Alex

I would hazard a guess that the worst XI is usually composed of relatively high profile promising and/or talented players who have under performed rather than being the worst 11 players in the league. Also, who picks it?

Canny wicket-keeper as well.

I see Johan Cruyff has been diagnosed with lung cancer according to reports http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34602348

Aye, that's what bugs me about shit like that, i.e. it's just accepted without question.

It's almost like he's revising history in order to appear better in his own book Can't remember even the slightest bit of speculation linking us with Modric when Allardyce was here either in the summer when he became manager or in the following January

Those Allahu Akbars said with less and less conviction as the bombs get a bit too close for comfort.

Trained with the team here under KK's second spell as manager. KK wanted him. Also, doesn't the timing of his signing for Spurs back that up?

Like the look of the new Fargo.

Robbie Savage tipped Villa to do well this season under Sherwood which makes their current problems even more amusing.

Keep them and sell your computer instead

Run that past Dave again.

No shit?

Israel's defence of its borders and citizens isn't the problem. It's the overwhelming military superiority and huge US financial backing. Although I do appreciate it's understandable how that all came about it's so one-sided a conflict that they act with virtual impunity.

Think it was coca leaves rather than cocaine.

Could just use Uber instead

I think it's much more about the desire for land and power. It provides a damn good excuse though.

Alreet, Leazes

Aye, it's great. Love his work although I doubt I'll ever get the time to read it all.

Got nowt to do with the batsmen any more. The offering of the light to the batting side is long gone. It's set by the umpires. They'll decide at which point, with the aid of their light meters, the light isn't good enough then, once they've set that standard, they'll come off whenever it fades to that amount of light at any stage during the test match. In the old days the batsmen would be offered the light then could come off it they wanted. Technically a fielding team could appeal against the light too back then but in practice that virtually never happened. As for the scoring, it would've been very difficult to get the runs in less than 4 or 5 overs imo, which would equate to about 25 mins at the pace the Pakistani team were bowling them. The boundaries being right back on the fence unlike ODIs and T20s in particular and, of course, no fielding restrictions regarding amount of men inside the circle and so on. Crap advert for cricket though I agree. The daft thing is the rules were changed to prevent similar situations in reverse, i.e. a batting side about to be bowled out being saved by the light.

You reckon ?

White ball is easier to see under floodlights is the simple answer That said the rules were most to blame (rather than the umpires or even the Pakistan players) in this instance. You have a situation where blatant gamesmanship / borderline cheating is rewarded. The umpires had to be consistent with the light issue but I think they could've played on longer on the previous days too. The umpires didn't even seem to have a word with the Pakistan players or their captain either when they were obviously taking the piss.