Sharks and Showers
In a side at last
By Grockle
June 24 2011
A 15 over delayed start game at Taunton but at least we may get onto the pitch tonight. Max Waller is included in the side for the first time in domestic T20 2011. Kieron Pollard also returns.
v Sussex FLT20 @ Taunton Friday 24 June 2011
The first game in anger at Taunton in the T20 for three weeks and it was a close run thing at that. The game will probably start but it is anyone's bet whether it will finish or not. I have battery problems so the updates will come in chunks.
The side will be;
Trescothick, Trego, Hildreth, Buttler, Pollard, Gregory, Suppiah, Meschede, Kartik, Kirby and Waller.
Interesting, no Craig K, the injury to Alf leaves him out and Max is preferred to Gemaal while Compo is rested. Craig M gets another run after his wonderful debut in this competition and he also adds a bit of boot up the back order.
The big question in a 15 over game is ...Who will open with The Boss and when will the West Indian with the big bat get a go at this lot?
Oh and Wrighty is not playing...but Umar Gul is for the visitors!!
Olly Raynor starts against Pete (bit of a surprise) and after 2 balls he takes a streaky swipe and gets two followed by smacking one straight into Vincent's gut at mid wicket...WHY oh WHY? Then in comes Craig Meschede at number 3 in a reduced over game? What brought that one up? Nevertheless he lobs Liddle for a straight four in the second and we have 7 after 2 for the loss of one wicket.
On comes Umar Gul facing Marcus and mayhem ensues with an all run four followed by a dot and then a six plus 4 more fours to take the Pakistan front liner for 22 off his first and bring us to 10 an over for the first 3. This continues in the second Liddle over except that Craig doesn't get enough on one he tries to put over Raynors head and he is well caught for 5...worthwile experiment?
James Hildreth is in while the captain shows the difference in class as he swats Liddle for 4 without a care in the world and it is 40 after 4. However, Naved is a different proposition in the 5th and they onl;y manage to wrangle 5 off him. 45 for 2 after 5.
By 6.3 MT is back on track as he sixes Wernars to the Ondaatje and James is also getting into the game as the pair start to pile on runs at 10 an over. Monty is on for the 8th and JH sixes him 4th ball. Raynor gets the 9th and watches Marcus sky one into an area where the fielders fail to communicate and allow the ball to drop between them...lucky lucy man. It's 91 off 9 and the score continues to climb as James slog sweeps Panesar from his first delivery of the next over for six. He tries again next ball and is caught by Brown in almost the same place. for a very good 39 off 21 balls.
The skipper isn't stopping though and he completes a 25 ball (2 sixes and 4 fours) 50 and takes his side to 101 with another boundary. Jos has come out to partner him but he is out to the first ball he faces from Liddle, caught behind...he just isn't there at the moment.
This brings Kieron Pollard out for the first time and we try to work out how many balls before he goes for one. Liddle bounces him before he glides a single to Cow Corner to get off the mark. 113 for 4 after 11.
On comes Naved and Pollard simply flat bats his third ball for 6. Abolute brute force!! It's 123 after 12. Goodwin turns to Gull and he is also sixed by Pollard immediately and by the fourth ball Trescothick is in on the game and sixing the man into the Caddyshackl car park. 138 after 13 and Gul is getting murdered.
Naved takes the 14th but fares no better. After a quick 2 off his first, his second bounces off the OP roof and the skipper takes two fours off his last two deliveries.
Down to the last and Gul gets it plus some more mayhem! A six from MT is followed by a single and then 3 fours from the big man and two to finish. Marcus and Kieron put on 68 off 29 balls and we end on 177 for 4 - majestic stuff but it is very dark and we aren't home yet!!
The Reply
Murali Kartik opens for us and Brown fires the first one to Pete in almost the sameplace as Vincent was when he was batting 0 for 1 after 1. They get 14 off the first and Kirby takes the second and is sixed by Vincent but he is a fighter and he comes back as aggressive as usual. It is really dark out there at 5 past 8 as Sussex reach 24 after 2.
During the third we start to see the umpires talking to each other, firstly after a schoolboy fielding error by Pete off a full ball from Lewis gives Sussex 4. it wasn't because of the light! But as the over continues (a good one from the young bowler with some excellent deliveries resulting in very lucky scores) there are more discussions. Neverthless the D/L requires the visitors to be at 34 by the end and they are on 35.
The D/L rises to 46 as Kirby starts the 4th - we need 5 for the game to be officially started. His first ball is a slow one and Nash misjudges it and flops the ball to Hildreth. This is a real break and puts us in the driving seat as the D/L rises to 49 for the over....but the elation is short lived as the next ball causes another discussion between the umpires and they decide to unbelievably take the players off!! The Somerset men are discussing this with the umpires all the way off through a cacophony of boos from a crowd with every reason to feel cheated. There is not way the light will improve and although there is rain in the air there is no indicationj that it would arrive before the end of the 5th over!
Nevertheless the game is effectively called off 8 balls for a result and in light that really hasn't changed drastically from the first over. At 8:13 the support starts to file away with a real lesson on how stupid cricket can be. The umpires could bring the players back on before 8:52 but the rain starts about 10 minutes later and the game is finally abandoned as a no result at 8:40 due to bad light and rain - no one mentions it is also due to gross bureaucratic stupidity by two officials!!
We questioned the reason why the game was set at 15 overs when it was highly unlikely that a game of 30 overs was on at 6:45. It seems the regulations set the overs by the time left in the game and there is no room for negotiation or sensible discussion between the umpires and captains about what is a realistic game length to get a result. 10 to 12 overs was what we expected...15 is what we got and the umpires spoiled the game just before it became a result.
Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Grockles.com (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 18:41
What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011:06:26:14:08:58 by Grockle.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011:06:26:14:08:58 by Grockle.
Sussex - weather permitting
Posted by: cricketjerry-mouse (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 10:18
Sussex have added Pakistan seamer Naveed Arif Gondal, who qualifies through a Danish wife, and South African all-rounder Kirk Wernars, who also has an EU passport, to the team who failed to hit a boundary off the last ball to achieve a low-scoring tie with Glamorgan at Cardiff last night.
Their T20 overseas player is Umar Gul.
Squad: Brown, Goodwin (c), Hodd, Liddle, Nash, Naveed Arif Gondal, Panesar, Rana Naved-ul-Hasan, Rayner, Gul, Vincent, Wells and Wernars.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011:06:24:10:54:51 by Grockle.
Their T20 overseas player is Umar Gul.
Squad: Brown, Goodwin (c), Hodd, Liddle, Nash, Naveed Arif Gondal, Panesar, Rana Naved-ul-Hasan, Rayner, Gul, Vincent, Wells and Wernars.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011:06:24:10:54:51 by Grockle.
Re: Sussex - weather permitting
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 10:28
Almost a tie Glamorgan won by two runs.
Another 'bogey' team coming!!
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 10:06
Sussex here tonight - along with Warwicks and Notts seem to bring out the worst in our team.
However whether the weather is good or bad at 5.30pm tonight, could be countered by ringing Sussex - get here early and start straight after lunch!!! Refunds for any who miss out!!
No, perhaps a lot of you won't like it - it would be OK with me because I could use my bus pass instead of my bike!!!
However whether the weather is good or bad at 5.30pm tonight, could be countered by ringing Sussex - get here early and start straight after lunch!!! Refunds for any who miss out!!
No, perhaps a lot of you won't like it - it would be OK with me because I could use my bus pass instead of my bike!!!
Re: Another 'bogey' team coming!!
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 10:08
1 point from a Sussex game would obviously be better than being limited to 1 point from a game against one of the poorer sides.
Re: Another 'bogey' team coming!!
Posted by: NW5Somerset (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 10:27
Just looked at the BBC rain radar forecast.
Raining over Taunton from appx 5pm Friday to 4am Saturday.
Play very unlikely v Sussex I'm afraid.
Raining over Taunton from appx 5pm Friday to 4am Saturday.
Play very unlikely v Sussex I'm afraid.
Re: Sussex - weather permitting
Posted by: bloke (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 11:34
My info also suggests a walloping downpour tonight
Re: Sussex - weather permitting
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 12:03
Have you been at the tea leaves again, Bloke?
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Sussex - weather permitting
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 13:32
Looking out SW at 1pm (mile from St James St) it looks like it is building up nicely for a huge downpour starting at about 5.28pm and lasting till 8pm!
Re: Sussex - weather permitting
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 13:35
A few spots of rain coming down as I type.
Re: Sussex - weather permitting
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 14:02
Is that at all earlier than forecast? If so, does that mean there's any chance of it clearing in time for the game?
Re: Sussex - weather permitting
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 14:12
I don't think so AG, it didn't last long and it is now brighter.
Re: Sussex - weather permitting
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 14:25
Mike
I read that as them needing 4 for a tie.
I read that as them needing 4 for a tie.
Re: Sussex - weather permitting
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 14:42
Sorry if I read it wrong, it has been edited so I don't know if I did.
Re: Sussex - weather permitting
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 14:47
Chance of rain after 3 is now 93% with 2 hours worth at least in store....
Re: Sussex - weather permitting
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 15:19
I'd love to know what models they use to produce such an exact percentage!
To judge from the weather maps there's heavy and widespread rain heading for the South West and it does not look like there are any real gaps in it so that there is a 7% chance of it not raining. Maybe there's a 7% chance that the wind will do a complete volte-face and blow it all back into the Atlantic, but I think not!
To judge from the weather maps there's heavy and widespread rain heading for the South West and it does not look like there are any real gaps in it so that there is a 7% chance of it not raining. Maybe there's a 7% chance that the wind will do a complete volte-face and blow it all back into the Atlantic, but I think not!
Re: Sussex - weather permitting
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 15:37
Would the umps allow a 5 over thrash match at 5.30pm and hope the rain doesn't arrive until say 6.15pm?
Re: Sussex - weather permitting
Posted by: nelliec (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 15:51
[www.metoffice.gov.uk]
Following the radar image through from the last few hours have we a window to play?
Following the radar image through from the last few hours have we a window to play?
Re: Sussex - weather permitting
Posted by: Sloop John B (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 16:34
Hope you're right Nell! It would be a bit of an escape if we do get that apparent weather window.
We are certainly due for some weather luck.
Just hope it works in our favour on the field itself.
We are certainly due for some weather luck.
Just hope it works in our favour on the field itself.
Re: Sussex - weather permitting
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 16:39
16.40 damping and drizzle now mile from ground. No wind or breeze. 1 point a piece I'm afraid.
Re: Sussex - weather permitting
Posted by: NW5Somerset (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 16:49
Gut feeling is the predicted heavy stuff is a bit north of Taunton.
You never know - we could still get a game on.
You never know - we could still get a game on.
Re: Sussex - weather permitting
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 16:56
old boy, is spot on, I might leave it a bit longer before I think about going over the road.
Re: Sussex - weather permitting
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 16:59
I would say it is too dark for me to take photos anyway.
Re: Sussex - weather permitting
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 17:01
Solid rain here at 5:00. Nothing in the clouds that suggests any change.
Re: Sussex - weather permitting
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 17:03
So much for Beeb radar which suggests only drizzle in Taunton area and nothing but drizzle or dry off to the SW.
Wales looks as though it is under water on the same radar.
Wales looks as though it is under water on the same radar.
Re: Sussex - weather permitting
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 17:13
"Raintoday" says 99% of rain before it drops to 95% at 8 o'clock. It has stopped here but it is very dark everywhere.
Re: Sussex - weather permitting
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 17:54
Confirmation of the early news that Alf is hoping to be up for it by the end of next week but it depends on the long term assessment of his injury - which may relate to our results.
He's having oxygen tent treatment at Nailsea and it seems to be helping and he's straining to get on to a cricekt pitch and play some games.
He first felt it against Kent and says he bowled the last over and a half 'on one leg'!
He's having oxygen tent treatment at Nailsea and it seems to be helping and he's straining to get on to a cricekt pitch and play some games.
He first felt it against Kent and says he bowled the last over and a half 'on one leg'!
Re: Sussex - weather permitting
Posted by: Brother Of (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 18:01
Any more news on the weather Grockle?
COACH
COACH
Re: Sussex - weather permitting
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 18:05
15 over game at 6:45 IF the rain stays off. It's possible but getting 30 overs in tonight would be a real achievement.
Max Waller may play tonight...rumour only but he was out there bowling.
Max Waller may play tonight...rumour only but he was out there bowling.
Re: Sussex - weather permitting
Posted by: Bagpuss (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 18:06
To calculate the chance of rain I think they survey 100 people all in possession of a bit of seaweed and ask 'Do you think its going to rain?'
Re: Sussex - weather permitting
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 18:10
Bagpuss: I think you are ignoring Bloke's tea leaves.
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Sussex - weather permitting
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 18:10
Max'll be delighted to get his chance with a wet ball!
Re: Sussex - weather permitting
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 18:20
I am back home to collect my cameras, it might be a struggle to take any in this light.
Re: Sussex - weather permitting
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 18:31
Cricinfo have removed "match delayed" and say Sussex won the toss and put us in.
Re: Sussex - weather permitting
Posted by: Bagpuss (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 18:32
Is it an underwater camera, Mike?
Re: Sussex - weather permitting
Posted by: wsm fan (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 18:34
light drizzle currently in wiveliscombe...
Re: Sussex - weather permitting
Posted by: Bagpuss (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 18:34
Cricinfo also say Max playing
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: wsm fan (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 18:53
Batting 2nd gives sussex huge hge advantage.
With showers about if we go off shortly then our 10 wickets have to last a shorter distance of which we dont know.
Sussex will always know their target, total wise and D/L wise so can pace accordingly.
We are just batting in the dark (literally)
7-1 off 2, i'd take 100 from here???
With showers about if we go off shortly then our 10 wickets have to last a shorter distance of which we dont know.
Sussex will always know their target, total wise and D/L wise so can pace accordingly.
We are just batting in the dark (literally)
7-1 off 2, i'd take 100 from here???
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 19:00
The commentators can't be heard above the crowd noise and the ridiculous music. Can someone at the ground tell them to turn the effects mike down - or whatever is required.
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 19:03
... and like magic the balance has suddenly improved. Many thanks to somebody.
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: RadstockRob (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 19:08
You spoil sport LoL.Spoilt everybody's fun now.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011:06:24:19:09:35 by BristolRob .
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011:06:24:19:09:35 by BristolRob .
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 19:12
Sorry Rob. It's so boring now, isn't it?
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: RadstockRob (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 19:15
High Hoooooooooooooooo
That's better. I needed that!!!!
That's better. I needed that!!!!
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: wsm fan (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 19:39
What is the cut off time for this match?
Surely Sussex will not start batting until at least 8pm?
Its going to be pitch black come 9pm / 9.10?
Is the dark harder for batters or fielders?
Will the umpires be brave enough to stop play for bad light???
Surely Sussex will not start batting until at least 8pm?
Its going to be pitch black come 9pm / 9.10?
Is the dark harder for batters or fielders?
Will the umpires be brave enough to stop play for bad light???
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Bagpuss (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 19:50
Marcus and KP dont seem to be having much trouble seeing it!
Bet Sussex are glad they played their new overseas player
Bet Sussex are glad they played their new overseas player
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: wsm fan (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 19:51
Gul 3 - 0 - 57 - 0
Thanks for coming Umar!!!
Thanks for coming Umar!!!
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Norwich SCCC (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 19:55
177/4 in 15 overs - not bad!
Well played Tres in particular and welcome back KP.
Well played Tres in particular and welcome back KP.
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: wsm fan (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 20:00
1-1 off 3 balls, another 27 balls needed to be bowled.
Good move by Tres getting Kartil on first, need 5 overs bowled in shortest time possible.....
Good move by Tres getting Kartil on first, need 5 overs bowled in shortest time possible.....
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Bagpuss (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 20:17
Noooooooooooo!
Even when Somerset are putting in a good performance the gods (and the umpires) are against them.
Even when Somerset are putting in a good performance the gods (and the umpires) are against them.
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: wsm fan (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 20:22
In my experience umpires play through spits of rain, even light drizzle, but never resume playing until rain totally stops?
presumably we only have about 20 mins in which to get back on or else its 1 pt each as we all had expected earlier!!!
presumably we only have about 20 mins in which to get back on or else its 1 pt each as we all had expected earlier!!!
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: WaresWurzel (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 20:22
It is an interesting thought, if the last ball had been hit for a 4 would the umpires have taken them off.........me thinks not!!!!
Wurz
Wurz
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Norwich SCCC (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 20:24
Does anyone know what the D/L would need to be after 5? (should we get back on)
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: wsm fan (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 20:25
Noise is chucking it down and crowd are all leaving...
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Bagpuss (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 20:25
Poor Max - finally gets picked and doesn't get a chance to bowl.
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 20:30
I was resigned to one point each as a game abandoned without a ball being bowled, but after that superb batting performance I now feel cheated.
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 20:32
Interesting, geordie. My feeling is that I never expected anything other than a point apiece, but now feel at least our batting has some good form to continue into the rest of the T20.
Of course, I'd have preferred to beat Sussex, but doesn't look like it's to be.
Of course, I'd have preferred to beat Sussex, but doesn't look like it's to be.
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 20:34
The light was the problem I packed up ten minutes before the umpires did.
I don’t know what my photos are like it was too dark for my lens.
They were up with DL then they lost a wicket I didn't see the adjustment for the wicket.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011:06:24:20:37:30 by Mike BOS.
I don’t know what my photos are like it was too dark for my lens.
They were up with DL then they lost a wicket I didn't see the adjustment for the wicket.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011:06:24:20:37:30 by Mike BOS.
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Norwich SCCC (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 20:36
There is always a danger with these shortened games that a few big hits would do it for the side batting second. I'd say we are were only just shading it when we came off but 20 odd off 8 balls could change that.
I agree with SP that the good batting performance by Tres and co is better than a complete washout.
I agree with SP that the good batting performance by Tres and co is better than a complete washout.
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: wsm fan (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 20:41
Rumour is that quarter final draw will now be open draw, ie not the top 2 spots guaranteed home draws.
Anyone know if this is true?
Anyone know if this is true?
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 20:43
Can't imagine they'd change the rules part-way through the competition?
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Norwich SCCC (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 20:44
I don't think it is WSM. They were talking about it on Sky this evening about the importance of finishing in the top two to guarantee a home tie. (or a home no result in our case!)
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 20:45
I was amazed to get a game, albeit, no result.
I just wonder whether, although nothing would ever be admitted, in view of the remarkably big crowd (I only went down after seeing MikeBoS's post about the 6.45 start) and possible disorder or maybe lost beer sales etc, there was a deal. The deal was to let the match run until just before the 'legitimising' 5 overs, if there was any doubt about the weather. I don't think Sussex had a case ref the light because they won the toss.
I just wonder whether, although nothing would ever be admitted, in view of the remarkably big crowd (I only went down after seeing MikeBoS's post about the 6.45 start) and possible disorder or maybe lost beer sales etc, there was a deal. The deal was to let the match run until just before the 'legitimising' 5 overs, if there was any doubt about the weather. I don't think Sussex had a case ref the light because they won the toss.
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 20:46
Was it rain or darkness that stopped the game?
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: wsm fan (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 20:50
You certainly wont get anyone to admit that no.
Can't see it being the case anyway, umpires control playability of conditions, players have to do as they are told
Can't see it being the case anyway, umpires control playability of conditions, players have to do as they are told
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: nelliec (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 21:11
Just a few comments;
Tres,Hildy ,KP outstanding batting in those conditions!
Jos was well disappointed with his dismissal and went straight to changing rooms, followed very quickly by JHildreth.Hopefully a great sign of a good team spirit.
Had we not taken that second wicket would they have carried on until the end of the fifth over.
Obviously Sussex would have walked off as soon as ahead of d/l
Tres,Hildy ,KP outstanding batting in those conditions!
Jos was well disappointed with his dismissal and went straight to changing rooms, followed very quickly by JHildreth.Hopefully a great sign of a good team spirit.
Had we not taken that second wicket would they have carried on until the end of the fifth over.
Obviously Sussex would have walked off as soon as ahead of d/l
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 21:11
Honi soit qui mal y pense OB. another conspiracy theory????
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: wsm fan (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 21:15
The batsmen couldnt walk off, unless declaring???
Light/rain is purely the judgement of the umpires.
Assuming they are fair to both teams the situation of the chase should be irrelevant to when the go off surely???
Light/rain is purely the judgement of the umpires.
Assuming they are fair to both teams the situation of the chase should be irrelevant to when the go off surely???
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 21:23
Hard lines. Tres is almost inasnely superior.
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 21:30
Georgie moonraker
I'm not a conspiracy theorist BUT it was very strange that the umpires brought them off after the 4th ball of the 3rd over when the conditions were absolutely no different than at the 1st ball of the over! One would normally expect them to consult at the end of an over. Actually I'm very happy with the evening despite us losing a point, because the pleasure give by Tres and Pollard was enormous. The worry is that Pollard, when on form hits the ball so hard, he could easily kill someone!!
I'm not a conspiracy theorist BUT it was very strange that the umpires brought them off after the 4th ball of the 3rd over when the conditions were absolutely no different than at the 1st ball of the over! One would normally expect them to consult at the end of an over. Actually I'm very happy with the evening despite us losing a point, because the pleasure give by Tres and Pollard was enormous. The worry is that Pollard, when on form hits the ball so hard, he could easily kill someone!!
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 21:32
ob - was it rain or bad light? I'm just interested...
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 21:41
It's all in the report on this game at the head of this thread.
Ludicrous decision at the point it was made but the size of the game was not up for negotiation and our only hope was that we would get Sussex out there for 5 overs. They needed 49 by the end of the fourth and had 40.
Absolute stupidity to take them off then. No reason at all to do it then rather than two overs before and we could have played for another 8 balls. Max might have got his chance to bowl.
Kieron was not happy though it was fun to remember why this man is such a power. When he gets the ball full on the bat there is no use at all for technique because it goes like a missile to whatever boundary he chooses.
Marcus was just majestic - the way he destroyed Gul in his first over was dismissive. When Panesar bowled him rubbish he took his time showing the bowler exactly how much rubbish it was.
Good to see some cricket but a poor advertisement for the game in terms of the way it was finished. if SKY had been here the umpires would have never considered the decision and we would have played to a result.
Ludicrous decision at the point it was made but the size of the game was not up for negotiation and our only hope was that we would get Sussex out there for 5 overs. They needed 49 by the end of the fourth and had 40.
Absolute stupidity to take them off then. No reason at all to do it then rather than two overs before and we could have played for another 8 balls. Max might have got his chance to bowl.
Kieron was not happy though it was fun to remember why this man is such a power. When he gets the ball full on the bat there is no use at all for technique because it goes like a missile to whatever boundary he chooses.
Marcus was just majestic - the way he destroyed Gul in his first over was dismissive. When Panesar bowled him rubbish he took his time showing the bowler exactly how much rubbish it was.
Good to see some cricket but a poor advertisement for the game in terms of the way it was finished. if SKY had been here the umpires would have never considered the decision and we would have played to a result.
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: wsm fan (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 21:43
Came off for bad light.
4th ball of 4th over was a wicket, not defending it, but that was reason as umpires clearly came together at that point when normally they'd have been less likely to do so in the middle of an over.
Still strange that having played until that point they couldnt have stayed another 8 balls, what would that have been 4 maybe 5 mins...
4th ball of 4th over was a wicket, not defending it, but that was reason as umpires clearly came together at that point when normally they'd have been less likely to do so in the middle of an over.
Still strange that having played until that point they couldnt have stayed another 8 balls, what would that have been 4 maybe 5 mins...
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 21:52
And although the conditions worsened they had not changed significantly from the beginning of the third over!
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 21:59
Thanks Grockle - understand now...
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 22:06
My pleasure Shep... wish I did.
How can a rule be sensible that says that umpires have to play a certain number of overs when it is quite obvious that there is NO way that number are sensibly going to be possible within the time frame and given the conditions.
Why is it impossible for the two officials and two captains to dicuss the situation, assess the number of overs possible and with everyone's agreement play a meaningful game that gives both sides the same options. 10 to 12 overs would have been sensible
As it was we lost an hour and a quarter of a 3 hour game (Over 33% in terms of time) and only took 10 overs (25% of the overs) off the game. The numbers didn't match up with anyone in the press or scorer's box.
How can a rule be sensible that says that umpires have to play a certain number of overs when it is quite obvious that there is NO way that number are sensibly going to be possible within the time frame and given the conditions.
Why is it impossible for the two officials and two captains to dicuss the situation, assess the number of overs possible and with everyone's agreement play a meaningful game that gives both sides the same options. 10 to 12 overs would have been sensible
As it was we lost an hour and a quarter of a 3 hour game (Over 33% in terms of time) and only took 10 overs (25% of the overs) off the game. The numbers didn't match up with anyone in the press or scorer's box.
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: wsm fan (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 22:36
Think each game has 30 min leeway for time to be made up after scheduled close.
Quite agree this was ridiculous to aim for given the circumstances.
Can only assume that when matches have to be shortened then they then have to aim for the extended close time.
Not defending the umpires in any way as even if they were tied to such rules still see no excuse for light with 8 balls to go if it was 'ok' to start the innings.
Quite agree this was ridiculous to aim for given the circumstances.
Can only assume that when matches have to be shortened then they then have to aim for the extended close time.
Not defending the umpires in any way as even if they were tied to such rules still see no excuse for light with 8 balls to go if it was 'ok' to start the innings.
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 22:39
Cricinfo says free draw for the SEMI-finals, but not for quarters.
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 22:48
It was clearly light enough for Hildreth to take a catch off the last ball...
Anyway we are third in the table, even if Cricinfo erroneously has listed us as fourth.
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Anyway we are third in the table, even if Cricinfo erroneously has listed us as fourth.
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 22:55
Just seen Gul's figures - incredible.
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 22:58
Marcus took 22 off his first and they ripped him a new one all evening.
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 24/06/2011 23:26
This is the best I can do today the light was so bad I couldn’t adjust the camera any more for the light.
Steve Kirby gave C Nash a hard time in the bad light, this ball hit him in his middle and it hurt, the next ball Kirby deceived the batsman with a slower ball.
I wonder what sort of shot James Hildreth is going to play.
James tried again and there was a shout for lbw it was not given.
It is not all big hitting with Kieron Pollard he can also play delicate shots as well.
This is what we like to see him do hit six’s, I swear one of his six’s was so flat it got no more than ten feet off the ground and it still hit the boundary boards halfway up.
Steve Kirby gave C Nash a hard time in the bad light, this ball hit him in his middle and it hurt, the next ball Kirby deceived the batsman with a slower ball.
I wonder what sort of shot James Hildreth is going to play.
James tried again and there was a shout for lbw it was not given.
It is not all big hitting with Kieron Pollard he can also play delicate shots as well.
This is what we like to see him do hit six’s, I swear one of his six’s was so flat it got no more than ten feet off the ground and it still hit the boundary boards halfway up.
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 25/06/2011 08:45
That flat batted six was just literally swatted away. The man has tremendous power.
It was great to watch him smashing at one end and Marcus doing the same through timing at the other. His six to the Caddick car park seemed to take absolutely no effort at all off Gul.
It was great to watch him smashing at one end and Marcus doing the same through timing at the other. His six to the Caddick car park seemed to take absolutely no effort at all off Gul.
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Wickham (IP Logged)
Date: 25/06/2011 09:17
Thanks, Mike - excellent photos, as ever.
D-L doesn't work satisfactorily in these circumstances. It seems designed for circumstances where rain or bad light comes out of a clear blue sky. But, of course, that rarely happens. Where the batting side knows that the weather is closing in, they can change their tactics accordingly. If the final ball had gone for four, rather than resulting in a wicket, Sussex would probably have been able to keep up with the required rate, had the match continued.
D-L doesn't work satisfactorily in these circumstances. It seems designed for circumstances where rain or bad light comes out of a clear blue sky. But, of course, that rarely happens. Where the batting side knows that the weather is closing in, they can change their tactics accordingly. If the final ball had gone for four, rather than resulting in a wicket, Sussex would probably have been able to keep up with the required rate, had the match continued.
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 25/06/2011 09:44
It was a most unsatisfying end to a game that was offering a very close finish. Sussex were there or there about but in the light a wicket was always possible.
Lewis Gregory was really unlucky in over number three when a very lazy misfield from Pete which cost a boundary and a very streaky slash for four made light of 6 yorker length balls that nearly got the batsman every time.
The other problem with the short games and the D/L is that Sussex might have kept up with the rate for 5 overs or so but I'm not sure that would have been a fair indication of their ability to reach the target set over a longer period of time. We maintained a 10+ per over rate throughout with our first 6 batsmen (though once again it was mostly the master batsman's show). Not sure Sussex would have been able to manage that.
I suppose that balanced against our bowlers ability to get them 4 down in 15.
It also clearly illustrated the importance of a late Pollard innings in this format after the comment earlier about the unimportance of a 30 off 15 ball thrash from him. 40 off 21 would probably have been of vital importance had this game gone to full term.
Lewis Gregory was really unlucky in over number three when a very lazy misfield from Pete which cost a boundary and a very streaky slash for four made light of 6 yorker length balls that nearly got the batsman every time.
The other problem with the short games and the D/L is that Sussex might have kept up with the rate for 5 overs or so but I'm not sure that would have been a fair indication of their ability to reach the target set over a longer period of time. We maintained a 10+ per over rate throughout with our first 6 batsmen (though once again it was mostly the master batsman's show). Not sure Sussex would have been able to manage that.
I suppose that balanced against our bowlers ability to get them 4 down in 15.
It also clearly illustrated the importance of a late Pollard innings in this format after the comment earlier about the unimportance of a 30 off 15 ball thrash from him. 40 off 21 would probably have been of vital importance had this game gone to full term.
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 25/06/2011 09:50
They are a bit grainy due to the bad light.
I was think something about that last night when the DL figures kept showing they were keeping up with the rate, I was thinking they are in the batting power play it is always going to be easier to keep up with the required rate for the first five over with the fielders all in.
Edit Snap Grockle.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011:06:25:09:53:18 by Mike BOS.
I was think something about that last night when the DL figures kept showing they were keeping up with the rate, I was thinking they are in the batting power play it is always going to be easier to keep up with the required rate for the first five over with the fielders all in.
Edit Snap Grockle.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011:06:25:09:53:18 by Mike BOS.
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 25/06/2011 10:26
You misconstrued my comment about Pollard, Grockle. It wasn't about its importance or otherwise in T20 - my point was more that after the Warks debacle in the really important competition, I didn't want to read stupid marketing spiel about T20 on the website and that, frankly, we'd have been better off using the money we've spent on extra T20 players from overseas to strengthen our CC squad instead.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011:06:25:10:29:24 by AGod.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011:06:25:10:29:24 by AGod.
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: ronnies (IP Logged)
Date: 25/06/2011 11:44
first chance to post. Had computer issues last night. Sounds like a batting master class. Saw goodwin get interviewed on sky. He wanted it called off earlier. No wonder as he was getting slaughtered.wondere if we'd just made 100 if he would have had a different tune.
Thought the team make up looked good. 8 different bowling options in that team last night and plenty of chances to rotate batsmen too. Just hooe we can take our frustration out on Glamorgan tomorrow and then into next week.
Thought the team make up looked good. 8 different bowling options in that team last night and plenty of chances to rotate batsmen too. Just hooe we can take our frustration out on Glamorgan tomorrow and then into next week.
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 25/06/2011 11:44
Warwickshire is really important in your view. As it is in the view of others on here but most of them don't take as many opportunities to comment on how worthless the T20 is. They tend to simply ignore it.
To a purist the CC is the pinnacle of achievement but some 3500 to 4000 people who had paid decent money last night turned up in non summery conditions to watch a game of what they classify as a form of cricket and Kieron Pollard's contribution was not only enjoyable but important in that game.
I've got no problems with your view of the game and its different formats. But I don't believe I took your comment out of context. You inferred that Pollard's contributions to a personally unpopular form of the game were less important. I simply illustrated how important they were to that format and the audience who watched that particular game.
To a purist the CC is the pinnacle of achievement but some 3500 to 4000 people who had paid decent money last night turned up in non summery conditions to watch a game of what they classify as a form of cricket and Kieron Pollard's contribution was not only enjoyable but important in that game.
I've got no problems with your view of the game and its different formats. But I don't believe I took your comment out of context. You inferred that Pollard's contributions to a personally unpopular form of the game were less important. I simply illustrated how important they were to that format and the audience who watched that particular game.
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 25/06/2011 11:51
I though I would show the rules at this stage of the t20, that’s how they were at the start of the season, did somebody say it had been changed?
21.10.3 The top four teams from each group will qualify for the
Quarter-finals. The team finishing first in each group will
receive a home draw and play against the team finishing
fourth in the opposite group. The team finishing second
in each group will receive a home draw and play against
the team finishing third in the opposite group.
21.10.4 The tie-breakers for teams finishing on equal points
will be:
a The team with the higher net run rate in the Group
Matches will be placed in the higher position (see below).
b If still equal, the team with the higher number of wickets
taken per balls bowled in the Group Matches in which
results were achieved, will be placed in the higher
position.
c If still equal, the teams will be ordered according to
which team achieved the most points in the matches
played between them.
d In the event that teams cannot be separated by (a) to (c)
above, this will be done by drawing lots.
[static.ecb.co.uk]
LoL is correct when he said we should be third in the table, when points are equal it is done on RR not the number of wins.
21.10.3 The top four teams from each group will qualify for the
Quarter-finals. The team finishing first in each group will
receive a home draw and play against the team finishing
fourth in the opposite group. The team finishing second
in each group will receive a home draw and play against
the team finishing third in the opposite group.
21.10.4 The tie-breakers for teams finishing on equal points
will be:
a The team with the higher net run rate in the Group
Matches will be placed in the higher position (see below).
b If still equal, the team with the higher number of wickets
taken per balls bowled in the Group Matches in which
results were achieved, will be placed in the higher
position.
c If still equal, the teams will be ordered according to
which team achieved the most points in the matches
played between them.
d In the event that teams cannot be separated by (a) to (c)
above, this will be done by drawing lots.
[static.ecb.co.uk]
LoL is correct when he said we should be third in the table, when points are equal it is done on RR not the number of wins.
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 25/06/2011 12:01
... and as it happens we have currently played one fewer game than Essex anyway (and lost fewer matches). Our run rate remains the highest in the league.
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 25/06/2011 12:04
It's by far the highest in the league.
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 25/06/2011 12:59
Quote:AGod
...It wasn't about its importance or otherwise in T20 my point was more that after the Warks debacle in the really important competition, I didn't want to read stupid marketing spiel about T20 on the website and that, frankly, we'd have been better off using the money we've spent on extra T20 players from overseas to strengthen our CC squad instead.
But unfortunately the club cannot ignore probably its major source of income just because some of its members dislike it. The Championship will always need supporting and the large crowds will come to see T20 cricket. The largest crowd noise last night was for the arrival to the crease of Mr Pollard. The Championship is 'real' cricket. But it is not 'cricket' to the majority of people who will pay to see Somerset under the age of 40.
They want to see money well spent for their enjoyment and RvdM/KP is their money well spent.
Guy Wolfenden's job is to get them through the gates and however 'stupid' you think his 'marketing speil' is it got them in in their thousands last year, won the club awards for marketing campaigns and provided some of the income used to strengthen(?) the CC side this year - T20 is where the money comes from to pay the bills, especially the extra ones.
Your view of the club's use of resources is unfortunately freed from the financial imperatives of the world of cricekt as the marketing men know it. Their view has to very much includes T20 though I perceive you would rather that it didn't.
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 25/06/2011 13:30
I'm not altogether sure that we did strengthen the team for the CC, nor that there was necessarily much extra outlay involved in the new signings given that two experienced players also left the club.
But I take your point - my post in question was written in a bad mood as I was waiting for some kind of official verdict from Brian etc on the Warks game. At the time I posted there was no such verdict but there was the T20 spiel.
But I take your point - my post in question was written in a bad mood as I was waiting for some kind of official verdict from Brian etc on the Warks game. At the time I posted there was no such verdict but there was the T20 spiel.
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Wickham (IP Logged)
Date: 25/06/2011 13:50
AG: I do think it unfair to characterise the marketing material as "spiel", let alone as "stupid" - or any other pejorative term, for that matter. It is not directed at the likes of you and me. And (as Grockle has pointed out) if it succeeds in creating interest and helping to attract people through the gates, that's surely something which supporters of the club should welcome.
I am sure that you would feel insulted if material which you had produced in the course of your work was casually described in those sorts of ways by those who hold themselves out to be supporters of your organisation. So, please let's give those who work for the club the benefit of the doubt (not that I think there is any doubt in this case).
I am sure that you would feel insulted if material which you had produced in the course of your work was casually described in those sorts of ways by those who hold themselves out to be supporters of your organisation. So, please let's give those who work for the club the benefit of the doubt (not that I think there is any doubt in this case).
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 25/06/2011 14:00
I do think Somerset have toned it down this year most of the t20 hype from last year has been kept within the club. I don’t about newspaper adverts because I don’t buy one.
Last year every lamppost in Taunton has a sign on it advertising the t20.
Last year every lamppost in Taunton has a sign on it advertising the t20.
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 25/06/2011 14:01
I'm not sure that I do believe that this sort of stuff on the website puts bums on seats. I think what puts bums on seats is acutal success on the field. If the T20 form had been poor then I don't believe that we'd have been one of those teams lobbying to keep 16 T20 games - I think we'd have found that, like other counties, we would have been unable to sell 8 home games.
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Wickham (IP Logged)
Date: 25/06/2011 14:11
But that's not my main point.
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 25/06/2011 14:15
On Sky the other day they were mentioning the size of the crowds, they quote three counties that get large crowds (Somerset one of those) and wondered why other counties didn’t.
I would think every club will promote it on their web site.
What is the answer, everybody that watch Sky gets the same exposure to t20 so why do some counties draw larger crowds than others?
I would think every club will promote it on their web site.
What is the answer, everybody that watch Sky gets the same exposure to t20 so why do some counties draw larger crowds than others?
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 25/06/2011 14:25
I would think that a big part of is that we are both pretty successful and pretty exciting in this form of the game?
Craig is about to open up in Bristol
Craig is about to open up in Bristol
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 25/06/2011 14:44
I switch it on and he's already gone!! Oh dear!
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 25/06/2011 15:02
Craig played his first few balls very sensibly, but was then dismissed the first time he tried to really play a 'muscle,' shot---- IN SCCC games Brian has said our guys need to assess the conditions--- problem for Craig with England is that he is expected to play the muscle shots and they would proably not be happy with him if he said 'there's a bit in this for the bowler, I'll play sensibly for 7 or 8 overs'
Lumb did not bother to take a look at all and went pretty much straight away
Lumb did not bother to take a look at all and went pretty much straight away
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 25/06/2011 15:05
The best thing about this afternoon's T20 is the chance to listen to the wisdom of the greatest living Englishman - and I don't mean Alec Stewart, who, as it happens, has just been saying some very complimentary things about our man.
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 25/06/2011 15:08
Well, LoL, the guys on Sky are in full on bizarro mode today
I switched on to find them saying that Broad's first act as captain was to 'leave out England's best batsman, Ian Bell'
A few minutes later when Morgan joined Pietersen, they promptly announed 'England's two best T20 players together now'
I switched on to find them saying that Broad's first act as captain was to 'leave out England's best batsman, Ian Bell'
A few minutes later when Morgan joined Pietersen, they promptly announed 'England's two best T20 players together now'
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 25/06/2011 15:11
Craig should play the way that gets him runs..then the ECB staff will have to accept what they have because he does the job.
If he plays a different way and gets out then we'll benefit because he'll be back here but his international career will be blighted by taking advice that is not in his interest to follow - and he won't be the first.
If he plays a different way and gets out then we'll benefit because he'll be back here but his international career will be blighted by taking advice that is not in his interest to follow - and he won't be the first.
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 25/06/2011 15:18
Hopefully he'll come off in the 50 over series where he will have a bit more scope, I'd think, to assess conditions, if he wants to do so -- difficult for him though because the injury came at the wrong time and he's not had a vast amount of cricket recently
If he doesn't come off for England, it will be important that he learns from last season and does not allow being back in the County rank to put him into some sort of funk
If he doesn't come off for England, it will be important that he learns from last season and does not allow being back in the County rank to put him into some sort of funk
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 25/06/2011 15:40
I think his form before his injury for us suggested he had got that lesson firmly
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 25/06/2011 18:18
Grockle
You are so right about the so called 'expert coaches' messing up the minds of so many potential England players.
It goes back a long way - Maurice Tremlett (Chris's Grandad) sent on tour as promising allrounder with some lethal fast medum bowling and reasonable bat. Comes back the following season and can't bowl a straight ball. Finally gives up bowling altogether and became a tremendous batter.
Mark Lathwell - England must take some of that blame, and I just hope, like you that Craig listens sensibly but continues to do things the way that has brought him so much success - how many times does it need to be said - one size does not fit all!
There have been many other cases - in other counties.
You are so right about the so called 'expert coaches' messing up the minds of so many potential England players.
It goes back a long way - Maurice Tremlett (Chris's Grandad) sent on tour as promising allrounder with some lethal fast medum bowling and reasonable bat. Comes back the following season and can't bowl a straight ball. Finally gives up bowling altogether and became a tremendous batter.
Mark Lathwell - England must take some of that blame, and I just hope, like you that Craig listens sensibly but continues to do things the way that has brought him so much success - how many times does it need to be said - one size does not fit all!
There have been many other cases - in other counties.
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 25/06/2011 18:31
Rob woodman no longer plays the game at a first class level.
Well it might be because he didn't have it in him...but he left us to play with the England youth system as a bowler who batted and returned as a batsman who rarely bowled.
As such he was no use to us and was released. He went to Gloucestershire in that role and did not survive in the game.
I personally thought he had something. England decided it wasn't what they needed.
Thank God they don't seem to have done the same thing to Lewis Gregory - or thank God they didn't have him long enough!!
But when you're up and coming and in an England setup it can't be easy to say "Hang on a minute"
Well it might be because he didn't have it in him...but he left us to play with the England youth system as a bowler who batted and returned as a batsman who rarely bowled.
As such he was no use to us and was released. He went to Gloucestershire in that role and did not survive in the game.
I personally thought he had something. England decided it wasn't what they needed.
Thank God they don't seem to have done the same thing to Lewis Gregory - or thank God they didn't have him long enough!!
But when you're up and coming and in an England setup it can't be easy to say "Hang on a minute"
Re: Sharks and Showers
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 25/06/2011 22:30
I always remember a CEEFAX headline;
"Hants - England wrecked our bowler," -- the bowler in question was Shaun Udal
"Hants - England wrecked our bowler," -- the bowler in question was Shaun Udal
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.