This evening we sojourned to what must be our pub de saison the Fox and Hounds for a quiet drink by the river. When we arrived a little after 5:30 it appeared we were not alone in our idea. Unfortunately for the three women with their children they were also hoping to eat and the pub was not yet open. We were soon joined by a number of of other parties who expressed surprise that the car park was half full but no-one was available to serve them drinks. As one family informed everyone that they had booked a table for 6 we presumed that they had not been closed down and went for a stroll by the river whilst pondering that they were either not too concerned about the business and the fear of losing trade to a gastro pub down the road that was open all day. Personally the relaxed attitude to opening times makes a refreshing change and its nice to see someone working at their own convenience even if they do seem to be missing a trick my not opening an hour earlier on a Friday evening. It gave us the opportunity for a walk by the river and the 10 minutes just lying on the grass in the sun were a welcome relief from having to do something - that was until Bethany decided my shoelaces were more fun than her toys. When we returned to the pub it had filled up a little more and it proved a very pleasant evening with other like minded families and the pub even provided toys for the numerous children.
   A number of posts have had the advantage of brevity this week as I have had to go to work. I was intending to discuss English cricket and the last test against Pakistan - particularly that stand between Trott and Broad, but events somewhat overtook me. My one overriding thought over the spot betting scandal is who on either side would be stupid enough to place or accept a bet on a specific no ball occurring at a set time. I am not a gambler so I come at this from a neutral (or uninformed) point of view but have had a flutter on the Grand National and this year actually won. Now when this rare occurrence happens you think that gut feeling you had might be on to something or the scientific methods you used to analyse all the form was the winning way. It is tempting to believe you know what is going to happen and one bookmaker even played on this during there World Cup advertising (I forget which one but thankfully I didn't back my hunches as even England got farther than the Ivory Coast). Anyway my point is that when placing a bet you can justify in your mind what might happen or the odds are too good to turn down. With spot betting you could even argue a case for the number of corners based on the the average number in a match and the supposed abilities of both teams. Also this is a parameter with so many variables that it would be hard to corrupt and is reliant on the opposing team attacking or the defending team not putting the ball out. Throw ins are a little vaguer but in e.g. wet or windy conditions one may assume that passes may be over hit and the ball may go out of play more often but to bet on the actual time a throw in occurs is pure guess work and for such a bet to be available smacks of somebody knowing something I don't know in which case I'm not interested. Cricket provides more opportunities for potential fixes as even though it is primarily a team game it is one where the team is composed of individuals. There is still only so much one corrupt individual could do - rumours that the Pakistan openers were deliberately scoring slowly and taking 20 or 30 deliveries before scoring ignores the fact that the bowler might actually get them out. Also in context to the Pakistan batsmen on that occasion they had been previously been dismissed for less than 100 and were naturally being watchful. As for the no balls to order I still can't understand how a bookmaker, licensed or not, would take such a bet without thinking that such a specific wager had knowledge he didn't. Still well done Stuart Broad.