budgetmeansbudget wrote:Disappointing we couldn't take a wicket before stumps but we still have a decent chance to win tomorrow.
It is, but on the flip side the new ball hasn't done anything in this match. 1st innings, the first wicket wasn't until 13.4 overs. 2nd innings, the second wicket wasn't until 20.5 overs. 3rd innings, the first wicket wasn't until 22.2 overs.
It's once the spinners are on, and the ball starts reversing, that the wickets fall.
Fantastic first session for us, and I would say we just about won the third session. Little question in my mind though that Somerset won the middle session. And I guess that is why this game is right in the balance.
I'm not sure what my feelings are about Bailey telling everyone to go aggressive after lunch (rather than waiting for a ball with your name on it). On the one hand you it is sound logic; it would be a waste for the attacking talent in our batting line-up to dig in for a few balls, and then get a good one. But on the other hand, the last three wickets somewhat showed that the pitch is seemingly getting better to bat on. Maybe we didn't need to be as helter-skelter as we were; I mean, collectively it got us a few runs, but individually it only really worked for Berg.
And besides, after a couple of years of getting frustrated at Carberry, Adams and Smith just scratching around at the top, and the team in general struggling to even maintain a run rate of above 3, at least this is something different! Although I still maintain that the extra batter should be in the side ahead of Topley. Hopefully he can chip in tomorrow, as well as Crane.
(Just from the way that batter after batter, Ervine aside, kept on coming in and smashing it straight away after lunch made it pretty obvious that it was a tactic of ours. But Abbott confirmed it us such, as instructed by Bailey, in his post-match interview)