out - yay!!
ReplyDelete