|
|
Post by coverpoint on Apr 20, 2016 21:42:35 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... What if Jordan isn't fit? I have heard he is out until mid-May. If this is not correct then based on the above I would opt for Shahzad and Robinson. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2016 21:48:48 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... What if Jordan isn't fit? I have heard he is out until mid-May. If this is not correct then based on the above I would opt for Shahzad and Robinson. Disappointing if there has been a further injury setback, as the ECB website lists him as available to Sussex from May 1. |
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Apr 20, 2016 22:04:33 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 I listen to him but he's a *** know-it-all. I listened to the last two hours in the pantry today and it sounded like a good effort to be fair. Cook is one of the best batsmen in the world, under any helmet. I've felt we need to change plenty from the first game of the season, and nothing's changed there. If at any stage we have Wright and Jordan together, and we play Beer instead of the one-day wizard Danny Briggs, we can play with this balance. Wright at five, Brown at six, along with Robinson, Jordan, Beer, Shahzad and Mags to follow, that could work - maybe. If we can't play Wright, Jordan and Beer from five down, forget it. Change it to four bowlers, maybe with H-P. Our bowling approach is flawed, completely. If we do keep the five man attack, do not have your spinner bowling the most overs in the first innings. It is a waste. It is surrendering time and runs. Unless you have a Mushy, Murali or a Warne, which nobody in the world does, unfortunately. There is always a seamer in a five man attack under-bowled in situations like today - always. It was always gonna be Garton too because we are scared of him going for too many. I was astonished the new-ish ball didn't go to him for a burst after Essex had settled on a draw, which was very early. An Essex fan emailed in to the comms and they were full of superlatives regarding his wisdom and intelligence when he stated that if Essex lose they will be a couple of points (can't remember how many) behind Sussex. If they draw they will be 16 ahead. Sounds good. But nobody mentioned how many ahead they would have been if they had won. Negative attitude. Draw all the games you want and enjoy division 2. |
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Apr 20, 2016 22:16:13 GMT
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. Essex did not have seven CP, or if they did, we did too. Look at their second innings bowling card and you'll see how many bowlers they had. They actually have three, and a whole host of part-timers. Their balance is wrong too - I'll get on to 'em. |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Apr 20, 2016 22:19:17 GMT
Fraudster - catches win matches. Had Cook been caught at slip we would have won with time to spare. Five bowlers can work as Leicester have shown and as Sussex showed in the first innings. Four bowlers is fine if you have someone capable of running through a side or have bowlers that aren't old or injury prone. Sadly we don't have anyone that is capable of running through a side. Flog your bowlers now and by the end of the season they will be shot.
|
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Apr 20, 2016 22:27:06 GMT
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. Essex did not have seven CP, or if they did, we did too. Look at their second innings bowling card and you'll see how many bowlers they had. They actually have three, and a whole host of part-timers. Their balance is wrong too - I'll get on to 'em. Essex had Porter, Dixon, Napier, Ryder, Bopara, Westley and Ten Doeschate. The last two taking four vital first innings wickets as well as scoring vital first innings runs. Sussex had Magoffin, Robinson, Shahzad, Garton, Briggs and Wells. |
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Apr 20, 2016 22:31:56 GMT
Fraudster - catches win matches. Had Cook been caught at slip we would have won with time to spare. Five bowlers can work as Leicester have shown and as Sussex showed in the first innings. Four bowlers is fine if you have someone capable of running through a side or have bowlers that aren't old or injury prone. Sadly we don't have anyone that is capable of running through a side. Flog your bowlers now and by the end of the season they will be shot. Yeah CP, I know. My issue is a tactical one. Mind you I don't care how shagged out they are by September - I guess you mean a bit earlier. Sounded like Mags was shot already. A very important drop indeed but it happens. The bigger issue is you expect your spinner to take at least three wickets on day four. Maybe if Wells had have bowled 30 odd overs he would have got five - dunno. Beer's a better option than both on the last day. Can we play Briggs first innings and Beer second? Nash is as useful as Bo-pop, we just didn't use him. |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Apr 20, 2016 22:33:37 GMT
Fraudster - catches win matches. Had Cook been caught at slip we would have won with time to spare. Five bowlers can work as Leicester have shown and as Sussex showed in the first innings. Four bowlers is fine if you have someone capable of running through a side or have bowlers that aren't old or injury prone. Sadly we don't have anyone that is capable of running through a side. Flog your bowlers now and by the end of the season they will be shot. Yeah CP, I know. My issue is a tactical one. Mind you I don't care how shagged out they are by September - I guess you mean a bit earlier. Sounded like Mags was shot already. A very important drop indeed but it happens. The bigger issue is you expect your spinner to take at least three wickets on day four. Maybe if Wells had have bowled 30 odd overs he would have got five - dunno. Beer's a better option than both on the last day. Can we play Briggs first innings and Beer second? I agree but sadly Davis and Robinson before him don't. |
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Apr 20, 2016 22:36:35 GMT
We could have had ten bowlers out there, and we wouldn't have bowled them out. It's not about numbers, it's the personnel, are they good enough to bowl sides out on a regular basis? I'm not sure they are
|
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Apr 20, 2016 22:40:15 GMT
We could have had ten bowlers out there, and we wouldn't have bowled them out. It's not about numbers, it's the personnel, are they good enough to bowl sides out on a regular basis? I'm not sure they are Jonboy we would have won this game but for one crucial dropped catch. You cannot afford to drop a player of the caliber of the England captain. Five bowlers allows you to rotate more and give them shorter spells to go at them more. Four bowlers leave little leeway in the event of injury or a bowler being off form. |
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Apr 20, 2016 22:40:44 GMT
Davis needs to have a word in Beer's shell regarding a certain second eleven fixture and wickets. Down to him then.
|
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Apr 20, 2016 22:42:09 GMT
Davis needs to have a word in Beer's shell regarding a certain second eleven fixture and wickets. Down to him then. Beer could take ten wickets in this match for the seconds and he still won't be picked for Leicestershire. |
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Apr 20, 2016 22:43:28 GMT
We could have had ten bowlers out there, and we wouldn't have bowled them out. It's not about numbers, it's the personnel, are they good enough to bowl sides out on a regular basis? I'm not sure they are Jonboy we would have won this game but for one crucial dropped catch. You cannot afford to drop a player of the caliber of the England captain. Five bowlers allows you to rotate more and give them shorter spells to go at them more. Four bowlers leave little leeway in the event of injury or a bowler being off form. There will be dropped catches in virtually every game of cricket. The facts are, as a bowling unit, we are struggling to impose ourselves on second division sides, in the way that we should |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Apr 20, 2016 22:51:05 GMT
Jonboy we would have won this game but for one crucial dropped catch. You cannot afford to drop a player of the caliber of the England captain. Five bowlers allows you to rotate more and give them shorter spells to go at them more. Four bowlers leave little leeway in the event of injury or a bowler being off form. There will be dropped catches in virtually every game of cricket. The facts are, as a bowling unit, we are struggling to impose ourselves on second division sides, in the way that we should We bowled them out in the first innings because as a collective unit all five bowlers stepped up to the plate. They will need to do for the rest of the season. On a separate note, in sixteen innings Notts numbers 3-6 this season have managed only two scores above 27. Not hard to see where their problems are. |
|
|
|
Post by joe on Apr 21, 2016 4:59:18 GMT
We didn't draw this game because we had 5 bowlers, we drew because our middle order didn't perform well enough and because we didn't hold on to the catches.
Apart from Nash, the bowlers had a better game than the batters as all 5 got wickets. Admittedly they didn't get the final 3 but at least 3 catching chances went down.
Personally I thought it was a cracking game of cricket, played between two evenly matched teams, which went into the final day with all results possible. More please.
|
|
