Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
By Grockle et al
August 12 2014
Johann Myberg returns for the Glamorgan game in place of Craig Meschede. Grey and overcast with a probable chance of meatballs (sorry in Pixar mode I mean showers). A win seems to probabky give us a home fixture in the next bit. A loss or a draw and the last game away is going to be interesting.
v GLAMORGAN 50 Over @ Taunton Tuesday 12 August 2014 (Happy Birthday Georgina!!)
This is TuneIn App BBC Live Event Number 15
The last of the group 50 over matches at Taunton and Somerset can book their place in the next round with a victory. We have won the toss and will field first on a grey and cloudy day with the chance of showers in the mid afternoon. It's a fairly decent crowd with about 2000 people in.
The side today has one change.
Trecothick, Compton, Trego, Ingram, Hildreth, Barrow, Gregory, Myburgh, Groenewald, Thomas, Leach
So Craig Meschede loses out to the return of Myburgh. Some around the ground would like to see Johann opening with Nick and the skipper moving down the order. That isn't going to happen but we probably would all hope that Colin Ingram has a good game on his last appearance in Somerset colours. An excellent addition to our squad and I personally hope it isn't the last time we see him here.
Alfonso opens to Rudolph from the OP and gets him off strike quite quickly, he then nearly has Allenby caught behind. The man looks out of any kind of form and doesn't worry the scorers in the first. Lewis takes the second and after another single from Rudolph he nearly has Allenby again before he wafts one to Trego at first slip and the Welsh are 2 for 1. Will Bragg comes in at number 3 but the two Somerset men keep it tight and Marcus sets an attacking field while the Glamorgan batsmen seem to be takkng time to find out what this ball is going to do. They pass double figures with a boundary in the 5th and at the end of that they have 16.
The tight spell continues until Tim goes for 10 off his first (7th) but Lewis keeps his rhythm and TG gets into his and they keep them to 44 off the first 10. Pete replaces Lewis at the River for the 12th (probably after a full and frank discussion as he was not bowled at all in the Sussex game despite excessive 'warming up' exercises on the boundary for most of the game. The 50 doesn't arrive in his first over but he does send Bragg back to the Caddyshack caught at first slip by Hildreth. 48 for 2.
The 50 arrives from the first ball of the 13th as Murray Goodwin takes over in the middle for the Glams. He is keen to get on and flashes hard at more than one delivery but he doesn't connect with many and at 15 the score has moved on to 60.
After Tim Groenewald bowls a maiden in the 17th he is replaced at the OP by Jack Leach who keeps the hammer down keeping the visitors to 16 runs off 5 overs and a total of 76 off the first 20. Jack causing havoc as the bstsmen try and get after him and find that he is getting after them instead. Murray is lucky twice trying to sweep balls and being fooled by the Somerset man and nearly bowled around his legs. Neverthless they are looking to push on and take 10 off the over. Dangerous though.
Jacques Rudolph reaches his 50 off 64 balls with 6 fours as his county move towards three figures which eventually comes towards the end of the 23rd over but the men from over the Channell are pushing along a little harder now as they reach 'nelson' in the 25th and start to take double figure scores off the Trego/Leach bowling. Somerset are starting to look like they need a wicket to stop this match turning around in the second half of the Glamorgan innings where they have wickets in hand. 114 at the halfway stage.
The problem with these 50 over games is that at halfway the game is not set in it's path. If the forst half is not good BUT the batting side has wickets in hand AND batsmen established then the second half can be a different game altogether. Such COULD be the nature of this game and the bowlers have to be very solid in keeping the pressure on.
Between 25 and 30 Glamorgan try to get away and get close to 150. It is 156 at the end of the 32nd with Murray going to a personal 50 off 57 balls with 6 fours and a six, but the wicket we then need comes as he skies one from Lewis into the grateful hands of Alfonso and 166 for 3 looks better.
Jack changes ends for the 34th and with 15 overs to go we still have a kind of a clamp on as they finish it on 182 (a very difficult chance of a caught and bowled to Tim off the 5th ball). But they look better with the bat than we do with the ball in this phase and the score is starting to move towards a 300 target. Johann is tried for a couple and there is a one over return for Tim as we move towards the last 10. Rudolph is running things but Cooke is the man scoring the runs, there is the possibility of a missed catch from Alex but the concensus is that he did not touch it and that along with the very difficult C&B suggests the man is riding his luck.
Nevertheless, Glamorgan pass 200 in the 38th with consecutive fours and are at 221 by the start of the last 10 overs. As the Welsh look to move the rate up, the cloud rolls in and the visibility starts to deteriorate. Just after an excellent diving stop from Thommo to stop a certain four the rain follows the cloud and the umpires take them off at 236 for 3, 5 balls into the 42nd with Rudolph on 99.
Back on at 2:10. Now a 20 minute break between and 47 overs apiece. Rudolph goes to 100 off the first coming from 121 balls with 10 fours. The D/L total for Somerset is now the point of debate as Alfonso starts the inswinging yorker part of his repetoire. 246 after 43 and Tim Groenewald on from the River for the 44th They move to 250 off his first ball but he comes back and Rudolph goes to Compton's hands on the boundary with ball 4 for 111. Just a little short and a well judged catch very near the rope plus a very good comeback from the bowler to only concede 7. Cooke meanwhile goes to a very good 50 off 37balls with 8 fours at 257.
Alfonso is getting some tap today and sees 12 go off his 45th. Lewis is back for the 46th and sends Hogg on his way as Jack Leach catches him in front of the Trescothick. 265 for 5 with 11 to go. That becomes 271 for 6 with Gregory's fourth ball as Cooke smacks one straight to Groenewald for 60. In comes Salter to nurse the score to 278. Alf takes the last and a piece of poor fielding on the boundary move the total off the over to 10 which becomes 11 and a chase of initially 290 for the home side.
But as Twitterers all tell us. "The side batting second ln D/L always wins"
The total for Somerset to chase is 303 off 47. Please someone, explain to me why a side has to chase a higher score if there is no more rain than that scored by the first side? If this is a 47 over game then why should be have to score 13 more than if it had started as a 47 over game?
Big chase......
The Reply
It is worrying when the announcement of the start of the Somerset innings creates a rush as the photographers belt out to get a picture of a dismissal. Bets range from 4 to 6 balls for Marcus before he returns to the dressing room. Today this is not the case. He stands strong and solid and takes no chances in the first 3 overs and he and Nick take it easy against Hogan and Wagg though the skipper does hit the first loose one with authority through the covers for an emphatic four.
It is Nick who feathers the first one to Wallace in the 6th over and becomes the first victim at 40 with a personal score of 9. Pete Trego walks out confidently, he likes batting against Glamorgan and his skipper is still in and looking more solid than he has. Unfortunately they have only pushed the score on by 7 before the Boss looks to drive one, plays across it and loses his off stump to a ball from Hogan and we are 47 for 2 in the 9th. Ingram joins his partner at the crease to try and play another good partnership in our one day campaign. His last game and a match winning innings would be gratefully received.
Progress is slow but it is moving. We pass 50 in the 11th (49 at the end of the 10th) and are 3 overs ahead of our opponents progress at the same part of their innings. But we do have to score 13 runs more so we need to be aware or that. At least these two seem to be clear that there is a need to push this and maintain the forward motion.
The Glamorgan bowlers are also very aware of the need to hold this game and the comeptition is fierce through the teens. By the 15th the boundaries are hard to find and we've pushed to 64 - still ahead of the Welsh but not by much. Runs are hard to get and anything over 1 is even harder.
Colin seems to be getting frustrated and finally tries to punish Allenby by looking to pull him, in the end the shot is something between a pull and a drive, takes an edge, flies almost straight up and is finally caught by Wagg and the South African finishes his time with us collecting his lowest score of 10 at 69. Thank you Mr Ingram it has been a pleasure watching you.
So James comes out to join Pete with a job to do here. The rate is slowing though still slightly ahead of Glamorgan's progress at 80 at the end of the 19th. By the 20th we have reached 84 but at the expense of James who also goes to a poor pull shot which 'splices' to Allenby off the bowling of Wagg this time. There is some surprise when the next man in is Alex (most people expected Johann) but he helps Trego take the score over 100 with the first ball of the 23rd. However the scoring rate is now about par with that of Glamorgan and when Pete chops on at the end of the 24th for 45 we are looking at a real difficult job at 108 for 5 with 23 overs to go. Lewis has an uphill task with Alex.
Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grockles.com (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 10:30
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 2014:08:15:13:23:09 by Grockle.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:08:15:13:23:09 by Grockle.
Leaky Tuesday - Let's hope not
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 11/08/2014 16:06
The official site is now suggesting that this is a 'MUST WIN' fixture but I don't think it is as desperate as that. It would be nice to have a clear day for a 50 over game to prove we can qualify under our own power however. Or not of course.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Let's hope not
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 11/08/2014 16:30
As I think LoL said yesterday, the longer the game, the better we seem to be. Hoping for the full 50 overs then...
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Let's hope not
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 11/08/2014 16:31
Leaky from the skies? Forecast looks a little uncertain but not too bad.
Leaky from our bowlers at Taunton? Well we've a 3 out of 3 record on that front in this competition so far (plus some previous form from home T20 games this season).
Technically, it isn't a must-win fixture, I don't think, I think Grockle is right?
BUT..... we have a very poor record against Surrey in recent years in limited overs cricket and I think that the Brown Caps are our lone remaining opponent after tomorrow (Wednesday week, at the Oval).
I can remember only two wins vs Surrey over the past 4-5 years or so. One was a T20 at the Oval when Marcus flayed Mr Arafat in the power-play and then Hildreth made 70 odd and we won by about 40 runs.
The other was a 50 over game at the Oval where Jade "Dirtbag," Dernbach thought it would be a good idea to bowl his enigma variations at Trescothick, with the inevitable consequence and then somebody else (maybe Zander?) made a good score later on and we won by a mile.
But, otherwise, it's been slim pickings both home and away in short stuff vs Surrey in recent years including, of course, a comprehensive defeat at Lord's in a 40 over final.
Leaky from our bowlers at Taunton? Well we've a 3 out of 3 record on that front in this competition so far (plus some previous form from home T20 games this season).
Technically, it isn't a must-win fixture, I don't think, I think Grockle is right?
BUT..... we have a very poor record against Surrey in recent years in limited overs cricket and I think that the Brown Caps are our lone remaining opponent after tomorrow (Wednesday week, at the Oval).
I can remember only two wins vs Surrey over the past 4-5 years or so. One was a T20 at the Oval when Marcus flayed Mr Arafat in the power-play and then Hildreth made 70 odd and we won by about 40 runs.
The other was a 50 over game at the Oval where Jade "Dirtbag," Dernbach thought it would be a good idea to bowl his enigma variations at Trescothick, with the inevitable consequence and then somebody else (maybe Zander?) made a good score later on and we won by a mile.
But, otherwise, it's been slim pickings both home and away in short stuff vs Surrey in recent years including, of course, a comprehensive defeat at Lord's in a 40 over final.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Let's hope not
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 11/08/2014 16:33
Equally, so far as tomorrow is concerned, recent history - both of the very recent generic kind (i.e. last week) and in terms of recent games vs Glam, would suggest that the Welshmen will be absolutely desperate for the wicket of Mr Trego.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Let's hope not
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
Date: 11/08/2014 16:43
"the Welshmen will be absolutely desperate for the wicket of Mr Trego"
So will Edward Bevan and the sooner the better, so that he can dare go upstairs!
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
So will Edward Bevan and the sooner the better, so that he can dare go upstairs!
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Let's hope not
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
Date: 11/08/2014 17:03
Quote:SheptonPaul
As I think LoL said yesterday, the longer the game, the better we seem to be. Hoping for the full 50 overs then...
That was the most profound thing ever said in the history of things that were ever said - I just wish it was me that had said it, but I don't think I did.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Let's hope not
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 11/08/2014 17:12
It was GM that said it.
Personally, I think that is true of our batting as we don't have that many batsmen in the current XI that are good at teeing off immediately in the style needed for T20 or heavily abbreviated 50 over games.
Bowling wise, I think the reality is arguably that we are relatively better (compared to the other side's bowlers) when there is a fair amount in the deck. We seem to have done a thoroughly good job (better than the opposing bowlers) of exploiting slightly helpful conditions vs Notts and more than slightly helpful conditions vs Middx and Vs Warks. But we seem to lack the skills and/or resourcefulness and/or composure to contain effectively on the flattest tracks, such as the ones that we've been playing our home 50 over games on.
Personally, I think that is true of our batting as we don't have that many batsmen in the current XI that are good at teeing off immediately in the style needed for T20 or heavily abbreviated 50 over games.
Bowling wise, I think the reality is arguably that we are relatively better (compared to the other side's bowlers) when there is a fair amount in the deck. We seem to have done a thoroughly good job (better than the opposing bowlers) of exploiting slightly helpful conditions vs Notts and more than slightly helpful conditions vs Middx and Vs Warks. But we seem to lack the skills and/or resourcefulness and/or composure to contain effectively on the flattest tracks, such as the ones that we've been playing our home 50 over games on.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Let's hope not
Posted by: Roger ivanhoe (IP Logged)
Date: 11/08/2014 17:23
Is the must win needed to ensure a home draw?
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Let's hope not
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
Date: 11/08/2014 17:28
I always knew GM was a genius.
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Let's hope not
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 11/08/2014 17:31
Roger - that may well be correct.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Let's hope not
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 11/08/2014 17:37
Thank you LoL I wish it were true.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Let's hope not
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 11/08/2014 21:30
Apologies all round 
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Let's hope not
Posted by: Clarence Parker (IP Logged)
Date: 11/08/2014 22:32
More likely to be a Leeky Tuesday.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Let's hope not
Posted by: Sloop John B (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 08:57
Nah! LUCKY Tuesday - we win toss put 'em in and get Duckworth/Lewis on our side for once!!
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Let's hope not
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 09:50
Wouldn't happen unless we reduce them to a poor score for not many wickets. D/L entrenches advantage, does not give an automatic edge to the side that bats first or bats second.
Regardless, we will surely insert if we win the toss as defending on these sort of strips is hugely difficult.
That's assuming that it's another flat-track belter.
If we can, then I'd suggest that we might be better preparing something with plenty in it for the bowler - leave plenty of extra grass on the track, shave the ends, what have you, as we seem to have done well away from home on tracks where there's something in it for the bowler and much less well on our flat tracks.
Regardless, we will surely insert if we win the toss as defending on these sort of strips is hugely difficult.
That's assuming that it's another flat-track belter.
If we can, then I'd suggest that we might be better preparing something with plenty in it for the bowler - leave plenty of extra grass on the track, shave the ends, what have you, as we seem to have done well away from home on tracks where there's something in it for the bowler and much less well on our flat tracks.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Let's hope not
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 09:56
Looks like showers from 2 is today's forecast from the Beeb. So if it's anything like right, then most of the first innings would happen before any interruptions.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Let's hope not
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 10:11
Dry but grey and overcast at 10am. No reason why we shouldn't start on time but you get the feeling that the 'Cheeky Cow' dayglo green tent by the electronic scoreboard may have quite a few visitors at some time today. No idea about toss etc yet and no scorecards so the side is a mystery to some extent.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Let's hope not
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 10:15
Somerset have won the toss and will field. Myberg comes in for Craig Meschede but otherwise all is as was.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Let's hope not
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 10:49
Allenby gone early to Lewis - two ducks in a row for my fantasy team captain 
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Let's hope not
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 10:56
Sounds like a bit too much short stuff again already this morning. Particularly annoying as it sounds like we've had Rudolph in trouble whenever it's been pitched up.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Let's hope not
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 11:00
Could have been out to any of the balls faced. Probably got away with the first nick behind off Alfonso.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Let's hope not
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 11:09
Why on earth would Nosworthy (as per the claims made on the Beeb) have made Jamie Overton the sub fielder?
Surely we must have a better fielder than Jamie available somewhere within the club to fulfil this duty?
Surely we must have a better fielder than Jamie available somewhere within the club to fulfil this duty?
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Let's hope not
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 11:35
The 'short stuff' is probably because there is steepling bounce being gained from the pitch. Bragg was out to such a ball and the Glamorgan openers aren't getting it away all that well at the moment. So whatever they presently have planned seems to be working at 62 off 16.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 11:54
So some much more tidy bowling so far hopefuly we can keep it up.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 11:56
Murray Goodwin is looking to take Jack on...presently Jack is winning that contest bowling from the OP.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 11:59
Sounds like some lovely stuff from Leachy once again.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 12:05
Is leachy his official nickname or just those close to him:-)
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 12:07
'Old Boy' ought to be his nickname given his photos. "Oldest (23 year old) spinner in town"
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 12:08
It's "official," according to cricinfo.... yet another case of immense imagination from the professional sportsman.
Meanwhile, I'm happy for Goodwin to stay in as he's crawling along.
Cooke, who is in next, is potentially explosive and might "do a Billings," so might be better for him to just sit in the pavilion..
Meanwhile, I'm happy for Goodwin to stay in as he's crawling along.
Cooke, who is in next, is potentially explosive and might "do a Billings," so might be better for him to just sit in the pavilion..
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 12:11
Notts are currently in a bit of bother at CLS.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 12:22
Jack Leach: Jack White.
Is one the reincarnation of the other?
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Is one the reincarnation of the other?
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: doc h (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 12:25
Leachy is getting leeched today
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 12:28
I'd rather have a few wickets now add Goodwin had livened up a little
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 12:34
Not sure if anyone has commented on this, but it appears as though Glamorgan have picked two specialist spinners.*
* That's assuming that cricinfo's description of Salter's bowling is actually correct.
* That's assuming that cricinfo's description of Salter's bowling is actually correct.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 12:39
Mr Salter made his debut on our ground, and got very respectable figures, given the almost obscene nature of the Somerset total:
[www.espncricinfo.com]
[www.espncricinfo.com]
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 12:55
Cooke dropped twice before the compulsory power-play. Come on keeper/fielders... make the next chance count!
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 12:59
Didn't hit the first and the second wasn't a chance of any merit.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 13:06
Nice power-play over from LG.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 13:12
Sounds excellent from LG but not so much from Alf in the power-play.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Phrench Phil (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 13:18
Quote:AGod
Mr Salter made his debut on our ground, and got very respectable figures, given the almost obscene nature of the Somerset total:
[www.espncricinfo.com]
Out of curiosity, did you notice the 'other' bowler who played in that game and is also playing today?
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 13:18
WHy not just bowl Lewis through, as bowling well, rather than hauling him off straight after the power-play?
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 13:21
Dark cloud starting to form over the ground as we move towards the promised showers of 2 pm
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 13:28
Off for rain - if we get a couple hours of this, and they have wickets in hand, I guess we'll have to chase 500 off 30 overs.
That's my understanding from the tables I downloaded from dodgyduckworthhatessomerset.com
That's my understanding from the tables I downloaded from dodgyduckworthhatessomerset.com
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 13:30
Can't give you a prediction today but that sounds about right. Lots of grey stuff to the right of the ground from the OP, if that comes over, this could be a significant break. The wind could blow it away, clear white cloudy sky to both sides of it.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 13:32
It'll be 300 at the least.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 13:51
I would think that (if there is time for us to face a full 50 overs) then we may be set about 310 from 50 overs.
However, it's then forecast to rain again so that target would then be further reduced.. in which case the key thing would be NOT losing wkts early in our dig...
i.e. chasing 310 from 50 and start off 40 for 0 off 12 before it rains... fine..
Start off 40 for 3.............. would then probably be left needing about a further 220 from 25 remaining overs (eek!)
However, it's then forecast to rain again so that target would then be further reduced.. in which case the key thing would be NOT losing wkts early in our dig...
i.e. chasing 310 from 50 and start off 40 for 0 off 12 before it rains... fine..
Start off 40 for 3.............. would then probably be left needing about a further 220 from 25 remaining overs (eek!)
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 13:56
47 over game at 2:10. No idea what score we are chasing yet.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 13:59
Do you know, Grockle, if that involves them finishing their innings? i.e up to the 47 over mark?
Or is it a chase, for us, over 47 overs with their dig over?
Or is it a chase, for us, over 47 overs with their dig over?
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 14:03
Nope. Starts at 2:10. Not gonna bat 8 overs in 10 minutes
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 14:05
Tho having said that the announcement is confusing as the Somerset side is waiting at the dugouts to take the field again. So it looks like Glamorgan will come out to bat 5.1 overs and then we'll have to get one more than whatever that is....maybe.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 14:14
So, let's say they finish on 284 for 4 from 47 overs..
... Target? Perhaps 314 from 47 overs for us?
Obviously, they'll have to go some to get to 284, I'd think that's just about the worst-case scenario.
... Target? Perhaps 314 from 47 overs for us?
Obviously, they'll have to go some to get to 284, I'd think that's just about the worst-case scenario.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 14:17
Lets wait and see, it's only another 15 mins.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 14:22
Yep seems certainly sensible to me. Rudolph having gone is good though.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 14:22
To be honest, the D/L formula is likely to UNDERestimate how many runs Glam could have got in an extra 3 overs, because it takes no account of how flat Taunton is.
Sounds like very poor from Alf today, lots more short stuff?
Sounds like very poor from Alf today, lots more short stuff?
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 14:30
Very useful over from Mr Gregory.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 14:37
So 289 for 6, I would guess about 8 per over for the "missing" three overs, which would leave us about 314 to get to win, 313 to tie from 47 overs.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:08:12:14:40:06 by AGod.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:08:12:14:40:06 by AGod.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 14:39
303 to win in 47
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 14:42
WHY does D/L have to interfere BEFORE the second innings is affected by rain? WHY isn't the total 290?
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 14:44
no doubt our regression in one day cricket as opposed to previous years is in the main to the fading lights a la trescothick and Thomas in this format. Hard to compete with them playing as they are.
When did anyone see Alf in his pomp concede as many in so many games?
When did anyone see Alf in his pomp concede as many in so many games?
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 14:50
Because they lost 3 overs during their innings.
Had they known that their innings was going to last for only 47 overs then they'd have presumably "gone," earlier in terms of putting the pedal to the metal.
Given that Rudolph was well-set when they went off and then had to start again, I think we can consider ourselves happy if the target is only 303. I'm happy with that as a target. Had there not been any rain, would we have been desperately unhappy had they totalled 302 if we cast our minds back to the point where they went off? I doubt it.
Had they known that their innings was going to last for only 47 overs then they'd have presumably "gone," earlier in terms of putting the pedal to the metal.
Given that Rudolph was well-set when they went off and then had to start again, I think we can consider ourselves happy if the target is only 303. I'm happy with that as a target. Had there not been any rain, would we have been desperately unhappy had they totalled 302 if we cast our minds back to the point where they went off? I doubt it.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 14:51
Why does D/L even exist?
On Sunday our innings is interrupted and the opposition target is reduced.
Today the opposition inning is interrupted and our target is increased.
Would make perfect sense to C L Dodgson.
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
On Sunday our innings is interrupted and the opposition target is reduced.
Today the opposition inning is interrupted and our target is increased.
Would make perfect sense to C L Dodgson.
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 14:53
To my mind, Ron, Alf has not been the same in one-day cricket for the past 2-3 years or so. Used to be ultra-reliable, especially at the death.
More recently, you get the odd brilliant performance (e.g. at Edgbaston last season) but only the odd one.
Conversely, he's just got better and better in four-day stuff!
There was some talk that he might want to retire from red ball stuff. I'd love it if we could persuade him to do it the other way round (if he insists on retiring from something!). I'd rather he be available, even if only for half of the 16 CC games and not white ball, than play all white ball and no red.
More recently, you get the odd brilliant performance (e.g. at Edgbaston last season) but only the odd one.
Conversely, he's just got better and better in four-day stuff!
There was some talk that he might want to retire from red ball stuff. I'd love it if we could persuade him to do it the other way round (if he insists on retiring from something!). I'd rather he be available, even if only for half of the 16 CC games and not white ball, than play all white ball and no red.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Phrench Phil (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 15:14
Quote:Loyal of Lhasa
Why does D/L even exist?
On Sunday our innings is interrupted and the opposition target is reduced.
Today the opposition inning is interrupted and our target is increased.
Would make perfect sense to C L Dodgson.
I can only say that I laughed out loud when I read this.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 15:37
Kirby says Glam have below par score.
But he did also say that it's turning so the fact that the Welsh have two specialist spinners may help them, IMO.
But he did also say that it's turning so the fact that the Welsh have two specialist spinners may help them, IMO.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 15:46
Need another big Ingram/Trego stand here, one would think.
We're also in a poor position should it rain anytime soon as a further revision would favour Glamorgan quite heavily with two wickets already down.
We're also in a poor position should it rain anytime soon as a further revision would favour Glamorgan quite heavily with two wickets already down.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 15:52
Not sure 'our regression in one day cricket' is all that definite yet Ron. I'd wait until the end of this game before that becomes something of substance, IF it ends on defeat. We are presently 3 overs ahead of our opponents in terms of the runs scored on the same number of wickets.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 15:56
didnt qualify for t20 qfs grockle so its in regression already in my view regardless what happens here.
4 final days then a qf and now no qualification at all if f its not regression at this juncture dont know what is.
marcus paticularly disappointing yet again.
4 final days then a qf and now no qualification at all if f its not regression at this juncture dont know what is.
marcus paticularly disappointing yet again.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 16:00
T20 isn't one day cricket.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 16:04
How many days does it go on for?
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Following on (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 16:06
looks like runs are hard to come by. Hope this is just Pete and Colin bedding in, ready to pick up the pace as we know they can!
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 16:06
One eighth!!
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 16:07
It goes on for 3 hours. It is categorised separately in all the stats books. It has completely different tactics, teams in many cases.
If you want to play the pedant quote me the official book that classifies T20 games as 'one day' games.
Is there a one day side that plays T20 for England?
If you want to play the pedant quote me the official book that classifies T20 games as 'one day' games.
Is there a one day side that plays T20 for England?
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 16:12
t20 is one day cricket me old son. just like todays.
If we use the one eighth scenario then 4 day stuff would be one day cricket too I suppose. 4 days of 6 hour sessions. So i guess our one day cricket aint so bad then.
If we use the one eighth scenario then 4 day stuff would be one day cricket too I suppose. 4 days of 6 hour sessions. So i guess our one day cricket aint so bad then.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: rodders (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 16:16
For heavens sake - if it takes place in one day then it is one day cricket. If it lasts longer than one day then it isn't.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 16:18
Not rocket science, is it Rodders!
For your post to make sense, Grockle, then Ronnie would have had to refer to T20 as List A, which would be wrong.
T20 is not List A cricket, but it's most certainly "one day cricket," which is the term that Ronnie used.
For your post to make sense, Grockle, then Ronnie would have had to refer to T20 as List A, which would be wrong.
T20 is not List A cricket, but it's most certainly "one day cricket," which is the term that Ronnie used.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 16:19
Say it all you like 'my old son'. No one classifies one day cricket as T20. List A may be 'one day' T20 certainly isn't. You know they have different squad's and tournaments all over the world don't ya?
If you are having to try that one to maintain your argument then it's possibly not worth it.
If you want to talk about our shortfalls in the shortest form of cricket then fine. You have a point.
You can't really talk about backward movement in the one day tournament (that's the 50 over version) until some things are sorted in the group stages. You may have a point but not quite yet - Ingram has just gone.
But if you are having to use pendantic terms like this to keep yourself in something then you'll be arguing with yourself because trying to put the two together and call them one day is hilarious.
If you are having to try that one to maintain your argument then it's possibly not worth it.
If you want to talk about our shortfalls in the shortest form of cricket then fine. You have a point.
You can't really talk about backward movement in the one day tournament (that's the 50 over version) until some things are sorted in the group stages. You may have a point but not quite yet - Ingram has just gone.
But if you are having to use pendantic terms like this to keep yourself in something then you'll be arguing with yourself because trying to put the two together and call them one day is hilarious.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: rodders (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 16:19
.................and barring another miracle this one day match is going down the pan I fear !
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 16:19
Either way, might be Trego stick so far.
I'm afraid it sounds as though Glamorgan may be putting our bowling performance in some perspective........ perhaps a fourth poor performance out of four with the ball from the four home games in this competition?
I'm afraid it sounds as though Glamorgan may be putting our bowling performance in some perspective........ perhaps a fourth poor performance out of four with the ball from the four home games in this competition?
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 16:20
"short form" can be used to cover T20 and 50-over cricket, but they are definitely NOT the same - any more than 7-a-side rugby is the same as the main game.
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 16:27
I'm with you LoL.
I think it's more that it is me suggesting it rather than a true belief that they are the same.
I'll step out because it isn't a discussion until we know our fate in this tournament as far as I am concerned anyway. Though it might be one for later.
I think it's more that it is me suggesting it rather than a true belief that they are the same.
I'll step out because it isn't a discussion until we know our fate in this tournament as far as I am concerned anyway. Though it might be one for later.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 16:27
Evidently, re your 16:19, Grockle, Ronnie does classify T20 as one-day cricket as do plenty of other posters, but never mind.
Personally, I prefer the term "short form," for all kinds of non first-class cricket.
I think it's fairly clear that we are an average team in all kinds of short form cricket this season. Not that we play averagely every week, rather we play without any great consistency, sometimes looking like a tremendous, professional outfit in the field, as at Edgbaston and Lord's whilst, at other times, we look like a rag-tag outfit in the field (mainly, it seems, at home). I thought our batting in T20 this season, from what I saw/heard was largely underwhelming too.
Personally, I prefer the term "short form," for all kinds of non first-class cricket.
I think it's fairly clear that we are an average team in all kinds of short form cricket this season. Not that we play averagely every week, rather we play without any great consistency, sometimes looking like a tremendous, professional outfit in the field, as at Edgbaston and Lord's whilst, at other times, we look like a rag-tag outfit in the field (mainly, it seems, at home). I thought our batting in T20 this season, from what I saw/heard was largely underwhelming too.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 16:31
Usual failure to adapt when scoring is a bit tricky from Somerset batsmen....... as Kirby has described it a stream of dismissals to cross-bat shots.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 16:36
Show me the media that classifies T20 as one day cricket AG. TV, Press, Stats, Journals find me somewhere it has been referred to as one day cricket and I'll be fine.
You know it is rubbish, I know it is rubbish, everyone knows it is rubbish. One day cricket is 40/50/60 over and nowhere is it T20 - it is why it has another name.
If you want to call T20 something call it afternoon or early evening cricket.
All the rest is bluster, blah and sphericals.
The amusing thing is I wasn't even disagreeing with Ron just suggesting it was a bit previous.
Try try try gentlemen to stay with the topic and ignore the poster who is posting.
I can live with being wrong in an argument with you, try and manage the same. Then you don't come over as a bunch of schoolboys who would rather look foolish than change their stance from the indefensible.
You know it is rubbish, I know it is rubbish, everyone knows it is rubbish. One day cricket is 40/50/60 over and nowhere is it T20 - it is why it has another name.
If you want to call T20 something call it afternoon or early evening cricket.
All the rest is bluster, blah and sphericals.
The amusing thing is I wasn't even disagreeing with Ron just suggesting it was a bit previous.
Try try try gentlemen to stay with the topic and ignore the poster who is posting.
I can live with being wrong in an argument with you, try and manage the same. Then you don't come over as a bunch of schoolboys who would rather look foolish than change their stance from the indefensible.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 16:38
Quote:Grockle
T20 isn't one day cricket.
Unfortunately it is often classed as such by those who need a stick to beat the Captain / Management with in order to further their argument that our one day form is regressing. Yet in another breath they tend to be disparaging of T20 as a form of the game.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 16:38
youve really made me laugh today Grockle. Thanks for brightening up my day.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 16:40
Nope, it was you that was being petty and pedantic in turning around and informing a poster that they were wrong to include T20 in their description of "regression in one-day cricket."
The term "one-day cricket," can clearly encompass all cricket that is concluded within one day.
It's only the term "List A," that does not include T20.
The term "one-day cricket," can clearly encompass all cricket that is concluded within one day.
It's only the term "List A," that does not include T20.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 16:42
"Show me the media that classifies T20 as one day cricket AG. TV, Press, Stats, Journals find me somewhere it has been referred to as one day cricket and I'll be fine."
Here's one from Richard Walsh.
[www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk]
It describes two big one-day matches that we were (at the time) about to play.
Guess how many of the two were scheduled to be 40, 50 or 60 overs per side?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:08:12:16:43:35 by AGod.
Here's one from Richard Walsh.
[www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk]
It describes two big one-day matches that we were (at the time) about to play.
Guess how many of the two were scheduled to be 40, 50 or 60 overs per side?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:08:12:16:43:35 by AGod.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 17:00
Need to find me a reference that talks about T20's as one day cricket not one day cricket as one day cricket. I've asked the man himself and he does not classify T20 games as one day games. From the horses mouth and all that.
But this makes thing so much easier because now 5 a side football is football
7 a side rugby is rugby I'll keep that in mind
Kieron Pollard can discuss his one day record for his country by including all his West Indies T20's in the stats. Max's number of one day games for Somerset increases markedly
It's a joke guys and you know it is.
Glad we've amused each other today Ron. Makes your inclusion of T20 as one day cricket no more valid but you will soon be able to talk about a regression in both the different forms of short format cricket if we do not produce the better performance we have been doing away from home after probably losing this one at Taunton.
I'll refer you to Cricinfo AG where the two formats have their own pages, their own stats, their own squads at international level - now why is that I wonder.
But the great thing is we no longer have to talk about CC1 as a different format AG because it's all cricket just of different lengths isn't it?
You ...now what it the word I'm looking for
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:08:12:17:08:47 by Grockle.
But this makes thing so much easier because now 5 a side football is football
7 a side rugby is rugby I'll keep that in mind
Kieron Pollard can discuss his one day record for his country by including all his West Indies T20's in the stats. Max's number of one day games for Somerset increases markedly
It's a joke guys and you know it is.
Glad we've amused each other today Ron. Makes your inclusion of T20 as one day cricket no more valid but you will soon be able to talk about a regression in both the different forms of short format cricket if we do not produce the better performance we have been doing away from home after probably losing this one at Taunton.
I'll refer you to Cricinfo AG where the two formats have their own pages, their own stats, their own squads at international level - now why is that I wonder.
But the great thing is we no longer have to talk about CC1 as a different format AG because it's all cricket just of different lengths isn't it?
You ...now what it the word I'm looking for
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:08:12:17:08:47 by Grockle.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: rodders (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 17:00
............whatever, back on topic - pretty poor stuff really and as good as gone now !
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Phrench Phil (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 17:00
Quote:Phrench PhilQuote:AGod
Mr Salter made his debut on our ground, and got very respectable figures, given the almost obscene nature of the Somerset total:
[www.espncricinfo.com]
Out of curiosity, did you notice the 'other' bowler who played in that game and is also playing today?
Sad to reply to my own post, but, for what it is worth, it was Jack Leach who was bowling in the same match.
Gregory is also out.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 17:02
Yep Myburgh is in after Lewis tried to reverse one and we are well behind the eight ball.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 17:03
Bridgwater Mercury! Has all the gravitas of Wisden.
Incidentally the initials ODI are never, in my experience, used to include T20 internationals.
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Incidentally the initials ODI are never, in my experience, used to include T20 internationals.
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 17:06
An absolute rout in the offing here.
Feel sorry for the home fans who have seen such poor fare in the field from Somerset compared to what we've produced away from home in this 50 over gig.
Execrable.
And the reality is, Grockle, whether you like it or not, when people refer to 'one day cricket,' it's often an umbrella term for anything scheduled to be over in a day. The records and stats that are kept separately, are divided into "List A," and "T20," NOT "one day," and "T20"
Regardless, Somerset in 2014 are a thoroughly ordinary outfit in both 20 and 50 over formats, I'm afraid, as attested to by the very average results obtained in both competitions, thus far.
Ron is right about the regression. Of course he's also right about Tresco's regression being a factor in the limited-overs regression. Other factors are the departure of Buttler (I know you will argue with that, Grockle, as you always do, but the List A figures suggest that he's been a huge loss in List A cricket, at least) and, of course, the injuries to Kieswetter. Kieswetter has, I think, not play a single List A match for Somerset since 2012, which has not helped us.
Feel sorry for the home fans who have seen such poor fare in the field from Somerset compared to what we've produced away from home in this 50 over gig.
Execrable.
And the reality is, Grockle, whether you like it or not, when people refer to 'one day cricket,' it's often an umbrella term for anything scheduled to be over in a day. The records and stats that are kept separately, are divided into "List A," and "T20," NOT "one day," and "T20"
Regardless, Somerset in 2014 are a thoroughly ordinary outfit in both 20 and 50 over formats, I'm afraid, as attested to by the very average results obtained in both competitions, thus far.
Ron is right about the regression. Of course he's also right about Tresco's regression being a factor in the limited-overs regression. Other factors are the departure of Buttler (I know you will argue with that, Grockle, as you always do, but the List A figures suggest that he's been a huge loss in List A cricket, at least) and, of course, the injuries to Kieswetter. Kieswetter has, I think, not play a single List A match for Somerset since 2012, which has not helped us.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 17:08
LoL - you're right - they are not.
But sadly, Somerset have not been admitted to the ODI arena and Ronnie was, therefore, unsurprisingly not talking about One day international cricket.
But since you've taken against the Mercury, here's the marvellous Torygraph with the same kind of thing:
[www.telegraph.co.uk]
"One day wicket-keeper," clearly NOT denoting the fact that Jos is solely in the side in the 50 over format.
But sadly, Somerset have not been admitted to the ODI arena and Ronnie was, therefore, unsurprisingly not talking about One day international cricket.
But since you've taken against the Mercury, here's the marvellous Torygraph with the same kind of thing:
[www.telegraph.co.uk]
"One day wicket-keeper," clearly NOT denoting the fact that Jos is solely in the side in the 50 over format.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 17:12
Where did you get that one from, AGod. Kieswetter played 7 List A matches for Somerset in 2013?
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 17:13
To leave semantics... I have watched 2 50 over games this season;both last week; both away; both well won at a canter. From my observation in person I think we are superb. Several scorecards however tell otherwise. Should I stay away from Taunton on Friday or will my presence energise the 4 day side?
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 17:22
Been nowt wrong with our home CC performances. If we are fortunate enough to have any more 50 over games at home this season, then I suggest that we pay your train fare for you, GM, as you might bring some of whatever it is that we had in those away games to the home games.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 17:25
LoL - I thought that was how Jos got to do all that keeping for us in short form stuff at the start of last season - because Kieswetter was injured and therefore could not play in the "Sunday League."
I thought the 40 over stuff was over by the time CK came back (I know he got the gloves back for T20).
I thought the 40 over stuff was over by the time CK came back (I know he got the gloves back for T20).
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 18:01
The term "One Day Cricket" is becoming increasingly inaccurate. After all, even a T20 q/f last week took two days to complete!
But what on earth is wrong with the term "Limited Over Cricket", which has been in common parlance, for 20, 40, 55 and 60 over cricket for decades?
But what on earth is wrong with the term "Limited Over Cricket", which has been in common parlance, for 20, 40, 55 and 60 over cricket for decades?
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 18:02
It was indeed a disappointing result, but you have probably all noticed that that man who is past it made the third highest score.
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 18:14
And Im sure he is delighted with that third hisghest score too.
Jeez didnt realise people were so passionate about the term "one day" cricket. Or maybe not!!
Jeez didnt realise people were so passionate about the term "one day" cricket. Or maybe not!!
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 18:15
According to my calculations the position is thus
County games to play possible points
Kent 2 13
Notts 2 11
Glamorgan 2 10
Sussex 2 10
Somerset 1 9
Durham 1 9
Warwick not inc today 3 11
Surrey not in today 2 8
Middlesex 2 9
However, Kent have to play Sussex, Notts have to play Warwick Sussex have to play Glamorgan so I reckon all we have to do is beat Surrey and we qualify!!!
County games to play possible points
Kent 2 13
Notts 2 11
Glamorgan 2 10
Sussex 2 10
Somerset 1 9
Durham 1 9
Warwick not inc today 3 11
Surrey not in today 2 8
Middlesex 2 9
However, Kent have to play Sussex, Notts have to play Warwick Sussex have to play Glamorgan so I reckon all we have to do is beat Surrey and we qualify!!!
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 18:16
As ever, you have hit a fine nail on the head, FE.
Personally I shall opt for SWAFOC, even if it is not 100% accurate. (I'll leave others to work out what that means)
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Personally I shall opt for SWAFOC, even if it is not 100% accurate. (I'll leave others to work out what that means)
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 18:20
Go on GM get there if you can You know you want to it's cricket anything could happen.It's Taunton and you know it's a great place to watch whoever wins. I find it's never as bad as some would have it.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 18:27
LOL. we've no chance statistical history is against us
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 19:02
Didn't say that, did I?
Reading comprehension seems to be a serious problem for some people.
Reading comprehension seems to be a serious problem for some people.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 19:03
Nothing is wrong with "Limited over (s) cricket," FE, as term for it. I thought it usually had an "s," on the end, anymore than anything is wrong with "short form," cricket.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 19:10
Quote:geordie moonraker
According to my calculations the position is thus
County games to play possible points
Kent 2 (9) 13
Notts 2 (7) 11
Glamorgan 2 (6) 10
Sussex 2 (6) 10
Somerset 1 (7) 9
Durham 1 (7) 9
Warwick not inc today 3 (5) 11
Surrey not in today 2 (4) 8
Middlesex 2 (5) 9
However, Kent have to play Sussex, Notts have to play Warwick Sussex have to play Glamorgan so I reckon all we have to do is beat Surrey and we qualify!!!
I hope GM doesn't mind but I went back to this to insert the number of points that (logically) each team must have at the time that he typed this chart out. These are in brackets alongside the "number of games to play." This was to help me see whether or not it was true that we'd automatically go through if we beat Surrey.
The obvious question about your maths, above, GM, is "What about Middx and Durham?"
Is the tie-breaker in this comp this year "Head to Head result?" If so, that would take care of both of those teams. If not?
Also, if Sussex were to beat Kent but have a tie or NR with Glamorgan, then presumably both of Sussex and Glamorgan could also finish on 9 points... obviously a head-to-head tie-breaker would not help us then.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 19:18
So, I see Max Waller is back playing for the second team this week.
Hopefully he will be fit enough for the Oval.
It usually turns there, so I would think that he should be re-instated but certainly NOT instead of Jack Leach. IMO, both men should play at the Oval. Surrey usually pack their side with spin options for home short stuff and it's their ground so they should know (yes, I know they've not exactly been the most successful side in the world, but still).
I don't suppose for one minute that it will happen but after today's abomination which included figures that look horrendous in the context of the match, I think it should, perhaps, be Mr Thomas that should make way for Mr Waller.
Gregory seemed to go pretty well with the ball. And TG is needed for his batting in short form games, it seems!! Obviously, Trego will have to play.
Neither Tresco nor Compton have been very convincing, with the lone exception (so far as I can remember) of the Trent Bridge game but I don't suppose we will be bold enough to make a change there.
Indeed, IF Waller returns, I wouldn't be surprised if they bring him back instead of Myburgh rather than instead of Thomas. Personally, I'd rather retain JM for his batting and as a possible third spin option as well having him in the side (a la Waller) in part for his fielding.
Hopefully he will be fit enough for the Oval.
It usually turns there, so I would think that he should be re-instated but certainly NOT instead of Jack Leach. IMO, both men should play at the Oval. Surrey usually pack their side with spin options for home short stuff and it's their ground so they should know (yes, I know they've not exactly been the most successful side in the world, but still).
I don't suppose for one minute that it will happen but after today's abomination which included figures that look horrendous in the context of the match, I think it should, perhaps, be Mr Thomas that should make way for Mr Waller.
Gregory seemed to go pretty well with the ball. And TG is needed for his batting in short form games, it seems!! Obviously, Trego will have to play.
Neither Tresco nor Compton have been very convincing, with the lone exception (so far as I can remember) of the Trent Bridge game but I don't suppose we will be bold enough to make a change there.
Indeed, IF Waller returns, I wouldn't be surprised if they bring him back instead of Myburgh rather than instead of Thomas. Personally, I'd rather retain JM for his batting and as a possible third spin option as well having him in the side (a la Waller) in part for his fielding.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 19:20
LoL - I do not, personally, suppose that Mr Trescothick will be particularly proud of his score today, even if it was the third highest of the innings.
Nor do I suppose that he will be thrilled with his short form season as a whole which has largely - with the exception of Trent Bridge - involved one failure after another, I'm afraid.
Unless he can conjure a miraculous turn-around to match that of his 2014 vs 2013 CC form, then I suspect that we may witness his final short form game for Somerset, at The Oval, next week.
Nor do I suppose that he will be thrilled with his short form season as a whole which has largely - with the exception of Trent Bridge - involved one failure after another, I'm afraid.
Unless he can conjure a miraculous turn-around to match that of his 2014 vs 2013 CC form, then I suspect that we may witness his final short form game for Somerset, at The Oval, next week.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 19:37
For what it is worth (which may be nothing) the official site notes simply that we must beat Surrey to have "any chance," of qualifying, as distinct from saying that a win would put us through.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Clarence Parker (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 20:24
Will not Craig Overton be available for the Surrey game, AGod?
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 20:58
I believe so, Clarence, yes.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grizzers (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 21:02
Had the fortune (?) to see most of the game today. Missed the first 20 overs, but aside from that, I was completely perplexed how a side so capable of performing like lions, instead performed like headless chickens.
Last time I visited Lewis & James scored unbeaten tons to take us to a superb victory. Oh for a tenth of that spirit & fight today.
Don't understand for a moment how Glamorgan made batting look relatively easy, with bat hitting ball regularly, cleanly & productively, when most of our innings was composed of a mixture of mis hits & pork scratchings. I include even Peter Trego in the latter assessment, as he did not seem able to impose himself on the bowlers at all, and with the run rate steadily increasing, his inability to take control just placed more pressure on those who came later,
Also don't get how we bowled like an absolute drain. Alf, especially, was simply awful. 10 - 0 - 82 - 0 speaks entirely accurately for his complete lack of penetration.
I'm delighted to celebrate our successes, but today we were simply dismal. Very dispiriting all round.
Hope we improve p.d.q. and that we can forget today when we return to the Championship on Friday.
Grizzzly
Last time I visited Lewis & James scored unbeaten tons to take us to a superb victory. Oh for a tenth of that spirit & fight today.
Don't understand for a moment how Glamorgan made batting look relatively easy, with bat hitting ball regularly, cleanly & productively, when most of our innings was composed of a mixture of mis hits & pork scratchings. I include even Peter Trego in the latter assessment, as he did not seem able to impose himself on the bowlers at all, and with the run rate steadily increasing, his inability to take control just placed more pressure on those who came later,
Also don't get how we bowled like an absolute drain. Alf, especially, was simply awful. 10 - 0 - 82 - 0 speaks entirely accurately for his complete lack of penetration.
I'm delighted to celebrate our successes, but today we were simply dismal. Very dispiriting all round.
Hope we improve p.d.q. and that we can forget today when we return to the Championship on Friday.
Grizzzly
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 21:13
I can only assume that we panic a bit when under pressure at home because we know how easy it is for games to get away from a (fielding) side at Taunton?
Steve Kirby suggested that the pitch was gripping for the seamers and taking spin. As such, it may have been more difficult to chase than to set a target but I cannot believe that it should have been *that* much more difficult so I can only assume that we failed to accurately read our own pitch with bat and/or ball - for example, if the track was turning was it wise to not bowl Jack Leach out? More specifically was it wise to go back to Alf, presumably because he's our experienced man and accustomed to bowling at/near the end *despite* the fact that he'd been bowling like a drain?
Of course, the Welshmen should be used to playing on a track that grips and turns as that is Sophia Gardens to a tee!
Steve Kirby suggested that the pitch was gripping for the seamers and taking spin. As such, it may have been more difficult to chase than to set a target but I cannot believe that it should have been *that* much more difficult so I can only assume that we failed to accurately read our own pitch with bat and/or ball - for example, if the track was turning was it wise to not bowl Jack Leach out? More specifically was it wise to go back to Alf, presumably because he's our experienced man and accustomed to bowling at/near the end *despite* the fact that he'd been bowling like a drain?
Of course, the Welshmen should be used to playing on a track that grips and turns as that is Sophia Gardens to a tee!
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 21:14
Today's photos.
Bowling not good enough and batting fragile.
A bit unlucky I thought with this Lewis Gregory lbw off Dean Cosker, but the umpire was in a better position than I was.
I wonder if Peter Trego had an inside edge off Graham Wagg, just taking the bail off.
Marcus Trescothick hit some lovely fours when the ball was in the right position, Marcus went for a straight drive from Michael Hogan and didn't get the bat in the right position.
Graham Wagg was caught by Jack Leach, the ball went very high and had to wait a long time for it to come back to earth, Lewis Gregory was the bowler.
The ball beat Chris Cooke and must have swung after passing the batsman because Alex Barrow had to make a dive to stop it from going for byes.
Murray Goodwin beaten by Jack Leach and Alex Barrow wishing he would lift his foot.
Jacques Rudolph thought he would do a bit of sweeping off Jack Leach.
Bowling not good enough and batting fragile.
A bit unlucky I thought with this Lewis Gregory lbw off Dean Cosker, but the umpire was in a better position than I was.
I wonder if Peter Trego had an inside edge off Graham Wagg, just taking the bail off.
Marcus Trescothick hit some lovely fours when the ball was in the right position, Marcus went for a straight drive from Michael Hogan and didn't get the bat in the right position.
Graham Wagg was caught by Jack Leach, the ball went very high and had to wait a long time for it to come back to earth, Lewis Gregory was the bowler.
The ball beat Chris Cooke and must have swung after passing the batsman because Alex Barrow had to make a dive to stop it from going for byes.
Murray Goodwin beaten by Jack Leach and Alex Barrow wishing he would lift his foot.
Jacques Rudolph thought he would do a bit of sweeping off Jack Leach.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 21:16
Thanks for honest assessment grizzly.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 21:24
I haven't read any of the comments about the match a lot to read (no time)
Has anybody commented on Marcus's bowling changes today?
Has anybody commented on Marcus's bowling changes today?
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 21:29
No, not really, Mike.
I wondered after the event about the automatic default to Alf despite him bowling very poorly earlier.. it seemed that every other over that he bowled the Beeb were saying "I'm afraid that was another dreadful over from Alphonso."
I did also ask one thing during the game itself - wondering about the wisdom of taking Gregory off immediately after the power-play (as it sounded as though he had bowled well in it).
I'm not sure I'm a huge fan of automatically defaulting to certain bowlers for the death overs.. if one of them is bowling well earlier on it might be as well to keep them going? If another one is bowling like a drain earlier on, then it might be wise to not revert to them at all?
I wondered after the event about the automatic default to Alf despite him bowling very poorly earlier.. it seemed that every other over that he bowled the Beeb were saying "I'm afraid that was another dreadful over from Alphonso."
I did also ask one thing during the game itself - wondering about the wisdom of taking Gregory off immediately after the power-play (as it sounded as though he had bowled well in it).
I'm not sure I'm a huge fan of automatically defaulting to certain bowlers for the death overs.. if one of them is bowling well earlier on it might be as well to keep them going? If another one is bowling like a drain earlier on, then it might be wise to not revert to them at all?
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Sloop John B (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 21:40
Mike - I think Tregs did hit his delivery. There is daylight under the foot of Goodwin so perhaps Baz should have tried the stumping.
A poor day by the team today. Didn't see most of the Rudolph century but he seemed to be a class above most. Alf was really off the boil again. Don't know what's wrong but I, too, would rest him at the Oval and play Max.
Our batters looked like the ball was gripping and moving as finding the middle of the bat and timing the ball seemed tricky! Hogan , Wagg and Cosker bowl3ed well and the Glam outfielding was impressive.
A poor day by the team today. Didn't see most of the Rudolph century but he seemed to be a class above most. Alf was really off the boil again. Don't know what's wrong but I, too, would rest him at the Oval and play Max.
Our batters looked like the ball was gripping and moving as finding the middle of the bat and timing the ball seemed tricky! Hogan , Wagg and Cosker bowl3ed well and the Glam outfielding was impressive.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 21:48
One excellent feature of the day was Kirby's unceasing optimism in the commentary box and his total support for his colleagues, though he found it hard to conceal his sadness that he won't be playing with them any more. He says he wants a future in cricket, implying that that would be as a bowling coach. He would almost certainly prove a superb motivator. He is also a rather good broadcaster and I hope some way will be found to keep him in the Somerset family, where he seems very much at home.
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 22:10
So- after this are we progressing or not?
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Roger ivanhoe (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 22:16
Very disappointing effort.
Totally Sub Standard performance, not sure the team are being directed, or motivated in the field, concerned with Alfonso's bowling again,is he burnt out?
The Coach talked in his pre-match post on the club site, that it was a Must Win Match,
Well he must have forgot to tell his team that, they performed like a team that had nothing to lose and nothing to win.
AGod, not sure it was Panic at all today, but we have had a Mind Coach in place for a couple of seasons, one might question his use.
Perhaps I will feel happier in the morning.
Totally Sub Standard performance, not sure the team are being directed, or motivated in the field, concerned with Alfonso's bowling again,is he burnt out?
The Coach talked in his pre-match post on the club site, that it was a Must Win Match,
Well he must have forgot to tell his team that, they performed like a team that had nothing to lose and nothing to win.
AGod, not sure it was Panic at all today, but we have had a Mind Coach in place for a couple of seasons, one might question his use.
Perhaps I will feel happier in the morning.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 22:22
QF and SF in short stuff last season.
Probably zero progression to knock-out stages this season.
That cannot be anybody's definition of "progress."
The CC performances have, though, improved notably this year, compared to last season's poor performances.
Overall, though, it would be tough, I think, for those that appointed Dave Nosworthy in lieu of Brian Rose to state with any great conviction that "We are further forward under Nosworthy then we were when Brian was here."
Probably zero progression to knock-out stages this season.
That cannot be anybody's definition of "progress."
The CC performances have, though, improved notably this year, compared to last season's poor performances.
Overall, though, it would be tough, I think, for those that appointed Dave Nosworthy in lieu of Brian Rose to state with any great conviction that "We are further forward under Nosworthy then we were when Brian was here."
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 22:28
I get the feeling that nosworthy won't be around much longer. Don't know why but for me this is not the job for him anywAy. 2 years 3 years it was probably only a fixed term period he had planned for him and his family in uk anyway.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 22:39
One of the reason I asked about the bowling changes was that usually once the first power-play overs are gone the spinner is often used.
When Marcus didn't bring Jack on for the 11th or 12th over I happen to say he will have to come on by the 14th over otherwise he won't get his ten overs in before the second power-play.
Marcus bowled him for the 19th 21st 23rd 25th 27th overs and the 34th before the second power-play overs. And he returned for one more over after the PP for the 42nd, total of seven overs.
The latest stats. [stats.espncricinfo.com]
When Marcus didn't bring Jack on for the 11th or 12th over I happen to say he will have to come on by the 14th over otherwise he won't get his ten overs in before the second power-play.
Marcus bowled him for the 19th 21st 23rd 25th 27th overs and the 34th before the second power-play overs. And he returned for one more over after the PP for the 42nd, total of seven overs.
The latest stats. [stats.espncricinfo.com]
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grizzers (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 22:49
Your assessment may well be over pessimistic AG.
Despite our lousy effort today, we have turned in some superb performances, and if we can get back to anything like 'par', we surely should have a good chance of beating Surrey & progressing.
The infuriating thing, is that we seem - as a team - to have developed 'Lathwellesque' tendencies.
Brilliant one day. Hapless the next.
More of the B & less of the H please chaps.
Grizzzly
Despite our lousy effort today, we have turned in some superb performances, and if we can get back to anything like 'par', we surely should have a good chance of beating Surrey & progressing.
The infuriating thing, is that we seem - as a team - to have developed 'Lathwellesque' tendencies.
Brilliant one day. Hapless the next.
More of the B & less of the H please chaps.
Grizzzly
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 22:50
Well we were hapless on Sunday and hapless today too but I get your drift
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 23:03
No problem with you revisiting my maths AG. I didn't do a critical path analysis but bearing in mind that not everyone could win I thought a win against Surrey would do it.
I always was the optimist.
I always was the optimist.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 23:17
Well it might do or it might not do but I don't think it's any kind of mathematical certainty that beating Surrey will automatically do it. Presumably, things will be clearer before Wednesday week because (I assume) some (or hopefully all!) of the teams that have a game in hand will be playing them before then.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 12/08/2014 23:37
Quote:AGod
Nothing is wrong with "Limited over (s) cricket," FE, as term for it. I thought it usually had an "s," on the end, anymore than anything is wrong with "short form," cricket.
The only thing "wrong" with it is that there is sbsolutely no need for a new label when there already exists a perfectly adequate one.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 00:53
We seem to be playing two forms of the same game at the moment. There is an away 50 overs and a home 50 overs and seemingly no real relationship between them. As Ron now asks... today's game shows little progress at home so how does that relate to getting something more right away?
There is certainly a different groups of players providing the positives now and a number of "old faithfuls" who have moved into the inconsistent or just downright under performing group.
One thing that has been consistent over the years is that we either start well and then under perform and struggle to qualify in the two short formats or we start badly and then put in a spurt to get through or narrowly miss out. If we are very good in the preliminaries we almost never turn up as a side in the finals so a poor group stage is better for us though starting well and then falling by the wayside usually results in us not qualifying at all.
Over the years this has been nothing new but we've been lucky for a few years. A lack of progress or a time of transition? Good question.
There is certainly a different groups of players providing the positives now and a number of "old faithfuls" who have moved into the inconsistent or just downright under performing group.
One thing that has been consistent over the years is that we either start well and then under perform and struggle to qualify in the two short formats or we start badly and then put in a spurt to get through or narrowly miss out. If we are very good in the preliminaries we almost never turn up as a side in the finals so a poor group stage is better for us though starting well and then falling by the wayside usually results in us not qualifying at all.
Over the years this has been nothing new but we've been lucky for a few years. A lack of progress or a time of transition? Good question.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 01:38
Nice article from the Telegraph AG I wonder how many you went through before you found one you thought was relevant. It is quite right that Jos is the England one day keeper as he keeps in the 50 over matches. The fact that it talks about the two formats tends to then not prove but neutralise your argument. I find no reference in the article referring to his one day status in relation to T20 matches should we just take that as read?
You are wrong to state most people generally use the 'one day' terminology to include both formats. They simply don't. You yourself have rarely if ever done so before today. As some one else pointed out you disparage one of the two forms you now suggest are under the same term as not even being real cricket. Should we refer to all short format games as 'hit and giggle' in future as well now?
I have no problem with Ron's question about our short format structure going backwards but the strategies, structures and gameplay of 20 over match bears little resemblance to that of a 50 over game and solving T20 problems may not necessarily change our performances in the one day version in the same way. They are simply not the same game. You yourself argue that your only format of importance, the four day version, is not the same game as one day or T20 cricket. Or are you bunching them together now after this epiphany today
Use another term as FE suggest by all means but don't redefine what the 'general' cricket supporter understands by the terms to back up a spurious argument.
Ron simply saying that he meant all short format games would have been fine but to then talk specifically about our problems today by referring to the problems of a different format of the game made no sense at all. What happened in our T20 campaign and what is presently happening in our 50 over campaign may have similarities but reforms would probably have to be tailored to each format as there is certainly no one size fits all solution.
Do the study. I'll guarantee that the average cricket supporter will NOT include T20 in their discussions of the "one day" format. You might be right in the suggestion that in the future this may not always be the case but it certainly is at the moment. You gentlemen are in the minority unless you clarify your statement to either talk about short format cricket or, possibly, if you talk about limited over competitions.
Oh one thing I did find out from the journalists today. The headlines of pieces sent in are not decided by the reporters but by sub editors and editors who may not be your general cricket supporters or even sports reporters. That may be why the headlines on the two pieces you provided seem to then be contradicted by the material provided by the specialist.
So on to Surrey to see what can be salvaged or not as the case may be. Again I find my self wondering whether we deserve to salvage anything - Is our future still in our own hands?
You are wrong to state most people generally use the 'one day' terminology to include both formats. They simply don't. You yourself have rarely if ever done so before today. As some one else pointed out you disparage one of the two forms you now suggest are under the same term as not even being real cricket. Should we refer to all short format games as 'hit and giggle' in future as well now?
I have no problem with Ron's question about our short format structure going backwards but the strategies, structures and gameplay of 20 over match bears little resemblance to that of a 50 over game and solving T20 problems may not necessarily change our performances in the one day version in the same way. They are simply not the same game. You yourself argue that your only format of importance, the four day version, is not the same game as one day or T20 cricket. Or are you bunching them together now after this epiphany today
Use another term as FE suggest by all means but don't redefine what the 'general' cricket supporter understands by the terms to back up a spurious argument.
Ron simply saying that he meant all short format games would have been fine but to then talk specifically about our problems today by referring to the problems of a different format of the game made no sense at all. What happened in our T20 campaign and what is presently happening in our 50 over campaign may have similarities but reforms would probably have to be tailored to each format as there is certainly no one size fits all solution.
Do the study. I'll guarantee that the average cricket supporter will NOT include T20 in their discussions of the "one day" format. You might be right in the suggestion that in the future this may not always be the case but it certainly is at the moment. You gentlemen are in the minority unless you clarify your statement to either talk about short format cricket or, possibly, if you talk about limited over competitions.
Oh one thing I did find out from the journalists today. The headlines of pieces sent in are not decided by the reporters but by sub editors and editors who may not be your general cricket supporters or even sports reporters. That may be why the headlines on the two pieces you provided seem to then be contradicted by the material provided by the specialist.
So on to Surrey to see what can be salvaged or not as the case may be. Again I find my self wondering whether we deserve to salvage anything - Is our future still in our own hands?
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 07:06
Yes, I'm well aware that subs right the headlines, that is what they are paid for. But there's a reason that, for example, you will often see 'one day squad named' as the description for squads picked for a short form series against x or y - a series that includes both 50 over and 20 over formats- namely that it's neater to use an umbrella term than say '50 over and 20 over tour,' or what have you.
As for our problems and their likely remedies being different in the two comps? I think the bowling principles are very similar. 'Bowl straight,' was Steve Kirby's view of being the most important thing in limited overs cricket at Taunton. He seemed to think that denying the batsman room, line wise, is the most important imperative, rather than length, in limited overs at Taunton. Steve may also have implied, yesterday, that we've been a but too passive with the ball at Taunton. He kept saying that you have to always be on the attack at Taunton because 'if you go passive and look to contain you'll get murdered.'
Batting principles aren't exactly massively different. You can play yourself in a bit more in 50 over stuff, especially if you are a top-order batsman and THIS season (but only this season) the power-play has been de-emphasised in 50 over stuff due to the two new balls.*
Is our future in this comp in our own hands?
No, I don't believe that it is this morning. BUT, by the time we sctually go to Kennington that may have changed because there are three more games in our group being played today.
* BUT BUT BUT, with Oval being slow and low, I'm not 100 percent convinced that sitting in during the power-play will be the way to go next Wed. In our three most recent games at the Oval - all T20 we've not been able to accelerate late in the piece at all really.
Edited to say that it's actually only one game in our group being played today then THREE more are scheduled for tomorrow. So four more games of the group's quotient will be played before we go to the Oval. So there *should* be more clarity about our position by then and the results *might* combined to put our future back in our own hands.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:08:13:07:37:39 by AGod.
As for our problems and their likely remedies being different in the two comps? I think the bowling principles are very similar. 'Bowl straight,' was Steve Kirby's view of being the most important thing in limited overs cricket at Taunton. He seemed to think that denying the batsman room, line wise, is the most important imperative, rather than length, in limited overs at Taunton. Steve may also have implied, yesterday, that we've been a but too passive with the ball at Taunton. He kept saying that you have to always be on the attack at Taunton because 'if you go passive and look to contain you'll get murdered.'
Batting principles aren't exactly massively different. You can play yourself in a bit more in 50 over stuff, especially if you are a top-order batsman and THIS season (but only this season) the power-play has been de-emphasised in 50 over stuff due to the two new balls.*
Is our future in this comp in our own hands?
No, I don't believe that it is this morning. BUT, by the time we sctually go to Kennington that may have changed because there are three more games in our group being played today.
* BUT BUT BUT, with Oval being slow and low, I'm not 100 percent convinced that sitting in during the power-play will be the way to go next Wed. In our three most recent games at the Oval - all T20 we've not been able to accelerate late in the piece at all really.
Edited to say that it's actually only one game in our group being played today then THREE more are scheduled for tomorrow. So four more games of the group's quotient will be played before we go to the Oval. So there *should* be more clarity about our position by then and the results *might* combined to put our future back in our own hands.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:08:13:07:37:39 by AGod.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: JonR (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 07:52
Did anyone else see the injury that resulted in Murray Goodwin being off the field for all but the first 2 overs of our innings?
He trundled off to be replaced by the much younger and athletic David Lloyd who proceeded to make at least two boundary saving dives before we had lost a wicket, and quite a few other notable saves.
I could see Goodwin on the dressing room balcony and he seemed to be moving OK and had no strapping on his hands.
He trundled off to be replaced by the much younger and athletic David Lloyd who proceeded to make at least two boundary saving dives before we had lost a wicket, and quite a few other notable saves.
I could see Goodwin on the dressing room balcony and he seemed to be moving OK and had no strapping on his hands.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 08:36
wont matter a hoot if we duff it at the Oval as we have in the past. Need to be on the money in that game from start to finish.
MT will have to contribute, a third highest score in the innings would be nice as long as its a lot higher than 25.
MT will have to contribute, a third highest score in the innings would be nice as long as its a lot higher than 25.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 08:46
Marcus look so nervous out there batting he kept practising shots, tapping down the pitch with his bat and not even on the pitch, he was like a bag on nerves I was wondering if it is getting to him.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 08:47
Might one dare to suggest that the elevated scores in many of this year's 50 over games (300 has not been uncommon) suggest that the strategies etc of the 50 over format are becoming (albeit slowly) more akin to T20?
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 09:16
The end 10 do seem to be more like those in T20 FE . Or at least against us!! The front 6 are not though. They dont even seem the same as 40 overs. It's much more if a 'wait and see what pans out' approach. The middle 'press' phase also exists but is much more difficult to maintain as you really need at least 3 and possibly 4 bowlers to work in tandem to keep it up. But Vic Marks was saying that 50 over matches of under 300 seemed under cooked nowadays, or thatseemed to be the gist of his coversation in the box yesterday and he played a few in the 'olden days'.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grizzers (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 09:32
What did Victor make of our efforts yesterday Grockle ?
Grizzzly
Grizzzly
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 09:41
Quote:Mike TA1
Marcus look so nervous out there batting he kept practising shots, tapping down the pitch with his bat and not even on the pitch, he was like a bag on nerves I was wondering if it is getting to him.
I don't care how experienced you are. If you're not getting runs, then it WILL get to you.
I think Marcus admitted as much with reference to his CC travails of last season. He was able to work with DH and the club psychologist to find a way around/deal with those issues, with extremely good results thus far. But this work happened, from what Tres said, over the winter. It's pretty difficult, I would imagine, to successfully make technical and/or psychological alterations to approach during a season.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 09:50
I think it's the two new balls (perhaps combined with a proliferation of early morning starts) that are producing such conservatism in the opening power-play in the 50 over stuff.
Last time around when there was a 50 over competition, I do NOT remember a pattern of conservatism in the opening power-play. For example, I remember a home game against Sussex, I think it was, over 50 overs where Tresco and Langer hit the ball all over the place in the power-play. Similarly, I remember us doing the same thing on a Bank Holiday Monday game at the Bristol car park.
I also think that the two new balls are contributing to the plethora of high totals - because it is now MUCH easier to hit the ball at the end of the innings, when it's 20-25 overs old, than when it was 40-50 overs old (and soft and dirty).
This new format has received much praise so far, in part because the change to the fielding regulations has been perceived as "doing away with the middle overs, where teams used to just push singles around."
However, I think it's inevitable that in any limited overs format, the specific rules and regs of that particular tournament WILL lead to a fairly predictable "pattern of play," emerging... and in the case of this format, it's teams playing cautiously through the opening power-play (and often for up to 8-10 overs afterward), confident that they can accelerate later against a still hard ball and with one fewer fielder allowed out of the circle (outside of power-plays) than used to be the case.
So, I think that after a few years of this people will complain about it being somewhat predictable. Then there will be more tinkering and the cycle will start again and, rinse and repeat....
Last time around when there was a 50 over competition, I do NOT remember a pattern of conservatism in the opening power-play. For example, I remember a home game against Sussex, I think it was, over 50 overs where Tresco and Langer hit the ball all over the place in the power-play. Similarly, I remember us doing the same thing on a Bank Holiday Monday game at the Bristol car park.
I also think that the two new balls are contributing to the plethora of high totals - because it is now MUCH easier to hit the ball at the end of the innings, when it's 20-25 overs old, than when it was 40-50 overs old (and soft and dirty).
This new format has received much praise so far, in part because the change to the fielding regulations has been perceived as "doing away with the middle overs, where teams used to just push singles around."
However, I think it's inevitable that in any limited overs format, the specific rules and regs of that particular tournament WILL lead to a fairly predictable "pattern of play," emerging... and in the case of this format, it's teams playing cautiously through the opening power-play (and often for up to 8-10 overs afterward), confident that they can accelerate later against a still hard ball and with one fewer fielder allowed out of the circle (outside of power-plays) than used to be the case.
So, I think that after a few years of this people will complain about it being somewhat predictable. Then there will be more tinkering and the cycle will start again and, rinse and repeat....
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 10:05
Would I be right in thinking that Alfie has played every game this season, in all formats?
If not, then he must have played a heck of a lot - for a pace bowler in his late thirties, even a very fit one, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he's well and truly exhausted and could do with a break. He probably won't get one this weekend, though.
If not, then he must have played a heck of a lot - for a pace bowler in his late thirties, even a very fit one, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he's well and truly exhausted and could do with a break. He probably won't get one this weekend, though.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 10:31
It was a conversation that was going on Grizzzly rather than one I was part of. I am not in Mr Marks conversational group I'm afraid. But he generally was saying the nature of the 50 over game had changed from the expectations when he had played them.
If the conservatism is brought on by the two ball idea then it carries on well past the point when that should be an issue. Both sides yesterday struggled to pass 3 figures in 20 overs. So if it is breeding that slow start and we are moving to a more T20 type of approach then the batsmen are going to have to develop a second gear before the halfway stage.
If the format survives then one would expect it will come in time. At the moment some openers don't seem to know whether it is a four day approach or a one day approach and seem afraid to take a T20 approach because there are a lot more overs to work through.
As they adapt to an approach somewhere between the shortest and the longest they should accrue higher scores themselves and provide better bases for the stroke players later on and we may very well see average scores passing the 300 mark regularly and moving over 350 towards 400. It certainly might improve the entertainment value of that section between 20 and 35 overs that can be a kind of 'doldrum' period in these longer games
If the conservatism is brought on by the two ball idea then it carries on well past the point when that should be an issue. Both sides yesterday struggled to pass 3 figures in 20 overs. So if it is breeding that slow start and we are moving to a more T20 type of approach then the batsmen are going to have to develop a second gear before the halfway stage.
If the format survives then one would expect it will come in time. At the moment some openers don't seem to know whether it is a four day approach or a one day approach and seem afraid to take a T20 approach because there are a lot more overs to work through.
As they adapt to an approach somewhere between the shortest and the longest they should accrue higher scores themselves and provide better bases for the stroke players later on and we may very well see average scores passing the 300 mark regularly and moving over 350 towards 400. It certainly might improve the entertainment value of that section between 20 and 35 overs that can be a kind of 'doldrum' period in these longer games
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grizzers (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 10:44
Agreed.
Times have certainly changed though. There was a time (JPL) when anything over 160 in 40 overs was regarded as a good score !
Grizzzly
Times have certainly changed though. There was a time (JPL) when anything over 160 in 40 overs was regarded as a good score !
Grizzzly
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 10:48
"If the conservatism is brought on by the two ball idea then it carries on well past the point when that should be an issue. Both sides yesterday struggled to pass 3 figures in 20 overs."
Yep, depending on the pitch it seems to go on for "up to," 20 overs.
But that's only the equivalent, new ball wise, of the first 10 overs in a 40 over contest, i.e. the ball is still only 10 overs old. What teams seem to have decided upon is seeing off the first 8-10 overs of the new ball (16-20) of the match and then accelerate from there, IMO.
If we get a track that players think will be a Bunsen or something, then I'd imagine that tactics would change in that specific circumstance, as players would think of going hard at the pacemen before the spinners appear.
Unfortunately, one effect of the two new balls at either end business, may be to make things more difficult for those spinners (most of them) that aren't that great at operating with a new ball. Most spinners are unused to operating with a ball that is less than, say, 15 overs old, which is the equivalent of 30 overs of game time in this format.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:08:13:11:27:56 by AGod.
Yep, depending on the pitch it seems to go on for "up to," 20 overs.
But that's only the equivalent, new ball wise, of the first 10 overs in a 40 over contest, i.e. the ball is still only 10 overs old. What teams seem to have decided upon is seeing off the first 8-10 overs of the new ball (16-20) of the match and then accelerate from there, IMO.
If we get a track that players think will be a Bunsen or something, then I'd imagine that tactics would change in that specific circumstance, as players would think of going hard at the pacemen before the spinners appear.
Unfortunately, one effect of the two new balls at either end business, may be to make things more difficult for those spinners (most of them) that aren't that great at operating with a new ball. Most spinners are unused to operating with a ball that is less than, say, 15 overs old, which is the equivalent of 30 overs of game time in this format.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:08:13:11:27:56 by AGod.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 10:59
It seems to have done for George presently.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 11:06
Quote:AGod
Yes, I'm well aware that subs right the headlines, that is what they are paid for.
Is that what they call a Freudian slip? Is iT that the sub-editors right the headlines and wrong the writers (righters?)?
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:08:13:15:23:56 by Loyal of Lhasa.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 11:28
It's what's called whatever time of the morning it was, having just woken up.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 11:32
not quite right o'clock?
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Roger ivanhoe (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 11:56
AGod, I am not sure Glamorgan struggled to reach 100 in 20 overs yesterday, it was more the way they chose to play the game, they increase the tempo when the weather changed.
Without the loss of the three overs they were on target for a score of 320+ which is possibly a little over a PAR score on our ground for a 50 over game.
Without the loss of the three overs they were on target for a score of 320+ which is possibly a little over a PAR score on our ground for a 50 over game.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 12:05
It certainly does seem that once the openers have blunted an initial attack Roger they do actively set about establishing a base for their own attack after the 20 over mark. With wickets, 30 overs and a base around 100 to work with anything may seem possible.
We lose our openers within 10 overs pretty regularly and have to rely on the back end of the order to make up that shortfall in a rush at the end. It's amazing how 10 extra overs changes the one day mindset of an opening batsman. We also have to remember that it is a new format for many who are not ancient or have had international one day experience
We lose our openers within 10 overs pretty regularly and have to rely on the back end of the order to make up that shortfall in a rush at the end. It's amazing how 10 extra overs changes the one day mindset of an opening batsman. We also have to remember that it is a new format for many who are not ancient or have had international one day experience
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Railboy (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 12:22
Yesterday was, in my opinion, as bad a limited overs performance as I have seen (and this from the owner of seriously rose tinted glasses!) I will buy my membership again next year, because that is what i do along with so many others. But how many floating voters will have been sufficiently entertained this year to be tempted into shelling out next year?
I am particularly concerned with the bowling but do not believe it can all be down to bad balls / bad bowlers. It seems to me that this short pitched obsession is a deliberate tactic that we are employing (perhaps in some way linked to a similar problem with JOVE?) and i think serious questions have to be asked about our strategies in shortened formats.There is a world of difference between short of a length and short pitched. Glamorgan gave a master class of how to bowl on a wicket that wanted to help seam bowling.
If we go on and win the CC all will be forgiven. If not - and even if we do - a serious enquirey into our one day demise is essential along with the guts to act upon the outcome.
I am particularly concerned with the bowling but do not believe it can all be down to bad balls / bad bowlers. It seems to me that this short pitched obsession is a deliberate tactic that we are employing (perhaps in some way linked to a similar problem with JOVE?) and i think serious questions have to be asked about our strategies in shortened formats.There is a world of difference between short of a length and short pitched. Glamorgan gave a master class of how to bowl on a wicket that wanted to help seam bowling.
If we go on and win the CC all will be forgiven. If not - and even if we do - a serious enquirey into our one day demise is essential along with the guts to act upon the outcome.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 12:29
All of which Grockle makes it difficult, IMO, to complain too loudly that we are regressing in the one day format and hint that the management isn't doing it's job. We do seem to be struggling to adopt a strategy for this new version of 50 over stuff and implement it on a consistent basis.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 12:30
Yes, the short form(batting) opening is another area that management need to look to improve on, moving forward. With the exception of Craig K, there's been very little consistency in that area in 2014.
Bizarrely and very unpredictably, Nick Compton managed to do better opening in T20 (a comp that he had no real pedigree in) than in the longer limited overs stuff (where he has actually had a pretty decent record in the past especially when he was still at Middx)
To be honest, I think we're a little short on strong short-form batsmen, full stop. That's been accentuated by the absence of CK but even with him in the side there isn't really enough in the squad at this juncture, IMO - at least not with Tres devoid of form in white ball cricket.
I've always liked the idea of packing all-rounders into short form teams and it may be that the batting development of several young all-rounders such as Lewis, Craig O and Craig M will compensate us, in future, for perhaps not having a particularly great line-up of specialist batsmen in short form stuff.
Bizarrely and very unpredictably, Nick Compton managed to do better opening in T20 (a comp that he had no real pedigree in) than in the longer limited overs stuff (where he has actually had a pretty decent record in the past especially when he was still at Middx)
To be honest, I think we're a little short on strong short-form batsmen, full stop. That's been accentuated by the absence of CK but even with him in the side there isn't really enough in the squad at this juncture, IMO - at least not with Tres devoid of form in white ball cricket.
I've always liked the idea of packing all-rounders into short form teams and it may be that the batting development of several young all-rounders such as Lewis, Craig O and Craig M will compensate us, in future, for perhaps not having a particularly great line-up of specialist batsmen in short form stuff.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 12:48
There is short form strength but it is not in the traditional places. Colin was certainly a strength, Johann might be but not at 7/8. Tim G might be but again, not coming in at 8/9 with 5 balls to go. It isn't just our front end it's the order and flexibility of our middle. Lewis is in at 7? Craig when he plays is in at 8?
Flexibility and adaptability should be watchwords. The main phrase I have heard upstairs is that 'it is what it says on the board' in relation to our T20 and one day tactics. It's written up at the start of the game and that's what happens.
When Alviro returns he will slot in where Colin left I assume....why? Both forms of the game can change in a 5 over spell. Somerset simply don't....ever. This is not a Trescothick, Langer, Burns, Blackwell, Bowler (forget Smith) thing...it was a criticism when Jamie Cox was captain.
Flexibility and adaptability should be watchwords. The main phrase I have heard upstairs is that 'it is what it says on the board' in relation to our T20 and one day tactics. It's written up at the start of the game and that's what happens.
When Alviro returns he will slot in where Colin left I assume....why? Both forms of the game can change in a 5 over spell. Somerset simply don't....ever. This is not a Trescothick, Langer, Burns, Blackwell, Bowler (forget Smith) thing...it was a criticism when Jamie Cox was captain.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 12:57
Railboy - I think the theory has to do with the shortest boundaries on our ground being the straight ones?
The reason I suspect that this is to be the case is that we stated publically, last year, when we played at Bristol (and the home fans whined about us bowling bouncers and other short balls) that we'd done it deliberately because the long boundaries at Bristol are the square ones.
Given that the same points about the dimensions hold true at Taunton (albeit that the square boundaries are not as long at Taunton as at Bristol) then it wouldn't be a huge surprise, at least to me, if the same sort of thinking held sway.
As for the Glamorgan bowlers, Steve Kirby said they were very effective at bowling cutters on a surface that was gripping. Sophia Gardens grips and turns (albeit very slowly) so their guys should be experienced in those sorts of techniques.
Not having been there, I'm not sure whether our big bowling problem was that we failed to assess our own pitch correctly and resort to techniques, such as cutters, that would work on the surface, or whether the problem for somebody like Alf was trying to bowl loads of something that he does not normally bowl much of i.e cutters and getting it hopelessly wrong?
The reason I suspect that this is to be the case is that we stated publically, last year, when we played at Bristol (and the home fans whined about us bowling bouncers and other short balls) that we'd done it deliberately because the long boundaries at Bristol are the square ones.
Given that the same points about the dimensions hold true at Taunton (albeit that the square boundaries are not as long at Taunton as at Bristol) then it wouldn't be a huge surprise, at least to me, if the same sort of thinking held sway.
As for the Glamorgan bowlers, Steve Kirby said they were very effective at bowling cutters on a surface that was gripping. Sophia Gardens grips and turns (albeit very slowly) so their guys should be experienced in those sorts of techniques.
Not having been there, I'm not sure whether our big bowling problem was that we failed to assess our own pitch correctly and resort to techniques, such as cutters, that would work on the surface, or whether the problem for somebody like Alf was trying to bowl loads of something that he does not normally bowl much of i.e cutters and getting it hopelessly wrong?
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 13:16
SP - the answer to your question is, I think, that Alf has been selected for every game for which he has been available this season.
He had an injury of some description at some point in June, if memory serves.
I believe it may have been a slight hamstring injury?
He had an injury of some description at some point in June, if memory serves.
I believe it may have been a slight hamstring injury?
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 13:18
Alf was trying, especially in his late spell to bowl at the feet of the batsmen, the inswinging yorker length but not getting it right. So his problem was more full tosses.
I'm not sure that Tim has 'got' the Taunton pitch yet - though he did bowl his first (I think) maiden in a one day game.
Lewis doesn't take pace off the ball enough while Pete did in the mid spell. Too little variation between them all piling in and plonking it back of a length. Batsmen get used to that in 50 overs. We have missed Kirby's slow ball this year and possibly the inability to bowl two effective spinners. Myburgh was used very sparingly yesterday.
Have to develop variation, it's something Alf either seems to have forgotten or I no longer able to provide. I've yet to be convinced that Tim can develop it.
I'm not sure that Tim has 'got' the Taunton pitch yet - though he did bowl his first (I think) maiden in a one day game.
Lewis doesn't take pace off the ball enough while Pete did in the mid spell. Too little variation between them all piling in and plonking it back of a length. Batsmen get used to that in 50 overs. We have missed Kirby's slow ball this year and possibly the inability to bowl two effective spinners. Myburgh was used very sparingly yesterday.
Have to develop variation, it's something Alf either seems to have forgotten or I no longer able to provide. I've yet to be convinced that Tim can develop it.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 13:26
Yep, lack of variety in a line-up for white ball cricket is a potential killer.
It's a further reason (apart from anticipated nature of the track) why I should like to see Max in the side, alongside Jack, at the Oval next Wednesday.
It's also why (IF he'd recaptured decent form) I'd have looked at re-introducing Jamie O for at least some of these games, who provides a form of variety by dint of extra pace and bounce. Jamie does appear to have regained some decent form in the seconds and seems to have been listed in the squad for almost all of these 50 over games, but has not been played in any XI thus far.
More widely, if Myburgh is going to be used as sparingly as he has been in terms of limited overs bowling, one wonders whether the club might seek to add an off-spinner of some description to the squad and a left-arm pace bowler of some description over the winter? Obviously there's not a limitless recruitment budget, so such additions might have to be in the form of additions to the academy or players coming on summer contracts for one year a la Josh Davey, James Burke and Cameron Stewart.
It's a further reason (apart from anticipated nature of the track) why I should like to see Max in the side, alongside Jack, at the Oval next Wednesday.
It's also why (IF he'd recaptured decent form) I'd have looked at re-introducing Jamie O for at least some of these games, who provides a form of variety by dint of extra pace and bounce. Jamie does appear to have regained some decent form in the seconds and seems to have been listed in the squad for almost all of these 50 over games, but has not been played in any XI thus far.
More widely, if Myburgh is going to be used as sparingly as he has been in terms of limited overs bowling, one wonders whether the club might seek to add an off-spinner of some description to the squad and a left-arm pace bowler of some description over the winter? Obviously there's not a limitless recruitment budget, so such additions might have to be in the form of additions to the academy or players coming on summer contracts for one year a la Josh Davey, James Burke and Cameron Stewart.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 13:39
If not Jamie then why not Adam Dibble who seems to have been fit, floating about the place but not playing - what was the purpose of his contract if he was not a contender?
Max cannot maintain the threat he has over 10 overs because he does not have a tight 'stock' ball.
Until he has that he is not an effective option in anything but T20 cricket because he will leak runs given 10 overs in a one day game and does not hold the confidence of the management that his batting is strong enough to be used on an occasional basis with less overs.
It's the problem Wes Durston got himself into but he DID have the batting to make a name for himself elsewhere. Max is probably a better spinner but not tight enough for that skill alone to get him in the side when he is required to bowl for any length of time.
Now that is the problem that Mike Munday got himself into and couldn't get himself out of.
Max cannot maintain the threat he has over 10 overs because he does not have a tight 'stock' ball.
Until he has that he is not an effective option in anything but T20 cricket because he will leak runs given 10 overs in a one day game and does not hold the confidence of the management that his batting is strong enough to be used on an occasional basis with less overs.
It's the problem Wes Durston got himself into but he DID have the batting to make a name for himself elsewhere. Max is probably a better spinner but not tight enough for that skill alone to get him in the side when he is required to bowl for any length of time.
Now that is the problem that Mike Munday got himself into and couldn't get himself out of.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 13:45
It's only four overs in T20, but Max *seems* to me to have become much tighter in T20 cricket this season. In (some) previous seasons, he'd bowl a bad ball (or sometimes two) in every T20 over too, or so it seemed to me. Less so, this season, I think?
No idea why Dibble has been ignored. As is the case with TG, when Dibble hits the ball it stays hit.
Re: the variety, I find myself wondering whether we may actually be the only current County side that does not (I think) possess a single left-arm seam/pace option in the whole squad?
No idea why Dibble has been ignored. As is the case with TG, when Dibble hits the ball it stays hit.
Re: the variety, I find myself wondering whether we may actually be the only current County side that does not (I think) possess a single left-arm seam/pace option in the whole squad?
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 14:00
Quote:Railboy
If we go on and win the CC all will be forgiven. If not - and even if we do - a serious enquirey into our one day demise is essential along with the guts to act upon the outcome.
Personally, I couldn't give a badger's nadgers about the one day, limited over, short format stuff IF we go on to win the prize that really counts.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 14:19
Indeed, I suspect there are a fair few members et al who possibly feel the same way.
But there is a club treasurer angle along the lines of what Railboy was suggesting in terms of gates monies for white ball stuff next season. From that angle it's been particularly unfortunate that all of the bad 50 over performances have come at home (!)
But there is a club treasurer angle along the lines of what Railboy was suggesting in terms of gates monies for white ball stuff next season. From that angle it's been particularly unfortunate that all of the bad 50 over performances have come at home (!)
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 14:55
Don't care, personally.
Were I in a position to regularly go and watch cricket in God's Own County, then I'd be there, irrespective of the results. It is possible to enjoy good cricket, even when played by one's opponents, you know!
Were I in a position to regularly go and watch cricket in God's Own County, then I'd be there, irrespective of the results. It is possible to enjoy good cricket, even when played by one's opponents, you know!
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 15:41
My view is that one-sided games (especially of the limited overs variety) tend to be not so much fun. I doubt many will have greatly enjoyed the last two, largely for that reason, more so than because we lost.
Had we had Middx beaten at Lord's by 3:30pm, rather than 5:30pm then that would (presumably) have been an amazing performance from our guys but rather less enjoyable as a spectator than a closer contest, IMO.
Had we had Middx beaten at Lord's by 3:30pm, rather than 5:30pm then that would (presumably) have been an amazing performance from our guys but rather less enjoyable as a spectator than a closer contest, IMO.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Railboy (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 17:07
FE, whilst you, I and many others like us don't care whether we are entertained by our team or the opposition, the club's coffers have been sustained for years by the supporter who comes to chant Somerset LALALA ad naueseum whilst quaffing copious quantities of overpriced lager. we will only ever win that elusive championship when our finances enable us to hold on to the talent we produce and have the clout in the "transfer" market to fill the gaps that our academy from time to time leaves, with the very best quality available. Poor home performance and entertainment will seriously affect our ability to do both.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 17:16
Poor performance in the T20 didn't affect us overly (because the punters you refer to Railboy tend to buy the group tickets) However they won't keep coming back for crud year on year.
The 50' have been well attended to be fair though some have been poor. I doubt anyone could have watched the Kent match and not felt entertained however even if the better entertainment came from the visitors. You don't see many matches like that.
Watching at Taunton is rarely a bad experience.
The 50' have been well attended to be fair though some have been poor. I doubt anyone could have watched the Kent match and not felt entertained however even if the better entertainment came from the visitors. You don't see many matches like that.
Watching at Taunton is rarely a bad experience.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grizzers (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 17:30
Actually enjoyed Glamorgans bowling yesterday. It was a masterclass in how to tie a team down by bowling tightly & efficiently, to well set fields.
Unfortunately, it was rather a contrast to what had gone before.
As for the intimation that it doesn't matter because it's not the Championship, that is surely misguided at best.
Grizzzly
Unfortunately, it was rather a contrast to what had gone before.
As for the intimation that it doesn't matter because it's not the Championship, that is surely misguided at best.
Grizzzly
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 18:07
It all matters Grizzz
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 19:29
Financially, we are currently more than able to compete (to judge by what we are always told about our wage bill).
But I certainly take the point that previous one-day success has helped to really bolster our coffers and that there is no guarantee, whatsoever, that people will keep coming back if results and/or the quality of the cricket are not to people's liking.
p.s. I don't think anyone is seriously saying, Railboy, that they don't care whether they are entertained when they go to watch cricket at Taunton? Some may be more or less bothered about whether or not we win or whether or not there are exceptional individual performances, but I'm sure all of us prefer an entertaining match to the alternative.
If it had been watching Glamorgan bowl, I may have admired their performance, but I would not have "enjoyed," it given that it was apparently in stark contrast to our bowling and that we didn't really have an answer to it with the bat. Now, if Glamorgan had bowled with great discipline and intelligence AND we'd produced a strong reply with the bat in response, then that would certainly have been enjoyable for me.
But I certainly take the point that previous one-day success has helped to really bolster our coffers and that there is no guarantee, whatsoever, that people will keep coming back if results and/or the quality of the cricket are not to people's liking.
p.s. I don't think anyone is seriously saying, Railboy, that they don't care whether they are entertained when they go to watch cricket at Taunton? Some may be more or less bothered about whether or not we win or whether or not there are exceptional individual performances, but I'm sure all of us prefer an entertaining match to the alternative.
If it had been watching Glamorgan bowl, I may have admired their performance, but I would not have "enjoyed," it given that it was apparently in stark contrast to our bowling and that we didn't really have an answer to it with the bat. Now, if Glamorgan had bowled with great discipline and intelligence AND we'd produced a strong reply with the bat in response, then that would certainly have been enjoyable for me.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 20:13
I didn't say it didn't matter.
Simply that I don't really, in my heart of hearts, care about it, in the way that i truly yearn for us to win the pennant.
Simply that I don't really, in my heart of hearts, care about it, in the way that i truly yearn for us to win the pennant.
Re: Leaky Tuesday - Glamorgan 50 over
Posted by: Botham (IP Logged)
Date: 13/08/2014 21:25
Reading from afar and seeing the odd bit of us on tv, I don't think much has changed for years. I think we still rely on MT to get us off to a solid start and if he fails then heads drop.
I don't think he should be playing in one day stuff and maybe LG should be captain of this team?
We are so intransigent in the field and quite what the current management do to improve our lot, I really have no idea.
However, the club have always been good at marketing and come the round of agm's they'll have something to whet the appetites of the thousands of loyal fans, who will always renew.
The Friday night T20 will always be popular, so the few floating fans like me are fairly irrelevant.
I don't think he should be playing in one day stuff and maybe LG should be captain of this team?
We are so intransigent in the field and quite what the current management do to improve our lot, I really have no idea.
However, the club have always been good at marketing and come the round of agm's they'll have something to whet the appetites of the thousands of loyal fans, who will always renew.
The Friday night T20 will always be popular, so the few floating fans like me are fairly irrelevant.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.