|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Apr 20, 2016 18:56:10 GMT
A disappointing result for Sussex where Essex will be far the happier team as they return to Chelmsford on their Klarners Coach driven by Trevor Klarner himself.
Cook played well for his 100 and although dropped early on, he deserved the accolades the media are presently giving him. For Sussex Shazza stood out for his commitment. He was the seamer that gave Cook the most trouble while Robinson showed heart and a further insight into his potential ahead. Also, a special commendation to Machan for several excellent catches.
Ryder was unlucky to be bowled by Wells as the ball dribbled backwards from the bat which led to a classic thrown willow as he entered the dressing room. The noise was quite spectacular.
Overall, Essex showed fight and desire and deserved their draw. The idea that Division 2 teams lack backbone and are vulnerable to pressure is complete tosh on this viewing. If Sussex are serious about immediate promotion, it is these types of matches that they must win and win well.
|
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Apr 20, 2016 19:59:52 GMT
If Sussex are serious about immediate promotion, it is these types of matches that they must win and win well. I'd just settle for winning. To be honest we frittered away eight overs by not declaring overnight in both innings. We need to be positive in our approach. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2016 20:30:51 GMT
We needed five bowlers in the first innings and we will need five bowlers to bowl Essex out in the second innings Absolute tosh, cp. Our fifth specialist bowler, Garton bowled just six overs in the innings, while his colleagues laboured their way through 85 overs. He bowled four overs in the morning session, two in the afternoon session as an afterthought just before tea and was not trusted with a single over in the third session when the chips were down. Even Luke Wells - a top five batsman - bowled more overs than the chap who was supposed to be the fifth specialist bowler. A fifth bowler is certainly a useful addition in any bowling unit - but unless he can bat in the top six, it's a luxury no side can afford. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2016 20:47:41 GMT
We won't need five bowlers today, we'll need a lot of overs from Briggs and our three best seamers, most likely. People should listen to fraudster. He made that perspicacious comment two hours before start of play and clearly he knows what he is talking about. Sussex barely used the fifth specialist bowler today - and indeed promoted one of the five specialist batsmen (Luke Wells) above the fifth specialist bowler in the attack. Great day's cricket; but Sussex are a side which has forgotten how to press home an advantage and win a match - and that really showed today. Across the three competitions (CC, T20 and RLC), Sussex is now woefully adrift at the bottom of the 'form table' , way behind the other 17 counties with just one solitary win in 20 matches... Luke Wright is desperate to halt what Chris Adams last week described as Sussex's "slide into mediocrity" and Sussex desperately need him fit and leading from the front asap. #robbo'srichlegacy ? #myarse |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Apr 20, 2016 20:51:53 GMT
We needed five bowlers in the first innings and we will need five bowlers to bowl Essex out in the second innings Absolute tosh, cp. Our fifth specialist bowler, Garton bowled just six overs in the innings, while his colleagues laboured their way through 85 overs. He bowled just four overs in the morning session, two in the afternoon session as an afterthought just before tea and was not trusted with a single over in the third session when the chips were down. Even Luke Wells - a top five batsman - bowled more overs than chap who was supposed to be the fifth specialist bowler. A fifth bowler is certainly a useful addition in any bowling unit - but unless he can bat in the top six, it's a luxury no side can afford. We played most of last season with four bowlers. Remind me where we finished? We don't have the quality of bowlers or even bowlers with a good record of fitness to go into a game with just a four man attack. We have Magoffin who is 36 going on 64 and Robinson, Shahzad and Jordan who are all very injury prone. Even Essex in this game had seven bowling options. The simple fact remains that we need five bowlers excluding Wells. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2016 21:00:07 GMT
I think you're talking rubbish. It's certainly possible. But I doff my cap to the master. What was it you wrote before start of play? Oh yes. "We will need five bowlers to bowl Essex out in the second innings". Do remind us how many of the 91 overs the fifth specialist bowler who bats at number nine was asked to contribute?  Or perhaps you think Sussex would have won if Garton had bowled more than six overs? In which case, I cannot agree; this is a team that has forgotten how to win - whoever is bowling. |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Apr 20, 2016 21:01:28 GMT
If Sussex are serious about immediate promotion, it is these types of matches that they must win and win well. I'd just settle for winning. To be honest we frittered away eight overs by not declaring overnight in both innings. We need to be positive in our approach. There were a number of things that Sussex did well in this game, and quite a lot that they didn't. Frankly I can't see that the impact of non-declaration and the consequent lack of 8 overs is relevant; the biggest issue is that we wouldn't have bowled out Essex if we had another 28 overs. In the 11 days that Davis has before the Leicester game he, Wright and Brown, who will be the captain in the game as assuredly Wright will not have recovered sufficiently from his operation, will have to resolve these issues: - Stopping the middle order from going into panic collapses
- The balance of the side for the Leicester game: what are the weaknesses of this opponent?
- Who is capable of taking 5 wickets in an innings and what support do they need?
There are other issues, of course, such as catching, and Brown will have to come to terms with how to manage his attack in different situations, but the former is a given and the latter can only be learned and not taught. The essential points are that each game in this Division where only one place is up for promotion will have to be fought tactically, without regard to bringing on a team for the future; the odds at stake are too big to allow of any time for nurturing. Therefore the batting strength, which ought to be immense, really has to be exerted at all times. In this fairly high-scoring game the aggregates were Nash 211 runs,Machan 82 , Joyce 71 Robinson 70. That isn't good enough with two batsman who have scored 1000 runs in a season and a player who has scored 13 Test match hundreds missing out on a skimpy aggregate of 50 runs.
Secondly, none of the bowlers looked like running through a side. Probably the added confidence from a win will lift more than one of them but until that happens we have to work out whether to go for a bowling-led attack, as this was, or a batting side with 4 bowlers and maybe only slender support. Leicester have just walloped Glamorgan without any true all-rounders but with enough depth in their batting to give a strong enough first innings lead to allow their bowlers full rein to harry the opposition. If we're lucky enough to have a fit Jordan then this time we need to think about giving him, Magoffin and xyz the chance to be a spearhead, not a formation dancing team, and we have to be pretty clear about what we want xyz to do, and not pick them on bowling grounds, as Garton was, only to ignopre them for most of the crucial second innings. If we're really sure that Wells is more likely to be an attacking option than Briggs then go for it, but don't play both and then exclude someone who could give more depth to the batting.
|
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Apr 20, 2016 21:01:51 GMT
It's possible. But I doff my cap to the master. What was it you wrote before start of play? Oh yes. "We will need five bowlers to bowl Essex out in the second innings". Do remind us how many of the 91 overs the fifth specialist bowler who bats at number nine was asked to contribute? Or perhaps you think Sussex would have won if Garton had bowled more than six overs? In which case, I cannot agree; this is a team that has forgotten how to win - whoever is bowling. We would have won if our slip fielder could catch. What did Briggs contribute in this game? Garton should have bowled more. Perhaps if Brown had changed the bowling more often in the afternoon session we would have got more wickets. I also think the decision to not declare overnight in both innings was a big mistake. |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Apr 20, 2016 21:09:03 GMT
I'd just settle for winning. To be honest we frittered away eight overs by not declaring overnight in both innings. We need to be positive in our approach. There were a number of things that Sussex did well in this game, and quite a lot that they didn't. Frankly I can't see that the impact of non-declaration and the consequent lack of 8 overs is relevant; the biggest issue is that we wouldn't have bwled out Essex if we had another 28 overs. In the 11 days that Davis has before the Leicester game he, Wright and Brown, who will be the captain in the game as assuredly Wright will not have recovered sufficiently from his operation, will have to resolve these issues: - Stopping the middle order from going into panic collapses
- The balance of the side for the Leicester game: what are the weaknesses of this opponent?
- Who is capable of taking 5 wickets in an innings and what support do they need?
There are other issues, of course, such as catching, and Brown will have to come to terms with how to manage his attack in different situations, but the former is a given and the latter can only be learned and not taught. The essential points are that each game in this Division where only one place is up for promotion will have to be fought tactically, without regard to bringing on a team for the future; the odds at stake are too big to allow of any time for nurturing. Therefore the batting strength, which ought to be immense, really has to be exerted at all times. In this fairly high-scoring games the aggregates were Nash 212 runs,Machan 82 , Joyce 71 Robinson 70. That isn't good enough with two batsman who have scored 1000 runs in a season and a player who has scored 13 Test match hundreds missing out on a skimpy aggregate of 50 runs.
Secondly, none of the bowlers looked like running through a side. Probably the added confidence from a win will lift more than one of them but until that happens we have to work out whether to go for a bowling-led attack, as this was, or a batting side with 4 bowlers and maybe only slender support. Leicester have just walloped Glamorgan without any true all-rounders but with enough depth in their batting to give a strong enough first innings lead to allow their bowlers full rein to harry the opposition. If we're lucky enough to have a fit Jordan then this time we need to think about giving him, Magoffin and xyz the chance to be a spearhead, not a formation dancing team, and we have to be pretty clear about what we want xyz to do, and not pick them on bowling grounds, as Garton was, only to ignopre them for most of the crucial second innings. If we're really sure that Wells is more likely to be an attacking option than Briggs then go for it, but don't play both and then exclude someone who could give more depth to the batting.
I disagree HH about Essex batting for another 28 overs. Dismiss Napier / Cook and you would have got the other two very quickly as Porter and Dixon are genuine tailenders. I agree the batsmen need to take responsibility. The fact that Machan was the second top scorer for us in this game with 82 highlights this. I think we need to pick our best available side, which I believe we did in this game, and then the captain needs to trust them at all stages of the game. We can't a repeat of last season in this regard! None of the bowlers look like running through a side and of the bowlers that played in this game Magoffin workload needs to be carefully managed as in the field he looked like he was 64 rather than 36 and Shahzad and Robinson have both had injury problems as a result of being over bowled. That said if Briggs isn't going to take wickets on the fourth day of the game, and Wells does, why is he playing? We're not taking twenty wickets with five bowlers so how is only playing four going to help this? It wasn't a lack of runs but a lack of wickets that was ultimately the problem in this game. Given Cook won't be playing at Colchester I think we just faced the best batting line up in division 2 as no other side can collectively boast a top nine as strong as Essex. Had we dismissed Cook for 1 we would have won this game. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2016 21:23:43 GMT
That said if Briggs isn't going to take wickets on the fourth day of the game, and Wells does, why is he playing? Well we can agree on that in terms of the debate over four v five bolwers and a tail that starts at seven. I feel sorry for Briggs. I said to Jon Filby last week that my fear over playing Briggs in April/May was that after the first four matches he would have six wkts at an average of 70-80 runs apiece and that as a result Sussex supporters would deride him as the new Dockrell/Burgoyne - and that the lad deserves better treatment than that. Sadly my prediction is already half way there - after two games, he has three wickts at 73 runs apiece and a strike rate of a wicket every 28 overs. I don't claim any special insight. It was just blindingly obvious that if you play a bowler on wickets that are going to stiffle all the skills he possesses, then the results are going to be horribly demoralising... |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Apr 20, 2016 21:26:30 GMT
That said if Briggs isn't going to take wickets on the fourth day of the game, and Wells does, why is he playing? Well we can agree on that in terms of the debate over four v five bolwers and a tail that starts at seven. I feel sorry for Briggs. I said to Jon Filby last week that my fear over playing Briggs in April/May was that after the first four matches he would have six wkts at an average of 70-80 runs apiece and that as a result Sussex supporters would deride him as the new Dockrell/Burgoyne - and that the lad deserves better treatment than that. Sadly my prediction is already half way there - after two games, he has three wickts at 73 runs apiece and a strike rate of a wicket every 28 overs. I thought all FIVE bowlers including Briggs did a good job with the ball in the first innings. However, his bowling today was a massive disappointment. The problem is by the end of May we will have played six out of sixteen championship games. Leicestershire went in with five bowlers in this game (McKay, Raine, Shreck, White and Naik) plus Dexter who was first change. You need six bowling options to cover all bases. Essex in this game had seven. Robinson as a number 7 is every bit as capable as White. Last season Leicestershire were the only side to have three bowlers take 50 championship wickets. Add Dexter, Horton and Pettini to that. They will shock more than a few this summer. |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Apr 20, 2016 21:32:08 GMT
That said if Briggs isn't going to take wickets on the fourth day of the game, and Wells does, why is he playing? I don't claim any special insight. It was just blindingly obvious that if you play a bowler on wickets that are going to stiffle all the skills he possesses, then the results are going to be horribly demoralising... Wells a bowler of less skill than Briggs managed to take two wickets today. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2016 21:36:06 GMT
I don't claim any special insight. It was just blindingly obvious that if you play a bowler on wickets that are going to stiffle all the skills he possesses, then the results are going to be horribly demoralising... Wells a bowler of less skill than Briggs managed to take two wickets today. But as a wrist spinner Wells at least turns the ball, even on early season pitches. As a finger spinner, Briggs has plenty of attributes, but the amount of turn he gets is not among them and never has been... |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Apr 20, 2016 21:39:57 GMT
Wells a bowler of less skill than Briggs managed to take two wickets today. But as a wrist spinner Wells at least turns the ball, even on early season pitches. As a finger spinner, Briggs has plenty of attributes, but the amount of turn he gets is not among them and never has been... I think you have answered your own question in terms of whether Briggs should play the next game. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2016 21:41:03 GMT
Team v Leics - six batsmen, Brown at seven, Jordan and Mags - and then perm two from Shahzad/Briggs/Robinson/Garton.
If a first-choice, Div One quality attack spearheaded by Mags and CJ and backed up by two from the four named above cannot take 20 wkts v Leics, then it is doubtful if this attack will ever succeed in bowling any side out twice...
|
|
