Great day for sport today!

And the Bolton Ironman on Sunday, I hear the dirty mac brigade enjoy ogling the sweaty cameltoes running round the Town Hall Square.

I expect that Nadal/Federer semi final was the best sport of the weekend

BoltonTillIDie wrote:Looking forward to the cricket.  You forgot about the netball sluffy.

Yeah netball!

I don't get the hype, it simply isn't entertaining to watch.

The women's gold medal team at the Commonwealth games won the BBC Sports Personality Team of the year for 2018 ffs!  What a joke.

I could have mentioned my personal favourite that is happening this weekend and for the next two weeks too - the Tour de France - many big names like Foome and Dumoulin didn't even make it to the start line this year, so Geraint Thomas the man to beat and the most likely for someone to be better than him is his own team mate Egan Bernal.

I'd forgotten all about Amir Khan's joke of a fight tonight which he won easily (reported he got £7m for doing it too) but I should have at least given a shout out to a very anticipated match up of the next generation of British heavyweights between Nathan Gorman (Cheshire) 16 wins out of 16 against Daniel Dubois (London) 11 wins in 11.

I've never seen either of them fight but heard good things about both of them.

Dubois is a over a year younger at 21 and seems to be better fancied but I'll have a punt on Gorman who has that bit more experience in terms of fights and rounds (and is also Tyson Fury's cousin) and if for no other reason, he is the 'northerner of the two!
 

Should be far more entertaining than flipping netball!


And finally, before we all forget, we also have Bolton Wanderers (the magnificent 6) v York City Sunday afternoon as well!

Don't know if Radio Nuts will be covering it though?

What a strange end to a game of cricket.

Best game EVER.

Love you Jos.

Oh. My. God. Watching the cricket has aged me 20 years at least. What a final, what a way to finish and England are the champions. Brilliant but utterly nailbiting stuff from start to finish.

I think New Zealand got gypped.

Was a great game

Disappointing day for me, I was more bothered about Federer winning than the result of the cricket although I switched over to watch the exciting finish at Lords.
It's sad that I have lost interest in cricket, I was gutted when we lost to the stans in 1992 but am not arsed either way about it now.It's to do with the way sky have ruined the sport in my opinion from splitting the county championship into two divisions, making teams wear coloured pyjamas rather than whites, and jazzing up the Ashes to the detriment of every other team England play.Back in the day a West Indies tour of England was bigger than Australia coming here

Growler wrote:It's to do with the way sky have ruined the sport in my opinion from splitting the county championship into two divisions, making teams wear coloured pyjamas rather than whites, and jazzing up the Ashes to the detriment of every other team England play.Back in the day a West Indies tour of England was bigger than Australia coming here

Disagree 100%.

Cricket is far more exciting than it was even 10 years ago, and Sky have played a part in that.

The only reason a West Indies tour was bigger back in the day was because they had a great team.

Sorry Nat, but cricket has taken a turn for the worse. I never thought I'd see the day when I was fed up with cricket, but I reached that point some time ago.
We have so many one day games now, that, quite frankly, I no longer care. No sooner has one biff bang wallop ended, than another one comes along, and you forget everything that went before.
To make matters worse, Test Cricket, as I used to know it, has become a glorified limited overs game, with players no longer content to build an innings, leaving many Test Matches now over in three days.
I know they want to bring new converts in, but in doing so, they're losing the essence of cricket.
Some of the members at Lords, have, on many occasions over the past few years, been seen to be awake. This is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue.
I was brought up on Boycott and Tavare. This biff bang wallop stuff must cease.

boltonbonce wrote:I was brought up on Boycott and Tavare. This biff bang wallop stuff must cease.

So you enjoy "Parky" cricket?

Sorry, I can't understand how you'd prefer a Boycott-like innings over a Buttler or Stokes biff bang.

Never been interested in cricket and never will be daft looking game.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

boltonbonce wrote:I was brought up on Boycott and Tavare. This biff bang wallop stuff must cease.

So you enjoy "Parky" cricket?

Sorry, I can't understand how you'd prefer a Boycott-like innings over a Buttler or Stokes biff bang.

It's a bit like snooker. Watching players banging in huge breaks is all well and good, but it only really gets interesting when it becomes tactical.
Boycott and co, could be dull, but they knew a Test lasted five days, and the way to win was to occupy the crease. Watching great bowlers ply their trade against such men is what made Test cricket so fascinating for me.
And they weren't all like Boycott. Greenidge, Richards, Lara, Botham et al, were all capable of 
fireworks, but could still incorporate their brilliance into a well constructed and patient innings.
Unfortunately, cricket is being turned into a game for people who don't really like cricket, but will give it a go if the bails light up.

boltonbonce wrote:It's a bit like snooker. Watching players banging in huge breaks is all well and good, but it only really gets interesting when it becomes tactical.
Boycott and co, could be dull, but they knew a Test lasted five days, and the way to win was to occupy the crease. Watching great bowlers ply their trade against such men is what made Test cricket so fascinating for me.
And they weren't all like Boycott. Greenidge, Richards, Lara, Botham et al, were all capable of 
fireworks, but could still incorporate their brilliance into a well constructed and patient innings.
Unfortunately, cricket is being turned into a game for people who don't really like cricket, but will give it a go if the bails light up.

Each to their own, but I'm not convinced cricket could have survived without the new era of big hitting. Yes, those players you name were fantastic, but they stand out because they could hit the ball hard and far. Nowadays there are loads of players who can do that.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

boltonbonce wrote:It's a bit like snooker. Watching players banging in huge breaks is all well and good, but it only really gets interesting when it becomes tactical.
Boycott and co, could be dull, but they knew a Test lasted five days, and the way to win was to occupy the crease. Watching great bowlers ply their trade against such men is what made Test cricket so fascinating for me.
And they weren't all like Boycott. Greenidge, Richards, Lara, Botham et al, were all capable of 
fireworks, but could still incorporate their brilliance into a well constructed and patient innings.
Unfortunately, cricket is being turned into a game for people who don't really like cricket, but will give it a go if the bails light up.

Each to their own, but I'm not convinced cricket could have survived without the new era of big hitting. Yes, those players you name were fantastic, but they stand out because they could hit the ball hard and far. Nowadays there are loads of players who can do that.

I suppose it's a question of evolve or die, but I can see a time in the not too distant future when they're playing with four stumps and every alternate over having to be bowled underarm.

sunlight wrote:I think New Zealand got gypped.

I do too.

They are the moral victors if not the actual ones.

Edge of the seat stuff though. amazing finish (in normal time) but even then NZ should have been given the result because although the scores were tied, they had lost less wickets getting it.

I'm pleased for so many players, such as Morgan, Stokes and Archer but equally heartbroken for the NZ lads who seemed to get the rough end of the deal.

Contrary to Bonce's views, I think the game was the winner here and more youngsters will want to pick up a bat and ball than watching Sir Geoffrey (who I am one of his biggest fans) grind down his opponents by batting for the best part of four days for about seven runs!

It might be worth having a vote on the most boring sportsman ever. I'd plump for Eddie Charlton.

I have to agree with Nat, i've been going to watch cricket for many years and the game has never been in better health.  Until they jazzed up the one day game and brought in 20/20 the whole sport was dying on it's arse.
The only issue i can see with it is this new stupid 100 game they are bringing out, That really is the game for people who don't know anything about cricket.

As for the final i thought we have blown it at 80 odd for 4 but Stokes and Buttler were immense and as for the finish and the super over - all i can say is wow!

Nat and Norpig are 100% right (there's a sentence I never thought I'd write!) 

There is room for both Test Matches and One-Dayers. It's easy to love both for the different approaches needed, but they each provide unbearable, long-drawn-out tension when close. 2005 Ashes almost rivalled yesterday. Different skill sets, but plenty of scope to admire both. Tactical strategy, stamina, skill make these sports fascinating.

I love playing cricket and tennis. Golf is equally dependent on skill and can be just as tense over a long period.   It's "sports" like F1 and cycling that leave me cold.