|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jul 23, 2022 11:11:32 GMT
Karvelas playing nicely. You lot should sign him
and Currie at the end of the season.
Both were impressive on debut.
The question to ask: Will Crocombe or Atkins, for
example, be taking six wickets or striking a 50 this
season, when not injured?
If the answer is unlikely, I would sign both Karvelas
and Currie.
|
|
|
|
Post by joe on Jul 23, 2022 11:28:09 GMT
You can’t make a knee jerk decision. They had a good game but they’ve been playing for the 2’s and haven’t had those numbers before. They need at least another couple of games to ensure they’re not one hit wonders.
|
|
|
|
Post by devonexile on Jul 23, 2022 12:19:36 GMT
You can’t make a knee jerk decision. They had a good game but they’ve been playing for the 2’s and haven’t had those numbers before. They need at least another couple of games to ensure they’re not one hit wonders. Absolutely, they were both impressive, but let's extend their trial period to the end of the season and see if they produce consistently. Our bowling attack is mediocre and the bar is set pretty low. We need to ensure any signings we make in this area are quality, whether they are overseas, domestic or unearthed hidden gems. Even the co-commentator on the live stream (who I think was Fraser (I may be wrong)) described our current side as 'weak'. It speaks volumes if that is the perception on the County circuit. Yes, we have injuries, but those concerned were either never going to be that available if not injured, have formed part of the teams over the last two seasons that we have fielded and have failed in twenty one games to get twenty wickets or have been missing for far too many games (the one exception being Hudson-Prentice). Just one question. Does anyone know the status of Karvelas? Does he qualify as a domestic player or count as overseas? If the latter, then sorry, we have to use that spot more efficiently. |
|
|
|
Post by wiseman on Jul 23, 2022 16:52:30 GMT
Joe Hudson Prentice apart I have been thinking the same re the injured players my view is they have youth on there side and that's it,I would have expirienced and and older by 3 years otherwise Sussex are not getting any better in the standings .kervalas and Currie they have something about them Currie can get some late swing ,kervalas bowls true fast wicket to wicket and need persevering with at 1st team level and would add hunt to the bowling as seamer wise he's a lot fitter and faster bowling wise ,he looks to me the most likely of Garton,crocombe and him able to effect games.that just my take Joe.
|
|
|
|
Post by ashingtonmartlet on Jul 23, 2022 20:47:14 GMT
It’s a very good point. Keep reading from the club (and their apologists) that we have x number of bowlers out, but the reality is that if Archer and Robinson were fit they’d either be playing for England or at the very least, in the England set up and so prevented from playing.
|
|
|
|
Post by therealab1 on Jul 24, 2022 6:49:27 GMT
It’s a very good point. Keep reading from the club (and their apologists) that we have x number of bowlers out, but the reality is that if Archer and Robinson were fit they’d either be playing for England or at the very least, in the England set up and so prevented from playing. Robinson wouldn't be anywhere near the white ball side so would have been available for the last 2 championship matches. |
|
|
|
Post by sussexman on Jul 24, 2022 8:14:56 GMT
If Robinson had been fit and played the four test matches as expected, he would have been rested for the recent CC games, as I believe Anderson and Broad have been
|
|
|
|
Post by devonexile on Jul 24, 2022 9:36:52 GMT
If Robinson had been fit and played the four test matches as expected, he would have been rested for the recent CC games, as I believe Anderson and Broad have been Absolutely and totally 100% correct Sussexman. Putting aside the fact he is currently on an ECB contract and Sussex have to get clearance for him to play anyway, if he had been fit at the start of the season at best we would have had him for a couple of games as you quite rightly point out he would have been in and around the England set up. Archer even less so, given his long standing injury issues. Sussex should have planned without them both and made suitable provision. Garton has played in only four of our last twenty one Championship matches, so the warning signs around his availability were already flashing and have been ongoing for sometime. Signing a 33 year old, who played little first class cricket in the previous season with a history of injuries is always a bit of a gamble and at best if he remains relatively fit it is likely he will need to be rested at certain points of the season. Carson was unfortunate, but again given his knee problem it was always known he would miss as a minimum the first chunk of championship matches. The other niggles and short term absences are an inevitable consequence of having young developing seam bowlers adapting to the rigours of four day cricket. Hudson-Prentice as previously stated is the one I accept was unforeseen and unfortunate and has been a big miss as he would have added balance to the lower middle-order. In short, in my humble opinion the injury card has been over played and the inadequacies of our bowling attack should have been addressed earlier in the season. However, before therealab1 mounts his latest attempt to win favour with the Sussex hierarchy and defend the indefensible, I also accept they had a real dilemma when planning for 2022. Our batting had been fragile for the past two to three seasons with far too many woeful collapses and understandably they felt the priority was to strengthen in this area resulting in the signings of Pujara and Rizwan. But again, once it became clear that our young batters had developed faster than expected and beyond just Haines as a group and that our bowling unit was below par this could have been addressed with Liquid's long requested overseas seamer. I refuse to believe noone was available, we didn't seem to have difficulties finding suitable T20 recruits. That is also putting aside the previously stated abysmal handling of the Brown situation who should have been forced to see out the last year of contract, thereby negating the need to sign Rizwan for the Championship. This would not have blocked Carter's development as Brown would have played as a batter only as he did at the end of last season and allowed the second overseas spot to be opened up for a bowler. Yes, therealab1 hindsight is a wonderful thing, but some real missed opportunities this season, which would probably not have got us promoted, but would have likely hastened our development, secured a mid table finish and seen us better placed for next season. Footnote at least we are not quite in Leicestershire's position who capitulated in some serious way yesterday, although worryingly we have failed to beat them twice this season and they took 756 runs off our attack. |
|
|
|
Post by wrightstuff on Jul 24, 2022 10:48:56 GMT
Devon
Re your third from last paragraph.
It's never a good idea to 'force' someone to see out the last year of their contract. If the relationship has broken down, it's broken down. The player will be sullen, resentful, and may well question managements decisions in front of others. Also, if it's obvious he won't be here the following year you are holding up progress. It's counter productive, which is why no county ever does it. Also, it might put others off signing deals if they thought they might be forced to see out the final year when they wanted to be gone.
|
|
|
|
Post by lovelyboy on Jul 24, 2022 10:55:44 GMT
Devon Re your third from last paragraph. It's never a good idea to 'force' someone to see out the last year of their contract. If the relationship has broken down, it's broken down. The player will be sullen, resentful, and may well question managements decisions in front of others. Also, if it's obvious he won't be here the following year you are holding up progress. It's counter productive, which is why no county ever does it. Also, it might put others off signing deals if they thought they might be forced to see out the final year when they wanted to be gone. He actually had two years left on his contract and he should have been made to honour at least one of them What precedent does it set when one of your best players can throw his toys out of the pram and force a move? If Haines and Garton did that this winter would we release them too? |
|
|
|
Post by lovelyboy on Jul 24, 2022 10:56:14 GMT
If Robinson had been fit and played the four test matches as expected, he would have been rested for the recent CC games, as I believe Anderson and Broad have been Absolutely and totally 100% correct Sussexman. Putting aside the fact he is currently on an ECB contract and Sussex have to get clearance for him to play anyway, if he had been fit at the start of the season at best we would have had him for a couple of games as you quite rightly point out he would have been in and around the England set up. Archer even less so, given his long standing injury issues. Sussex should have planned without them both and made suitable provision. Garton has played in only four of our last twenty one Championship matches, so the warning signs around his availability were already flashing and have been ongoing for sometime. Signing a 33 year old, who played little first class cricket in the previous season with a history of injuries is always a bit of a gamble and at best if he remains relatively fit it is likely he will need to be rested at certain points of the season. Carson was unfortunate, but again given his knee problem it was always known he would miss as a minimum the first chunk of championship matches. The other niggles and short term absences are an inevitable consequence of having young developing seam bowlers adapting to the rigours of four day cricket. Hudson-Prentice as previously stated is the one I accept was unforeseen and unfortunate and has been a big miss as he would have added balance to the lower middle-order. In short, in my humble opinion the injury card has been over played and the inadequacies of our bowling attack should have been addressed earlier in the season. However, before therealab1 mounts his latest attempt to win favour with the Sussex hierarchy and defend the indefensible, I also accept they had a real dilemma when planning for 2022. Our batting had been fragile for the past two to three seasons with far too many woeful collapses and understandably they felt the priority was to strengthen in this area resulting in the signings of Pujara and Rizwan. But again, once it became clear that our young batters had developed faster than expected and beyond just Haines as a group and that our bowling unit was below par this could have been addressed with Liquid's long requested overseas seamer. I refuse to believe noone was available, we didn't seem to have difficulties finding suitable T20 recruits. That is also putting aside the previously stated abysmal handling of the Brown situation who should have been forced to see out the last year of contract, thereby negating the need to sign Rizwan for the Championship. This would not have blocked Carter's development as Brown would have played as a batter only as he did at the end of last season and allowed the second overseas spot to be opened up for a bowler. Yes, therealab1 hindsight is a wonderful thing, but some real missed opportunities this season, which would probably not have got us promoted, but would have likely hastened our development, secured a mid table finish and seen us better placed for next season. Footnote at least we are not quite in Leicestershire's position who capitulated in some serious way yesterday, although worryingly we have failed to beat them twice this season and they took 756 runs off our attack. Absolutely superb post. |
|
|
|
Post by devonexile on Jul 24, 2022 12:07:45 GMT
Devon Re your third from last paragraph. It's never a good idea to 'force' someone to see out the last year of their contract. If the relationship has broken down, it's broken down. The player will be sullen, resentful, and may well question managements decisions in front of others. Also, if it's obvious he won't be here the following year you are holding up progress. It's counter productive, which is why no county ever does it. Also, it might put others off signing deals if they thought they might be forced to see out the final year when they wanted to be gone. Ordinarily Wrightstuff, I would 100% agree with you. It is very risky and could have serious repercussions to force a player to honour a contract when for whatever reason he/she clearly wants away. Laurie Evans was a prime example. Clearly believed he should have been part of the red ball side, when his strength was white ball and white ball alone. Had his head turned by Surrey and whilst I suspect financially that was beneficial, yet again the move did nothing to progress him as a red ball batter. He was quite correctly immediately sent out on loan ahead of his permanent move. Now in absolutely no way wanting to be disparaging to Laurie Evans who may well be an entirely upstanding person with exceptional moral values, rightly or wrongly at the time I thought Sussex weighed up the loss of an integral part of our white ball side against the potential for disharmony in the dressing room and as stated above, in my humble view correctly sanctioned an immediate departure. In terms of Brown, I honestly believe he was an exception to the rule. Yes, he was upset, understandably so given his poor treatment. But he continued playing and performing (possibly our best batter towards the end of last season) as opposed to throwing his toys out of the pram and becoming 'unavailable' for selection. Not only would he not have wanted to harm the prospects of any future move to another county, more importantly he had an affinity to the club and a bond with his team mates and supporters. I genuinely believe he would have continued to perform and he could then have gone at the end of this season. As for his retention holding up progress, his departure caused two issues. The recruitment of a overseas wicket keeper batter as opposed to much needed reinforcements to our weak bowling unit. Carter not being selected in the earlier matches, where he missed valuable opportunities to gain experience. Not only with the bat, although I suspect we all agree that may not have been too detrimental, but with the gloves. Three dropped catches last game, would that have happened? Possibly, possibly not, but either way those extra games would have provided invaluable experience. So as opposed to Brown's departure holding up development, I would suggest the exact opposite would have occurred for the team, the bowling unit and our young keeper. As I say, ordinarily I would agree wholeheartedly with you, but on this one whilst I may even be in the minority my view is management monumentally got it wrong. As for Ben good luck to him. Really pleased it is working out for him at Hampshire, he can be proud of his time and achievements at Sussex. |
|
|
|
Post by liquidskin on Jul 24, 2022 19:18:10 GMT
Does nobody on here think we should have declared with about 25 to go and a lead of 200 or so? I agree with you. However, there must be clear plans and the backing of individuals by management. It seemed that it was a "must not lose" approach. But we also need to learn how to win and how to cope with pressure. That will make us a better team in 3 years time. Maybe the management have decided that it is best for the youngsters minds to draw than try to win. Yeah that'd make sense. I ask cos what we got was a dull draw with people like me slating it for being predictable. If we bat first we probably draw, if we bat 2nd we usually lose. There's nothing happening & very little to talk about. But if we'd have declared and asked them to bat out the final 25 overs needing 230 odd at best we'd have won, very unlikely though, and at worst we'd have lost an enthralling game that would go down in memory, for them especially. And even the most likely scenario - them not even trying to get it, could have created some history if they were to miss out on promotion by several points come September. This could have been the game they look back on, the game they were offered a chance. Add to that points mean nothing to us. Nothing when you have no ambition, and the fact that it would have been an innovative positive note to end on - it was a must for me. I was wondering if any of you saw it that way. Seems not. Adams would have done that. And Yardy. Should have give them a tough chance to potentially regret not taking but we do nothing. The mindset is poor, we need a captain and coach who can think. I bet that option wasn't even considered by Salisbury & Pujara. |
|
|
|
Post by therealab1 on Jul 25, 2022 8:48:53 GMT
If Robinson had been fit and played the four test matches as expected, he would have been rested for the recent CC games, as I believe Anderson and Broad have been Absolutely and totally 100% correct Sussexman. Putting aside the fact he is currently on an ECB contract and Sussex have to get clearance for him to play anyway, if he had been fit at the start of the season at best we would have had him for a couple of games as you quite rightly point out he would have been in and around the England set up. Archer even less so, given his long standing injury issues. Sussex should have planned without them both and made suitable provision. Garton has played in only four of our last twenty one Championship matches, so the warning signs around his availability were already flashing and have been ongoing for sometime. Signing a 33 year old, who played little first class cricket in the previous season with a history of injuries is always a bit of a gamble and at best if he remains relatively fit it is likely he will need to be rested at certain points of the season. Carson was unfortunate, but again given his knee problem it was always known he would miss as a minimum the first chunk of championship matches. The other niggles and short term absences are an inevitable consequence of having young developing seam bowlers adapting to the rigours of four day cricket. Hudson-Prentice as previously stated is the one I accept was unforeseen and unfortunate and has been a big miss as he would have added balance to the lower middle-order. In short, in my humble opinion the injury card has been over played and the inadequacies of our bowling attack should have been addressed earlier in the season. However, before therealab1 mounts his latest attempt to win favour with the Sussex hierarchy and defend the indefensible, I also accept they had a real dilemma when planning for 2022. Our batting had been fragile for the past two to three seasons with far too many woeful collapses and understandably they felt the priority was to strengthen in this area resulting in the signings of Pujara and Rizwan. But again, once it became clear that our young batters had developed faster than expected and beyond just Haines as a group and that our bowling unit was below par this could have been addressed with Liquid's long requested overseas seamer. I refuse to believe noone was available, we didn't seem to have difficulties finding suitable T20 recruits. That is also putting aside the previously stated abysmal handling of the Brown situation who should have been forced to see out the last year of contract, thereby negating the need to sign Rizwan for the Championship. This would not have blocked Carter's development as Brown would have played as a batter only as he did at the end of last season and allowed the second overseas spot to be opened up for a bowler. Yes, therealab1 hindsight is a wonderful thing, but some real missed opportunities this season, which would probably not have got us promoted, but would have likely hastened our development, secured a mid table finish and seen us better placed for next season. Footnote at least we are not quite in Leicestershire's position who capitulated in some serious way yesterday, although worryingly we have failed to beat them twice this season and they took 756 runs off our attack. Well when you say defend the indefensible you are trying to shut down the right to debate. I never try to win favour with the heirarchy, i merely support the direction they are trying to take the club in. I would love to have a reasonable debate on the matter but it's impossible when people have a closed opinion. Trying to say I'm wrong for my opinion cannot be right when the situation isnt as simple as wrong or right. It is pleasing to see someone recognise the progress these young batters have made. |
|
|
|
Post by philh on Jul 25, 2022 9:41:14 GMT
I agree with you. However, there must be clear plans and the backing of individuals by management. It seemed that it was a "must not lose" approach. But we also need to learn how to win and how to cope with pressure. That will make us a better team in 3 years time. Maybe the management have decided that it is best for the youngsters minds to draw than try to win. Yeah that'd make sense. I ask cos what we got was a dull draw with people like me slating it for being predictable. If we bat first we probably draw, if we bat 2nd we usually lose. There's nothing happening & very little to talk about. But if we'd have declared and asked them to bat out the final 25 overs needing 230 odd at best we'd have won, very unlikely though, and at worst we'd have lost an enthralling game that would go down in memory, for them especially. And even the most likely scenario - them not even trying to get it, could have created some history if they were to miss out on promotion by several points come September. This could have been the game they look back on, the game they were offered a chance. Add to that points mean nothing to us. Nothing when you have no ambition, and the fact that it would have been an innovative positive note to end on - it was a must for me. I was wondering if any of you saw it that way. Seems not. Adams would have done that. And Yardy. Should have give them a tough chance to potentially regret not taking but we do nothing. The mindset is poor, we need a captain and coach who can think. I bet that option wasn't even considered by Salisbury & Pujara. Just out of interest, liquidskin , what percentage changes would you have put on a) Sussex win b) Middx win c) a draw if Sussex had left Middx to get 230 in 20 overs? Let's put aside that Middx might have batted for 40-0 after 20 overs, but had made a go of it. |
|
