Yep there was Baker for 3. And in particular one also simultaneously directed abuse at Clarke. I pulled him up on it.Baker for 3? It was Baker for 14? i haven’t seen anyone say it was Baker for 3.
Anyway, Baker for 14 is still incorrect.
But my point was I’d be interested to know if there was a story behind it. However, we might never know.
The way some people frothed and moaned about Baker it was like the BB punters had more information to base decisions on than those on the inside.
Meaning - Us Right! Them Wrong!