Surrey "One Dayer"
Yesterday's Hero
By Grockle
August 15 2008
The awesome performance of Marcus trescothick and Zander de Bruyn yesterday has put this game in an interesting place for the last day. With 400 to get Surrey can gain nothing from the present situation anfd we will be up for some kind of contrived finish - but will Surrey be interested? If they are....can we get 10 in a day on a good wicket?
v Surrey LVCC1 @ Taunton Friday 15 August 2008
There are rumours of a contrived finish attempt being made this morning with negotiations between the captains about what scenario would create a competitive finish with a wining result possible for both sides. One has to wonder what would be a situation that Surrey would be happy to agree to and whether we would agree to forego any bowling bonus points to go for it.
We shall wait with bated breath. In the meantime Surrey resume on 47 for 1 after losing Newman for zero to Caddick late last evening. It's probably significant that the Surrey warm up involved batsmen only and the only people on the field at 10:30 are Caddick, Phillips and Thomas who are all warming up.
What does it all mean?
Well as the umpires come out it means very little because the news has just come thorugh that the Riverside game between Durham and Nottinghamshire has been abandoned without a ball being bowled and with our 5 points already we'll probably take the day, hopefully get the bowling bonus points and the 4 for the draw and take the 12 without problem. As somene said in here, if two ex-Middlesex guys could sort it out, the perfect situation would be them getting the 400 and us taking 9 wickets. That would leave us in sight of Durham (about 2 behind) and very near Notts with a game in hand over them.
It'll be a bat out the day game unless we get through them sharpish - highly unlikely but we shall have to see. Langer will play it safe - he has no real reason not to and Ramps won't jeopardise the draw his side need as they hold up the table and hopefully will take bonus batting points from this one.
Alfonso opened form the River and Charl took the ball at the OP with Ramps facing the first ball, Sean Walters is at the other ned and has the honour of putting the first boundary to the boards for 4 - providing Surrey with a 50. That happenend the ball before Willoughby had him caught at slip for 38. 50 for 2. Batty is the next man in.
But he is also the next man out when at 62, Thomas gets one through his defence and clean bowls him for 8. Seventeen to go and out comes Afzaal. As long as we can keep the big partnership from forming we have a slim chance in this. These two are the ones who can put this game away and they will be planning to do so. Charl has an attacking field with 2 slips and a gully and Hildreth taking the close legside fielding position under the helmet. Usmann seems willing to take on the bowling and has a couple of injudicious swishes - keep that up sir...go for everything. Alfonso is jagging it across the new batsman and Langer has a third slip in for him at the OP. Thomas is being aggressive, sharp and varied while his bowling partner does that 'plugging away' thing that he has done so well all season.
In comes Andrew to take over at the River for the 35th over with 78 to Surrey. His first ball to Afzaal is right on the money and all the batsman can do is push it to Hildreth at midwicket. A maiden and Afzaal gets a bit of a working over but handles it well. Ramprakash is playing at absolutely nothing he doesn't need to. No tempting this man to hit runs - he doesn't actually need to. Charl puts in another maiden and the Surrey men stay where they have been for 12 balls.
Ben Phillips comes on at over number 40 with 91 on the board. It's going to be a long afternoon on the basis of the last half hour. We are pushing for attacking shots and the batsmen are looking to hit as little as possible. In the 41st, Caddick is not happy with the ball and the umpires have a chat about it for a minute or two before they send it back to the big man to carry on with it. It's only going about the place at 3 runs an over so there shouldn't be much up with it. He seems to be expecting something from it because we now have three more fielders in the off side ring with Zander and Pete joining James in the gully area. The only fielder not there is the third slip! Unfortunately very little is happening and when it does, Ramps flip it over Marcus at second slip for a four that brings up the 100.
Ian Blackwell is brought on for the 45th and probably will be Justin's last throw at going for a win. It was always an absolute outside chance but as the two Surrey men go to a 50 partnership at 112 this game goes into it's draw phase. Therefore the main aim now is to get 9 down before the game reaches the inevitable draw now.
Ramprakash goes to 50 off 140 balls with 7 fours at 132. Ian is not exactly causing problems on this 'minefield' and they all troop off for lunch with 135 up but no more wickets down.
Peter Trego opens at the OP after lunch and Ian continues at the River end around the wicket to Afzaal and looking a little more menacing fromthat angle with Peter Trego close at silly mid off with James H still in the helmet on the leg side.. But there is very little change other than the personnel. The Surrey men are not going to hit anything they don't have to and they are quite happy to stay on 136 for the rest of the afternoon rather than take a risk.
Up comes the 150 off the bat of Ramprakash from a ball from Ian in the 59th. It takes their parternship to 90.and then past 100 in the 62nd. The only thing now pending in this game is the obligatory Ramps century. Bonus points loo a long way for both sides unless these two decide to have a belt once the game is safe (and we must be getting there now).
Tea arrives with the visitors 2 more wickets down but a couple of runs from saving the follow on. They'll pack it in at 5 one would expect and we may get another point but it looks highly doubtful that they will get to 400 or that we will get 9 wickets.
Ramps hit his 100 off loads of balls with 14 fours. Afzaal got his 50 off loadsa balls as well and Caddick made Spriegel look like a rabbit. he's bouncing all over the place, diving to save runs and bowling like we haven't seen him this season. All in a lost cause unfortunately.
I'm on my way home so fill in the rest of the gaps yerselves people.
Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: Grockles.com (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 10:37
Surrey "One Dayer"
CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 11/08/2008 09:29
So.. what team for Surrey?
Some, on here, have been questioning AC’s place.
I would say – and I expect Mr Rose to share this view – that the thing with AC is that he always requires lots of bowling to get into synch. Therefore, it’s not simply a case of comparing his performances with those of others because we have to take into account that with a bit more bowling under his belt, everything may suddenly slip into gear and he may suddenly be our best bowler again. For this reason, I expect him to be persisted with and I think that decision would be the correct one.
Of course, he could play second XI, I suppose, but the danger there is that he takes many wickets without needing to bowl that well and does not get as long a bowl as he’s likely to get on our track against Surrey.
The main question surrounding the side for Surrey is likely to revolve around the balance of the side. I wonder whether Pete Trego has some kind of injury? Why else would he not have played yesterday?
Even if Pete is fit, the powers that be may want to restore the balance of the side to where it was before Neil Edwards disappeared from view? Neil himself might be able to return if things are behind him? If not, then Wes or Arul might come into contention?
As for Ian’s place?
One suspects that the powers-that-be would like to drop him. Unfortunately for them, that would require them to find not one, but two players to replace him – one to do the batting role, another to be the main spinner. The powers that be might, possibly, think Arul could do both jobs but I’ve never seen any sign that Arul is anything more than a ‘dart,’ bowler with very little guile. I don’t think, for one minute, that he is capable of bowling like Ian did in the 2nd innings at Horsham, for instance.
Now, if they are suitably encouraged with Michael Munday’s second-innings haul the other day, then maybe they might want to play him? In which case they could swap Wes or Arul AND MKM for Ian and sacrifice a seamer. Of course, MKM is hardly a reliable bowling option, in the Ian mould, either but at least he is an attacking spin option, unlike Arul. However, I think the forecast might make this option somewhat unlikely.
Some, on here, have been questioning AC’s place.
I would say – and I expect Mr Rose to share this view – that the thing with AC is that he always requires lots of bowling to get into synch. Therefore, it’s not simply a case of comparing his performances with those of others because we have to take into account that with a bit more bowling under his belt, everything may suddenly slip into gear and he may suddenly be our best bowler again. For this reason, I expect him to be persisted with and I think that decision would be the correct one.
Of course, he could play second XI, I suppose, but the danger there is that he takes many wickets without needing to bowl that well and does not get as long a bowl as he’s likely to get on our track against Surrey.
The main question surrounding the side for Surrey is likely to revolve around the balance of the side. I wonder whether Pete Trego has some kind of injury? Why else would he not have played yesterday?
Even if Pete is fit, the powers that be may want to restore the balance of the side to where it was before Neil Edwards disappeared from view? Neil himself might be able to return if things are behind him? If not, then Wes or Arul might come into contention?
As for Ian’s place?
One suspects that the powers-that-be would like to drop him. Unfortunately for them, that would require them to find not one, but two players to replace him – one to do the batting role, another to be the main spinner. The powers that be might, possibly, think Arul could do both jobs but I’ve never seen any sign that Arul is anything more than a ‘dart,’ bowler with very little guile. I don’t think, for one minute, that he is capable of bowling like Ian did in the 2nd innings at Horsham, for instance.
Now, if they are suitably encouraged with Michael Munday’s second-innings haul the other day, then maybe they might want to play him? In which case they could swap Wes or Arul AND MKM for Ian and sacrifice a seamer. Of course, MKM is hardly a reliable bowling option, in the Ian mould, either but at least he is an attacking spin option, unlike Arul. However, I think the forecast might make this option somewhat unlikely.
Surrey without the fringe on top
Posted by: cricketjerry-mouse (IP Logged)
Date: 11/08/2008 08:34
The word on the circuit is that Surrey are parting company with coach Alan Butcher at the end of the season, and members are now pressing for his son Mark to go as well.
Could be a good time to play them this week - if the weather allows us on the pitch.
Could be a good time to play them this week - if the weather allows us on the pitch.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: RadstockRob (IP Logged)
Date: 11/08/2008 19:21
Weather forecast not very good for the rest of the week especially tomorrow.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Palairet (IP Logged)
Date: 11/08/2008 19:53
Thank you Bristol Rob, but I shall await an official report from the meteorological station, which is based in the capital of West Somerset, before deciding whether or not to make the pilgrimage to the County Ground.
I hope you are feeling well, Big Jim.
I hope you are feeling well, Big Jim.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: RadstockRob (IP Logged)
Date: 11/08/2008 20:10
I think he's out collecting seaweed!
The forecast I saw was Richard Angwin on BBC News.
The forecast I saw was Richard Angwin on BBC News.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 11/08/2008 20:32
Thanks for asking Palairet,I'm going a very odd colour but am otherwise fine.
Strangely Rob I was picking up some seaweed with my crutches today.
My neice is terrified of the stuff and was refusing to paddle unless I removed the offending weed.
And to think the Welsh boil it up and it eat.
Lovely with bacon.
Strangely Rob I was picking up some seaweed with my crutches today.
My neice is terrified of the stuff and was refusing to paddle unless I removed the offending weed.
And to think the Welsh boil it up and it eat.
Lovely with bacon.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: MisterMurph (IP Logged)
Date: 11/08/2008 20:43
Not just the Welsh - used to sell washing up bowls full of the stuff from our butchers in North Devon.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: RadstockRob (IP Logged)
Date: 11/08/2008 20:44
Strange lot the Welsh.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: cricketjerry-mouse (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 08:52
Andy Hurry says we may play two spinners against Surrey. Seems a little unlikely given the overhead conditions.
Wes Durston, Ben Phillips and Neil Edwards added to the team that played Nottinghamshire in the championship.
Wes Durston, Ben Phillips and Neil Edwards added to the team that played Nottinghamshire in the championship.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 09:29
How has Tuesday dawned down there today, chaps? Is it sunny (as it is in Swindon), or was there so much overnight rain there's no chance of a start any time soon?
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 09:33
Does anyone else think that continuing to pick a team (as per ECB reports) that has an extra bowler, rather than batsmen, in conditions that are liable to heavily favour the ball, is at least somewhat perverse?
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 09:51
It is sunny here though it has been very very wet.
We've got some rather nasty stuff moving up the channel and heading towards Bicknoller and the Quantocks.
From there it can be watched on its merry way by others.
Big Jim,your coastal correspondent,on the edge of insanity.
We've got some rather nasty stuff moving up the channel and heading towards Bicknoller and the Quantocks.
From there it can be watched on its merry way by others.
Big Jim,your coastal correspondent,on the edge of insanity.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: RadstockRob (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 10:02
Heavy rain here all night but sunny now.If we were playing here it would be a delayed start.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 10:05
The view from the Huish web-cam looks relatively promising.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: cricketjerry-mouse (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 10:09
Contrary to any ECB report, Somerset have added two extra batsmen to the squad in Neil Edwards and Wes Durston and a potential all-rounder in Ben Phillips.
It seems that whether any of them will play will depend on weather conditions - if there is a delay, you don`t have to name your team until the toss.
It seems that whether any of them will play will depend on weather conditions - if there is a delay, you don`t have to name your team until the toss.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 10:10
It has really filled in since my last post and it is about to start raining.
The cloud is moving over the Quantocks in the direction of Taunton.
It does not look at all good.
The cloud is moving over the Quantocks in the direction of Taunton.
It does not look at all good.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 10:40
Heavy rain here.
We're off to Cornwall until Thursday so you'll have amuse yourselves with the weather I'm afraid. Doesn't bother us - a wetsuit is wet and spending this evening at Jamie's Fifteen place so I hope it dries out for you lot and you see some in the next couple of days.
Back in the saddle on Thursday.
We're off to Cornwall until Thursday so you'll have amuse yourselves with the weather I'm afraid. Doesn't bother us - a wetsuit is wet and spending this evening at Jamie's Fifteen place so I hope it dries out for you lot and you see some in the next couple of days.
Back in the saddle on Thursday.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Ww (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 10:43
Surrey win the toss and bat.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 10:43
Yes - the forecast, for the whole country was heavy rain - followed by sunshine, followed by heavy showers.
In London, we're in the sunshine window so, with the weather pouring in from the West, I'd guess Taunton will already be in the 'heavy showers,' window?
Or is it worse than that, is it set-in general, heavy rain?
In London, we're in the sunshine window so, with the weather pouring in from the West, I'd guess Taunton will already be in the 'heavy showers,' window?
Or is it worse than that, is it set-in general, heavy rain?
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 10:46
Forecast for tomorrow is appalling. For the next day, not good either.
Only hope is to bat on Friday and exploit a poor Surrey attack to get as many bonus points as possible, I'd guess.
Only hope is to bat on Friday and exploit a poor Surrey attack to get as many bonus points as possible, I'd guess.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Sloop John B (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 10:53
It has been a very bright morning at TA1 but there was about an inch of rain last night.
As 11:00am approaches the clouds are beginning to build.
Maybe it will be Willo weather although humidity doesn't seem too high just at the moment.
As 11:00am approaches the clouds are beginning to build.
Maybe it will be Willo weather although humidity doesn't seem too high just at the moment.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Ww (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 11:01
Sky Sports News said surrey won the toss and would bat, but Cricinfo says they won and would field?
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 11:03
Lost the goddman toss and will have to bat in the inclement weather yet again. I hope we plumped for the extra batsmen, from those in the squad!
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Sloop John B (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 11:04
Think Cricinfo are right they have JL and Banger batting.
7 off 4 deliveries from Pedro
7 off 4 deliveries from Pedro
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 11:05
If Jonah has been dropped (as opposed to being injured) then I do NOT agree with the move to pick Phillips in his stead (as per the team listed on the Beeb.) According to the Beeb, Phillips for Jonah is the only change. Unless there's an injury, it's mystifying?
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 11:07
INterestingly, Surrey have also gone with a "max bowling," less batting type of line-up with all of Nicholson, Jordan, Dernach, Collins and Saqlain selected. Although Nicholson has batted well for them, at times, in the past.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 11:19
Is this a 20-20 game?
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: RadstockRob (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 11:21
Don't think so Wurzel not there.Lots of rain has stopped play.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Sloop John B (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 11:25
Yep - raining in TA1 at moment.
Some blue sky over the Blackdowns tho'
A day of off and on....
Some blue sky over the Blackdowns tho'
A day of off and on....
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 12:32
Any news from the front? any sign of it drying out?
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Sloop John B (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 12:37
Good strong sun at the moment...
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 13:34
raining again, now, or do we reckon they're still mopping up?
Lancs - Yorks is gone for the day and, to judge by their forecast, the entire match may be in peril.
Lancs - Yorks is gone for the day and, to judge by their forecast, the entire match may be in peril.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: cricketjerry-mouse (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 13:54
Ben Phillips got the key wicket of Ramps when we bowled Surrey out for 227 in their second dig in our victory at Whitgift School in May, AG.
Let us hope he can do so again.
Let us hope he can do so again.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 14:12
Let's hope it won't be today, though!
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: RadstockRob (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 14:49
It doesn't sound too good at the moment.Covers are going back on and it's very dark overhead.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 15:01
cjm - unless Jonah is injured, then I don't think that one wicket that Ben took in May should be that relevant?
The bottom line should surely be that Jonah has had two match-winning type 5 wicket in an innings efforts (both vs Kent) and Ben hasn't had any?
The bottom line should surely be that Jonah has had two match-winning type 5 wicket in an innings efforts (both vs Kent) and Ben hasn't had any?
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 15:38
Is there any prospect of play or can i give up checking?
the suns out in Bristol
the suns out in Bristol
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 15:46
Huish cam again looks good, but has done for much of the day..
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 16:24
They've restarted!!!
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 16:31
Come on, let's keep those skies blue for the rest of the day and press on where Durham and Notts have been washed out.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 16:33
severe weather warnings in place for the NE both today and tomorrow.
It looks like a two day game, at best, at Chester LS.
One imagines it will be low-scoring (denying both teams batting points) but hopefully it won't be so low-scoring that there will be a result...
It looks like a two day game, at best, at Chester LS.
One imagines it will be low-scoring (denying both teams batting points) but hopefully it won't be so low-scoring that there will be a result...
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 16:56
I was, hitherto, unaware that David Millns was now a first-class umpire.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 16:59
Pay attention at the back of the class!!
It's been mentioned on these pages before, AG.
It's been mentioned on these pages before, AG.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Scrumper (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 17:25
Sigh.
This is going to be one of those declare on 400 games.
This is going to be one of those declare on 400 games.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 17:26
Let's hope so, fRed.
Don't forget that's the umpteenth 50 since the last ton.
400 is still a way off.
Don't forget that's the umpteenth 50 since the last ton.
400 is still a way off.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 17:43
Very warm and sunny in bonny little Watchet by the sea(or river just for Grockle)
Did anybody else know that David Millns was now a first-class umpire?
Good start.
Keep it up.
As it were.
Did anybody else know that David Millns was now a first-class umpire?
Good start.
Keep it up.
As it were.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: cricketjerry-mouse (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 17:57
David Millns is on the umpire`s reserve list, but is probably in line to take Barry Leadbeater`s place when he retires at the end of the season.
He umpired the Glo`shire II v Somerset II match at Bristol last week.
He umpired the Glo`shire II v Somerset II match at Bristol last week.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 20:37
Talking of umpires I can't praise ours enough.
We were criticising the umpires in the previous match for disappearing into their dressing room during rain.
Today's umpires on the first stoppage did not leave the field but was on the boundary edge waiting to see what would happen.
At the 4 o/clock inspection because the sun was out they were out on the playing area at 3.50 doing their inspection.
And there was none of this shouting out from the balcony they went out onto the grass to speak to the ground staff.
The link to my Photos on Photobucket - [s1152.photobucket.com]
We were criticising the umpires in the previous match for disappearing into their dressing room during rain.
Today's umpires on the first stoppage did not leave the field but was on the boundary edge waiting to see what would happen.
At the 4 o/clock inspection because the sun was out they were out on the playing area at 3.50 doing their inspection.
And there was none of this shouting out from the balcony they went out onto the grass to speak to the ground staff.
The link to my Photos on Photobucket - [s1152.photobucket.com]Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: cricketjerry-mouse (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 21:17
Those of us who believe that the current Somerset cricketing glass is half full (third in Division One in both current competitions and within a win of the top in both) have taken some stick of late for questioning those posters who regularly see it as half empty - or at least half full but in danger of what liquid there is draining out.
Forty-eight hours ago I thought `It could be they are right, and I won`t mention it again - at least not on site`. As Grockle so correctly points out, this is a forum for varied opinion anyway.
But one post today has really got up my nose - to use a rather vulgar expression.
Take today`s scenario - we lose the toss and are inserted in bowler-friendly weather conditions, yet in two brief period of play, adding up to 21 overs, we score at more than five an over against two international bowlers in Collins and Nicholson.
Justin Langer collects 55 of 68 balls at a strike rate of over 80, and Marcus hits ten fours in 46 off 65 balls, at a 70-plus strike rate.
Yet all we get is: `Don`t forget that`s the umpteenth 50 since the last ton.`
True, true, true, as the half-empty contingent have pointed on more than a few occasions. But was today really the day to say it yet again?
Forty-eight hours ago I thought `It could be they are right, and I won`t mention it again - at least not on site`. As Grockle so correctly points out, this is a forum for varied opinion anyway.
But one post today has really got up my nose - to use a rather vulgar expression.
Take today`s scenario - we lose the toss and are inserted in bowler-friendly weather conditions, yet in two brief period of play, adding up to 21 overs, we score at more than five an over against two international bowlers in Collins and Nicholson.
Justin Langer collects 55 of 68 balls at a strike rate of over 80, and Marcus hits ten fours in 46 off 65 balls, at a 70-plus strike rate.
Yet all we get is: `Don`t forget that`s the umpteenth 50 since the last ton.`
True, true, true, as the half-empty contingent have pointed on more than a few occasions. But was today really the day to say it yet again?
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 21:25
Fair point, cjm, but don't forget that every true cricket fan fears the worst (the five-wicket collapse, the dropped sitter, the ninth-wicket century partnership that rescues the opposition) in the hope that the worst won't happen and we can feel better about our team.
It's not the fear that kills you, it's the hope.
[...and I suspect that FE was being ironic at AG's expense]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:12:21:28:11 by SheptonPaul.
It's not the fear that kills you, it's the hope.
[...and I suspect that FE was being ironic at AG's expense]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:12:21:28:11 by SheptonPaul.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 21:32
Thank you for spotting that, SP.
I really must try and be less subtle!
I really must try and be less subtle!
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 22:04
Some batting shots from our two openers today.
Justin Langer batted the best I have seen him all season timing the ball as good as Marcus.
Let’s hope it continues.
No comment just the names.
Marcus Trescothick
Marcus Trescothick
Justin Langer
Justin Langer
Lets hope for more play tomorrow.
The link to my Photos on Photobucket - [s1152.photobucket.com]
Justin Langer batted the best I have seen him all season timing the ball as good as Marcus.
Let’s hope it continues.
No comment just the names.
Marcus Trescothick
Marcus Trescothick
Justin Langer
Justin Langer
Lets hope for more play tomorrow.
The link to my Photos on Photobucket - [s1152.photobucket.com]Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Grizzers (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2008 22:29
Thanks again for the photo's Mike. Appreciated especially as someone who can only visit the Ground very, very occasionally !
Ramps. looks indecently enthusiastic fielding to a forward defensive shot !
Grizzzly
Ramps. looks indecently enthusiastic fielding to a forward defensive shot !
Grizzzly
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 08:30
Stunning Mike,simply stunning.
If the weather in Taunton is anything like the weather here I suggest there may be a bit of flooding on the outfield.
Dew it's wet.
If the weather in Taunton is anything like the weather here I suggest there may be a bit of flooding on the outfield.
Dew it's wet.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: RadstockRob (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 08:35
Thank you Michael Fish. Any hurricanes about?
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 09:54
I saw a chap called Mr Higgins walk down the road a few minutes ago.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 10:17
Talk is there could be a whirlwind on its way too.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: bloke (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 10:23
Absolutely throwing it down in Taunton at the moment
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Palairet (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 10:40
I hope the umpires called "no ball" then, Bloke.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 10:49
And the fact remains, Cjm, that there is nothing invalid about saying that we scoring tons would be likely to increase our chances of winning games. It isn't a matter of pessimism or optimism, it's a matter of realism.
I am, frankly, quite perturbed at Langer's public utterances on the subject (UNLESS those utterances are just for our consumption and he is saying something different to the team, in which case that's a different matter)*
He's been saying 'I'd rather have six fifties than one big ton and no-one else contributing.' Or rather that's what he said after the Kent game but he made it sound as though that was his general philosophy for our team this season.
Problem is that this is - in most circumstances - an urealistic viewpoint. Yes, in that one game against Kent, everyone made a 50. But, under normal circumstances some top order batsmen will fail. Expecting anything else surely lies in the realms of fantasy??? Which is precisely why it is critical that some people make tons.
Look at England vs SA. England scored 50s. SA converted them to tons. SA prevailed. And yes, test matches have one extra day, I know, but still...
{And I believe I'm correct in saying that Andy Hurry, at least, did say something on the website about the need for batsmen to push on after getting good starts}
* I do also recognise that in games which are heavily disrupted by rain, there is a case - especially against a very weak attack like Surrey - for batting in a rather more up-tempo style than in a full four day game and that this will, necessarily, involve taking more risks than usual.
I am, frankly, quite perturbed at Langer's public utterances on the subject (UNLESS those utterances are just for our consumption and he is saying something different to the team, in which case that's a different matter)*
He's been saying 'I'd rather have six fifties than one big ton and no-one else contributing.' Or rather that's what he said after the Kent game but he made it sound as though that was his general philosophy for our team this season.
Problem is that this is - in most circumstances - an urealistic viewpoint. Yes, in that one game against Kent, everyone made a 50. But, under normal circumstances some top order batsmen will fail. Expecting anything else surely lies in the realms of fantasy??? Which is precisely why it is critical that some people make tons.
Look at England vs SA. England scored 50s. SA converted them to tons. SA prevailed. And yes, test matches have one extra day, I know, but still...
{And I believe I'm correct in saying that Andy Hurry, at least, did say something on the website about the need for batsmen to push on after getting good starts}
* I do also recognise that in games which are heavily disrupted by rain, there is a case - especially against a very weak attack like Surrey - for batting in a rather more up-tempo style than in a full four day game and that this will, necessarily, involve taking more risks than usual.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 11:25
It's a nonsense, AG, which has been too easily trotted out by lazy commentators for the last couple of years. It's the new version of "it's all about partnerships".
Of course a really big score might be considered more likely if one batsman makes a major contribution. You could equally well argue that consistent, decent scores are more likely from a line-up which is in good enough collective form to garner 6 scores of 50-99, rather than one that relies on one or two scores of 100+.
All of these truisms are equally true, and at the same time equally false. At the end of the day ther only real truth is that it matters not "how"; merely "how many".
Of course a really big score might be considered more likely if one batsman makes a major contribution. You could equally well argue that consistent, decent scores are more likely from a line-up which is in good enough collective form to garner 6 scores of 50-99, rather than one that relies on one or two scores of 100+.
All of these truisms are equally true, and at the same time equally false. At the end of the day ther only real truth is that it matters not "how"; merely "how many".
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 11:35
Not quite, FE. It's surely unrealistic, is it not, to expect everyone to be in good enough form, over any period of time, for a team to consistently get scores of >50 but <100 from its top six?
Moreover, even if one could expect that, the fact remains that one big hundred and five 50s is very likely to lead to a bigger score than 6 50s.
Finally, cricket run-scoring is not a mutually exclusive proposition. It does not follow that just because one batsmen makes a really big score, the others are less likely to contribute.
In other words, I feel that JL's comments drew a false dichotomy.
I hope that JL’s comments were merely for our consumption and that, in the dressing room, he is preaching the value of concentration and big tons. Maybe not for this game, I admit, due to time lost, but as a general proposition.
Edit: "You could equally well argue that consistent, decent scores are more likely from a line-up which is in good enough collective form to garner 6 scores of 50-99, rather than one that relies on one or two scores of 100+."
The above point would also, logically, rely, would it not, on the idea that that it would be the same one or two players consistently scoring the tons?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:13:11:51:22 by AGod.
Moreover, even if one could expect that, the fact remains that one big hundred and five 50s is very likely to lead to a bigger score than 6 50s.
Finally, cricket run-scoring is not a mutually exclusive proposition. It does not follow that just because one batsmen makes a really big score, the others are less likely to contribute.
In other words, I feel that JL's comments drew a false dichotomy.
I hope that JL’s comments were merely for our consumption and that, in the dressing room, he is preaching the value of concentration and big tons. Maybe not for this game, I admit, due to time lost, but as a general proposition.
Edit: "You could equally well argue that consistent, decent scores are more likely from a line-up which is in good enough collective form to garner 6 scores of 50-99, rather than one that relies on one or two scores of 100+."
The above point would also, logically, rely, would it not, on the idea that that it would be the same one or two players consistently scoring the tons?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:13:11:51:22 by AGod.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 12:08
Quote:AGod
Not quite, FE. It's surely unrealistic, is it not, to expect everyone to be in good enough form, over any period of time, for a team to consistently get scores of >50 but <100 from its top six?
Of course. What one should consistently expect is predicated by averages. That means that for our top six in this game, we should expect 55.66 + 47.55 + 48.42 + 32.41 + 39.00 + 34.70 = 257.74.
But again, that's not my point. My point is that the importance, from a team perspective, of converting 50s into hundreds (and let's not foget we may be talking about as little as one run here!) is hugely overstated. A look at the current top four scorers in Division One confirms this. Trescothick heads the list by 100 runs (admittedly from a couple more innings than some; he's 6th in terms of aveage), but Rudolph, Goodwin and van Jaarsveld in the next three spots all have more hundreds and far better conversion rates. Banger has more scores of 50 and above than anyone in the division.
Incidentally, the best conversion rate in our top six is that of Hildreth which stands at 1 in 3: he also has the lowest average.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 12:22
Yes, but Banger would have even more runs if he'd converted more 50s into tons!!
That's unless one is assuming - for no logical reason that I can think of - that if he'd have converted more of his 50s he would also then have gone on to fail (make a low score) in more innings than has been the case.
What JL seemed to be saying is that it's better for any one of our batsmen to get 50 every time out than get a big hundred followed by some low scores, but there is no logical reason to expect big hundreds to be followed by a greater proportion of low scores than one would expect to follow a 50.
But I guess we could go round and round on this point.. so perhaps we'd better adjourn until season's end when we will see what correlation there is (if any) between team success and making tons as opposed to unconverted 50s?
That's unless one is assuming - for no logical reason that I can think of - that if he'd have converted more of his 50s he would also then have gone on to fail (make a low score) in more innings than has been the case.
What JL seemed to be saying is that it's better for any one of our batsmen to get 50 every time out than get a big hundred followed by some low scores, but there is no logical reason to expect big hundreds to be followed by a greater proportion of low scores than one would expect to follow a 50.
But I guess we could go round and round on this point.. so perhaps we'd better adjourn until season's end when we will see what correlation there is (if any) between team success and making tons as opposed to unconverted 50s?
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 13:05
Just for fun, I've aggregated the total runs scored by every side in division one, and then calcualted their %age dependence on their two leading scorers.
Durham; 1328 out of 3983 = 33%
Lancs; 1323 out of 4010 = 33%
Suss; 1746 out of 4401 = 39%
Kent; 1412 out of 4475 = 32%
Notts; 1422 out of 4662 = 30%
Yorks; 1616 out of 4655 = 35%
Hants; 1445 out of 5018 = 29%
Surr; 1465 out of 4590 = 32%
Somerset; 1858 out of 5398 = 34%
So we are neither exceptionally reliant on our top two, or exceptionally widely spread in terms of run-getting.
Incidentally, Ramprakash's conversion rate this year is 100%: he's only got to 50 three times but has gone on to three figures every time. Add Butcher's two tone from three 50s and you could certainly suggest that high conversion hasn't helped Surrey much!
Durham; 1328 out of 3983 = 33%
Lancs; 1323 out of 4010 = 33%
Suss; 1746 out of 4401 = 39%
Kent; 1412 out of 4475 = 32%
Notts; 1422 out of 4662 = 30%
Yorks; 1616 out of 4655 = 35%
Hants; 1445 out of 5018 = 29%
Surr; 1465 out of 4590 = 32%
Somerset; 1858 out of 5398 = 34%
So we are neither exceptionally reliant on our top two, or exceptionally widely spread in terms of run-getting.
Incidentally, Ramprakash's conversion rate this year is 100%: he's only got to 50 three times but has gone on to three figures every time. Add Butcher's two tone from three 50s and you could certainly suggest that high conversion hasn't helped Surrey much!
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: MisterMurph (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 13:11
I like those stats, not because it make this whacky discussion any clearer in my simple mind, but because it shows that Somerset have scored more runs than anyone else, and that our two best batsmen have scored more runs than anyone elses. (at least, I think that is what it says)
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 13:19
That's exactly what it says, Murph, despite the fact that several others have scored more hundreds!
I'll put the bone down now and curl up in my basket!
I'll put the bone down now and curl up in my basket!
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 13:20
Interesting stuff, FE.
I'll be interested to see what the Sussex numbers say at the end of the season, whether their relatively high reliance on their top two run-scorers (including Goodwin's fine conversion rate) will end up under-mining them to any extent, or not.
I'll be interested to see what the Sussex numbers say at the end of the season, whether their relatively high reliance on their top two run-scorers (including Goodwin's fine conversion rate) will end up under-mining them to any extent, or not.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 13:27
Has our site given up with highlights? They were showing them during the Yorks game? I only ask because the link has been provided to their site.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: bloke (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 14:02
I see that as 13:40 came, so did a downpour.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 14:05
ah!
They've been lucky at Derby, haven't they?
They've been lucky at Derby, haven't they?
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Grizzers (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 14:14
Thanks for the link bloke.
Banger looked in prime form. A couple of absolutely beautiful off drives !
Can't believe how green the entire ground looks. Is there a drop of rain around by any chance ?!
Grizzzly
Banger looked in prime form. A couple of absolutely beautiful off drives !
Can't believe how green the entire ground looks. Is there a drop of rain around by any chance ?!
Grizzzly
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Streeter (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 14:14
Hmm, that was a fascinating bone to chew on and although you've put it down FE I want to pick it up again and maybe slightly change the taste of it.
It seems to me that what you're discussing is not essentially what you're discussing!! 50, 100, 99 on one level these are just numbers.It would be quite possible for someone to have a 0% conversion rate frome 50-100 but a 100% one from 50-99. the statistic loses it's meaning. However I think the real issue (and I think this is AGs real concern ) is what happens when a batsman reaches 50 or has been batting for an hour. If he thinks he's done enough and/or loses concentration at that point then there is clearly a problem (I think) because in the end we'll get bigger scores if more of the batsmen get bigger scores. Don't think that's contoversial is it??? That means that by improving fitness, application and concentration batsmen achieve higher standards and we get a better team. That's what we all want isn't it?
As far as the half full , half empty thing goes I think as supporters we want our team to play perfectly all the time and win everything HOWEVER we really do need to acknowledge what has already been achieved. None of us want to go back to the depths of 2 seasons ago so lets applaud where the boys have got to and criticise in an affirming and encouraging way. (should have been a diplomat ,me! lol)
It seems to me that what you're discussing is not essentially what you're discussing!! 50, 100, 99 on one level these are just numbers.It would be quite possible for someone to have a 0% conversion rate frome 50-100 but a 100% one from 50-99. the statistic loses it's meaning. However I think the real issue (and I think this is AGs real concern ) is what happens when a batsman reaches 50 or has been batting for an hour. If he thinks he's done enough and/or loses concentration at that point then there is clearly a problem (I think) because in the end we'll get bigger scores if more of the batsmen get bigger scores. Don't think that's contoversial is it??? That means that by improving fitness, application and concentration batsmen achieve higher standards and we get a better team. That's what we all want isn't it?
As far as the half full , half empty thing goes I think as supporters we want our team to play perfectly all the time and win everything HOWEVER we really do need to acknowledge what has already been achieved. None of us want to go back to the depths of 2 seasons ago so lets applaud where the boys have got to and criticise in an affirming and encouraging way. (should have been a diplomat ,me! lol)
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: cricketjerry-mouse (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 14:27
Just started at Old Trafford. Lancashire won the toss and bat - 7 for 1.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 14:27
Quote:Streeter
It would be quite possible for someone to have a 0% conversion rate frome 50-100 but a 100% one from 50-99. the statistic loses it's meaning.
Essentially that is exactly my point, Streeter. This statistic, (as with all individual statistics to a greater or lesser extent) has limited meaning. It's only when one takes all the numbers; conversion rate, average, aggregate, strike rate, and contextualise the individual performance into a team setting that they have any value whatsoever. Conversion rate is a particularly spurious staistic, though, because as you say it places a disproprtionate value on the one run that takes a player from 99 to 100.
You could argue that it is the disproportionate emphasis we place on the 50th or 100th run that causes immediate failures thereafter, but that's an entirely different discussion!
For assessment of an individual's ability over an entire career, rather than a season, statistical variances become less relevant, so an individual number such as average has more meaning.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 15:10
I don't care how we get the runs as long as we get them and win.
Loft conversion,religious conversion and three points conversion mean nothing as long as the runs are on the board.
I'm a simple soul and stats blind me.
Win the games and I'm happy.
Loft conversion,religious conversion and three points conversion mean nothing as long as the runs are on the board.
I'm a simple soul and stats blind me.
Win the games and I'm happy.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Scrumper (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 15:40
So that's it for today.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 15:56
"You could argue that it is the disproportionate emphasis we place on the 50th or 100th run that causes immediate failures thereafter, but that's an entirely different discussion!"
Or - even more likely - before one reaches the milestone, e.g. nervous nineties, FE??
As to the point about the ‘statistic of conversions,’ not being a pertinent one because we ‘might,’ be talking about a difference of one run?
Well, clearly that will be the case only very rarely.
Certainly, in the context of our SCCC batsmen and the current trot that we are on (since the last ton,) that has not applied (in terms of someone being out for 99) on any occasion. Indeed, from memory, only about one or two of the 50s got within 15 runs of the ton?
And Steeter is, of course, correct that my true concern is if there’s an idea about – as suggested by JL’s quote – that our batsmen can feel satisfied/sated so long as they’ve made 50.
In many ways, it’s a worse ‘crime,’ in my book to make 50 and then give away one’s wicket than it is to do that early in the piece. This is about making the most of those occasions when one is in form and well-set etc etc!?
I don’t actually believe that JL himself has, hitherto, operated on that basis in terms of his own batting career. Everything I’ve previously seen of and read about JL would lead me to guess that he would be the kind of person that would be disgusted at himself for getting out when well set. That’s why I was so very surprised by the words that (as per the other site) tumbled from his mouth after the Kent game. Perhaps he did just mean that we was pleased with the batting in the context of that particular game? If so, after a win, that would be completely understandable. But, as I say, it sounded like a general point that he was trying to make.
Or - even more likely - before one reaches the milestone, e.g. nervous nineties, FE??
As to the point about the ‘statistic of conversions,’ not being a pertinent one because we ‘might,’ be talking about a difference of one run?
Well, clearly that will be the case only very rarely.
Certainly, in the context of our SCCC batsmen and the current trot that we are on (since the last ton,) that has not applied (in terms of someone being out for 99) on any occasion. Indeed, from memory, only about one or two of the 50s got within 15 runs of the ton?
And Steeter is, of course, correct that my true concern is if there’s an idea about – as suggested by JL’s quote – that our batsmen can feel satisfied/sated so long as they’ve made 50.
In many ways, it’s a worse ‘crime,’ in my book to make 50 and then give away one’s wicket than it is to do that early in the piece. This is about making the most of those occasions when one is in form and well-set etc etc!?
I don’t actually believe that JL himself has, hitherto, operated on that basis in terms of his own batting career. Everything I’ve previously seen of and read about JL would lead me to guess that he would be the kind of person that would be disgusted at himself for getting out when well set. That’s why I was so very surprised by the words that (as per the other site) tumbled from his mouth after the Kent game. Perhaps he did just mean that we was pleased with the batting in the context of that particular game? If so, after a win, that would be completely understandable. But, as I say, it sounded like a general point that he was trying to make.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 15:57
Indeed, my reading of JL as being one of those 'over my dead body,' kind of batsmen was one reason why, in the first place, I was so very keen for him to come here.
Perhaps he has undergone a metamorphosis late in his career?
When he gave up playing Test Cricket he did say something about 'I can now play with true freedom,' or something to that effect, I believe?
Perhaps he has undergone a metamorphosis late in his career?
When he gave up playing Test Cricket he did say something about 'I can now play with true freedom,' or something to that effect, I believe?
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 17:23
Quote:AGod
As to the point about the ‘statistic of conversions,’ not being a pertinent one because we ‘might,’ be talking about a difference of one run?
That is NOT the point. The point is that "conversion rate" values 75 runs NO MORE HIGHLY than 50 runs, it rates 80 runs NO MORE HIGHLY than 50 runs, it rates 90 runs NO MORE HIGHLY than 50 runs........need I go on?
In a TEAM sport in which TEAM total is ALL that counts, that is an utterly fatuous statistic in many respects.
It doesn't measure how many times you've got to fifty and have "felt sated" or "given it away". That will be only a small portion of the "unconverted".
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:13:17:27:42 by Frome Exile.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 17:34
"It would be quite possible for someone to have a 0% conversion rate frome 50-100 but a 100% one from 50-99. the statistic loses it's meaning."
I was referring to Streeter's comment as per the above, FE.
By '100% conversion rate,' from 50-99, I took him to mean that someone might get to 50 and then get out for 99 all the time. Perhaps I mis-interpreted what he meant? I think I'll wait for him to clarify, rather than taking your word for it, FE, if it's all the same to you.
I was referring to Streeter's comment as per the above, FE.
By '100% conversion rate,' from 50-99, I took him to mean that someone might get to 50 and then get out for 99 all the time. Perhaps I mis-interpreted what he meant? I think I'll wait for him to clarify, rather than taking your word for it, FE, if it's all the same to you.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 17:46
Incidentally, in the context of the actual debate as to the value, or otherwise of putting up big scores, rather than 50s, I do recall you and I, FE, actually having this debate in the context of a specific game from two years ago (the unpleasant year of 2006.)
We played at home to Essex. As I recall, the weather was good. The pitch was reportedly flat. We made about 400 and I remarked that I thought we'd regret the fact that various people made good starts e.g. 50ish and then did not go on. You were not enamoured of this suggestion and said that we should be pleased with making 400 etc. When Essex susbequently made 600 or so with, I think, the big players in their line-up running up big scores, you did concede that hind-sight did, indeed, suggest that we failed to take full toll of the conditions. And yes, I know that if everyone in our top seven score 94 we'd probably have roughtly equalled the 600+ that Essex ran up but, again, when you get in you have to take full toll..
We played at home to Essex. As I recall, the weather was good. The pitch was reportedly flat. We made about 400 and I remarked that I thought we'd regret the fact that various people made good starts e.g. 50ish and then did not go on. You were not enamoured of this suggestion and said that we should be pleased with making 400 etc. When Essex susbequently made 600 or so with, I think, the big players in their line-up running up big scores, you did concede that hind-sight did, indeed, suggest that we failed to take full toll of the conditions. And yes, I know that if everyone in our top seven score 94 we'd probably have roughtly equalled the 600+ that Essex ran up but, again, when you get in you have to take full toll..
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 17:56
That is what he meant, and it's simply an alternative way of expressing the fatuousness of "conversion rate" as a statistic, because of the disproportionate devaluation it places on every run between 50 and 99.
But if I have still failed to get across to you that fairly fundamental premise of statistical mathematics, then there really is no point whatsoever in pursuing this conversation any further.
But if I have still failed to get across to you that fairly fundamental premise of statistical mathematics, then there really is no point whatsoever in pursuing this conversation any further.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 18:06
In 2006 against Essex we made 471 all out with 153 from Keith Parsons and 102 from Trego.
They made 400 for 4 declared based around 161 from Flower and 141 from Irani.
With hindsight, we declared too soon, and their successful chase was based around 124 from Pettini.
Aside from all that, your recollection is perfect!
They made 400 for 4 declared based around 161 from Flower and 141 from Irani.
With hindsight, we declared too soon, and their successful chase was based around 124 from Pettini.
Aside from all that, your recollection is perfect!
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 18:28
Great knock from Trigger again,just showing that he has been the best allrounder in the country for a while.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 19:44
Yes, I just got in and looked in Wisden. Essex sailed to 400 for 4. As I recall, I said at the time that I thought they'd make 600+. Now I do remember what was said between us at the time. My point was that we'd failed to bat them out of the match and part of the reason was that at least three of the top four all got starts of one kind or another but it was only Parsie, at five (of the top six) that went on and put a big score on the board. It was this point, in the end, that you conceded at the time (after the Essex first innings.) In other words, too many people got a start and then failed to take advantage of the fact - that is my point. Conversely, the only two people in the Essex team that really got going put up big scores in that first innings. They did not squander the opportunity to so do.
You might not like the conversion stat as any measure of a batsmen's worth, FE, but a great many people do pay attention to it. Certainly when I in when Wellington this winter, there was utter shock when Stephen Fleming's numbers came up on the board. He had an absurd conversion ratio of something like 1 in 11 in Test Matches. Did people react because of the stat? Yes. But a more telling point was that the Kiwis around us said they did not need the stat, because they'd watched him often enough to know that here was a guy who'd habitually play beautifully for a while and then throw his wicket away by doing something daft. In other words, it wasn't the stat as such that frustrated people - it was actually watching him get in and then get out on a regular basis.
That's my current semi-frustration with our batting line-up that I have been trying to express.
You might view it as nonsense but I cannot understand that viewpoint, nor reconcile myself to it.
The same applies to your identical observation, which you related simulateneously a propos the 'it's all about partnerships,' argument.
Perhaps this is another of your arguments which you feel are about "statistical mathematics"???????
But I am bemused. This is because I KNOW that you yourself play cricket, FE. And so do I.
Can you honestly tell me that you have not sometimes felt somewhat demoralised when an opponent has been in the process of running up a big partnership against you?
Have you not felt encouraged on those occasions when your team HAS been able to chip away at the opposition with frequent breakthroughs?
Surely then, you can see the importance and significance of big partnerships?
Just as I'm sure you have felt the personal frustration of getting in and then getting out? All other things being equal, you surely must have known that your team would have been better off if you'd cashed in on your start?
I'm not 100% certain how we got into the debate about the statistical side of conversion ratios? Certainly, I do not mean to say that I am only interested in people making 100, but going no further. On the contrary, I would, ideally, like anyone that makes 100, to go further - much further.
My overall point, as Streeter rightly inferred is that we are not making the most of folk getting in
You might not like the conversion stat as any measure of a batsmen's worth, FE, but a great many people do pay attention to it. Certainly when I in when Wellington this winter, there was utter shock when Stephen Fleming's numbers came up on the board. He had an absurd conversion ratio of something like 1 in 11 in Test Matches. Did people react because of the stat? Yes. But a more telling point was that the Kiwis around us said they did not need the stat, because they'd watched him often enough to know that here was a guy who'd habitually play beautifully for a while and then throw his wicket away by doing something daft. In other words, it wasn't the stat as such that frustrated people - it was actually watching him get in and then get out on a regular basis.
That's my current semi-frustration with our batting line-up that I have been trying to express.
You might view it as nonsense but I cannot understand that viewpoint, nor reconcile myself to it.
The same applies to your identical observation, which you related simulateneously a propos the 'it's all about partnerships,' argument.
Perhaps this is another of your arguments which you feel are about "statistical mathematics"???????
But I am bemused. This is because I KNOW that you yourself play cricket, FE. And so do I.
Can you honestly tell me that you have not sometimes felt somewhat demoralised when an opponent has been in the process of running up a big partnership against you?
Have you not felt encouraged on those occasions when your team HAS been able to chip away at the opposition with frequent breakthroughs?
Surely then, you can see the importance and significance of big partnerships?
Just as I'm sure you have felt the personal frustration of getting in and then getting out? All other things being equal, you surely must have known that your team would have been better off if you'd cashed in on your start?
I'm not 100% certain how we got into the debate about the statistical side of conversion ratios? Certainly, I do not mean to say that I am only interested in people making 100, but going no further. On the contrary, I would, ideally, like anyone that makes 100, to go further - much further.
My overall point, as Streeter rightly inferred is that we are not making the most of folk getting in
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Streeter (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 20:09
Duh, I'm not sure what I meant any more...
Actually I do. I noticed a long time ago ,what I decided was a truth, that often in arguments people taking opposing points of view are in fact not so far from each other. The key is to get down to the fundamentals of what they are saying hence find the common ground. In this case the precise number of runs is not the issue, as highlighted by conversion rates. However if we are more descriptive i.e. talk about making a meaningful further contribution after reaching ,say, 50 , there seems to be nothing contentious.
Hope we're not in too much danger of disappearing up our own ********s here but I love it.
Actually I do. I noticed a long time ago ,what I decided was a truth, that often in arguments people taking opposing points of view are in fact not so far from each other. The key is to get down to the fundamentals of what they are saying hence find the common ground. In this case the precise number of runs is not the issue, as highlighted by conversion rates. However if we are more descriptive i.e. talk about making a meaningful further contribution after reaching ,say, 50 , there seems to be nothing contentious.
Hope we're not in too much danger of disappearing up our own ********s here but I love it.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 20:37
Again you are hoisted by your own petard, as there was only one "unconverted 50" in our first innings, which again shows your measure of "failure to cash in" to be the guff that it is. Unless of course you are going to move the goalposts and include Matt Wood's first innings 49 in your "failures to cash in"? But then that would be putting a hell of a lot of significance on one run, wouldn't it? How ironic!
Edit: but I see on second glance, of course, that you are now talking about "starts of one kind or another" from which I'm sure some readers would infer that your conviction about the importance of "unconverted fifties" is shifting somewhat!
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:13:21:16:13 by Frome Exile.
Edit: but I see on second glance, of course, that you are now talking about "starts of one kind or another" from which I'm sure some readers would infer that your conviction about the importance of "unconverted fifties" is shifting somewhat!
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:13:21:16:13 by Frome Exile.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: MisterMurph (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 21:20
Gosh, if someone finds my petard, could they hoist me on it please?
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 22:48
I notice you've ignored my questions to you, FE.
It is anything but guff. Rather it is something that a great many people that have been involved in professional cricket talk about on a regular basis - namely the need to make the most of one's starts. And, yes, conversion of 50s is one commonly used way of measuring that.
It is anything but guff. Rather it is something that a great many people that have been involved in professional cricket talk about on a regular basis - namely the need to make the most of one's starts. And, yes, conversion of 50s is one commonly used way of measuring that.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2008 22:54
The job of the petardier must be one of the most dangerous forms of employment ever known to man,even more dangerous than being Bernard Mannings race relations advisor.
A little known job that has passed by into the annals of history,let's all have a sincere round of applause for those brave and slightly barmy men.
The Petardiers.
Well done boys.
Well done.
A little known job that has passed by into the annals of history,let's all have a sincere round of applause for those brave and slightly barmy men.
The Petardiers.
Well done boys.
Well done.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 07:27
I ignored your questions because they shift the debate into the area of the psychological value of partnerships, hundreds etc; and as I'd already suggested, that is an entirely different debate which has nothing to do with Langer's original assertion; that it matters not whether 300 is made from 6 fifties or one hundred and bits; it's still 300.
The whole obsession with fifties and hundreds is artificial anyway: purely an artefact of our use of the decimal system!
The fact that many pundits use this easy shorthand does not itself imbue it with meaning. Many people will talk twitteringly about how unlikely a second or third successive head is in a series of coin tosses - the perception doesn't alter the reality.
As regards the pundits, you should perhaps remember that these people are paid to find things to say.
And it is worth noting that Mark Richardson's piece, to which you have linked, demonstrates rather nicely one of the things I have been saying all along: namely that any one statistic in isolation is of little value.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:14:07:33:29 by Frome Exile.
The whole obsession with fifties and hundreds is artificial anyway: purely an artefact of our use of the decimal system!
The fact that many pundits use this easy shorthand does not itself imbue it with meaning. Many people will talk twitteringly about how unlikely a second or third successive head is in a series of coin tosses - the perception doesn't alter the reality.
As regards the pundits, you should perhaps remember that these people are paid to find things to say.
And it is worth noting that Mark Richardson's piece, to which you have linked, demonstrates rather nicely one of the things I have been saying all along: namely that any one statistic in isolation is of little value.
Quote:But he's not (a great player) and that is simply because his average amount of runs per innings has not been enough and he kept getting out between 50 and 100.
In the end his batting average is average for a good player and his conversion rate of 50s to 100s is poor for a player with such technique and skill.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:14:07:33:29 by Frome Exile.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 09:03
Seems that Langer, for one, can't win. He's been out on 50 a couple of times and this criticism is the result. Last years he was grinding out 300 and being criticised for helping to kill cricket!
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 09:17
"But he's not (a great player) and that is simply because his average amount of runs per innings has not been enough and he kept getting out between 50 and 100."
Yes, but the use of the conjunction 'and,' implies that the two are separate, as opposed to clearly linked.
Yes, but the use of the conjunction 'and,' implies that the two are separate, as opposed to clearly linked.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 09:22
"Seems that Langer, for one, can't win. He's been out on 50 a couple of times and this criticism is the result. Last years he was grinding out 300 and being criticised for helping to kill cricket!"
You will certainly never, ever see me criticising anyone for making 300, FE. And, to be fair to KT, whose thread the infamous 'Taunton is killing...,' originally was his criticism - however unjust - was largely heaped upon Mr Frost. Indeed, he tried to call Langer as a 'witness,' for the prosecution, if I recall.
Furthermore, my concern doesn't relate any individual SCCC batsmen. They've all been involved (top six, I mean.) I shall endeavour to look it up but, if I recall correctly, JL's comments actually appeared the day after Andy Hurry had said something to the effect of 'we need to be more ruthless with the bat.' As such, I took them as being a form of response to what AH had said.
You will certainly never, ever see me criticising anyone for making 300, FE. And, to be fair to KT, whose thread the infamous 'Taunton is killing...,' originally was his criticism - however unjust - was largely heaped upon Mr Frost. Indeed, he tried to call Langer as a 'witness,' for the prosecution, if I recall.
Furthermore, my concern doesn't relate any individual SCCC batsmen. They've all been involved (top six, I mean.) I shall endeavour to look it up but, if I recall correctly, JL's comments actually appeared the day after Andy Hurry had said something to the effect of 'we need to be more ruthless with the bat.' As such, I took them as being a form of response to what AH had said.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Tractor (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 09:23
The adjprosubconjuctive in 'Cmon My Babbies!' resolves everything I think.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 09:25
Test conversion rates 50 to 100;
Stephen Fleming 16.36%
Graeme Hick 25%
So obviously Hick is the better Test batsman. Neither, of course are as good as Jason Gillespie (33.33%).
Has the penny dropped yet that one very effective way of maintaining a good conversion rate is to get to 100 once and then get out in the forties a lot?
To have a low conversion rate you have to have a lot of fifties. Wouldn't it be nice if supporters could at least acknowledge that rather than using that success as a stick with which to beat the players.
Stephen Fleming 16.36%
Graeme Hick 25%
So obviously Hick is the better Test batsman. Neither, of course are as good as Jason Gillespie (33.33%).
Has the penny dropped yet that one very effective way of maintaining a good conversion rate is to get to 100 once and then get out in the forties a lot?
To have a low conversion rate you have to have a lot of fifties. Wouldn't it be nice if supporters could at least acknowledge that rather than using that success as a stick with which to beat the players.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 09:30
With a bit of luck the cricket will soon replace this debate very soon and save us all
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 09:45
"Has the penny dropped yet that one very effective way of maintaining a good conversion rate is to get to 100 once and then get out in the forties a lot? "
FE - no-one ever applies such stats to someone with only one hundred, as well you know.
FE - no-one ever applies such stats to someone with only one hundred, as well you know.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 09:48
At the time of the Middx run-fest last year, Kentish Townie wrote
as a prelude to his list of "buts".
Can you not understand that your remarks demonstrate (albeit at a lesser scale of rabidness) exactly the same mentality?
As in
Quote:It would be great to think the record total and Langer's triple would be reasons only for celebration.
as a prelude to his list of "buts".
Can you not understand that your remarks demonstrate (albeit at a lesser scale of rabidness) exactly the same mentality?
As in
Quote:It would be great to think that all these fifties would be reason only for celebration........but let's find the poison at the bottom of the cup, eh?
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 09:54
Quote:no-one ever applies such stats to someone with only one hundred, as well you know.
No - because of the flawed logic in using such a measure on a dataset so small that it becomes statistically insignificant. Kind of like using it over one season rather than a career!
And in fact by applying it to trhis season you are applying it to three men with only two hundreds and two men with only one.
Have you realised the circularity of your argument yet?
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 09:56
It's nothing to do with poison anywhere, FE. It's to do with wanting our team to be as effective as humanly possible - which means making the most of every opportunity that comes our way.
In essenece, it's no different from wanting every chance to be taken in the field.
In essenece, it's no different from wanting every chance to be taken in the field.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Palairet (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 10:11
I have got a headache, if that is of any significance to this debate?
Will have to miss the cricket today as a result.
Will have to miss the cricket today as a result.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 10:14
It gives me a headache when people who purport to support seem to actually enjoy looking for spuriously constructed criticisms.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 10:23
Well you seem to have found stuff to talk about while there's been no cricket for large proportions of the day.
Good to see FE and AG keeping things ticking over
Flaming hell - you don't half get into it when you do don't ya?
Supposed better day today. It's bright here but overcast and one can only hope they've covered lots if the weather further down the peninsular was anything like the stuff you got.
Bit "over the top" here so I read the thread again and I also almost totally got the wrong end of it!! Apologies to all - removed my own rantings.
There is no 'half empty' brigade and there is no 'shove it under the carpet' brigade. There are differing opinions and differing perspectives on differing issues with posters varying between them and long may it stay that way.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:14:13:43:18 by Grockle.
Good to see FE and AG keeping things ticking over
Flaming hell - you don't half get into it when you do don't ya?
Supposed better day today. It's bright here but overcast and one can only hope they've covered lots if the weather further down the peninsular was anything like the stuff you got.
Bit "over the top" here so I read the thread again and I also almost totally got the wrong end of it!! Apologies to all - removed my own rantings.
There is no 'half empty' brigade and there is no 'shove it under the carpet' brigade. There are differing opinions and differing perspectives on differing issues with posters varying between them and long may it stay that way.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:14:13:43:18 by Grockle.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 10:36
Apologies Grockle; I think "half empty brigade" was initially me rather than cj-m.
It is though quite funny that he accused me of being "one of those who see the glass as half-empty" because he totally missed my sarcasm!
PS. Would you be really offended if I pointed out that peninsular is an adjective which describes things originating from or associated with a peninsula?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:14:10:42:43 by Frome Exile.
It is though quite funny that he accused me of being "one of those who see the glass as half-empty" because he totally missed my sarcasm!
PS. Would you be really offended if I pointed out that peninsular is an adjective which describes things originating from or associated with a peninsula?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:14:10:42:43 by Frome Exile.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 10:49
Anyway: let's hope Marcus hasn't been reading all of this and hasn't decided to preserve his conversion rate by getting out before getting his fifty!
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 11:17
only another 49 to go
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 11:22
JL gone for 72 - brace yourself, Justin, AG's after you...
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 11:22
Oh no, not another unconverted 50 from the boss
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 11:42
"It gives me a headache when people who purport to support seem to actually enjoy looking for spuriously constructed criticisms."
Spurious in your opinion, FE. But you don't have a monopoly on wisdom. As for 'purport,' to support, I strongly suspect I've got myself to more games than you have down the years, since I believe you said that your visit to Taunton vs Yorks was your first?
Spurious in your opinion, FE. But you don't have a monopoly on wisdom. As for 'purport,' to support, I strongly suspect I've got myself to more games than you have down the years, since I believe you said that your visit to Taunton vs Yorks was your first?
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 11:54
An appreciation of the fact that 70 is significantly more than 50 has little to do with wisdom.
And as far as "I've been to more games than you, ner ,ner ne-ner, ner....."? Pathetic!
And as far as "I've been to more games than you, ner ,ner ne-ner, ner....."? Pathetic!
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 12:08
For the 750th time, FE, yes, 70 is more than 50. I am aware of this thank you very much. And 100 is more than 70, FE.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 12:18
And the 'ner, ner ner,' appeared in your writing FE, not mine.
I was merely pointing out the folly of casting aspersions on the strength, or otherwise, of other people's support.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:14:12:40:57 by AGod.
I was merely pointing out the folly of casting aspersions on the strength, or otherwise, of other people's support.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:14:12:40:57 by AGod.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 12:30
Enough.
Stop it before it gets nasty.
Please.
Stop it before it gets nasty.
Please.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 12:43
incidentally, lest FE assumes otherwise my post was edited purely for a syntax error (to use the old computing term).
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 12:48
Thanks FE. There you go "peninsula" "peninsular" - probably why I took my Geography A level twice many many moons ago.
As BJ says guys, let's keep it as a debate rather than a slanging match. It's all got a bit fiery so perhaps take a step away from the keyboard for a while?
As BJ says guys, let's keep it as a debate rather than a slanging match. It's all got a bit fiery so perhaps take a step away from the keyboard for a while?
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 13:01
14 overs of spin already! Surrey hoping for turn as damp comes to the surface, perhaps? Or is there a serious chance that the pitch was unavoidably under-prepared due to all the rain that's been about? Or perhaps Surrey have just given up on their pacemen already. They, reportedly, bowled far too short on Tuesday.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: samaithai (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 13:08
The builders are a bit noisy.I can hear them 6,000 miles away.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 13:09
Maximum batting points come at 400, AG (other thread).
Anyway, I'm off to the zoo with my kids for the afternoon!
Anyway, I'm off to the zoo with my kids for the afternoon!
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 13:27
Have a good afternoon FE,have a lovely time at the Zoo.
I didn't realise Upton Park was open this afternoon.
I didn't realise Upton Park was open this afternoon.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: bloke (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 13:46
Well converted Banger.
The skies are extremely grey over Taunton at the moment and there is definitely some water in the air.
The skies are extremely grey over Taunton at the moment and there is definitely some water in the air.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 13:50
Well as the guy from Radio London said he got an e-mail from Martin in Nether Stowey and it was raining here an hour ago.
If it's heading in from here then you've got some to come but it's sunny here now so it's also not going to last.
If it's heading in from here then you've got some to come but it's sunny here now so it's also not going to last.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Shepton Paul (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 13:52
Congrats to the legend that is our Banger. I suspect it was fear of the wrath of AG that spurred him on...
Now, what's our conversion rate like for 100 to 200? Anyone want to start a long and painful argument about it? Anyone?
Now, what's our conversion rate like for 100 to 200? Anyone want to start a long and painful argument about it? Anyone?
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Grizzers (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 13:57
Good stuff Banger !
I'm not getting into the 'conversion' debate - more than enough said already !
Strategy now to bat for the rest of the day, I suppose.
Any chance Surrey could be persuaded to forfeit their innings, us do the same, then bowl them out for 200 tomorrow ?
Just wishing I suppose !
Grizzzly
I'm not getting into the 'conversion' debate - more than enough said already !
Strategy now to bat for the rest of the day, I suppose.
Any chance Surrey could be persuaded to forfeit their innings, us do the same, then bowl them out for 200 tomorrow ?
Just wishing I suppose !
Grizzzly
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Palairet (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 14:05
I have been looking at the lunch-time scoreboard on Cricinfo; not from the link on Grockles - it didn’t work for me.
It shows that Justin Langer scored 72 from 85 balls in 438 minutes; Marcus Trescothick 94 not out from 142 balls in 544 minutes and Zander de Bruyn 45 not out from 98 balls in 104 minutes.
This means that Somerset’s innings has been in progress for over 9 hours!
Does it mean that they included the whole of yesterday’s wash out in their timings, or have I been in a time capsule?
Whichever way one looks at it, Cricinfo appear to be using a different clock than mine!
PS - I know that these timings are 'out of date' since the resumption of play, but the 'error' appears to continue.
It shows that Justin Langer scored 72 from 85 balls in 438 minutes; Marcus Trescothick 94 not out from 142 balls in 544 minutes and Zander de Bruyn 45 not out from 98 balls in 104 minutes.
This means that Somerset’s innings has been in progress for over 9 hours!
Does it mean that they included the whole of yesterday’s wash out in their timings, or have I been in a time capsule?
Whichever way one looks at it, Cricinfo appear to be using a different clock than mine!
PS - I know that these timings are 'out of date' since the resumption of play, but the 'error' appears to continue.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 14:06
Yes, Pal, they sometimes have technical difficulties in coping with rain delays and the like.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 14:54
Is it still raining in TA1? Any prospect of a re-start?
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 14:55
Well, we now have one bonus point and tomorrow's forecast is surely at least good enough to permit one more. And still no play whatsoever at Chester LS. Even if it stops raining up there, one would have thought that there must be a real chance of outfield etc being totally saturated. Would not be surprising, even if tomorrow is completely dry, if they ended up with only two sessions for the match?
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 15:21
Brilliant news, thanks muchly, Grockle.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Brother Of (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 15:37
At the moment we are going at nearly 5 an over,surely pull out at 400 and possibly get 15/20 overs in at surrey tonight.
Have them 4 down,bowl them out by lunch tommorow and then bowl them out again in 50/60 overs game won!!!!
I can keep dreaming i suppose!!!
Have them 4 down,bowl them out by lunch tommorow and then bowl them out again in 50/60 overs game won!!!!
I can keep dreaming i suppose!!!
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Streeter (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 15:40
Just wondering what Zander has had for breakfast! Been watching him push around all season in the one-dayers and now this. Excellent stuff. And six for banger as I type. Difficult to work with this going on. 39 runs in 9 minutes since the return......nope make that 45.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: bloke (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 15:43
51 minutes from 16 minutes!
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 15:45
While I prefer the idea of declaring at 400 and bowling them out twice, it's conceivable that Langer (and possibly Ramps) have decided there's nothing in the pitch and that a double-forfeiture and Saturday afternoon chase for runs/wickets is the best chance of getting big points from the game.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 15:48
well, bobo, at this rate and with tomorrow's forecast being relatively benign, a maximum points draw looks like a real possibility.
If the game at Durham is washed out, then that would mean eight points re-couped vs Notts and Durham.
Mr Hurry said before the game that the Surrey game was one 'we had to win.' Grockle indicated a similar sentiment.
Partly, I think that assessment would have been based on the fact that Surrey are hardly a big force in the game at the moment? And it's certainly possible that if Notts and/or Durham still have a game to come with Surrey that they will beat them.
BUT..... 8 points re-couped would be an outcome that could not have been sniffed at. Indeed, it would be the same outcome as a 20 point SCCC win, coupled with a 12 point draw in the other game.
If the game at Durham is washed out, then that would mean eight points re-couped vs Notts and Durham.
Mr Hurry said before the game that the Surrey game was one 'we had to win.' Grockle indicated a similar sentiment.
Partly, I think that assessment would have been based on the fact that Surrey are hardly a big force in the game at the moment? And it's certainly possible that if Notts and/or Durham still have a game to come with Surrey that they will beat them.
BUT..... 8 points re-couped would be an outcome that could not have been sniffed at. Indeed, it would be the same outcome as a 20 point SCCC win, coupled with a 12 point draw in the other game.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: bloke (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 15:56
Banger dropped.....
One thing AG, 'Brother of' is not Bobo; Bobo is 'Brother of brother of', that is to say - Mr P Trego.
One thing AG, 'Brother of' is not Bobo; Bobo is 'Brother of brother of', that is to say - Mr P Trego.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Get Stuck In (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 16:00
If it's any help, I can report that it is tipping it down in the North-East of England (I live in Newcastle) and the prospect of any play tomorrow at Chester-le-Street must be slim.
We've had three days of solid rain and thunderstorms.
I'm an exiled Somerset fan,and hoping for maximum bonus points at a (relatively) sunny Taunton!
I enjoy reading your various postings on this site. Keep up the good work!
We've had three days of solid rain and thunderstorms.
I'm an exiled Somerset fan,and hoping for maximum bonus points at a (relatively) sunny Taunton!
I enjoy reading your various postings on this site. Keep up the good work!
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Palairet (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 16:04
"Enough.
Stop it before it gets nasty.
Please."
What words of great wisdom, Big Jim. Are you by any chance the Burgomaster of Watchet?
It must have been the "Please" that did it!
Stop it before it gets nasty.
Please."
What words of great wisdom, Big Jim. Are you by any chance the Burgomaster of Watchet?
It must have been the "Please" that did it!
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Streeter (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 16:21
Dare I say 'road to Damascus'........
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: bloke (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 16:24
Raining in TA3, expect an interruption shortly....
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 16:25
Tres gone for only 158 - will AG be happy with that - touch and go, I'd say.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 16:30
Are double-forfeitures still allowed?
I thought England-South Africa at Centurion had put paid to them?
I thought England-South Africa at Centurion had put paid to them?
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 16:32
Vary happy, thanks very much, SP.
Precisely the kind of score that is needed to make things as (relatively) easy as possible for those to follow. Exactly what is called for from those at the top of the order.
Precisely the kind of score that is needed to make things as (relatively) easy as possible for those to follow. Exactly what is called for from those at the top of the order.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 16:43
but if no one else from the remaining batsmen gets 50 we amy only reach 450.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: tufnell parka (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 16:56
where is this game going?
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 16:56
The remaining 7 partnerships would need to average only 11 runs for us to be limited to 450 or that sort of area. (not that I imagine we're planning to bat beyond 400 in this one anyway?)
When you're 350 for 2 you can afford a few failures from those to come. At 220 or so for two, things LOOK really comfortable but there's a much higher probability of not getting to the big totals of 500+ that allow one to really control games.
Just need to hope the rain stays away for long enough for us to sidle up to 400, give it a wink and take our five points..
When you're 350 for 2 you can afford a few failures from those to come. At 220 or so for two, things LOOK really comfortable but there's a much higher probability of not getting to the big totals of 500+ that allow one to really control games.
Just need to hope the rain stays away for long enough for us to sidle up to 400, give it a wink and take our five points..
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 16:57
In 80 minutes after 3:30 - Banger pushed the score on by 132 with Zander
Craig is now in after JH went before Tea. We got mentioned on the coverage as well - probably put the hex on Jimbo's knock.
400 and then he'll have em in because ZdB is going down the pitch so he's been given his orders.
Craig is now in after JH went before Tea. We got mentioned on the coverage as well - probably put the hex on Jimbo's knock.
400 and then he'll have em in because ZdB is going down the pitch so he's been given his orders.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 16:57
I think, realistically, the game is going the way of 12 points for us (I hope.) 29 more runs and then bowl Surrey out tomorrow, TP?
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 17:01
Back on. And CRAIG is at number five, once again.
Intriguing...
... Perhaps gives a different spin to the lunch-watchman theory that I think we agreed on in the end to explain it last time.
Unless he's now playing as a "rain-watchman,"?
Intriguing...
... Perhaps gives a different spin to the lunch-watchman theory that I think we agreed on in the end to explain it last time.
Unless he's now playing as a "rain-watchman,"?
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 17:10
I speculated earlier in the season that I thought that Craig might be opening so often in the short stuff because a Mr Rose or a Mr Langer or someone like that had earmarked him as having the technique to become a top-order batsman. I said this because Craig was neither a recognised opener, nor had he obviously been briefed to hit over the in-field in the early going in those short games.
And now we have him at five in the order, above our two all-rounders in two successive games. Further evidence that a role in the “main batting order,” as opposed to just being a ‘batsman-keeper,’ who comes in at 7 or so, is envisaged for young Craig?
And now we have him at five in the order, above our two all-rounders in two successive games. Further evidence that a role in the “main batting order,” as opposed to just being a ‘batsman-keeper,’ who comes in at 7 or so, is envisaged for young Craig?
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 17:15
I reckon we can win this,a full day tomorrow and anything is possible.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 17:17
He was obviously sent in to get to 400 as soon as and he's done that. I think he's the one younger player who has been seeing the ball well for a couple of months. Great statement of faith in the guy.
Excellent innings from Zander and an awesome one from Mr Trescothick with these two putting on 132 in 80 minutes and the side putting on 401 in 76 overs!!
A glass half full day!!
Excellent innings from Zander and an awesome one from Mr Trescothick with these two putting on 132 in 80 minutes and the side putting on 401 in 76 overs!!
A glass half full day!!
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 17:23
Certainly has been Grockle. The "Brown Caps," have been well and truly put to the sword.
Someone posted before the game with the suggestion that things may not be amicable in the Surrey camp and hanging around a lot in the rain and getting slaughtered in the dry interludes can surely not have helped their mood.
If we could get 3 or 4 wickets tonight and then get a full day tomorrow, then they might not be as motivated as they should be to battle for the draw...
Someone posted before the game with the suggestion that things may not be amicable in the Surrey camp and hanging around a lot in the rain and getting slaughtered in the dry interludes can surely not have helped their mood.
If we could get 3 or 4 wickets tonight and then get a full day tomorrow, then they might not be as motivated as they should be to battle for the draw...
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: MisterMurph (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 17:38
Well there's the first one...
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Deaders (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 19:49
I can't see Somerset taking 19 wickets in a day. However I would not be too surprised to find out that Surrey have declared overnight and the 'Set have forfeited their second knock, what do you reckon?
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: cricketjerry-mouse (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 22:00
One thing we will have to watch at Chester-le-Street tomorrow is that, should play be possible between Durham and Notts, there are special points scoring rules in matches that start with less than eight hours playing time remaining (ie only the last day).
In these circumstances, a one-innings match is played with the winning side taking 14 points - two more than we are likely to get in the best possible scenario at Taunton tomorrow.
If it is a tie, both sides take seven points, and if it is a draw both sides take four points.
In these circumstances, a one-innings match is played with the winning side taking 14 points - two more than we are likely to get in the best possible scenario at Taunton tomorrow.
If it is a tie, both sides take seven points, and if it is a draw both sides take four points.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 22:25
And that will have to be the option they take tomorrow if they get the chance. The real question is how willing will Surrey be to take this match to a result? They need the points but they don't need to help us if others around them aren't getting points
Well we'll know soon enough I suppose.
Well we'll know soon enough I suppose.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: bloke (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 22:57
Quote:Deaders
I can't see Somerset taking 19 wickets in a day. However I would not be too surprised to find out that Surrey have declared overnight and the 'Set have forfeited their second knock, what do you reckon?
In this scenario, Deaders, what would happen regarding the bonus points already accrued? Would these be forfeited, in the style of a 1 day game re-shuffle? Is there even much impetus for Surrey to do that? Lots of questions......
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 14/08/2008 23:03
Ours is different Bloke in the sense that we have already started our game.
I think the Durham game hasn't even had the toss yet!! So it would become a one day, one innings each Championship game.
OUrs has started so if Surrey declare and so do we the game still is a two innings game.
I think the Durham game hasn't even had the toss yet!! So it would become a one day, one innings each Championship game.
OUrs has started so if Surrey declare and so do we the game still is a two innings game.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 09:40
No, we will not be 'forfeiting,' any of our amassed points.
p.s. The Times reports that Ramprakash put all of his fielders on the boundary when Banger was on strike!!
p.s. The Times reports that Ramprakash put all of his fielders on the boundary when Banger was on strike!!
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: willoughby (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 09:58
Surrey hardly deserve it but i'm hoping for our first CC win this season.A win under any contrived circumstances would be nice,beggars can't be choosers and all.I hope everyone plays ball declaration wise.Regret unable to visit Taunton,it's a grand trip but more rain this week so no sweat here.All the best for your CC quest,i think you have a good chance and i tipped Somerset after the Whitgift.
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 10:16
If Ramps declares now and JL forfeits Somerset innings, Surrey will need 355 to win in the day. I think that's too gettable.
If that were to happen, we'd just get our 5 batting points from the match.
If the game continues its normal course, we'll have 5 batting pts + maybe 2 or 3 bowling pts + 4 for the draw, ie 11 or 12. I believe the chances of a Somerset victory would be very small, maybe 5%.
If forfeits happen and we win (ie 10 wickets in the day for Caddy and Co), we get 5+14 = 19.
So the toss-up is 5, 11 or 19 - personally (cos I'm so British), I'd play safe and bank the 11 or 12 pts. Langer, cos he's an Aussie, may well go for the 19, knowing he may have to settle for just 5, and consider it's a bold option worth going for.
They'll be negotiating as I type - what do we think?
If that were to happen, we'd just get our 5 batting points from the match.
If the game continues its normal course, we'll have 5 batting pts + maybe 2 or 3 bowling pts + 4 for the draw, ie 11 or 12. I believe the chances of a Somerset victory would be very small, maybe 5%.
If forfeits happen and we win (ie 10 wickets in the day for Caddy and Co), we get 5+14 = 19.
So the toss-up is 5, 11 or 19 - personally (cos I'm so British), I'd play safe and bank the 11 or 12 pts. Langer, cos he's an Aussie, may well go for the 19, knowing he may have to settle for just 5, and consider it's a bold option worth going for.
They'll be negotiating as I type - what do we think?
Re: CC team vs Surrey?
Posted by: Blub (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 10:27
355 in a day certainly is very gettable - particularly as this would not be a typical Day 4 pitch. It is difficult to see how to set a reasonable total if they did declare.
Surrey are in need of the points as much as we are, so they may well aim to pick up the maximum points, rather than risk ending up with just 1 point.
They still have a game in hand over the two teams ahead of them.
Surrey are in need of the points as much as we are, so they may well aim to pick up the maximum points, rather than risk ending up with just 1 point.
They still have a game in hand over the two teams ahead of them.
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 10:42
There is talk of some kind of "contrivance" but it can onkly be one where we have a double forfeit because no Surrey bowlers were warming up this morning although our boys were. Now either that means that Surrey are looking to bat out the day in their first innings or we will not bat again and they've both declared.
It's blue sky with a smattering of cloud at the moment and an 11;00 start. But who will walk out and at what part of the game will we be starting?
It's blue sky with a smattering of cloud at the moment and an 11;00 start. But who will walk out and at what part of the game will we be starting?
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 10:48
Cricinfo show Durham v Notts as abandoned without a ball bowled - that'll be 4 points each - good for us, and a factor in JL's calculations.
It's a shame that our glorious summer weather can play such an important part in the County Championship, but I guess that's the way the cookie crumbles.
PS ECB could've let Harmy play in this game after all!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:15:10:49:11 by SheptonPaul.
It's a shame that our glorious summer weather can play such an important part in the County Championship, but I guess that's the way the cookie crumbles.
PS ECB could've let Harmy play in this game after all!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:15:10:49:11 by SheptonPaul.
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 10:52
The Riverside match has been abandoned as a draw with 4 points each - may change the plans here as 12 points would be of real use to us now.
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 10:52
Surely with rivals losing opportunities the 11 or 12 has to be the option?
If I were Ramprakash, I'd want to be left a pretty strong whiff of victory before I'd sacrifice any chance of bowling points.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:15:10:58:42 by Frome Exile.
If I were Ramprakash, I'd want to be left a pretty strong whiff of victory before I'd sacrifice any chance of bowling points.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:15:10:58:42 by Frome Exile.
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 11:02
Yep, take the 12 points and move swiftly on (assuming, of course, that we are able to bowl them out.)
Then again, even if we can't, I'd be minded to take the nine points that we already have with whatever additions we can make during the day.
I think the only thing which might make JL do something else is if he decides that Surrey are all but certain to lose when they play Notts/Durham (I'm assuming each of these sides has at least one game left with Surrey?)
In that scenario, JL may weigh up not 9-12 points versus four, but rather 9-12 points versus the 20 or so that one would expect Notts or Durham to take from a Surrey win? (Notts and Durham seem to mainly be involved in low scoring games, hence why I'm not giving them 22 pts vs Surrey)
Then again, even if we can't, I'd be minded to take the nine points that we already have with whatever additions we can make during the day.
I think the only thing which might make JL do something else is if he decides that Surrey are all but certain to lose when they play Notts/Durham (I'm assuming each of these sides has at least one game left with Surrey?)
In that scenario, JL may weigh up not 9-12 points versus four, but rather 9-12 points versus the 20 or so that one would expect Notts or Durham to take from a Surrey win? (Notts and Durham seem to mainly be involved in low scoring games, hence why I'm not giving them 22 pts vs Surrey)
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 11:07
Looks like things are carrying on as is for the time being - JL may have suggested we'll set Surrey a target later if we can a bowling pt for 3 wickets soonish?
Otherwise, it looks like it's just a draw and we'll get what we get - oooh, a wicket...!
Otherwise, it looks like it's just a draw and we'll get what we get - oooh, a wicket...!
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: RadstockRob (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 11:13
Durham v Notts abandoned 4pts each
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: bloke (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 11:26
Bristol Rob: you're famous!
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: RadstockRob (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 11:28
Why is that Bloke?You listening to commentary?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:15:11:29:05 by BristolRob .
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:15:11:29:05 by BristolRob .
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: bloke (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 11:30
Yes, I presume you were too..
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: bloke (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 11:31
1 Bowling point accrued, 17 wickets to go.
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: RadstockRob (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 11:33
I certainly am Bloke.Fancy having a ploughmans and no scrumpy.
Things are going well.Can we roll them over twice today?
Things are going well.Can we roll them over twice today?
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 11:36
Thrilled with the parsimony of Alfonso.
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 11:47
Awful, is isn't it, Bloke..
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 11:49
Bring on that man with the new contract.
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 12:18
Blackie must be worth a trundle soon...
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 12:23
Not sure about anyone else but at 500+ combined runs for six wickets, I'm starting to wonder whether this might not have been the sort of track (as vs Hants and Sussex) on which we might have found it difficult to force a victory anyway, even without the deluge from the heavens.
If that is the case, then we will have lost little due to the rain and Durham and Notts will have lost a very great deal...
If that is the case, then we will have lost little due to the rain and Durham and Notts will have lost a very great deal...
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 12:25
Be interesting to see what, if anything, Ben Phillips can do today.
I'm pretty sure that AH told us before this game that "everyone is fit."
And yet Ben somehow managed to get his nose back in front of Jonah for a place in the team. I'm not sure how, or why, but perhaps Langer/Rose/Hurry saw something in the wicket that they thought would be better suited to Ben's style of bowling.? Perhaps we'll see shortly...
I'm pretty sure that AH told us before this game that "everyone is fit."
And yet Ben somehow managed to get his nose back in front of Jonah for a place in the team. I'm not sure how, or why, but perhaps Langer/Rose/Hurry saw something in the wicket that they thought would be better suited to Ben's style of bowling.? Perhaps we'll see shortly...
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 13:10
54 overs and no sign of Jim's favourite swing bowling all-rounder. This calumny must surely be corrected soon after lunch, Jim?
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 13:21
someone needs to do something.
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 13:24
It's too late. Ramps hasn't failed to convert once this season.
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 13:42
Trigger must still be a bit sore after his injury scare.
Still,if you're fit enough to play you're fit enough to bowl.
Give him a go skipper.
Please.
Just for me.
Still,if you're fit enough to play you're fit enough to bowl.
Give him a go skipper.
Please.
Just for me.
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 13:44
JL logged in at lunchtime - swing-bowling all-rounder now on...
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 13:49
Good to know that Justin is taking advice from his mentor.
"Big Jim's school of cricket captaincy".
Book now for next summer to avoid disappointment.
"Big Jim's school of cricket captaincy".
Book now for next summer to avoid disappointment.
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 14:56
The Great man has struck.
(Caddy, not Jim)
(Caddy, not Jim)
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 15:14
What a man,a legend.
I wonder if he'd be Godparent to my children?
If I had any.
I wonder if he'd be Godparent to my children?
If I had any.
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 15:25
And I think today might just be the day when he's announced his return to something approaching typical Caddy form?
I can't wait to hear from those at the ground to see if that has been the case.
I can't wait to hear from those at the ground to see if that has been the case.
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 15:33
It does sound like it,it really is quite exciting.
He could make the difference as we make the final push.
Well done big man.
He could make the difference as we make the final push.
Well done big man.
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 15:36
And well done Rampo,what a star he is.
I'd love to be there this afternoon.
Being able to watch two of the finest players of a generation battling against each other is cricket heaven.
You lucky people,I'm nearly jealous.
I'd love to be there this afternoon.
Being able to watch two of the finest players of a generation battling against each other is cricket heaven.
You lucky people,I'm nearly jealous.
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 15:45
It's certainly the day LoL has missed, for the second time this season, a milestone he very much hoped to witness.
Ramps failed to deliver at Whitgift, and then had the temerity to refuse to wait one more innings! The cheeky tinker.
Ramps failed to deliver at Whitgift, and then had the temerity to refuse to wait one more innings! The cheeky tinker.
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 15:55
Well Lol's twin brother enjoyed it as I've just left him below the press box with Tractor
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 15:57
It would certainly have been better to have Ramps get it today than see him get it at Whitgift.
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 16:04
But it wasn't the milestone, Grockle! That was what I meant.
And yes, AG, it would. Or even better for him to have felt sated` for a while, having got it at Headingley!
And yes, AG, it would. Or even better for him to have felt sated` for a while, having got it at Headingley!
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: bloke (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 16:08
Quote:Grockle
Well Lol's twin brother enjoyed it as I've just left him below the press box with Tractor
And there was me thinking that the Press box was the lowest of the low...
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 16:08
Can you please pass on my apologies to LoL's brother please Grockle?
If I had been able to I would have contacted him.
He doesn't have a mobile phone you see.
He doesn't have one at all.
I've just lost his number.
If I had been able to I would have contacted him.
He doesn't have a mobile phone you see.
He doesn't have one at all.
I've just lost his number.
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 16:24
I take it there will be no early finish in this one unless we've got to our maximum bowling points. They gave up at Edgbaston before 4, which I did not even realise they were allowed to do?
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: Grizzers (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 17:28
Looks like the 'old man' has got another couple of wickets to give him a 5fer & also secure another bowling point.
Well done AC.
One more to make it max (draw) points !
Grizzzly
Well done AC.
One more to make it max (draw) points !
Grizzzly
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 18:43
I'd say a look at the updated Points Table vindicates the decision to resist contrivance. Two points behind Durham. Notts are top with one more point but have "played" a game more.
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 19:16
A good result,a good performance.
Well done lads.
Well done lads.
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: Grizzers (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 20:43
The very best result possible in the weather enforced conditions.
Interesting to notice from the report on the other site, that Langer dropped Ramprakash, off the bowling of none other than..........................
Ian Blackwell !!
Anyone who saw that care to comment on the body language ?!!!
Grizzzly
Interesting to notice from the report on the other site, that Langer dropped Ramprakash, off the bowling of none other than..........................
Ian Blackwell !!
Anyone who saw that care to comment on the body language ?!!!
Grizzzly
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 20:58
I was praising the umpire in an earlier thread with the way that they dealt with the bad weather.
Now I am going to praise Ramps. What an unselfish man he is, Somerset had all their points and Surrey had all their batting points.
Ramps was on 199 when the ball was lost it took a while to get a replacement.
Because no team could get any more points he was trying to end the match and go off the field.
This is where I praise the Somerset supporters (and I expect a few Surrey supporters) we could all see he was trying to do off and nearly everybody in the ground was urging to stay on, which he did and got his 200.
This is when I am glad I support cricket!
The link to my Photos on Photobucket - [s1152.photobucket.com]
Now I am going to praise Ramps. What an unselfish man he is, Somerset had all their points and Surrey had all their batting points.
Ramps was on 199 when the ball was lost it took a while to get a replacement.
Because no team could get any more points he was trying to end the match and go off the field.
This is where I praise the Somerset supporters (and I expect a few Surrey supporters) we could all see he was trying to do off and nearly everybody in the ground was urging to stay on, which he did and got his 200.
This is when I am glad I support cricket!
The link to my Photos on Photobucket - [s1152.photobucket.com]Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: cricketjerry-mouse (IP Logged)
Date: 15/08/2008 21:17
Langer and the Somerset team also deserve a pat on the back for their sportsmanship over the run that got Ramps to 200.
JL set everyone back from the square to allow him the necessary single off Carl. Somehow, though, Ramps only managed to pat the ball gently to the side of the wicket well within the reach of the bowler.
Suddenly Pedro Collins at the other end realised that CW was deliberately making no attempt to field it - and called Ramps through for the landmark run.
As someone has already said on this thread, it felt like a privilege to be present to see on the day not one but two players - Caddy was the other - still look several classes above anyone else on the park.
JL set everyone back from the square to allow him the necessary single off Carl. Somehow, though, Ramps only managed to pat the ball gently to the side of the wicket well within the reach of the bowler.
Suddenly Pedro Collins at the other end realised that CW was deliberately making no attempt to field it - and called Ramps through for the landmark run.
As someone has already said on this thread, it felt like a privilege to be present to see on the day not one but two players - Caddy was the other - still look several classes above anyone else on the park.
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/08/2008 00:19
Yeah, JL is huge pals with MR.
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: Sloop John B (IP Logged)
Date: 16/08/2008 12:56
Jl's drop of Ramps off Blackie was bizarre, Grizz.
It was low and he scrambled for it, half caught it, tried to throw it up and catch with other hand. After ten minutes of juggling he managed to grass it!!
Didn't notice any 'tea-pot' from IB - but he was very unlucky yesterday. He seemed to be bowling well with some turn but just didn't get the breaks. People around me agreed he deserved a wicket or two.
It was low and he scrambled for it, half caught it, tried to throw it up and catch with other hand. After ten minutes of juggling he managed to grass it!!
Didn't notice any 'tea-pot' from IB - but he was very unlucky yesterday. He seemed to be bowling well with some turn but just didn't get the breaks. People around me agreed he deserved a wicket or two.
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 16/08/2008 13:18
After a slow start he had Afzaal particularly in all kinds of trouble coming over the wicket to him. JL had attacking fields to him so he thought he was going to get something. Bowled well and his body language was also better, He looked engaged and thoughtful about his bowling.
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 16/08/2008 13:41
Photos from day 4.
U Afzaal - This is what I like to see from Caddick being able to get the ball to lift off a good length.
Mark Ramprakash – This had Trego holding his hands on his head with the ball just passing over the stumps.
Mark Ramprakash – this is the photo when Langer missed a catch off Blackwell, unfortunately Langer is not in the photo.
Mark Ramprakash avoiding a bouncer from Caddick.
J Batty cleaned bowled by Thomas.
The link to my Photos on Photobucket - [s1152.photobucket.com]
U Afzaal - This is what I like to see from Caddick being able to get the ball to lift off a good length.
Mark Ramprakash – This had Trego holding his hands on his head with the ball just passing over the stumps.
Mark Ramprakash – this is the photo when Langer missed a catch off Blackwell, unfortunately Langer is not in the photo.
Mark Ramprakash avoiding a bouncer from Caddick.
J Batty cleaned bowled by Thomas.
The link to my Photos on Photobucket - [s1152.photobucket.com]Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: Grizzers (IP Logged)
Date: 16/08/2008 16:26
Thanks all.
Good to hear Blackie is still being positive.
Great photos again Mike.
Grizzzly
Good to hear Blackie is still being positive.
Great photos again Mike.
Grizzzly
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 17/08/2008 08:30
Sounds like Ian bowled in very similar manner to how I saw himm bowl at Horsham.
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: 1 (IP Logged)
Date: 18/08/2008 16:37
Great tribute to Ramps from Justin Langer in his BBC Sports Column.
[news.bbc.co.uk]
[news.bbc.co.uk]
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 18/08/2008 16:47
That article say’s it all, apart from Justin admiring Ramps innings everybody watching felt the same way. (I know I did).
The link to my Photos on Photobucket - [s1152.photobucket.com]
The link to my Photos on Photobucket - [s1152.photobucket.com]Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: 1 (IP Logged)
Date: 18/08/2008 16:56
Two good innings in the match, must say 10 out of 10 for Ramps, and 8 out 10 for Tres.
Apart from the rain a very enjoyable relaxing game of Cricket.
Apart from the rain a very enjoyable relaxing game of Cricket.
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/08/2008 17:11
Why does Banger only get an 8?
So far as I know he wasn't dropped but, from the sound of the descriptions above, Ramprakash was dropped by JL.
So far as I know he wasn't dropped but, from the sound of the descriptions above, Ramprakash was dropped by JL.
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 18/08/2008 17:11
Fine words by our brilliant skipper.
International bowlers from all over the world have been grateful for the generosity shown by the English selectors over the last decade or so.
Ramprakash is the best batsman in this land,by a country mile.
I'm sure his innings against us was a joy to watch.
International bowlers from all over the world have been grateful for the generosity shown by the English selectors over the last decade or so.
Ramprakash is the best batsman in this land,by a country mile.
I'm sure his innings against us was a joy to watch.
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 18/08/2008 17:15
I'm glad I saw almost all of it, though leaving before he attained the double century. Very high and magnanimous praise from Langer, himself no mean technical expert and relentless competitor.
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:18:18:05:13 by Loyal of Lhasa..
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:18:18:05:13 by Loyal of Lhasa..
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/08/2008 17:30
But it has to be said, again, that JL's comments about how Ramprakash had to start against very high quality attacks need to be qualified by the fact that someone like Robin Smith WAS able to come in and perform respectably against a similarly potent West Indian attack (Smith came in a few years earlier, but simply faced a slightly earlier incarnation of a lethal four man battery.)
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: 1 (IP Logged)
Date: 18/08/2008 17:38
AG. Tres was dropped twice (once by Ramps) but I just felt that the innings from Ramp's was far more impressive from technical point of view, and was of far greater concentration. Ramps was dropped while on 150, after most of his hard work had been done, I felt that Somerset seemed to take accept the last 50 runs.
I was not too happy seeing IB kick the ball to Phillips at the end of an over.
I was not too happy seeing IB kick the ball to Phillips at the end of an over.
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 19/08/2008 10:21
Quote:Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 15 August, 2008 09:52
Surely with rivals losing opportunities the 11 or 12 has to be the option?
If I were Ramprakash, I'd want to be left a pretty strong whiff of victory before I'd sacrifice any chance of bowling points.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 15/08/2008 09:58 by Frome Exile.
Quote:Justin Langer
There was talk of trying to contrive a result this morning. I was very keen, but Mark Ramprakash didn't fancy it so we couldn't reach an agreement.
Just spotted Langer's comment on the club site. Does anyone mind if I have a little "I told you so" moment?
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 19/08/2008 10:29
Probably
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 19/08/2008 10:47
I feel better now
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/08/2008 10:49
Amazed that JL himself considered such a contrivance.
Or perhaps he didn't but thought that some members might grumble about it, so checked with MR beforehand that he would not be in favour of contrivance anyway?
Note the wording: the passive 'there was talk,' not 'I was keen to produce a result,' or similar.
Or perhaps he didn't but thought that some members might grumble about it, so checked with MR beforehand that he would not be in favour of contrivance anyway?
Note the wording: the passive 'there was talk,' not 'I was keen to produce a result,' or similar.
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 19/08/2008 10:51
I suggest you read it again.
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 20/08/2008 23:30
We have just returned to the soggy North East after our mini tour of Horsham and Taunton. Trying to skim through the accumulated wisdom of the assorted Grockleites I was delighted to see Mike BOS ' splendid photos of Marcus batting, even more so because he managed to get both myself and Mrs GM in the photo.
We had a good time-even in the rain- and our new B and B was absolutely brilliant.
We had a good time-even in the rain- and our new B and B was absolutely brilliant.
Re: Surrey "One Dayer"
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 21/08/2008 11:39
And on Ramprakash goes, despite yesterday's unseemly spat with Murray Goodwin which may well have disturbed the concentration of many a batsman. His powers of concentration seem to be beyond compare..
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.