Durham match thread 2023

[captaincolly]

we do indeed

Good final partnership in what must be trying conditions

are the lights on?

Yes, think they've been on all day.
Just looked up Patel's record- not the worst number 11, has a couple of FC 50's to his name.

[captaincolly]

Lyth out first ball - not a good game for him.

[Durhamfootman]

we need a few more before the umps take them off for the light and the ECB hit us for not bowling enough overs

[Durhamfootman]

gottim!

Potts bowls Masood

18-2 after 10 overs

[Durhamfootman]

we gave Yorks 24 more extras than they gave us in the first innings and we ended up with a 27 run deficit.

I supose it's easy to say we should tidy that up, and we probably should, but we seem to go hard at batters, so I suppose it's inevitable that we concede byes, no balls on height and so on

[captaincolly]

It's beginning to look like the very best case scenario will be a tricky chase and if the weather tomorrow makes it a day for batting, Yorkshire might well make hay!

[Durhamfootman]

I confess I was hoping to see one of these two in the hutch and maybe a nightwatchman with him, when I checked the score after play ended. Instead I found that play had ended before that could happen.

Opening spell in the morning will be key

[captaincolly]

The sun is out but Carse is not - another "trunk injury" - his absence could prove decisive.

[Durhamfootman]

well.... that's all a bit of a *modded* up

I checked in earlier and saw we were half way to our target only 2 down, in the sunshine and I just assumed it would be a piece of cake from there

I check in now and we're miles away 8 down with no sign of carse

what on earth is going on?

[Durhamfootman]

oh well, we survive to fight in the morning. Excellent work from these two. 73 required when they came together, 33 left to get

I'm going to assume that the extra half hour was taken, because there seems to have been a lot of overs bowled today. Start again in the morning, but 73 needed from what might turn out to be the final partnership, is kind of in Stokes territory, so although we've done well to still be in this, I'm not hopeful

Will Carse come out to bat, I wonder? Might be crucial if he can

Incidentally, today's match report is the second time in two days I've seen mention of a generous or a marginal lbw decision at key times when we were batting, whilst the first day's report makes mention of Masood 'surviving a strong lbw appeal'

there'll be a lot of chuntering going on in the stands, I don't doubt.

[Durhamfootman]

and I'm also a bit confused..... not for the first time

When Bean replaced Shakeel, I assumed he'd suffered a concussion, but I've just read the match report on day 1 and he retired injured after he turned his ankle while running.

He did come back out with a runner, but I've seen nothing to suggest that he'd been hit after he'd returned. I'm happy to be corrected though.

Not the same as the Sussex game, where a bowler was replaced and said replacement put us to the sword with 4 or 5 wickets (?), but equally I have no doubts over the nature of the substitution in that match, but Bean's 22 is the difference between us needing 33 and needing 11.... so the subs rule is all becoming a bit murky in my mind..... once again, I'm happy to be corrected

[captaincolly]

oh well, we survive to fight in the morning. Excellent work from these two. 73 required when they came together, 33 left to get

I'm going to assume that the extra half hour was taken, because there seems to have been a lot of overs bowled today. Start again in the morning, but 73 needed from what might turn out to be the final partnership, is kind of in Stokes territory, so although we've done well to still be in this, I'm not hopeful

Will Carse come out to bat, I wonder? Might be crucial if he can

Incidentally, today's match report is the second time in two days I've seen mention of a generous or a marginal lbw decision at key times when we were batting, whilst the first day's report makes mention of Masood 'surviving a strong lbw appeal'

there'll be a lot of chuntering going on in the stands, I don't doubt.

I also think Yorkshire are favourites. Just listened to Campbell's interview and he said Carse will bat- but the way he was talking suggested the injury is likely to rule him out for a significant time. Although he did say Coggers should play in the next game .A defeat here won't be a terrible result, tricky pitch and competitive game, the problem is though there must be a fair chance Potts will be resting from the next game .

[captaincolly]

and I'm also a bit confused..... not for the first time

When Bean replaced Shakeel, I assumed he'd suffered a concussion, but I've just read the match report on day 1 and he retired injured after he turned his ankle while running.

He did come back out with a runner, but I've seen nothing to suggest that he'd been hit after he'd returned. I'm happy to be corrected though.

Not the same as the Sussex game, where a bowler was replaced and said replacement put us to the sword with 4 or 5 wickets (?), but equally I have no doubts over the nature of the substitution in that match, but Bean's 22 is the difference between us needing 33 and needing 11.... so the subs rule is all becoming a bit murky in my mind..... once again, I'm happy to be corrected

It is confusing but I think Shakeel must have had delayed concussion symptoms. He got hit on the head almost immediately after he resumed his innings, physio came on and gave him the all clear- then he got out next ball! I guess he must have felt groggy the next morning and wss substituted.

[Durhamfootman]

As it happens I'd just read a report that said that he'd been hit on the head by Potts.

Here's the thing that worries me, and it hasn't really occurred to me before, but if a batter pulls a hammy, or rolls an ankle, or tweaks his calf and has to go off and he realises that his participation in the rest of the match is in serious doubt, what is to stop him coming back out with a runner to complete his innings and then quickly duck into a ball once he comes back out? That injury then becomes something where another batter might then be drafted in to replace him in the second innings

But for a bowler who tweaks something barely into his 5th over that can't happen, the team is just a bowler down and then a batsman down as well if he doesn't risk aggravating the injury.

I'm just beginning to think (and I'm not suggesting for a moment that this is the case here) that a less scrupulous capt/coach/player might find a way to use the concussion sub law to their advantage....... and it would be a bit worrying if an injured player was put under pressure to go back out and deliberately try to get hit on the helmet in order to take advantage of a substitute.... particularly after the tragedy of Phil Hughes

I put this purely hypothetically, because we know that there are players and coaches out there who are prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to win a game of sport. Sending a player out with a blood capsule in his pocket so that he could come off if needed and allow for an extra substitution in a rugby match as an obvious example

[captaincolly]

Yes, it's tricky with this concussion substitute rule. Ideally I think it should be treated just the same as any injury but, at the same time, I can sort of understand why it isn't.