|
|
Post by coverpoint on Apr 18, 2016 19:59:07 GMT
Given we only got one bowling point at Northampton I think the decision to go with five bowlers was the correct decision. This top six should be capable of getting the runs. I'm more concerned with our ability to bowl teams out twice. But we played five bowlers against Northants, so , following your logic, should we not have played six or more against Essex? The fact we didn't bowl them out means any move to reduce the number of bowlers to four is ludicrous. Five allows bowlers the chance to bowl short spells of high intensity bowling rather than longer spells of less intensive bowling. What happens with four bowlers if one breaks down? Unlike Essex four of our top seven don't bowl. At the end of the day it is up to the top six to get the runs and certainly it would be good if Machan, Taylor, Wells and Brown could grace us with their presence by getting their arse in gear in the second innings and do what they are paid to do which is to score some meaningful and match defining runs rather than chucking their wickets away with extremely poor shot selection. This is county cricket not village cricket Machan, Taylor, Wells and Brown! |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Apr 18, 2016 20:11:44 GMT
Briggs was put on to bowl because Westley, supported by Ryder, was getting on top of the bowling and we needed a change of style to get a result. And it succeeded.
As to the workload, in a perfect world one could agree with borderman and say that the seamers were underworked, but we have to deal with things as they are and not how we would like them to be. The status quo is that Magoffin is 36, rising 37 and will need nursing to carry on doing the excellent job he did today. Garton is a wonderful prospect, with real speed impelled at the moment mostly by his action, but we don't want to flog him into the ground as happened last year with Hobden, with diminishing results. Short spells work best whilst he is learning and that all adds up to regular rotation of bowlers. Shahzad had a poor first spell but improved subsequently. That leaves Robinson who did bowl pretty well but is also someone who was overbowled last year and developed shin splint problems - something we can't afford to see repeated this year.
Unless a new bowler can be introduced who can bowl 20 overs of the reel with absolute consistency and constant variety - something that probably hasn't been seen in English cricket since Tom Cartwright retired - we are going to have to mix and match and the inclusion of a bowler who can pin down one end is a valuable asset. Briggs looks to be responding well to this trust in his abilities and I think that he will develop considerably with this new confidence in him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2016 20:50:08 GMT
None of what you say alters a thing, though, hhs.
If Briggs is going to bowl 50 per cent more overs in the CC than anyone else ( and that's what's happening as he's already got through 58 overs in two incomplete innings to take two wkts at 80 apiece, while no other bowler has delivered more than 38 overs) then you do not need four seamers to rotate at the other end. Fact.
Unless, as cp says, one of them breaks down. So are we honestly going in to games with a tail that starts at seven because we're playing a reserve fifth bowler just in case one of them breaks down? Absolutely ludicrous.
And it's nothing to do with 'perfect worlds' , still less with 'mix and match'. I don't even know what that means. Mix and match Briggs and three seamers, plus a bit of Wells and Nash as required?
Yes, that makes sense. But four seamers like Clive Lloyd's 1970s/1980s West Indian sides isn't mxing and matching anything. It's just overloading same upon same.
If Briggs doesn't play, yes you need four seamers. If Briggs plays, then you only need three. Simple. Especially as Jordan returns for the next match and so poor Garton won't have to be "flogged into the ground" by playing three consecutive games and will be sent back to the seconds.
Then after May, there's only one four day game in 32 days during which time the likes of Magoffin and Garton won't play at all. So I'm not really sure where all this tender concern about "workload" and "overbowling" has come from so early in the season when the bowlers haven't even got through a single completed innings yet!
|
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Apr 18, 2016 20:59:21 GMT
Or it's possible to play four seamers and Briggs, if one is a genuine all rounder. For example, Warwickshire always play Patel and four seamers, but it's a bit easier when two of your seamers can bat like Clarke and Barker. Maybe young Robinson can develop his batting to become an all rounder, but at the moment, number seven is probably one place too high for him
|
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Apr 18, 2016 20:59:56 GMT
Or it's possible to play four seamers and Briggs, if one is a genuine all rounder. For example, Warwickshire always play Patel and four seamers, but it's a bit easier when two of your seamers can bat like Clarke and Barker. Maybe young Robinson can develop his batting to become an all rounder, but at the moment, number seven is probably one place too high for him
|
|
|
|
Post by philh on Apr 18, 2016 21:34:11 GMT
Or it's possible to play four seamers and Briggs, if one is a genuine all rounder. For example, Warwickshire always play Patel and four seamers, but it's a bit easier when two of your seamers can bat like Clarke and Barker. Maybe young Robinson can develop his batting to become an all rounder, but at the moment, number seven is probably one place too high for him You can say that again. |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Apr 18, 2016 21:39:22 GMT
None of what you say alters a thing, though, hhs.
If Briggs is going to bowl 50 per cent more overs in the CC than anyone else ( and that's what's happening as he's already got through 58 overs in two incomplete innings to take two wkts at 80 apiece, while no other bowler has delivered more than 38 overs) then you do not need four seamers to rotate at the other end. Fact. Unless, as cp says, one of them breaks down. So are we honestly going in to games with a tail that starts at seven because we're playing a reserve fifth bowler just in case one of them breaks down? Absolutely ludicrous. And it's nothing to do with 'perfect worlds' , still less with 'mix and match'. I don't even know what that means. Mix and match Briggs and three seamers, plus a bit of Wells and Nash as required? Yes, that makes sense. But four seamers like Clive Lloyd's 1970s/1980s West Indian sides isn't mxing and matching anything. It's just overloading same upon same. If Briggs doesn't play, yes you need four seamers. If Briggs plays, then you only need three. Simple. Especially as Jordan returns for the next match and so poor Garton won't have to be "flogged into the ground" by playing three consecutive games and will be sent back to the seconds. Then after May, there's only one four day game in 32 days during which time the likes of Magoofin and Gartton won't play at all. So I'm not really sure where all this tender concern about "workload" and "overbowling" has come from so early in the season when the bowlers haven't even got through a single completed innings yet! Evidently not. Your opinion is that 4 bowlers ought to be enough. Mine is that what is enough is dependent on the type of bowlers available and the opposition, and sometimes on the conditions. At the moment we don't possess 4 bowlers who can be relied upon, for different reasons of health and experience, to rotate consistently through a demanding and challenging 4-day match. I don't know what kind of wicket Northampton was, but what I saw of Hove today suggests a good cricket wicket that will offer runs but reward a bowler who does something a little different, as we saw when Magoffin in particular got the ball to rise unexpectedly. Equally, Westley showed that a batsman with his eye well in and an inclination to be agressive can quickly get into a position where he is dictating terms. What to do? Leave out, say Garton, and then hope you don't run into a situation where Magoffin is ineffective , Shahzad expensive and Robinson and Briggs end up bowling purely for containment? Or leave out Briggs, and then hope that batsmen who have weathered the faster balls and profited from the looser ones, and dominated the medium pacers will hole out to Wells or Nash? That was the Robinson/Joyce policy and look where it got us. What might happen when (if) Jordan is released is another story, and so is what happens after May when the first-class fixtures go into storage. What matters is that Sussex win this match decisively, expose the shortcomings of Essex and establish a healthy points balance after two matches, with consequent accruals of confidence and well-being for the side. Briggs looks so far to be playing a very effective part in bringing this about and I think that is rather a good thing. Anyway, tomorrow will show us a bit more about the pitch,and whether the new ball can be an effective tool to give Sussex a healthy lead , and then it is for the batsmen to build on that and give the bowlers - all of them - something substantial with which to exert pressure. I shall look forward to the development of this game and be glad that it is now very unlikely to end in a tame draw. |
|
|
|
Post by philh on Apr 18, 2016 21:51:55 GMT
Not much to disagree with there hhsussex. If the new ball takes out nine, ten and jack quickly, we should be in a strong position to win. If the tail wags and we lose this game, aspirations of winning an immediate return to the top division will, at the very least, be diminished severely. Whilst there is no Jordan, we need Briggs. Of the seamers, only Mags can reliably keep someone who has got past 20 under control. It's so far so good, but Essex are capable of chasing down a decent target in the fourth innings even if Mr Cook has to peer through prison bars. Long way to go yet. |
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Apr 18, 2016 22:24:34 GMT
Let's not forget as well, Westley, a part time bowler at best, has currently out bowled Briggs, oh and he can bat as well
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2016 7:18:11 GMT
What might happen when (if) Jordan is released is another story ECB have released Jordan for the next game so we're already into the 'other story'.
"...a situation where Magoffin is ineffective , Shahzad expensive and Robinson and Briggs end up bowling purely for containment."
You've just named four front-line bowlers and you either trust them to do the job or you don't. It seems that you do not. Yes, there will be days when they're not all at their best or the wicket is a belter and the batsmen get the upper hand. It's called cricket. But the idea that if your top four bowlers are struggling against good batsmen on a flat track, 'oh look, here's Garton who will bail them out' is a little fanciful, isn't it? Traditionaly, that was when your D'Oliveira-style 'partnership breaker' came into play, not a fifth specialist bowler. Brown needs to bat at seven, followed by four bowlers and in the next game the four should be Magoffin, Jordan, Briggs and either Shahzad or Robinson. If that attack can't bowl out Leicestershire, then a fifth bowler is not going to make any difference. What has changed in 2016 that five bowlers are now a necessity? Four was always enough in the past. Look back when Sussx won the CC in 2007. Four bowlers took more than 200 wickets between them and nobody else got a look in. The year before that , Sussex won the CC with four bowlers taking even more wickets - 235. And that was in the far tougher climes of Div One. Or go back to the first Sussex game I saw in 1963; I have the scorecard here : three seamers in Thompson, Buss and Bates and then the spin of Ronnie Bell. The fifth bowler was Alan Oakman, who also opened the batting. As jonboy says, five frontline bowlers is a wonderful luxury if one of them is a genuine all-rounder. Yorkshire, for example, can play four seamers and a spinner because Bresnan and Rashid are good enough to bat at seven and eight with f/c batting averages of 30 and 35. But five specialist bowlers with career batting averages of 20, 24, 1, 15 and 17 means that once Sussex are five down, the opposition bowlers start licking their lips, confident that they're soon going to have their feet up. Look at the scoerecard of the current game and you will see that Sussex's last four wickets subsided for just 20 runs. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2016 7:40:16 GMT
Not much to disagree with there hhsussex . If the new ball takes out nine, ten and jack quickly, we should be in a strong position to win. If the tail wags and we lose this game, aspirations of winning an immediate return to the top division will, at the very least, be diminished severely. Whilst there is no Jordan, we need Briggs. Of the seamers, only Mags can reliably keep someone who has got past 20 under control. It's so far so good, but Essex are capable of chasing down a decent target in the fourth innings even if Mr Cook has to peer through prison bars. Long way to go yet. Yes we've still got to deal with the count of monte cristo second time around. |
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Apr 19, 2016 7:48:07 GMT
What might happen when (if) Jordan is released is another story ECB have released Jordan for the next game so we're already into the 'other story'.
"...a situation where Magoffin is ineffective , Shahzad expensive and Robinson and Briggs end up bowling purely for containment."
You've just named four front-line bowlers and you either trust them to do the job or you don't. It seems that you do not. Yes, there will be days when they're not all at their best or the wicket is a belter and the batsmen get the upper hand. It's called cricket. But the idea that if your top four bowlers are struggling against good batsmen on a flat track, 'oh look, here's Garton who will bail them out' is a little fanciful, isn't it? Traditionaly, that was when your D'Oliveira-style 'partnership breaker' came into play, not a fifth specialist bowler. Brown needs to bat at seven, followed by four bowlers and in the next game the four should be Magoffin, Jordan, Briggs and either Shahzad or Robinson. If that attack can't bowl out Leicestershire, then a fifth bowler is not going to make any difference. What has changed in 2016 that five bowlers are now a necessity? Four was always enough in the past. Look back when Sussx won the CC in 2007. Four bowlers took more than 200 wickets between them and nobody else got a look in. The year before that , Sussex won the CC with four bowlers taking even more wickets - 235. And that was in the far tougher climes of Div One. Or go back to the first Sussex game I saw in 1963; I have the scorecard here : three seamers in Thompson, Buss and Bates and then the spin of Ronnie Bell. The fifth bowler was Alan Oakman, who also opened the batting. As jonboy says, five frontline bowlers is a wonderful luxury if one of them is a genuine all-rounder. Yorkshire, for example, can play four seamers and a spinner because Bresnan and Rashid are good enough to bat at seven and eight with f/c batting averages of 30 and 35. But five specialist bowlers with career batting averages of 20, 24, 1, 15 and 17 means that once Sussex are five down, the opposition bowlers start licking their lips, confident that they're soon going to have their feet up. Look at the scoerecard of the current game and you will see that Sussex's last four wickets subsided for just 20 runs. I'd say, in modern cricket, that at least one of your bowling attack, has to be able to bat, often the good sides have two who can. It's a huge risk going into games, when your batting finishes at six. Yes, Jordan, Robinson, Shahzad, Magoffin and Briggs, are all capable of playing the odd good knock, but they're not going to do it consistently In fact, I'd be happy to select any of them at 9, 10 or 11 |
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Apr 19, 2016 7:53:21 GMT
None of what you say alters a thing, though, hhs. If Briggs is going to bowl 50 per cent more overs in the CC than anyone else ( and that's what's happening as he's already got through 58 overs in two incomplete innings to take two wkts at 80 apiece, while no other bowler has delivered more than 38 overs) then you do not need four seamers to rotate at the other end. Fact. Unless, as cp says, one of them breaks down. So are we honestly going in to games with a tail that starts at seven because we're playing a reserve fifth bowler just in case one of them breaks down? Absolutely ludicrous. And it's nothing to do with 'perfect worlds' , still less with 'mix and match'. I don't even know what that means. Mix and match Briggs and three seamers, plus a bit of Wells and Nash as required? Yes, that makes sense. But four seamers like Clive Lloyd's 1970s/1980s West Indian sides isn't mxing and matching anything. It's just overloading same upon same. If Briggs doesn't play, yes you need four seamers. If Briggs plays, then you only need three. Simple. Especially as Jordan returns for the next match and so poor Garton won't have to be "flogged into the ground" by playing three consecutive games and will be sent back to the seconds. Then after May, there's only one four day game in 32 days during which time the likes of Magoffin and Garton won't play at all. So I'm not really sure where all this tender concern about "workload" and "overbowling" has come from so early in the season when the bowlers haven't even got through a single completed innings yet! Precisely. And much more eloquently put than my several attempts over the last week at the same point. Yours is a very defensive and mistrusting view on it all HH - and the proof of that is in you thinking that a bowler averaging 80 runs per wicket is doing a good job. How can he be? We're wasting two positions with Briggs bowling this way - one seamer, one batter. But, if you're gonna play Briggs because you don't agree about our weak lower middle order and you don't trust our seamers will still be standing at the end of the day, at least use him to attack. I only say Beer's a better option because he's naturally more attacking and he's a better bat. He improves two aspects. He weakens a third for some on here it seems but the third shouldn't exist when you have four seamers. It only exists in a negative mind-set. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2016 8:50:12 GMT
Not much to disagree with there hhsussex . If the new ball takes out nine, ten and jack quickly, we should be in a strong position to win. If the tail wags and we lose this game, aspirations of winning an immediate return to the top division will, at the very least, be diminished severely. Whilst there is no Jordan, we need Briggs. Of the seamers, only Mags can reliably keep someone who has got past 20 under control. It's so far so good, but Essex are capable of chasing down a decent target in the fourth innings even if Mr Cook has to peer through prison bars. Long way to go yet. Yes we've still got to deal with the count of monte cristo second time around. Or will he appear at the crease like Jim Carrey in The Mask this time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2016 8:55:15 GMT
But we played five bowlers against Northants, so , following your logic, should we not have played six or more against Essex? The fact we didn't bowl them out means any move to reduce the number of bowlers to four is ludicrous. Five allows bowlers the chance to bowl short spells of high intensity bowling rather than longer spells of less intensive bowling. What happens with four bowlers if one breaks down? Unlike Essex four of our top seven don't bowl. At the end of the day it is up to the top six to get the runs and certainly it would be good if Machan, Taylor, Wells and Brown could grace us with their presence by getting their arse in gear in the second innings and do what they are paid to do which is to score some meaningful and match defining runs rather than chucking their wickets away with extremely poor shot selection. This is county cricket not village cricket Machan, Taylor, Wells and Brown! I get the impression you're a tiny bit disappointed with these guys. |
|
