Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2016 9:39:25 GMT
In the round of CC matches just finished, with their f/c batting averages, which rather illustrates the problem of batting Robinson at seven:
Livingstone (Lancs) 70
ten Doeschate 47
Chris Read 37
Wheater 37
James Franklin 36
Adil Rashid 35
Rikki Clarke 34
Durston 34
Noema-Barnett 30
Meschede 25
Wayne White 24
Ollie Robinson 21
With an average of 35, Ben Brown is the perfect fit at number seven, I'd say...
|
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Apr 21, 2016 10:57:37 GMT
I think Robinson in time, will be classed as a genuine all rounder, but for now, he's a number eight at best. The overseas slot, when Taylor departs, will be the best short term fix. Get in someone like Faulkner, and we've got Wells, Finch and Cachopa who could all slot into Taylor's place at four
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2016 16:28:13 GMT
I think Robinson in time, will be classed as a genuine all rounder, but for now, he's a number eight at best. The overseas slot, when Taylor departs, will be the best short term fix. Get in someone like Faulkner, and we've got Wells, Finch and Cachopa who could all slot into Taylor's place at four Jb, Wells has has been given more than enough opportunities over the years and has not progressed. I think he should be dropped. Cachopa has also gone eighteen months without achieving anything so should also not feature. Finch should be given his chance. |
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Apr 21, 2016 16:44:14 GMT
I think Robinson in time, will be classed as a genuine all rounder, but for now, he's a number eight at best. The overseas slot, when Taylor departs, will be the best short term fix. Get in someone like Faulkner, and we've got Wells, Finch and Cachopa who could all slot into Taylor's place at four Jb, Wells has has been given more than enough opportunities over the years and has not progressed. I think he should be dropped. Cachopa has also gone eighteen months without achieving anything so should also not feature. Finch should be given his chance. I don't really care who comes in for Taylor, they all will get opportunities to stake their claim, it's who we give the overseas slot to. Just address the main area of concern We failed to do it in the winter, and there isn't much we can do until Taylor leaves. Whatever we do now, either leaves us short of batting, or short of bowling. |
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Apr 21, 2016 17:35:57 GMT
Jb, Wells has has been given more than enough opportunities over the years and has not progressed. I think he should be dropped. Cachopa has also gone eighteen months without achieving anything so should also not feature. Finch should be given his chance. I don't really care who comes in for Taylor, they all will get opportunities to stake their claim, it's who we give the overseas slot to. Just address the main area of concern We failed to do it in the winter, and there isn't much we can do until Taylor leaves. Whatever we do now, either leaves us short of batting, or short of bowling. Hud-Pren? It's well and truly his position. Is he good enough or ain't he? He's a professional cricketer I know that much. Got a game last year under the Youth Killer but went for a few from four or five overs and was never trusted again, including in that game I think. Batted OK apparently. He didn't go for any more than Garton or Hobden has or did but he may have been lucky not to for all I know. He's an all-rounder though, why not chuck him in and give a little more trust? Fact of the matter is we have him, we need someone for that position and he is of that position. JB, if you think the biggest issue was an all-rounder, which went unaddressed, and I think the biggest issue is our use of a spinner, which is going unaddressed, why didn't and don't Davis & Co address the issues? Are we, Christ help us, wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by joe on Apr 21, 2016 17:50:06 GMT
I don't really care who comes in for Taylor, they all will get opportunities to stake their claim, it's who we give the overseas slot to. Just address the main area of concern We failed to do it in the winter, and there isn't much we can do until Taylor leaves. Whatever we do now, either leaves us short of batting, or short of bowling. Hud-Pren? It's well and truly his position. Is he good enough or ain't he? He's a professional cricketer I know that much. Got a game last year under the Youth Killer but went for a few from four or five overs and was never trusted again, including in that game I think. Batted OK apparently. He didn't go for any more than Garton or Hobden has or did but he may have been lucky not to for all I know. He's an all-rounder though, why not chuck him in and give a little more trust? Fact of the matter is we have him, we need someone for that position and he is of that position. JB, if you think the biggest issue was an all-rounder, which went unaddressed, and I think the biggest issue is our use of a spinner, which is going unaddressed, why didn't and don't Davis & Co address the issues? Are we, Christ help us, wrong? I agree that Fynn should be given a go but you can't compare him to Hobden or Garton. Garton has at least two yards on him and is a left-armer. He's also got wickets and at present has the best average of all our bowlers. I would say Fynn would be a good swap for Wells. |
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Apr 21, 2016 17:59:56 GMT
Garton wouldn't have had wickets if he was treated the same way as H-P after four or five overs - he had the same figures. But yeah, Garton and Hobden are and were better bowlers. It wasn't sposed to be that kind of comparison and nor should it be, H-P would be fifth bowling option, an all-rounder. They were persevered with despite a similar start, is all. We've got someone for that position though, why have him otherwise?
Finch is a better swap for Wells Joe, surely.
|
|
|
|
Post by joe on Apr 21, 2016 18:05:50 GMT
Fynn Is in a difficult position, he's a jack of all trades, master of none. I agree he's a good cricketer but is he good enough? I don't know and I guess we won't know until he's given another go.
Yes, Finch would be a good swap for Wells.
|
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Apr 21, 2016 18:27:13 GMT
Fynn Is in a difficult position, he's a jack of all trades, master of none. I agree he's a good cricketer but is he good enough? I don't know and I guess we won't know until he's given another go. Yes, Finch would be a good swap for Wells. And that is something the coach and captain need to consider before they boot him out after four or five shabby overs. He ain't gonna be as good a bowler as Garton & Co but he is gonna be a better batter. I don't agree that it's a tricky position, he's got two chances to shine, one for either innings. M-J was a master at contributing one or the other if I remember rightly. I don't remember him scoring hundreds and taking Michelles the next day. He's the benchmark but he didn't do much until he was 21 or so. But yeah, just chuck him in, trust him and sod it. |
|
|
|
Post by joe on Apr 21, 2016 18:34:08 GMT
Garton wouldn't have had wickets if he was treated the same way as H-P after four or five overs - he had the same figures. But yeah, Garton and Hobden are and were better bowlers. It wasn't sposed to be that kind of comparison and nor should it be, H-P would be fifth bowling option, an all-rounder. They were persevered with despite a similar start, is all. We've got someone for that position though, why have him otherwise? Finch is a better swap for Wells Joe, surely. Just for the record, Garton got a wicket with his first ball! |
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Apr 21, 2016 19:19:58 GMT
Garton wouldn't have had wickets if he was treated the same way as H-P after four or five overs - he had the same figures. But yeah, Garton and Hobden are and were better bowlers. It wasn't sposed to be that kind of comparison and nor should it be, H-P would be fifth bowling option, an all-rounder. They were persevered with despite a similar start, is all. We've got someone for that position though, why have him otherwise? Finch is a better swap for Wells Joe, surely. Just for the record, Garton got a wicket with his first ball! No dice. When it mattered Northants already had 360 odd on the board before Garton struck. |
|
|
|
Post by joe on Apr 21, 2016 19:33:50 GMT
Just for the record, Garton got a wicket with his first ball! No dice. When it mattered Northants already had 360 odd on the board before Garton struck. His first ball of first class cricket was against the students, with which he got a wicket. |
|
