Yeah on a normal day he wouldn't, had he bowled the first 10 straight, but how he held us in it'd have to be him (me second :P)
<table class="tborder" width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr><tr><td class="alt1"> Prince EWS </td><td class="alt1">106</td></tr><tr><td class="alt2"> Skippos </td><td class="alt2">74</td></tr><tr><td class="alt1"> Callum </td><td class="alt1">27 </td></tr></tr></tbody></table> Lol, maybe posted a slender bit too much in here. Let's never speak of this outburst again hey /self ban
Did bowl when the pressure was off, but, yeah, would've thought if I didn't anchor the chase, then we'd have lost, whereas halls bowling wasn't that integral
If Hall didn't come in and hit 37 (39) you would have lost as well... and his 4 overs for 5 runs really put the pressure on them to hit out against the other bowlers; Lukic got one of their best batsmen out IIRC which I doubt would have happened if not for Hall's bowling. You certainly had a good game but he outperformed you.
He kept it tight. IF you didn't anchor the innings I could have came in and scored 100 off 50...If buts and maybes.