Kevin Pietersen gets sledged by a worm
“What did you say, you little bastard?”
KP suffered a dislocated little finger and severe bruising to his fist shortly after this picture was taken.
“What did you say, you little bastard?”
KP suffered a dislocated little finger and severe bruising to his fist shortly after this picture was taken.
That’s what Simon Hughes said on Channel 5’s highlights programme, so that’s what happened.
It’s probably wrong to mock commentators’ slips of the tongue when you yourself forget 98 percent of your vocabulary whenever you have to talk in front of more than one person, or to a stranger, or on the phone, or in public, or when you’re tired.
Kevin Pietersen managed to squeeze in a hundred before he slightly fatiguely waved at a wide one. He was at the crease when England were 86-5 and while there are any number of articles stating just how many matches it’s been since England scored 400 plus in their first innings, we’re not sure this was ever going to be the match where they put that right.
They say it’s the new stand that’s helping the swing, but the ball’s been swinging at Trent Bridge for ages. We were there in 2005 on the day that Matthew Hoggard and Simon Jones, England’s biggest swingers (in a good way), reduced Australia to 58-4.
So Kevin Pietersen’s hundred might prove pretty handy. We’ll have to wait and see how New Zealand’s innings goes.
England v New Zealand, third Test at Trent Bridge
England 273-7 (Kevin Pietersen 115, Tim Ambrose 67, Iain O’Brien 4-61, Kyle Mills 3-58)
Remember how Andrew Strauss was going to GET THE JOB DONE? Ceci sent more pictures, saying:
“Squire Hoggard and the chav Vaughan. KP however will always be an alien life form to me. I’d like to say the rough edges are there as an ironic statement, but of course I would be a big fat liar.”
This one we can take, even if the dog on the left is a bit… visible.
This is harder to take. Don’t look at the weirdly taut groin, whatever you do.
And this one - we don’t know what to say about this one.
You people know that graphic designers read this site, don’t you? Imagine how they feel being so comprehensively outshone.
England will be pretty disappointed to have only made 351 and they’ll point to a couple of rough decisions as being one cause, but if they’re a serious Test side, they should forget about them. It’s not like they’re going to get overturned after the match. Don’t dwell on it.
The most contentious was the dismissal of Kevin Pietersen. Pietersen edged a ball from Chaminda Vaas to Chamara Silva in the slips. Silva went to take the ball to his left, the ball bounced out of his grasp, he managed to scoop it up a second time and succeeded in directing it to Kumar Sangakkara at first slip, who held onto it. It would have been quite neat if it weren’t for the fact that the ball appeared to have been grounded as Silva went for it initially.
So everyone’s calling for ‘the technology’ to be used in these decisions - the umpires chose not to refer it.
However, from England’s point of view, as regards this Test match, the main problem was that Kevin Pietersen edged a ball to second slip. As a batsman, if you edge the ball to second slip, there’s a fair chance you’re going to be out.
We do feel a bit sorry for Pietersen though. Not because of the decision, but because of the fact that he was encouraged to stay out on the field by his teammates. This meant he was standing around like a lost child until it became apparent that actually, yes, he was out.
This was rather unbecoming for a batsman who’s generally very dignified when given out. He tends to tuck his bat under his arm and stride off displaying minimal emotion. It’s quite admirable.
Yes, we really did describe Kevin Pietersen as ‘dignified’.
Sri Lanka v England, second Test at Columbo - day one
England 258-5 (Michael Vaughan 87, Alastair Cook 81)
‘It’ being ’scoring runs against Zimbabwe’.
Despite forgetting that he was right-handed for much of his innings, everyone’s most/least favourite bludgeoner hit 79 off 37 balls after England had lost a few early wickets.
England also won by quite a margin, opening up the possibility that they could knock Australia out by not losing too badly to them later today. How very English.
Ho ho ho. It’s an actual bird. We weren’t really referring to a woman as a bird because that would be demeaning. We were just alluding to that usage - which is of course perfectly acceptable.
Worst post ever. Good job there’s absolutely no chance of our ever making this exact same joke a second time.