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

The smallest part of me did wonder at one stage if I'd made a mistake at refusing to attend this one.

Somewhat strangely, if we're now going to drop/rest players, it'll have to be the likes of Ervine and Adams who we turn to. We're already playing most of the kids!

st_brendy wrote:The smallest part of me did wonder at one stage if I'd made a mistake at refusing to attend this one.

Somewhat strangely, if we're now going to drop/rest players, it'll have to be the likes of Ervine and Adams who we turn to. We're already playing most of the kids!

Different formats but I wonder how you were so good in the RL50 but struggling in T20?
Other way round for Durham but Tahir obviously a huge factor plus Colly returning to form.

captaincolly wrote:

st_brendy wrote:The smallest part of me did wonder at one stage if I'd made a mistake at refusing to attend this one.

Somewhat strangely, if we're now going to drop/rest players, it'll have to be the likes of Ervine and Adams who we turn to. We're already playing most of the kids!

Different formats but I wonder how you were so good in the RL50 but struggling in T20?
Other way round for Durham but Tahir obviously a huge factor plus Colly returning to form.

We got very, very lucky in the RL50 group stage. As was mentioned continuously, we had no middle order at all. Aside from a brilliant Berg knock down the order to somewhat steal a win away from Sussex, we relied entirely on our top four in that group stage. And even then, Rilee and Vince were very hit and miss. And we lost Amla half way through. Had we not won our penultimate game, we might not even have qualified, let alone won the group.

There were only three matches where we batted like a top one-day team: the final group game, the SF and the final. The latter two being greatly helped by Northeast returning from injury. But even in those three games, it was still down to the top order. Vince hit two 100s, Rilee hit one, and Northeast made two 50s.

Vince and Northeast are much, much better suited to 50 over, where they don't need to play the rash shot or try something fancy. And given the massive hit and miss nature of Rilee, we badly shot ourselves in the foot by signing another such player in Munro. We quickly realised our mistake so attempted to rectify it by splitting them up and dropping Rilee down from opener to no.4 - which is an awful place to bat someone who is hit and miss, because if you do lose two or three early wickets then you're facing a very high probability of him then adding to that.

On balance though, I'd still say that the middle order is a bigger issue than the top order. As much as you don't want to lose early wickets, you can still recover if you have good batting depth. Twice Dawson has done just that for us. But Alsop, McManus and Weatherley have hardly scored a run between them (same for Taylor in the Rl50), and we play too many bowlers who can't bat. In the past, our middle order would be Ervine, McKenzie and a solid overseas player (Bailey, Katich, Christian, McLaren). And moreover, that would be off the back of a more reliable top order featuring Carberry and Adams.

st_brendy wrote:

captaincolly wrote:

st_brendy wrote:The smallest part of me did wonder at one stage if I'd made a mistake at refusing to attend this one.

Somewhat strangely, if we're now going to drop/rest players, it'll have to be the likes of Ervine and Adams who we turn to. We're already playing most of the kids!

Different formats but I wonder how you were so good in the RL50 but struggling in T20?
Other way round for Durham but Tahir obviously a huge factor plus Colly returning to form.

We got very, very lucky in the RL50 group stage. As was mentioned continuously, we had no middle order at all. Aside from a brilliant Berg knock down the order to somewhat steal a win away from Sussex, we relied entirely on our top four in that group stage. And even then, Rilee and Vince were very hit and miss. And we lost Amla half way through. Had we not won our penultimate game, we might not even have qualified, let alone won the group.

There were only three matches where we batted like a top one-day team: the final group game, the SF and the final. The latter two being greatly helped by Northeast returning from injury. But even in those three games, it was still down to the top order. Vince hit two 100s, Rilee hit one, and Northeast made two 50s.

Vince and Northeast are much, much better suited to 50 over, where they don't need to play the rash shot or try something fancy. And given the massive hit and miss nature of Rilee, we badly shot ourselves in the foot by signing another such player in Munro. We quickly realised our mistake so attempted to rectify it by splitting them up and dropping Rilee down from opener to no.4 - which is an awful place to bat someone who is hit and miss, because if you do lose two or three early wickets then you're facing a very high probability of him then adding to that.

On balance though, I'd still say that the middle order is a bigger issue than the top order. As much as you don't want to lose early wickets, you can still recover if you have good batting depth. Twice Dawson has done just that for us. But Alsop, McManus and Weatherley have hardly scored a run between them (same for Taylor in the Rl50), and we play too many bowlers who can't bat. In the past, our middle order would be Ervine, McKenzie and a solid overseas player (Bailey, Katich, Christian, McLaren). And moreover, that would be off the back of a more reliable top order featuring Carberry and Adams.

Sounds a bit like Durham in the T20. Heavily reliant on the top 3, works in conditions where it's likely to be low scoring games but don't have batting depth.

That's not bad from us. Only about 40 under par this time.

you'll have to get the ball-biter back next year

Durhamfootman wrote:you'll have to get the ball-biter back next year

Think I'd rather Raine and Duckett.

Not that we can ever beat Warks to signing players.

there is no good time to bowl two wides, of course, but it seems particularly bad when trying to defend 6

Without checking the records i cant remember us ever turning in a t20 campaign as bad as this. If we've failed to qualify for the quarters we've pretty much always been in contention every year.

The middle order weakness should have stopped us winning the Royal London, but its certainly shown up big time in the t20.

Munros gone, probably relieved to get away, and it seems Vince and Roussouw cant be arsed now.

Good crowd in last night even with Hants down and out.

Yep, still got no middle order. God Weatherley is poor.

Not quite sure why we didn't promote Berg to 3.

Wasp had us getting 210 at one point. Now 150 looks a long way off.

Dawson's highest score of the Championship season. Down at no.8.

Weather has brightened significantly as the afternoon has gone on, the innings has picked up too in the last hour, thankfully.

st_brendy wrote:Dawson's highest score of the Championship season. Down at no.8.

Although he hasn't scored since I wrote that. Stuck on 41. Which is always a worry, a batter getting stuck.

There we go. Onto 45.

Surrey struggling against Lancs and the same goes for Yorks against Worcs. Although Yorks are still well in the relegation mix.