jimbon
2nd XI player
Posts: 128 
|
Post by jimbon on Sept 5, 2015 7:48:57 GMT
Whilst fully enjoying a fine Sussex performance and witnessing a great display by Luke with fantastic costarring roles from Ben Brown, Chris Nash and Chris Jordan I also feel that I was privledged to see a first from someone who looks to me to be a star in the making. Namely the first first-class hundred from Joe Clarke. For one so young he looked the business in both innings despite all those around him losing their heads (or should I say wickets). He never really appeared in any trouble, even in the first innings when CJ was on a different planet. First look from me and I think England may well have a second Root in their future build.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Sept 5, 2015 8:27:38 GMT
Whilst fully enjoying a fine Sussex performance and witnessing a great display by Luke with fantastic costarring roles from Ben Brown, Chris Nash and Chris Jordan I also feel that I was privledged to see a first from someone who looks to me to be a star in the making. Namely the first first-class hundred from Joe Clarke. For one so young he looked the business in both innings despite all those around him losing their heads (or should I say wickets). He never really appeared in any trouble, even in the first innings when CJ was on a different planet. First look from me and I think England may well have a second Root in their future build. Yes I would agree, he looked to be a major talent in the making. Shropshire has been a happy hunting ground for Worcestershire in recent times. A focused, and thoroughly professional performance from Sussex though, building on the improved performance against Yorkshire. |
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Sept 5, 2015 8:30:43 GMT
You still got it Stonewall. JB, don't underestimate the effect a fifth bowler has on the existing strike bowlers, even if he isn't taking wickets. He does need to be bowling though, and preferably tightly. If your best is over bowled he won't be best for long. I can't see how anyone can logically consider a switch back to the other balance after this and so many dismal losses prior to it - to put it politely. Well we might not need to if Mags gets his passport We won't need to anyway. How much of the 3/4 man attack has worked for you? I can put it at about zero per cent because our multitude of batsmen in this time have floundered too. It's very negative to react to not having a genuine all-rounder by sticking an extra batsman in, especially when your keeper is averaging 47 and you have bowlers who can bat like Jordan, Robinson, Zaidi and Beer - and hopefully Shahzad too. A negative trait which has got us into this mess in the first place and at last, we've tried one of the exit routes - or to speak normally, another route. Long may it continue, regardless of who we can select.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Sept 5, 2015 8:50:28 GMT
It probably is safety first, yes, but it's also pragmatic. If you are not confident that your 5th bowler will offer you that much, then it makes sense to bolster the batting. I like five bowlers, but our bowling resources have been so stretched that we've usually only been able to field two who look like taking wickets. The recent improved performances, against Yorkshire, and now Worcestershire, are a result of the batting at last deciding to turn up, and the return of Jordan to the attack
|
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Sept 5, 2015 9:13:23 GMT
Or on the flip side JB our batters being handed a vote of confidence and our strike bowlers having a reduced workload. There's no logic behind 'our batters finally turning up' but there is logic behind forcing them to carry the can by not over loading the line-up with batters. The proof's in the pudding, albeit against Worcs. Why go back to the old balance of consistent failure after this resounding victory?
As for the bowlers, as long as your fifth bowler can be trusted to bowl economically and occasionally chip in with wickets, you will automatically have better strike bowlers to do the damage. I think you are seriously underestimating the potency, or lack of it, of Mags, Jordan and Robinson in a measly four man attack. They're having to do too much in a four man attack, reducing the benefit of them in the process. It's alright if you have a Mushy, or an attack of McGrath, Gillespie, Lee and Warne but who has.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Sept 5, 2015 10:33:25 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2015 10:39:52 GMT
Interesting that Nash says "we knew we would have to work hard on a flat wicket". Others (including some who I think were at New Road?) reckoned the wicket was a beast offering uneven bounce and that 100 would be a difficult target if we had needed a fourth innings? |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Sept 5, 2015 11:06:41 GMT
Interesting that Nash says "we knew we would have to work hard on a flat wicket". Others (including some who I think were at New Road?) reckoned the wicket was a beast offering uneven bounce and that 100 would be a difficult target if we had needed a fourth innings? Rubbish it was pretty flat although I thought both sides were evenly matched as far as bat and ball were concerned. The marked difference was in the fielding department. They dropped five very easy chances including Wright three times. We would have chased down 100 easily. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2015 11:38:18 GMT
Interesting that Nash says "we knew we would have to work hard on a flat wicket". Others (including some who I think were at New Road?) reckoned the wicket was a beast offering uneven bounce and that 100 would be a difficult target if we had needed a fourth innings? Rubbish it was pretty flat although I thought both sides were evenly matched as far as bat and ball were concerned. The marked difference was in the fielding department. They dropped five very easy chances including Wright three times. We would have chased down 100 easily. Indeed. But when I said at the end of day two that it was hard to see how Sussex could lose from such a commanding position, someone who was at the match accused me of goatmouthing and wrote this: "This is a tricky pitch to bat on. The ball sometimes seems to stick in the surface and sometimes shoots through low. On the first day Sussex posted a field with a silly mid-on, a silly mid-off and a short extra cover. You don't do that when the ball is coming nicely onto the bat. By the end of tomorrow it could be very difficult indeed. Even chasing a target of 100 in the fourth innings will be tough." Someone else reported that "David Hopps in his cricinfo review says the pitch has been twice used this season already, and a player has described it as being like carpet tiles." |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Sept 5, 2015 11:48:55 GMT
Rubbish it was pretty flat although I thought both sides were evenly matched as far as bat and ball were concerned. The marked difference was in the fielding department. They dropped five very easy chances including Wright three times. We would have chased down 100 easily. Indeed. But when I said at the end of day two that it was hard to see how Sussex could lose from such a commanding position, someone who was at the match accused me of goatmouthing and wrote this: "This is a tricky pitch to bat on. The ball sometimes seems to stick in the surface and sometimes shoots through low. On the first day Sussex posted a field with a silly mid-on, a silly mid-off and a short extra cover. You don't do that when the ball is coming nicely onto the bat. By the end of tomorrow it could be very difficult indeed. Even chasing a target of 100 in the fourth innings will be tough." Someone else reported that "David Hopps in his cricinfo review says the pitch has been twice used this season already, and a player has described it as being like carpet tiles." From the very excellent WCC Fans Forum "..I thought that yesterday we looked as flat in the field as the pitch itself. We looked as though we believed that we were already down, had given up, and there was little inspiration to be seen. As I stated in an earlier post, I wanted to see a green, hard, fast pitch and 4 seamers, as I felt that was our best chance in a must win game. I got neither ! Why we are again using the same old T20 pitch, which has been flogged to exhaustion this season is beyond me. It has got lower and slower and flatter as the season has gone on. We barely beat the bat all day...." That was after the second day's play. Other local posters seem to be saying the same things, especially about the tiredness of the Worcs seamers after a long season in which 3 had bowled 80% of the overs. Sounds familiar. The David Hopps quote was after the first day's play, but it sounds as if the showers just pulled the plates together and made the pitch more turgid. |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Sept 5, 2015 11:58:34 GMT
Rubbish it was pretty flat although I thought both sides were evenly matched as far as bat and ball were concerned. The marked difference was in the fielding department. They dropped five very easy chances including Wright three times. We would have chased down 100 easily. Indeed. But when I said at the end of day two that it was hard to see how Sussex could lose from such a commanding position, someone who was at the match accused me of goatmouthing and wrote this: "This is a tricky pitch to bat on. The ball sometimes seems to stick in the surface and sometimes shoots through low. On the first day Sussex posted a field with a silly mid-on, a silly mid-off and a short extra cover. You don't do that when the ball is coming nicely onto the bat. By the end of tomorrow it could be very difficult indeed. Even chasing a target of 100 in the fourth innings will be tough." Someone else reported that "David Hopps in his cricinfo review says the pitch has been twice used this season already, and a player has described it as being like carpet tiles." I was concerned about going on past 400 and then running out of time because of the rain or more likely light, which had already curtailed the previous three days play and which left us very little margin for error. However, it all turned out ok. Although it was flat I didn't think they would score more than 300 second time round. With the exception of Clarke none of them showed the appetite for the fight. It has been a long season for Leach, Morris and Shantry and they are starting to feel the effects of these. Mitchell dropped a dolly, let's hope he doesn't do the same to his new born baby girl Ava, and Gidman also dropped two in the slips. Wells and Yardy were also dropped. Machan was one of the few batsmen to get caught in front of the wicket. He was left to kick himself all the way back to the pavilion. The only difference between the two teams was the fielding. Theirs was abysmal. |
|
