wearside willow wrote:captaincolly wrote:Ever since I said Rimmington looked innocuous he has looked dangerous and has 3 wickets now. No heroics from Henry with the bat - 0. 8 down.
Did Rimmington bowling improve later on? Agree with you on the opening spell looked very ordinary. Thought his batting looked better than his bowling. Mind saying that the first few times i saw Callum Thorp bowl I thought Hussey had just done one of his old mates from Perth a favour and got him fixed up and he turned out ok.
I thought Weighell and Potts where poor when they came on 1st and 2nd change as well.
The batting! wow that was poor. Surely they are better than that as a unit.
Yes, I also thought Rimmington was poor in his first spell but he looked more of a threat when he came back. So did Weighell. Far too many poor deliveries by Weighell & Potts before that.
Lack of pre-season practice is unfortunate and the loss of Steel at the last minute forcing them to rejig the order didn't help but I think there are grounds for concern - Rushworth today looked like he did last year, very threatening for a few overs at the start and then suddenly losing his edge. Rimmington had a pretty good day but on first look he might be more suited to first change behind two genuine strike bowlers ( which we haven't got )and the rest of them are inexperienced ( and injury prone .)