OK, I mentioned Tewkesbury this morning and said I would report back if I heard anything. Well, I just heard, and am now sure that the 7/1 available on the LDs with Ladbrokes and other bookies is indeed good value.
The Conservative (Laurence Robertson) is 4/5, and Labour 11/8. That looked wrong to me and I have now spoken to the LD candidate and I am assured that he is currently running second. He thinks they are about 7% behind the favorite with Labour nowhere. YouGov MRP gives it 35C/27LD/22Lab which from my knowledge of the constituency feels kind of right, (maybe Lab a bit high but not a million miles out) and gives a decent bit of Labour vote to squeeze.
I've taken the sevens for as much as Lads would allow me. Reform have not put up a candidate yet. Naturally the LDs are hoping they do. If I hear any more, I'll post again.
Fwiw, neighbouring Cheltenham is an LD certainty, but at 1/7 I won't be bothering myself.
Chatting to my brother last night. He reckons St Neots and Mid Cambs will be LD rather than Lab. Currently 3 I think, while my other brother in Wimbledon reckons the reverse with Lab over LD to take the seat.
Not brilliant value at either, but I have a fiver on each now.
Wimbledon is probably the only seat in the country that could plausibly go Con, Lab or LD.
That’s not the case Andy , the more so in the current climate.
It would be a good thread to have someone post up the 3-way marginals.
I’m in one. Newton Abbot. A case can be made for any of Con-LibDem-Lab to win it. Indeed the most reputable tactical voting sites have decided to defer advising for two more weeks.
Scotland vs England - A 10-over per side match will begin in 20 minutes.
I think that is massive advantage for England. Scotland got a good start but you bat for the 20, now only have < 4 overs to really trash it. Where as England have 10 wickets to go ultra hard from ball 1, knowing you aren't going to lose all 10 in 10 overs.
Scotland vs England - A 10-over per side match will begin in 20 minutes.
I think that is massive advantage for England. Scotland got a good start but you bat for the 20, now only have < 4 overs to really trash it. Where as England have 10 wickets to go ultra hard from ball 1, knowing you aren't going to lose all 10 in 10 overs.
Scotland vs England - A 10-over per side match will begin in 20 minutes.
I think that is massive advantage for England. Scotland got a good start but you bat for the 20, now only have < 4 overs to really trash it. Where as England have 10 wickets to go ultra hard from ball 1, knowing you aren't going to lose all 10 in 10 overs.
Yes that actually seems somewhat unfair on the Scots, who were ahead of the game.
Oh well,
I don't know if they get some DLS premium on their total, so England have to chase down a larger amount?
Yes, they will so it's fair, if Scotland get 40 more runs in their remaining 22 balls that'll get them to 91 and England's target will be something like 133 in 10 overs to win.
Australian Test skipper Pat Cummins has signed a four-year deal to play for San Francisco Unicorns in Major League Cricket, the USA's franchise league. It's a big statement from MLC - its debut season was in July last year, so it's a big clash with the UK summer. The knock-on effect on player availability for The Hundred, which is already pretty limited, could be huge.
If the Hundred going to become a tournament for the second tier talent, like European Tour of golf?
The thing is not playing T20, rather a different game, it doesn't play into the Indian billionaire's dream of having a tour carnival of franchises, with players signed to the parent organisation, that go around the world playing T20 every other month in a different country.
The Hundred is just a ridiculous competition. The quality of player is little to no better than what you get in the T20 Blast. Although the eliminator is included in my Surrey membership and that is usually good fun.
Its a total balls up in that the plan from the start was always to sell the competition and franchise to private equity. Who are the people with big bucks and into cricket, the Indians. What game do they want to promote, T20.
I understand they want to widen participation, grow the game, get families involved etc. But they also need money and the big money is turning T20 into a world tour where players are signed to the SuperKings, who then play in India, SA, USA, Middle East etc. They have already signalled they aren't interested in the Hundred by setting up the MLC that runs at exactly the same time.
Yep it's all very silly. Also as a spectator I can't help but feel a bit shortchanged when I go to matches. Too fast for the vibe of cricket.
Its not for me. I don't have kids, so I find it too kid focused and I don't like the forced American hype. I understand that T20 international have got a bad rep for too much of drinking culture, but in my experience the atmosphere can be electric without the need to have a hype MC.
I think they have it the wrong way around. T20 should be the elite competition, then another competition that is kid / family focused that might not have the best of the best, but cheap to go. You use the money from your profitable T20 competition to subsidise the family focused one.
You find time for this by getting rid of 50 over cricket entirely.
p.s. having spent time in animal markets and researching and teaching on animal parts in traditional medicines, I can well believe covid began in a market. As with other crossover viruses. May have been a lab leak. Or may not have been. Either entirely plausible.
That’ll please Leon but I’m not interested in his drunken aggression.
This isn't doing the Barbados tourist board much good, people don't go to the Caribbean to be rained on.
Not a good start to the tournament. A very dodgy pitch yesterday resulting in a sub 100 acore and today the rain sheet had a hole in it and let the water through onto the wicket.
For the NYC part of the tournament, they imported special grass (non-smokeable for clarification) for the temporary pitch.
Hopefully the also sprang for a decent tent?
The irony. Scotland play England in Barbados and it rains. Might as well have scheduled it for Fort William.
WHY is anyone surprised, that it rains in Barbados? Note that wiki says that June is start to the "wet season".
Well yesterday’s revelation was that they couldn’t find 34,000 people in New York who wanted to pay to watch a cricket match staged 30 miles out of town.
Not surprising.
However, your analysis as to reasons why is a tad flawed, seeing that:
> more people live in Queen (part of NYC) than in Manhattan ("town"); and
> Queens is also more ethically diverse, with greater numbers & percentages of South and West Indians.
This isn't doing the Barbados tourist board much good, people don't go to the Caribbean to be rained on.
Not a good start to the tournament. A very dodgy pitch yesterday resulting in a sub 100 acore and today the rain sheet had a hole in it and let the water through onto the wicket.
For the NYC part of the tournament, they imported special grass (non-smokeable for clarification) for the temporary pitch.
Hopefully the also sprang for a decent tent?
The irony. Scotland play England in Barbados and it rains. Might as well have scheduled it for Fort William.
WHY is anyone surprised, that it rains in Barbados? Note that wiki says that June is start to the "wet season".
Well yesterday’s revelation was that they couldn’t find 34,000 people in New York who wanted to pay to watch a cricket match staged 30 miles out of town.
Not surprising.
However, your analysis as to reasons why is a tad flawed, seeing that:
> more people live in Queen (part of NYC) than in Manhattan ("town"); and
> Queens is also more ethically diverse, with greater numbers & percentages of South and West Indians.
The criticism is that the cricket organisers aren’t even trying to attract Americans to the sport, but are instead targeting already cricket-playing immigrant communities.
You don't have to be a super-recogniser to see that they're not the same person.
I thought they looked similar but she's very clearly denied it.
Also, such a stunt would obviously be found out - even Farage is not stupid enough to attempt it.
Oh he is stupid enough. Whether he did is a different matter
Farage is not stupid
pb we need a word for “mad ideas I willingly believe because they satisfy me emotionally”
We have two examples on here tonight
1. It came from the market 2. Nigel Farage is stupid
People WANT to believe this nonsense so they do. See also
3. Elon musk is dumb as fuck 4. Every move against Trump is justified and the democrats have been scrupulously honest in pursuing him
Once these notions get a grip on you they are very hard to dislodge. Likewise on the right
5. The vaccine is engineered to hurt us 6. Jews Jews Jews Jews (the left also suffers from this, now)
Does anyone seriously think Musk is “dumb”? I question your hero worship of the guy, he got lucky in innumerable ways others didn’t, but even on a basic “he can code” level he’s clearly not dumb. Ditto Farage, who obviously possesses a manipulative cunning.
As I've said many times in the past: we're *all* dumb in some way or another. We all think, or worse say, dumb things. Things where we have not given what we are saying enough thought, or where we are speaking outside our knowledge.
One of Musky Baby's issues is that some seem to think he is a genius, and therefore when he says something, he is saying something that is genius, When in fact - leaving aside he often outright lies - he often speaks not from expertise, but ignorance. Often motivated by business or political positions, not truth.
Musk is not dumb. But he says dumb things, and is all the more dangerous because idiots believe everything he says to be genius,
Australian Test skipper Pat Cummins has signed a four-year deal to play for San Francisco Unicorns in Major League Cricket, the USA's franchise league. It's a big statement from MLC - its debut season was in July last year, so it's a big clash with the UK summer. The knock-on effect on player availability for The Hundred, which is already pretty limited, could be huge.
If the Hundred going to become a tournament for the second tier talent, like European Tour of golf?
The thing is not playing T20, rather a different game, it doesn't play into the Indian billionaire's dream of having a tour carnival of franchises, with players signed to the parent organisation, that go around the world playing T20 every other month in a different country.
The Hundred is just a ridiculous competition. The quality of player is little to no better than what you get in the T20 Blast. Although the eliminator is included in my Surrey membership and that is usually good fun.
Its a total balls up in that the plan from the start was always to sell the competition and franchise to private equity. Who are the people with big bucks and into cricket, the Indians. What game do they want to promote, T20.
I understand they want to widen participation, grow the game, get families involved etc. But they also need money and the big money is turning T20 into a world tour where players are signed to the SuperKings, who then play in India, SA, USA, Middle East etc. They have already signalled they aren't interested in the Hundred by setting up the MLC that runs at exactly the same time.
Yep it's all very silly. Also as a spectator I can't help but feel a bit shortchanged when I go to matches. Too fast for the vibe of cricket.
Its not for me. I don't have kids, so I find it too kid focused and I don't like the forced American hype. I understand that T20 international have got a bad rep for too much of drinking culture, but in my experience the atmosphere can be electric without the need to have a hype MC.
I think they have it the wrong way around. T20 should be the elite competition, then another competition that is kid / family focused that might not have the best of the best, but cheap to go. You use the money from your profitable T20 competition to subsidise the family focused one.
You find time for this by getting rid of 50 over cricket entirely.
Agreed with all of that until the final para. You don't need to find time for it if it's nit an elite comp - you make it a bit B teamy.
Reasons I prefer the T20 to the Hundred: - More overs - Same format as T20 the world over - rather than pointless tweaks which add nothing. - The fonts and purple/green graphics of the Hundred. - It's Lancashire, where my grandfather was a member and to which I therefore feel some affinity - not Manchester, which is made up. And Lancashire has bettet songs and Lanky the Giraffe. - The Hundred is like watching BBC3 - it's terrified it's going to lose your attention. - The music is better at the T20. Sweet Caroline/Papa's got a brand new pigbag/ Tom Hark. Rather than the 1Xtra shite they play at the Hundred in a desperate attempt to appeal to the youth.
Reasons I prefer the Hundred: - It's in terrestrial telly.
I used to also love the T20 because it was so wonderfully cheap - £8 for an adult and £1 for a child in 2019! - but those days are gone, sadly. You get players you've heard of now, but I didn't mind the B team aspect of it for that price.
The atmosphere is good at both. Fill Old Trafford and you'll always have a good atmosphere. And both are genuinely brilliant for families. The Hundred had the double-header aspect - the women's game then the men's game - but the T20 appears to have adopted this too. It is in any case a double edged sword - more cricket is good, but my kids' attention probably doesn't extend to more than 40 overs of cricket yet.
I prefer 50 over cricket to 20 over cricket. But having a whole day to watch cricket is a very rare luxury. I'm much more likely to be able to spare 3 hours than a whole day.
Comments
It would be a good thread to have someone post up the 3-way marginals.
I’m in one. Newton Abbot. A case can be made for any of Con-LibDem-Lab to win it. Indeed the most reputable tactical voting sites have decided to defer advising for two more weeks.
I think they have it the wrong way around. T20 should be the elite competition, then another competition that is kid / family focused that might not have the best of the best, but cheap to go. You use the money from your profitable T20 competition to subsidise the family focused one.
You find time for this by getting rid of 50 over cricket entirely.
Hannah Rose Woods
@hannahrosewoods
Tfw you really enjoy flint knapping
https://x.com/hannahrosewoods/status/1797937407259816171
NEW THREAD
That’ll please Leon but I’m not interested in his drunken aggression.
However, your analysis as to reasons why is a tad flawed, seeing that:
> more people live in Queen (part of NYC) than in Manhattan ("town"); and
> Queens is also more ethically diverse, with greater numbers & percentages of South and West Indians.
One of Musky Baby's issues is that some seem to think he is a genius, and therefore when he says something, he is saying something that is genius, When in fact - leaving aside he often outright lies - he often speaks not from expertise, but ignorance. Often motivated by business or political positions, not truth.
Musk is not dumb. But he says dumb things, and is all the more dangerous because idiots believe everything he says to be genius,
Reasons I prefer the T20 to the Hundred:
- More overs
- Same format as T20 the world over - rather than pointless tweaks which add nothing.
- The fonts and purple/green graphics of the Hundred.
- It's Lancashire, where my grandfather was a member and to which I therefore feel some affinity - not Manchester, which is made up. And Lancashire has bettet songs and Lanky the Giraffe.
- The Hundred is like watching BBC3 - it's terrified it's going to lose your attention.
- The music is better at the T20. Sweet Caroline/Papa's got a brand new pigbag/ Tom Hark. Rather than the 1Xtra shite they play at the Hundred in a desperate attempt to appeal to the youth.
Reasons I prefer the Hundred:
- It's in terrestrial telly.
I used to also love the T20 because it was so wonderfully cheap - £8 for an adult and £1 for a child in 2019! - but those days are gone, sadly. You get players you've heard of now, but I didn't mind the B team aspect of it for that price.
The atmosphere is good at both. Fill Old Trafford and you'll always have a good atmosphere. And both are genuinely brilliant for families. The Hundred had the double-header aspect - the women's game then the men's game - but the T20 appears to have adopted this too. It is in any case a double edged sword - more cricket is good, but my kids' attention probably doesn't extend to more than 40 overs of cricket yet.
I prefer 50 over cricket to 20 over cricket. But having a whole day to watch cricket is a very rare luxury. I'm much more likely to be able to spare 3 hours than a whole day.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13494115/I-just-felt-like-Woman-25-arrested-throwing-milkshake-Nigel-Farage-doesnt-represent-believe-Reform-UK-leader-incident-frightening.html
SKS will raise everyone's tax by £2,000 and would be weaker on immigration.
Not that there was a decisive win for Sunak though i hear
(I didnt see any of it just going from reports)