|
|
Post by jonboy on Jun 5, 2014 10:02:11 GMT
Yes let's hope so. Batting wise, we've done OK in this match, although, apart from Joyce, none of our batter seem capable of any consistency. You do feel though, that they have the ability to post big scores. Just one of them finding some consistency, alongside Joyce, should give us the platform we need. Most of the others are capable of the odd cameo. It's the bowling that concerns me, with only Magoffin, in the absence of Jordan, offering any real threat. It's hard to see what we can do about that, other than give the youngsters a go. As others have said, it would be better if we were able to introduce the youngsters into a successful team. Certainly I'd look to always play at least one of the younger guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonfilby on Jun 5, 2014 14:34:19 GMT
Parsons you're such a 'company man' it's laughable. Most your responses sound like a Mother defending her son, or a politician's whipping boy slurping at his master's knees. This is an unofficial board, SCCC made sure of that, maybe you should try saying unofficial things. Although I see in your hast to defend your masters you dropped the groundsman in it - so what's with the s**t negative track? Is it in the spirit of the game to produce a pitch where a half competent side can't get bowled out? Well done Nash and Wells, even if it was a piece of p**s. Nice one Fraudster.
Of course this message board would be much more entertaining if the Vice Chairman of the club came on slagging off the Manager, the Captain, the Groundsman, the ECB, Giles Clarke, some of the players, the Chairman and the Chief Executive.
As far as pitches are concerned - you know the one-eyed answer yourself - producing pitches is not an exact science and with the very unseasonal weather this year producing pitches to a prescription is a next to impossible job.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonfilby on Jun 5, 2014 14:40:12 GMT
And interesting stats from this match, which showed day two as by far the best day to bowl on: DAY ONE 408 runs 5 wkts DAY TWO 314 runs 13 wkts DAY THREE 450 runs 6 wkts DAY FOUR 169 runs 2 wkts (56 overs only) So 619-8 on the last two days with many of the 8 being given away by run chasing Notts batsmen nearing a declaration.
I know you don't agree but in my view this is clear evidence for the "insert the opposition" case.
Thank you for supporting my unfounded assertions with such clearly set out analysis.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2014 15:54:01 GMT
But I do agree with inserting the opposition if we have a weak bowling attack missing Jordan and Panesar (or adequate replacement) and lack the resources to take 20 wkts. Did you not read what I wrote at the end of day one? It went as follows:
"The attraction in winning the toss and bowling first on a good surface is that if you have a weakened attack and are not confident of taking 20 wkts against a mighty batting line-up such as Notts, then inserting the opposition may well be your only chance of winning, via a second innings declaration and then chasing a fourth day target. Providing you can avoid the follow-on, of course!"
We nearly blew it when we still needed 88 runs to save the follow-on with only two wkts left. But fortunately Joyce did his now obligatory Horatio at the bridge act.
With Sussex's under-powered bowling attack the only chance of a win was to field first,hope to save the follow-on and then look for a Notts declaration in the second innings. Which isn't particularly bold or adventurous but is what happened, more or less exactly as set out in the post above - which was not made with the benefit of hindsight but was posted when the Notts first innings score was 408-5.
ps: it might have worked v Somerset last month, too. But unfortunately on that occasion Joyce was out for six, so we failed to save the follow-on and lost by an innings!
|
|
|
|
Post by jonfilby on Jun 5, 2014 20:36:34 GMT
Very good BM but I don't at all agree that the decision has anything to do with the perceived strength of our bowling attack.
Your stats and my hunch demonstrate that the earlier you get to bowl in a match on that type of Hove pitch the more chance you have of taking wickets. The decision hinges only on accurately assessing the pitch and has nothing to do with the strength or weakness of the attack. If CJ, Glenn McGrath and SF Barnes had been in the Sussex attack the correct decision would still have been to bowl.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2014 21:30:53 GMT
Very good BM but I don't at all agree that the decision has anything to do with the perceived strength of our bowling attack. Your stats and my hunch demonstrate that the earlier you get to bowl in a match on that type of Hove pitch the more chance you have of taking wickets. The decision hinges only on accurately assessing the pitch and has nothing to do with the strength or weakness of the attack. If CJ, Glenn McGrath and SF Barnes had been in the Sussex attack the correct decision would still have been to bowl. Well it was you who said we had two bowlers whom the coach and captain fully expected to go at 4.5 + runs per over, Jon! Surely if we had CJ, McGrath and Barnes (and could we have Mushy,too, please?), on a good wicket we'd bat first , look to score 450 and back a class attack to bowl out the opposition for 300 and enforce the follow-on. Or at the very least the captain of such an attack would have that option, which wasn't avaliable to Joyce with the weakened attack he had at his command. Talk of "the correct decision" regardless of the team's make-up is too dogmatic and inflexible (indeed, you said at the close of day one that "Ed thought that might be the best time to bowl. Its not rocket science but it is the explanation for the decision", which suggested he was backing a hunch and it was not something that could be asserted with any certainty). But with Jordan absent and the failure to replace Panesar, I promise not to complain if we bowl first every match for the rest of the season and rely on generous declarations from the opposition to set us achievable targets on the last day. It's surely our best chance of staying up with our limited bowling resources. A declaration or two like the generous gift Leics set Glos today would do very nicely! |
|
|
|
Post by mrsdoyle on Jun 6, 2014 10:58:46 GMT
Very good BM but I don't at all agree that the decision has anything to do with the perceived strength of our bowling attack. Your stats and my hunch demonstrate that the earlier you get to bowl in a match on that type of Hove pitch the more chance you have of taking wickets. The decision hinges only on accurately assessing the pitch and has nothing to do with the strength or weakness of the attack. If CJ, Glenn McGrath and SF Barnes had been in the Sussex attack the correct decision would still have been to bowl. If the first day was the best for bowling something went awry! |
|
|
|
Post by jonfilby on Jun 12, 2014 14:40:25 GMT
Very good BM but I don't at all agree that the decision has anything to do with the perceived strength of our bowling attack. Your stats and my hunch demonstrate that the earlier you get to bowl in a match on that type of Hove pitch the more chance you have of taking wickets. The decision hinges only on accurately assessing the pitch and has nothing to do with the strength or weakness of the attack. If CJ, Glenn McGrath and SF Barnes had been in the Sussex attack the correct decision would still have been to bowl. If the first day was the best for bowling something went awry! Correct. |
|
