Current Page: 1 of 2
Middle v Hants 12/9/20
Posted by: chunkyinargyll (IP Logged)
Date: 11 September, 2020 16:05

15 man squad named-

[www.middlesexccc.com]

Finn (c), Andersson, Cracknell, Cullen, Cummins, Davies, Eskinazi, Harris, Helm, Holden, Hollman, Lincoln, Murtagh, Simpson (wk), Sowter.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 15/09/2020 15:45 by BarmierKev.

Re: Middle v Hants 12/9/20
Posted by: Seaxe_man1 (IP Logged)
Date: 11 September, 2020 17:48

Time to give Joe Cracknell a go after the Hacienda shambles. Nothing to lose. Good fielder.

Re: Middle v Hants 12/9/20
Posted by: Jonathan Winsky (IP Logged)
Date: 11 September, 2020 19:34

Middlesex will surely need to win at least three of their final five group matches to qualify for the knockout stages, meaning that we could very much do with winning this match. It is a similar story for Hampshire.

The two biggest surprises in our squad are surely the inclusion of Tim Murtagh and the omission of Nick Gubbins. Murtagh’s two most recent Twenty20 appearances for Middlesex were in June 2013 and July 2016 respectively, with the latter also being his most recent T20 appearance for any team, although the thought had actually recently occurred to me that we could do worse than giving him a go in this competition, as he is often economical in the County Championship, and it is not like there is any other cricket he could be playing or for which he needs to be wrapped in cotton wool. Gubbo has never appeared to be as suited to this format compared to some other batsmen at the club, but this campaign has seen him score 53 off 33 v Kent at Lord’s, making him one of just three Middlesex players to have passed 50 in an innings in this competition so far (the two others being Stevie Eskinazi and Max Holden).

If Murtagh plays, I imagine that it would mean that neither James Harris nor Miguel Cummins will play. If so, hopefully Murtagh will be more economical than those bowlers have been.

I hope that Gubbo’s absence means that Jack Davies will be given another opportunity after playing v Surrey at The Oval (despite only making 16 off 15 at a strikerate of 106.67, that score and strikerate compares favourably with the other scores in the match), although it would also be great if Joe Cracknell gets a chance.

Hampshire have named a 15-man squad for this match consisting of James Vince, Brad Wheal, Tom Alsop, Ian Holland, James Fuller, Lewis McManus, Sam Northeast, Felix Organ, Calvin Harrison, Ajeet Dale, Joe Weatherley, Mason Crane, Ryan Stevenson, Chris Wood and Shaheen Afridi.

Re: Middle v Hants 12/9/20
Posted by: dnb (IP Logged)
Date: 12 September, 2020 06:07

Difficult to understand why Nick Gubbins is again not in the squad despite the very poor display against Surrey. Once again the squad announcement provides no explanation for his omission.

Re: Middle v Hants 12/9/20
Posted by: tallliman (IP Logged)
Date: 12 September, 2020 08:07

Murtagh last played a t20 match in 2016 v Surrey. Whilst there were some games for Ireland in the format before then, his previous game for Middlesex before 2016 was 2013.

Re: Middle v Hants 12/9/20
Posted by: Jonathan Winsky (IP Logged)
Date: 12 September, 2020 13:38

It felt that players such as Tim Murtagh, Blake Cullen and Joe Cracknell would have a chance of playing, but none of them are included in Middlesex's line-up for this match.

We will continue the trend of batting first in every match in our Twenty20 campaign!

It will be interesting to find out whether the commentary on the live stream will be an improvement compared to previous matches, as it seems that Adam Collins will be replaced by ex-Sky presenter and commentator Matt Floyd, who also has playing experience for Oxford University (who he represented v Middlesex in a first-class match in 2001) and Hampstead.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2020 13:39 by Jonathan Winsky.

Re: Middle v Hants 12/9/20
Posted by: Jonathan Winsky (IP Logged)
Date: 12 September, 2020 13:50

Although Middlesex produced a Tweet which said that Luke Hollman was playing and that Tim Murtagh was not, I noticed that other websites said the reverse, which I soon learned was due to Hollman turning his ankle in the warm-up. Therefore, we have gone into the match with only one main spin option, and will have to overcome our reluctance to use more than five bowlers to get more than the four overs of spin that Nathan Sowter is due to bowl.

Hopefully Murtagh will go well.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2020 13:56 by Jonathan Winsky.

Re: Middle v Hants 12/9/20
Posted by: Jonathan Winsky (IP Logged)
Date: 12 September, 2020 14:26

As well as meaning that Middlesex have only one main spin option (which we may or may not rue depending on how the pitch plays and how economical the various types of bowlers turn out to be), Luke Hollman’s absence means that our tail would begin if we lose our fifth wicket rather than our sixth wicket, so that increases the importance of our top-order not getting out and, of course, hopefully getting runs. Thankfully, we only lost one wicket in our powerplay, although we will have to see how the remainder of our innings goes.

Re: Middle v Hants 12/9/20
Posted by: Jonathan Winsky (IP Logged)
Date: 12 September, 2020 15:21

Middlesex’s total of 142-6 doesn’t seem particularly imposing. Our tally of 6 fours and 3 sixes did not help our chances of making a higher totoal. Thankfully, John Simpson gave a late boost to add some respect to our score and the boundary count.

After Mason Crane took 2-20, Hampshire in theory ought to rue not bowling more overs of spin, although I am sure that they will nonetheless be happy with the score that they kept us down to. We will have to see whether Nathan Sowter can be as economical as Crane and whether our fast bowlers’ economies leave us wishing that we had another spin option.

The feeling of being named in a line-up and then having a long and potentially vain wait to be given a bowl must be a familiar to James Fuller, as his 6-28 for Middlesex v Hampshire at the Rose Bowl in 2018 came as the eighth bowler used that evening and without bowling until the 13th over, and also having not bowled the previous evening v Somerset at Lord’s. Thankfully for Hampshire, he can still make a big contribution to this match through his batting ability.

Re: Middle v Hants 12/9/20
Posted by: Jonathan Winsky (IP Logged)
Date: 12 September, 2020 15:53

Despite not having as many runs to defend as I would like, I would feel a bit disappointed if Middlesex don’t win considering we reduced Hampshire to 12-3 after 3.1 overs.

Hampshire still have plenty of glimmers of hope, not least the fact that although successive deliveries from Tim Murtagh saw an unsuccessful appeal for a stumping be followed by a successful appeal for the same dismissal, both were given as wides, so Hampshire’s score increased without the overs remaining decreasing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2020 15:54 by Jonathan Winsky.

Re: Middle v Hants 12/9/20
Posted by: Jonathan Winsky (IP Logged)
Date: 12 September, 2020 16:19

The partnership between Tom Alsop and James Fuller suggests that this match is threatening to go the same way as Middlesex’s match v Surrey at The Oval last week, when we gave ourselves a chance of winning by taking early wickets, but ended up losing after our opponents got a big partnership going.

It would be typical Middlesex if we end up losing this match due to the award of five penalty runs, which apparently was due to something John Simpson did with his gloves during the two appeals for a stumping. Suffering defeats or relegation in strange circumstances is a Middlesex trademark!

Re: Middle v Hants 12/9/20
Posted by: chunkyinargyll (IP Logged)
Date: 12 September, 2020 16:57

Well, I don't think there were really any demons in the pitch and Hampshire fielded a far more experienced side than us.

A win is a win. Don't know how we did it, but we still have a chance of making it out of the group stage.

Re: Middle v Hants 12/9/20
Posted by: Jonathan Winsky (IP Logged)
Date: 12 September, 2020 16:58

I am very happy about Middlesex beating Hampshire to keep alive our hopes of qualifying for the knockout stages.

As unsatisfactory as it was that we hit just 6 fours and 3 sixes with no-one managing to get above 33 despite seven players getting into double-figures, Hampshire fared even worse, with 6 fours and 1 six, and the scores of their three highest-scoring players being 43, 34 and 8.

Steven Finn may have taken 3-27, but a lot of the credit for us being able to defend our low total has to go to opening bowlers Tom Helm and Tim Murtagh. The latter deserves to wait until two days rather than four years for his next Twenty20 appearance. Had someone said that we would defend a low total, I would have expected Helm to play a part, but not through his overs at the start, but through his overs at the death, in which he actually ended up not having the opportunity to bowl.

Re: Middle v Hants 12/9/20
Posted by: Seaxe_man1 (IP Logged)
Date: 12 September, 2020 17:14

Good win thanks to bowlers and outcricket. Keeps us in the hunt. Would need to reverse the Surrey result. Wins at Kent Sussex not easy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2020 17:16 by Seaxe_man1.

Re: Middle v Hants 12/9/20
Posted by: Jonathan Winsky (IP Logged)
Date: 12 September, 2020 17:48

The official Man of the Match award went to Tom Helm after he took the two big wickets of James Vince and Sam Northeast with successive balls, and for conceding only 12 runs in 3 overs.

The scorecard on the match centre on Middlesex’s official website notes that the five penalty runs were awarded under the terms of “Law 28.2- Ball striking Wicket-keepers discarded glove”. Thankfully, it did not have the impact that I feared it might have on the result.

Re: Middle v Hants 12/9/20
Posted by: Jonathan Winsky (IP Logged)
Date: 12 September, 2020 18:42

Tim Murtagh has spoken to Middlesex’s YouTube page about this match:


Re: Middle v Hants 12/9/20
Posted by: adelaide (IP Logged)
Date: 12 September, 2020 18:43

Well, it worked opening the bowling with a slow bowler. Without the five penalty runs his figures would look really top class.

It appears that the only two balls that Weatherley faced were wides. I haven't quite got my head round how the scorecard shows him as having faced one ball if neither was legitimate, though getting stumped after zero balls would look just as odd. It was odd that he compounded his error from the first wide when it came to the second.

The penalty run incident presumably came on the next ball but I cannot recall much about it. I suppose a wicketkeeper standing up inevitably discards his glove near to the stumps. If we had lost, that would have been a second loss on the basis of an obscure ruling, after the Wiese incident.

Considering we don't really have any T20 style batsmen, it is not going too badly. All five bowlers did their stuff today. Dan Lincoln looked like he had never seen leg spin before. It did occur to me that Tim Murtagh likes to go at it and it might be worth pushing him in with a few overs to go.

Commentary was even worse, I thought, and annoyingly just in advance of the video.


Adelaide

Re: Middle v Hants 12/9/20
Posted by: Seaxe_man1 (IP Logged)
Date: 12 September, 2020 19:13

The ten an over comments were optimistic. 140 ish always looked likely.

Re: Middle v Hants 12/9/20
Posted by: hdo (IP Logged)
Date: 12 September, 2020 23:39

Quote:
adelaide
Well, it worked opening the bowling with a slow bowler. Without the five penalty runs his figures would look really top class.

Penalty runs don't count against the bowler.

Re: Middle v Hants 12/9/20
Posted by: Jonathan Winsky (IP Logged)
Date: 13 September, 2020 00:05

The penalty run incident and the umpire informing the players about it can be seen at 2:19:35 in the video of the match. Nathan Sowter threw the ball to John Simpson, but Simmo had dropped his glove to the ground, and the ball hit the glove. However, as it is highly unlikely that Hampshire missed out on scoring further runs through this, it seems harsh on Middlesex that five penalty runs were awarded, although that is what the laws say.

After the commentators made the incorrect guess that James Harris’s no ball to David Wiese v Sussex at Lord’s was given due to there being insufficient fielders within the ring rather than because of the ball being above head height, it took them a few minutes in this match to understand why the penalty runs were awarded, and that was only after a note was passed by Fletch, and they were incorrect in saying that it was during the two run out appeals. Whereas Sky commentators benefit from having footage from many angles and there seeming to be a direct line between the production team and the officials, the commentators on the Middlesex streams seem to be no better informed about why on-field decisions are made compared to spectators at the ground (when they are allowed to attend of course), as spectators sometimes have to guess why decisions were made. Then again, had spectators been allowed at these matches, I would like to have thought that the ground announcer would have informed everyone of what caused these two decisions to go against Middlesex.

Current Page: 1 of 2
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net