|
|
Post by hhsussex on Apr 14, 2015 11:16:03 GMT
244 - 2 effectively is not the worst position to be in!! Still plenty of time to put them under serious pressure and the weather is set to stay good. Let's hope so anyway. It isn't indeed, but it does conceal a real weakness in our early-order batting, particularly in opening. In their 49 innings together since the beginning of 2013 Nash and Wells average only 34 for the opening stand. There have been 4 100 partnerships and 6 over 50 - but that means that over 70% of the time we fail to get an adequate start. Add to that a weakness at first wicket down and it does put a lot of pressure on the middle and lower order to give us reasonable scores to bowl at. This match ought to go well for us, and of course everyone is adjusting to anew season, moist wickets and the unfamiliar tropical sun of April! Nevertheless, its something we need to address quickly before we come up against the likes of Warwicks and Yorkshire. |
|
Steve
2nd XI player
Posts: 55
|
Post by Steve on Apr 14, 2015 11:20:00 GMT
Very good post, I don't think Luke is consistent enough yet and personally I'd prefer Ed at 3 but I'm sure / hope I'll be proved wrong over the season.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2015 11:22:10 GMT
I do hope you lot aren't being churlish!  Notts, Yorks, Durham and Sussex all in strong positions to win their opening matches. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2015 11:25:01 GMT
But forgive me for wishing it was Hants and not Sussex who were 47-3 in their second innings...
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Apr 14, 2015 11:34:04 GMT
But forgive me for wishing it was Hants and not Sussex who were 47-3 in their second innings... Agreed. We ought to end up winning this match, but at 51-3, Ed's decision has allowed the momentum to shift unnecessarily. Do we think Hants would have preferred to follow on? I doubt it. |
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Apr 14, 2015 11:36:42 GMT
A bizarre decision once again
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Apr 14, 2015 11:47:56 GMT
55 for 4! At this rate, we'll be giving Hants plenty of time to knock off the runs . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Apr 14, 2015 12:57:40 GMT
71-5! Now we need a repeat performance from Ben and Luke.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Apr 14, 2015 12:59:41 GMT
Ben gone - 71 for 6
Is this all part of Ed's cunning plan?
|
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Apr 14, 2015 13:10:33 GMT
Dear oh dear, this is beginning to look like one of the skippers gaffs
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Apr 14, 2015 13:24:38 GMT
Dear oh dear, this is beginning to look like one of the skippers gaffs This business of not enforcing the follow-on is one of the stupidest pieces of recent tactical thinking. It started in Test cricket as one of Vaughan's ploys to disconcert the opposition, spread quickly until it became an article of faith for unthinking and defensive captains ("Mustn't tire out the bowlers too much, give them a bit of a breather"), then took over county cricket thinking for batsmen and coaches alike. The follow-on is a way of enforcing psychological dominance and in so doing ensure a win. A team facing a 200+ deficit and knowing they have only one innings - 10 wickets to fall - to turn that into a winning lead are likely to be nervous and unconfident, and will either go into their shell to the extent that they dry up and then lose wickets, or aim to hit their way out of trouble, and risk losing wickets. Unless there is a very dramatic change in the nature of the wicket from the first innings capsize to the 3rd innings and beyond there is no reason not to make a team follow on if the runs are there. The converse of this is what is happening now: giving your opponents the chance to hit back at you by taking wickets, spreading unease and hoping to bat long in the 4th innings themselves to make up the deficit. I sincerely hope that Sussex have enough of a lead (316 as I'm writing this) and that the pitch remains lively enough for our new pace attack to make all of this irrelevant, but it is a very dangerous game to play, particularly at the start of the season and against what is, potentially, one of the weaker teams. |
|
Steve
2nd XI player
Posts: 55
|
Post by Steve on Apr 14, 2015 14:38:03 GMT
Doesn't give the bowlers a rest if they have to rescue the batting!!! (only a joke but in some instances actually quite relavent)
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Apr 14, 2015 14:54:58 GMT
Briggs has come away with some good match figures, 7-101, on a seam-bowlers pitch. Some of them were tailenders, but every wicket has to be bowled for. Perhaps this is the year his spin bowling will finally come good in the first-class game.
Otherwise - thank goodness for Luke Wright, Part 25. 378 is a formidable target at any time, but to get our championship off to a good start we must win this, and comfortably. Yorkshire and Durham both seem to be on their way to convincing wins, and the Notts v Middlesex game seems to be edging to Notts.
|
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Apr 14, 2015 16:06:52 GMT
Being critical now though is fine - what the hell are we doing? We had to inforce the follow on, had to. They only bowled 50 overs, and had a night's kip.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Apr 14, 2015 17:12:41 GMT
Been away today without any access to cricket news. Oh dear, Steve Hollis mooted Sussex wouldn't force the follow-on in a
tweet last night. At least danger man Carberry has just gone which means Hants require 228 runs to win with 8 wickets still
in place.
Talk about a topsy-turvy match.
As Ferguson would say, we're in for a "squeaky bum" ride tomorrow. Once more we rely on our seamers to get us out of this
self-imposed hole.
|
|
