Six things to watch out for in the first England v Australia one-day international

Let’s do a match preview like proper cricket websites do.

Except for the fact that most of the headings are longer than the sections they relate to, we think we’ve done this right…

1. Jason Roy will ‘show intent’ but won’t get all that many runs

We hope he does though. We like a straight six and Jason Roy hits straight sixes.

2. Nasser Hussain will say “[player name] on the charge”

Not really relevant because most of you won’t be able to hear him on account of Sky TV being really expensive/immoral. Just imagine him saying it as soon as someone hits more than one boundary in an over though and you won’t miss out.

3. Mitchell Starc will york someone

It’s infuriating that Starc’s Australian. We have to confess that we slightly love his bowling.

4. Moeen Ali will unfurl an expansive drive at a wide one and miss

Pretty self explanatory, this one.

5. Moeen Ali will unfurl an expansive drive at a wide one and cream the ball to the boundary

And in so doing look like he could never, ever miss the ball in a million years.

6. Glenn Maxwell will play the ugliest non-shot you have ever seen in your life

And it will go for four.

Share this article...Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0

Tired of checking the site for updates? Sign up for our near-daily email

25 Appeals

  1. Thanks for this, KC. As somebody who falls on the “immoral” side of things, anything else we should be pretending to listen out for? Apart from pretending to gouge our ears out listening to Warnie.

    • King Cricket

      September 2, 2015 at 8:37 pm

      Nick Knight saying: “Should be four. Is four.” – every time there’s a four.

    • Alison Mitchell just said “should be four…and is four”!! Is there no escape, even when we abandon the devil’s medium & return to the bosom of Auntie Beeb?

  2. I agree with 4 and and a half out of 4. I tried to explain this before, and I will probably fail again.

    On this side of the pond, if you have Time Warner cable (which i hate like the plague)or any other big cable company then Cricinfo, through your cable company gives you ESPN free which includes Sky coverage of most UK cricket matches of note.

    That’s weird isn’t it?

    • If you go to there’s also an archive of all the last month’s county matches, which is pretty nice.

  3. Out of 6*

    • Well thank god you changed it. Four-and-a-half out of four was twisting my melon. I have spent more time than I should today (which strictly means any time at all) trying to show that among the natural numbers, the proportion that are odd is 50%, to settle a bet. Having sort-of done that (by invoking asymptotic density if you must know) I though I was going to have to wrestle with a new paradox, a system where subsets can be larger than the main set.

      Why hast thou forsaken me, Cantor.

    • King Cricket

      September 3, 2015 at 8:53 am

      We had a three day argument last week about whether someone could have ‘a chance of being a shoo-in’.

      That too became more and more academic and harder and harder to think about. Maybe there’s a case for becoming one of those insanely angry people who just swears incessantly whenever they find themselves in some sort of debate.

      “Put your seatbelt on.”

    • I’m probably that chap in the Video. I wont watch I’ve just made it through the “Official start of spring”* phase without starting a fight. As manager, I’m probably not allowed to call people who work for me “Fucktards”** but sometimes it is necessary.

      *Southern hemisphere you understand
      **Southern Hemisphere you understand

    • I don’t know how your debate ended up, but I can’t see anything wrong with the statement. A shoo-in is someone who is a certainty to be picked during a particular period in time. Conditional statements about that state from before the period in question are therefore valid. So for example:

      – I am learning sprinting.
      – Currently I can run 100m in something under a minute.
      – If I become able to do it in under 9 seconds, I would be a shoo-in for the Olympic team.

      The aspect of “have a chance” then becomes the chance of the condition being fulfilled. Thus:

      – I have a chance of being a shoo-in for the Olympic sprinting team, that chance being the same as the chance of me becoming able to run 100m in under 9 seconds.

      In this way, it becomes possible to make Rob Key a conditional shoo-in for the England test team.

      – Rob Key is eligible to play test cricket for England
      – There is a chance that everyone else in the world who is eligible to play test cricket for England (bar ten) dies or became unavoidably busy with other things
      – Rob Key has a chance of being a shoo-in for the England test team.

      You can also do it even if you are within the time-frame of shoo-inedness, viz:

      – Rob Key is eligible to play test cricket for England
      – There is a chance that the laws of cricket are amended to include having at least one fat cricketer in every team.
      – Rob Key has a chance of being a shoo-in for the England test team.

      Actually, make that “at least one fat cricketer who used to captain Kent”. Else, Samit Patel.

    • King Cricket

      September 4, 2015 at 10:07 am

      The point really is that as soon as you introduce some element of likelihood, the word shoo-in becomes redundant.

      Your example proves this. We know only too well that ‘Rob Key’, ‘shoo-in’ and ‘England team’ have no place in the same sentence.

    • King Cricket

      September 4, 2015 at 10:10 am

      We suppose the sentence ‘Rob Key has never been a shoo-in for the England team’ would make sense, but you get what we mean.

    • Sorry KC, but I agree with Bert. He wrote more so seems most convinced of his rightedness.

      And there can be only one fat bastard who truly merits a place in this near-apocalyptic England XI:

    • King Cricket

      September 4, 2015 at 12:21 pm

      Well, you’re both wrong.

      Shoo-in means ‘no chance of being omitted’ so ‘a chance of being a shoo-in’ means ‘a chance of having no chance of being omitted’.

      You can say that, in much the same was as you can say ‘reverse backwards’ but if you do say it, you’re an idiot.

    • Your mum’s an idiot

    • I agree with Mike when he says that I’m right.

      But hey guys, let’s not fall out about these things. We’re all friends here, and we shouldn’t let KC being wrong stop that. It’s up to him. If he wants to be wrong, that’s fine by me, even if he does end up looking stupid and an idiot and everything. I mean, who knows? He might even think that he doesn’t look stupid and an idiot and everything. He’d be wrong, of course, but he does have form for that.

    • I can see why this argument went on for 3 days. In fact, if you had asked me beforehand how long the argument would last, I would say it had a chance of being a shoe-in for a 3-dayer.

      • King Cricket

        September 4, 2015 at 3:00 pm

        It’s the kind of thing Orwell complained about. Pretty soon shoo-in will have no real meaning.

        And stop siding with Bert. He’s only getting his own back after we used ‘quintessentially English’ the other day.

    • I think Jimmy Peaks has resolved this brilliantly. KC’s friends probably meant “The England kit has been ordered in bulk and given the sizes procured, Mr. X could have a chance of being a shoe-in”. Meaning, there is a chance one shoe will fit his right/left leg.

      I can understand why the debate has stirred these fine men so. It has been documented that a disagreement of a similar nature had enraged Gandhi so much that he decided to go with flip flops all his life. And try the celibacy thing.

    • While I have the deepest respect for Gandhi, Deep Cower, even to the point of wearing sandals/flip-flops regularly, there are limits and the celibacy thing crosses a line.

      I’d be very surprised if either KC or Bert are quite that enraged, but who knows?

      The etymology of the term shoo-in is a term to describe fixing horse races. In that sense, the term relates to certainty and pretty much every well-sourced definition I can find uses the word certainty within it.

      On that basis, I regret to opine that KC is correct and that Bert, on this one occasion, is slightly less correct.

      Regret only in the sense that I know that Bert will find a way to get his own back on me, whereas KC would probably have been a shoo-in for a sanguine response.

    • Use modifies meaning, Ged, as I’m sure you understand. Conspirators no longer have to even meet, let alone breathe together. Sublime batting is not necessarily done in a doorway. And shoo-ins do not necessarily have to involve horses.

      Besides, even under your wilfully obscure and archaic definition, a possible shoo-in remains valid. Is that a good race to bet my house on? Maybe not, because it is possibly a shoo-in.

      In summary, I pity you, foo.

    • King Cricket

      September 4, 2015 at 5:34 pm

      What does ‘a possible shoo-in’ mean?

      If it means a possible winner, then that’s not a shoo-in. It needs to be definite to earn that description.

      Think Shane Watson lbw – that level of certainty. Absolutely inconceivable that it could ever not happen.

    • Fabulous news.

      I wanted your pity, Bert and have finally achieved that goal.

      Thank you.

  4. Michael Atherton saying “NOW…” every time something potentially important happens

    Someone making a joke about Shane Watson

    Someone saying “aggressive brand of cricket”

    The boring middle overs still existing

  5. Rashid taking wickets with absolute filth. Gary Ballance would be proud.

Comments are closed.

© 2016 King Cricket

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑