|
|
Post by coverpoint on Apr 14, 2015 17:14:12 GMT
What person on this planet bats again with opposition over 200 behind and on the ropes? Really negative captaincy by Joyce who should have gone for the kill.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2015 18:05:56 GMT
Really don't undestand why we let them back into the match. I still expect Sussex to win tomorrow but Hants must have a decent 20 per cent chance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Apr 14, 2015 18:10:00 GMT
Hampshire require 197 runs to win with 6 wickets in tact. Those two late wickets from Shahzad swinging the pendulum back in
Sussex's favour but we should never have ended up in this position.
Sometimes the contentious decisions go your way and other times they don't. C'est la vie.
|
|
|
|
Post by joe on Apr 14, 2015 18:16:48 GMT
Adrian Harms has just tweeted that Chris Nash has a hamstring tear, Robbo not sure how long he'll be out.
|
|
|
|
Post by howardh on Apr 14, 2015 18:19:30 GMT
Not wishing to be churlish in any way, but shouldn't we have a little faith in the skipper's ability to read a situation?
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Apr 14, 2015 18:32:39 GMT
Joe,
awful news, poor Chris, not a repeat surely of last season. An injury jinx has befallen
Sussex?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2015 19:05:37 GMT
Not wishing to be churlish in any way, but shouldn't we have a little faith in the skipper's ability to read a situation? Yes. Very decent off him to set up a tense final day, when the match might have already been over tonight. Good to see captains recognising their duty to entertain the spectators!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2015 19:31:25 GMT
At the risk of being unforgivably churlish again, something needs to be done about the extras. 33 conceded in just 39 overs in the Hants second innings. By contrast, Hants conceded only 15 extras in 143 overs in the Sussex first innings, and 11 - all leg-byes - in our second.
Match tally for byes, no balls and wides: Sussex 47 in 89 overs. Hants 9 in 196 overs.
Such margins are often the difference between victory and defeat and I'm sure the Sussex coaching staff will be acutely aware of this and taking appropriate measures to minimise the free gifts.
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Apr 14, 2015 19:45:48 GMT
To hell with all of your churls and non-churls. Joyce/Robinson made a poor decision and our investment in very quick bowlers who haven't yet learned discipline has hampered our ability to control the opposition once we had given them the chance to respond. It is not too late for the bowlers to think more closely about what they have to do - they have 200 runs to work with - and I hope it isn't too late for the captaincy/coaching axis to stop making premeditated decisions based on theory rather than evaluating the match as it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by pompeymeowth on Apr 14, 2015 20:20:53 GMT
I was there today, if we don't put a side back in, in that situation I doubt if we ever will. Some lazy shots were played, Yards looked like he was in the fifth dimension on his way out to the middle, Nash was unlucky to be given out it was going over for me. Brown played a silly top edge, only Luke can hold his head up after that performance. I left after watching Mills remove Adams, he is FAST!
|
|
|
|
Post by howardh on Apr 14, 2015 20:36:30 GMT
Agreed, Borderman - too many extras.
The decision not to enforce the follow-on will only be ridiculed if we lose. The possibility remains. If we win - even by one run - it will have been vindicated. The choice of hats for eating (even by me!) will be most interesting if we fail to take the six remaining wickets.
PS Good to see Stuart Whittingham claim some notable scalps at Canterbury today, even though it was a dead game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2015 20:38:56 GMT
I was there today, if we don't put a side back in, in that situation I doubt if we ever will. Some lazy shots were played, Yards looked like he was in the fifth dimension on his way out to the middle, Nash was unlucky to be given out it was going over for me. Brown played a silly top edge, only Luke can hold his head up after that performance. I left after watching Mills remove Adams, he is FAST! Was the feeling among the Hants members/supporters around you one of relief that the follow-on was not enforced and that they had been handed the only get-out-of-jail card in the pack?
Because I agree with you: if Joyce doesn't put the opposition back in after an innings that has been done and dusted in just 50 overs and the bowlers have had the bonus of an overnight rest, then the 150 run follow-on margin might as well not exist, because Sussex will always opt to bat again. |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Apr 15, 2015 0:06:29 GMT
Sussex cricket manager Mark Robinson said: ``We decided against the follow-on as the wicket was wearing and quite a bit of rough was beginning to appear. There was a thought it was going to get more up and down as it wore on. You are looking to bat them out the game but unfortunately what we ended up doing was give them some hope."
But we don't have a spinner! Bat them out of the game? That's sounds a rather negative view! Shouldn't we be trying to actually win the match?
As for the byes perhaps someone could tell Mills to bowl at the stumps!
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Apr 15, 2015 9:18:56 GMT
The cliche of cliches but the first hour may well define today's result. A couple of quick wickets and Sussex are in the driver's
seat but a strong Hampshire partnership and it really could be "squeaky bum" time.
|
|
|
|
Post by pompeymeowth on Apr 15, 2015 9:37:52 GMT
I was there today, if we don't put a side back in, in that situation I doubt if we ever will. Some lazy shots were played, Yards looked like he was in the fifth dimension on his way out to the middle, Nash was unlucky to be given out it was going over for me. Brown played a silly top edge, only Luke can hold his head up after that performance. I left after watching Mills remove Adams, he is FAST! Was the feeling among the Hants members/supporters around you one of relief that the follow-on was not enforced and that they had been handed the only get-out-of-jail card in the pack?
Because I agree with you: if Joyce doesn't put the opposition back in after an innings that has been done and dusted in just 50 overs and the bowlers have had the bonus of an overnight rest, then the 150 run follow-on margin might as well not exist, because Sussex will always opt to bat again. I got there just as Sussex came out to bat, I sat in the you know who stand (I still can't believe they named a stand after him) near the members area. There was a lot of talk about Sussex batting again, most seemed to think Sussex had made the wrong decision. If we do win I would say it's a match that could be used as an ideal case scenario on "How not to win a cricket match". I don't think that a win will fully vindicate the decision not to put them back in, as the confidence among the Hants players must have been boosted immensely the moment Joyce (or whoever) let them off the hook. Imagine the players grouped together, awaiting Adams and Carberry at the wicket, Magoffin ball in hand tossing it menacingly, Mills rubbing his hands together, cracking his knuckles, we had a chance to really intimidate them into submission and we wasted it completely. |
|
