Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Glam 54-1 in the 8th

I guess there was always going to be a come down after last Saturday, but 32-7 is bloody rank.

mark the hawk wrote:Going back to the Durham final , its been killing me all week

who was the West Indian fast bowler who had who got smacked everywhere ?

Darren Powell

Every team usually has at least one shocker every season - last year, we were bowled out for double figures by Somerset and lost by about 100 runs. Hopefully that's it for us, and out of the way now.

Just one game is nowhere near long to start talking about issues or changes, but the Rilee-Munro partnership is something that should be monitored. Two batters who want to go after everything; we need to ensure a good balance between 40-0 off 3 overs, and 4-2 off 1 over. We can't be repeating that first over too many times.

st_brendy wrote:

mark the hawk wrote:Going back to the Durham final , its been killing me all week

who was the West Indian fast bowler who had who got smacked everywhere ?

Darren Powell

Thats the Fella

cheers Brendy

st_brendy wrote:Every team usually has at least one shocker every season - last year, we were bowled out for double figures by Somerset and lost by about 100 runs. Hopefully that's it for us, and out of the way now.

Just one game is nowhere near long to start talking about issues or changes, but the Rilee-Munro partnership is something that should be monitored. Two batters who want to go after everything; we need to ensure a good balance between 40-0 off 3 overs, and 4-2 off 1 over. We can't be repeating that first over too many times.

is the correct answer

Game completely hinged on two separate three-over periods in the first innings.

The first was us at fault. Northeast, Rilee and Munro all trying to put Briggs into the stands, but getting caught on the boundary. In close succession to each other.

The second wasn't our fault, it was Sussex's ability. Their death bowling, especially from Archer, was too good. Every ball was on our toes, or around our ears. Going at a million miles an hour, or zero miles an hour. One single boundary is all we managed from those three.

I suspected we were 20 runs light at the half way stage, and as it transpired we were more like 30 runs light. Those above six overs go our way, and we get those 30 runs, no problem.

Of course it doesn't help when you bowl their best batsmen, and the umpire's don't give him out. But we'd still have been light on runs. I'm not going to have a go at the batters though; that Sussex bowling attack is one of the best this competition has ever seen. It's why we had to go after Wiese's overs, and we did just that. I'd have loved 170 against that attack, and it still wouldn't have been enough.

Hard to argue too much with that Brendy

i'll argue though that we look to be a batsman and a bowler short

perhaps Alsop should keep and bring an allrounder in , Ian Holland maybe ?

mark the hawk wrote:Hard to argue too much with that Brendy

i'll argue though that we look to be a batsman and a bowler short

perhaps Alsop should keep and bring an allrounder in , Ian Holland maybe ?

I'd be very happy with dropping McManus for a batter, and giving Alsop the gloves. But I don't see any batter in the squad that appeals to me. I'm not sure if Holland is any more likely to find the ropes than McManus. So I'm begrudgingly sticking with Lewis, to get the experience.

Munro can bowl, so I'm relatively relaxed about our number of bowling options. Six is fine.

(It does cause huge issues though when we lose Munro - after 8 games I believe. Getting Steyn back would solve the issue of Abbott's economy - if that still exists come then - but we'll be losing a batter and sixth bowler; with no obvious replacement. At that point, we might have to play Holland in place of McManus, with maybe Adams replacing Munro.)

Abbott dropped. Ryan Stevenson plays his first first-team game since, I think, 2015.

(He possibly might have played in 2016; I might be getting my years merged together. But in my head he was injured throughout 2016, and not selected throughout 2017)

Very rare occasion where our middle order came to the party. And they were almost did it. Second time in three matches that a match against Kent this season has come down to the final ball, and we've lost both. (But i'll take that, in exchange for winning the one which didn't!).

Berg bowling utter dross, including crucially two very big no-balls (and the free-hits which followed), cost us. And Mujeeb bowling a ball for five wides, for the third match in a row, didn't help either. I wonder if it's partly because Lewis can't pick him yet, so any wide from Mujeeb is at risk of going for five wides.

Only just noticed our two recent defeats in the T20 putting us rock bottom at 0 and 3.

Ah well, the Royal London and avoiding CC relegation will be a decent season if it turns out that way.

James Vince has been called up for the last ODI. But I can't see he'll miss any county games.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:James Vince has been called up for the last ODI. But I can't see he'll miss any county games.

Got to be his best format in terms of making it with England, problem comes from the lack of vacancies.

We started that over looking for 200 to 210.

We ended that over looking for 175.