|
|
Post by joe on Apr 19, 2016 18:58:28 GMT
If we can bowl them out for 320 once, we can do it again.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Apr 19, 2016 19:22:35 GMT
Well this game is evenly poised and now we need the bowlers to do the business, if only to justify playing five of them. Still not convinced it's the way forward, and goes against the modern trend, which is for sides to bat right down the order. An interesting observation, of all the counties playing in this current round of matches, the lower order out scored the top order in most games. I think only four sides had a 1-5 that outperformed 6-11, the other eight were rescued by their lower orders. That's the importance of having all rounders in modern cricket
|
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Apr 19, 2016 19:48:07 GMT
Declare over night and avoid the probable outcome of us coming back in during the first three overs of the morning after adding about five runs - be bold, make the statement of intent. It goes a long way.
Alright CP, five bowlers is fine, ideal in fact, but where is the point in using one of them to contain? Containing originates from a four man attack largely during the first innings. Can you not see the waste and negativity?
Anyone who doubts, look at the numbers - overs, wickets, strike rates and so on. Look at the workload, look at Essex's workload, their bowling card today. Look at the overs bowled by the two men who got all nine wickets compared to their team-mates, and this was over two sessions not three.
What is Davis and Brown's thinking behind using a spinner to contain from day one in a five man attack? It is not good. It goes against all the talk of pre season change. It is fearful.
If we don't change the issue at seven get used to folding like a card regularly. We're in a decent enough position mind, despite the gaping cracks. Big day for Briggs tomorrow, hopefully he'll be given a different game plan.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Apr 19, 2016 20:52:21 GMT
Jonboy, I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I'm beginning to to get a vague Impression that you're gradually coming round to the view that we might possibly, just possibly, benefit from having an all rounder in the team. Forgive me if I've misread the signals!  |
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Apr 19, 2016 21:02:08 GMT
Jonboy, I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I'm beginning to to get a vague Impression that you're gradually coming round to the view that we might possibly, just possibly, benefit from having an all rounder in the team. Forgive me if I've misread the signals! Well I'd settle for one, but two would be preferable |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Apr 20, 2016 6:34:41 GMT
A nice tribute to Nash and his impressive over-winter reinvention here www.espncricinfo.com/county-cricket-2016/content/story/1000517.html as well as an accurate description of qualities of pitch and bowling on offer. All set up for a thrilling final day and whatever the arguments for who and what should have been played it is down to those selected to bowl to the best of their abilities and field even better to get that win the club so badly needs. Nice to see a Cook hundred today, perhaps out of a total of about 240...by tea-time. |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Apr 20, 2016 7:34:14 GMT
Declare over night and avoid the probable outcome of us coming back in during the first three overs of the morning after adding about five runs - be bold, make the statement of intent. It goes a long way. Alright CP, five bowlers is fine, ideal in fact, but where is the point in using one of them to contain? Containing originates from a four man attack largely during the first innings. Can you not see the waste and negativity? Anyone who doubts, look at the numbers - overs, wickets, strike rates and so on. Look at the workload, look at Essex's workload, their bowling card today. Look at the overs bowled by the two men who got all nine wickets compared to their team-mates, and this was over two sessions not three. What is Davis and Brown's thinking behind using a spinner to contain from day one in a five man attack? It is not good. It goes against all the talk of pre season change. It is fearful. If we don't change the issue at seven get used to folding like a card regularly. We're in a decent enough position mind, despite the gaping cracks. Big day for Briggs tomorrow, hopefully he'll be given a different game plan. The problem with a four main attack is you end up injuring bowlers through them over bowling. Five bowlers should reduce this. Our big problem in this game wasn't 7-11 but 3-6. Certainly more is needed from Machan, Taylor, Wells and Brown. We needed five bowlers in the first innings and we will need five bowlers to bowl Essex out in the second innings especially as they bat down to 9. |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Apr 20, 2016 7:35:10 GMT
Well this game is evenly poised and now we need the bowlers to do the business, if only to justify playing five of them. Still not convinced it's the way forward, and goes against the modern trend, which is for sides to bat right down the order. An interesting observation, of all the counties playing in this current round of matches, the lower order out scored the top order in most games. I think only four sides had a 1-5 that outperformed 6-11, the other eight were rescued by their lower orders. That's the importance of having all rounders in modern cricket I agree about the importance of all-rounders and it's up to Robinson, Shahzad and Jordan to working on their batting and become the all-rounders they capable of becoming. |
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Apr 20, 2016 7:59:36 GMT
Declare over night and avoid the probable outcome of us coming back in during the first three overs of the morning after adding about five runs - be bold, make the statement of intent. It goes a long way. Alright CP, five bowlers is fine, ideal in fact, but where is the point in using one of them to contain? Containing originates from a four man attack largely during the first innings. Can you not see the waste and negativity? Anyone who doubts, look at the numbers - overs, wickets, strike rates and so on. Look at the workload, look at Essex's workload, their bowling card today. Look at the overs bowled by the two men who got all nine wickets compared to their team-mates, and this was over two sessions not three. What is Davis and Brown's thinking behind using a spinner to contain from day one in a five man attack? It is not good. It goes against all the talk of pre season change. It is fearful. If we don't change the issue at seven get used to folding like a card regularly. We're in a decent enough position mind, despite the gaping cracks. Big day for Briggs tomorrow, hopefully he'll be given a different game plan. The problem with a four main attack is you end up injuring bowlers through them over bowling. Five bowlers should reduce this. Our big problem in this game wasn't 7-11 but 3-6. Certainly more is needed from Machan, Taylor, Wells and Brown. We needed five bowlers in the first innings and we will need five bowlers to bowl Essex out in the second innings especially as they bat down to 9. We won't need five bowlers today, we'll need a lot of overs from Briggs and our three best seamers, most likely. I agree though CP, five bowlers is best, but not at the expense of the rest of the team and only if you use them right. It is at the expense of this team right now and we aren't using them right, either. No holding bowlers in a five man attack, please. 3-6 have more responsibility of course but there's definitely a problem with 7-9 - I expect nothing from 10-11 personally. Machan has scored 82 runs at a strike rate of around 80 odd in the match CP. He's played a significant part in getting us to this position. No need to unload your gun on him just yet. Anyway I think I've sufficiently labelled my point, flogged a couple of horses to death along the way too so, well, good luck Sussex. |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Apr 20, 2016 8:07:03 GMT
While much has been said about our bowling attack during this Essex game, as Cp moots, it is the middle order batting that requires honing and improving.
Without Nash's 211 runs, the Sussex score would be a sorry sight, and similar patterns from previous years are as imprinted on the side now as before, where the need for Goodwin to change and improve the batting increases in importance.
Sussex, seemingly, have relied on one batsman for the primary match runs for many seasons and this cannot continue. The batting and its consistency must improve if we have any chance of immediate promotion and it's down to Goodwin to unlock the root problems.
Wells, once more, is not up to scratch, yet so long as he amasses a couple of centuries a season, he is deemed fit for 1st XI cricket. Machan is so close to a break through in his play, yet he must turn his 30s into 50s and his 50s into 100s.
Taylor is finding his way and is bursting with potential. He is such a confident and self-assured batsman and I'm sure he'll come good for we need him to hit a plethora of 100s this season before he leaves. Joyce is another whom with no pressure of captaincy duties, one hopes the 'Captain Marvel' of the 2014 season will re-appear. As to Brown, perhaps, just one of those games.
Meanwhile, we have a promising tail with Shahzad, Robinson and Briggs. Garton appears to be a No.10/11, at present, although I repeat, the team does bat down to No.9 which allows Magoffin to occasionally wag as yesterday.
If I was Davis I would be asking Goodwin to do some overtime with the batters - especially, and mysteriously, when he's Aussie bound in July.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonfilby on Apr 20, 2016 9:42:09 GMT
I dont think Davo will need to ask Muzz to do overtime Mr Fluffy. Go and stand by the nets at Hove and check out how many hours he is in there. #24/7
Oh and while I'm on I'll briefly enter the Fraudster furnace - probably get more than my toes burnt but here goes. I think you are wrong about the containing bowler thing. You need a slow bowler like Briggs or Panesar not only for when they have the opportunity to attack but also when the opposition are on top, or when the ball is old and soft or not swinging or when the pitch is flat or when a batsman who is better against pace than spin. So many reasons in fact I'm bored of writing them already.
Enjoy today. It is a fabulous game of cricket on a great pitch between two decent sides.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Apr 20, 2016 9:42:14 GMT
While much has been said about our bowling attack during this Essex game, as Cp moots, it is the middle order batting that requires honing and improving. Without Nash's 211 runs, the Sussex score would be a sorry sight, and similar patterns from previous years are as imprinted on the side now as before, where the need for Goodwin to change and improve the batting increases in importance. Sussex, seemingly, have relied on one batsman for the primary match runs for many seasons and this cannot continue. The batting and its consistency must improve if we have any chance of immediate promotion and it's down to Goodwin to unlock the root problems. Wells, once more, is not up to scratch, yet so long as he amasses a couple of centuries a season, he is deemed fit for 1st XI cricket. Machan is so close to a break through in his play, yet he must turn his 30s into 50s and his 50s into 100s. Taylor is finding his way and is bursting with potential. He is such a confident and self-assured batsman and I'm sure he'll come good for we need him to hit a plethora of 100s this season before he leaves. Joyce is another whom with no pressure of captaincy duties, one hopes the 'Captain Marvel' of the 2014 season will re-appear. As to Brown, perhaps, just one of those games. Meanwhile, we have a promising tail with Shahzad, Robinson and Briggs. Garton appears to be a No.10/11, at present, although I repeat, the team does bat down to No.9 which allows Magoffin to occasionally wag as yesterday. If I was Davis I would be asking Goodwin to do some overtime with the batters - especially, and mysteriously, when he's Aussie bound in July. I know I keep banging on about it, but for me the pivotal positions are six and seven. Nash and Joyce should guarantee us plenty of good starts, Machan, perhaps with one eye on a future openers slot, can nail the number three berth, with another season like last years. Taylor, as you said, is pure class, and should be good for a few big scores, followed by the skipper, another 1,000 runs man. So let's jump to number eight, here Robbo with ambitions to be a genuine all rounder, can give us proper batting depth. Nine, ten and eleven, we can call on the likes of Jordan, Shahzad, Garton, Briggs, Hatchett and Magoffin, none of whom are mugs with a bat. OK, back to six and seven. Personally, I prefer Brown at seven, where he excelled last season, so that leaves six as the crucial position. Our existing options are, either to shift everyone up a place, or look for someone who can, not only bat there, but can operate as a fourth seamer. We could use the money saved from the untimely departures of Hobden and Anyon, who will both have been budgeted for this season, to bring someone in, assuming we can find someone. Even if it ends up being someone who would balance the side short term, that isn't a worry, because it would buy us time to develop Robinson, or even Garton for the role. Failing that, we can use the overseas slot, when Taylor leaves, to bring in an all rounder. We have, Wells, Cachopa and Finch, who could all slot into Taylor's number four slot. We are not far off being a well balanced side, with plenty of batting and bowling options, perhaps only one player short. |
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Apr 20, 2016 11:06:28 GMT
I dont think Davo will need to ask Muzz to do overtime Mr Fluffy. Go and stand by the nets at Hove and check out how many hours he is in there. #24/7 Oh and while I'm on I'll briefly enter the Fraudster furnace - probably get more than my toes burnt but here goes. I think you are wrong about the containing bowler thing. You need a slow bowler like Briggs or Panesar not only for when they have the opportunity to attack but also when the opposition are on top, or when the ball is old and soft or not swinging or when the pitch is flat or when a batsman who is better against pace than spin. So many reasons in fact I'm bored of writing them already. Enjoy today. It is a fabulous game of cricket on a great pitch between two decent sides. I agree with all those reasons but not one of them is justification for your spinner bowling the most overs of your five man attack in the first innings. That is simply taking time out of the game from day one and that is a formula for losing and drawing, old chap. If a seamer had first innings figures of 3-160 odd over two games he would be looking over his shoulder. That pure and simply means that a spinner bowling that much in the first innings has one job only - to take time out of the game on the first day. #negative 24/7 Speaking of negative, we done exactly what I said we'd do, bat on, add about five, and f**k off back to the pavilion again. A statement of intent and confidence was needed. Mags strikes! (inspired by Parsons and the old board). |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Apr 20, 2016 12:12:16 GMT
Excellent script for this game.  |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Apr 20, 2016 17:46:19 GMT
Why didn't we declare overnight? For the second time in the game I am saying this!
Lots of overs from Briggs didn't help Fraudster as no wickets! Nor did Briggs dropping a regulation slip chance with Cook on one!
Why wasn't Garton bowled more? Why was Briggs bowled too much? What is Briggs contribution in this game? How about Briggs giving the ball some air and using flight and different changes of pace rather than just bowling flat at the same speed?
S&F is right about Machan. Fraudster if Machan gets to 35 and 47 he should be going on. By not doing so he is selling himself and his talent short.
If we had Mushtaq I would agree with four bowlers. We don't so it's five bowlers for me.
On a bright note Cook won't be playing against us at Colchester as England have test matches against Pakistan. I reckon Zaidi might replace him with everyone from Westley to Napier moving up one batting position.
|
|
