|
|
Post by fraudster on Jun 6, 2016 17:33:54 GMT
Essex showing us how to approach the opening power play overs on a cracking track. Ours was a dismal approach. The spinners are our only hope and we need to get them on early.
40-0 off 6.3
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jun 6, 2016 18:50:34 GMT
Well, this is exciting entertainment . . . zzzzzzzzzzz  It will only become interesting if Essex make a cock up of their run chase. |
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Jun 6, 2016 19:45:49 GMT
It's getting interesting now Flash - said without sarcasm.
Garton and Beer have been quality and the other three not too shabby either. Knight and Colville both questioning Yardy on Beer's many CC absences but Yardy's best explanation seems to be Luke Wells' leg spin - they should pin him down to the past as much as the present.
|
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Jun 6, 2016 20:09:32 GMT
Canter for Essex. Garton and Beer apart we didn't look like taking a wicket. Too many easy singles. Robinson for Shahzad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jun 6, 2016 20:35:25 GMT
Bm,
Many congrats on your mystic meg predictions!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2016 20:38:49 GMT
It's getting interesting now Flash - said without sarcasm. Garton and Beer have been quality and the other three not too shabby either. Knight and Colville both questioning Yardy on Beer's many CC absences but Yardy's best explanation seems to be Luke Wells' leg spin - they should pin him down to the past as much as the present. 22 months now without a win in a 50 over game - that's a stat of Leicestershire-style proportions... Don't think Sussex did too much wrong with the ball. But the batting was piss poor - at 133-1 in the 27th over we should have gone well past 300. Over 50 overs, you need a sixth batsmen with Brown at seven - but the man who could have batted at six and bowled ten economical overs was the man who hit the winning runs for Essex. Two of us predicted during the innings break a defeat with Zaidi hitting the winning runs. Sadly I didn't put any money on it. Yardy's stint in the comentary box was utterly embarrassing. His dissembling about Will Beer was as poor as his insistence that Zaidi had "just moved on" when the truth was that Robinson sacked him... |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jun 6, 2016 20:40:13 GMT
Interesting last few overs. However, this match highlighted the problem with 50 over cricket - it was oh so dull for so many of the middle overs in each innings - a succession of leisurely singles down to long off and other deep fielders is not going to set the heart racing.
Here's an idea: why not cut out the middle overs and just play 30 overs a side? Or, let's be brave and cut it down to 20 overs. Then the batsmen wouldn't be able to faff about for 20 overs in the middle. Seriously, what is the point of 50 over cricket? Not surprising it doesn't often attract big crowds.
|
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Jun 6, 2016 20:42:56 GMT
Interesting last few overs. However, this match highlighted the problem with 50 over cricket - it was oh so dull for so many of the middle overs in each innings - a succession of leisurely singles down to long off and other deep fielders is not going to set the heart racing. Here's an idea: why not cut out the middle overs and just play 30 overs a side? Or, let's be brave and cut it down to 20 overs. Then the batsmen wouldn't be able to faff about for 20 overs in the middle. Seriously, what is the point of 50 over cricket? Not surprising it doesn't often attract big crowds. What replace it with a ten city (London x2, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Bristol, Cardiff, Chester-le-street, Nottingham and Southampton) franchise tournement instead played at the international grounds? |
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Jun 6, 2016 21:24:41 GMT
Well bowled, good effort on a belter of a track. The batsmen, they were very ordinary, lacking in intensity and desire. Taylor waited forever before finally going and then got out, which was very costly. That was a 300 par track. I said we should have played Salt and Finch for Nash and Machan, just for this one probably, and as usual, I might have been right and I might not have been - that's so me.
Yardy was quite defensive about Sussex and clearly didn't want to speak about Beer in the CC - I don't blame him if he doesn't want to bad mouth Sussex. Beer's control was top notch, he's clearly the best spinner at the club and has been since Panesar lost the plot. He may not spin it much but who does on one-day tracks. A fourth day track on the other hand, who knows. Garton was very impressive, his control and variety for a young lad was very good. Decent pace too, and decent fielder.
We will win games in this comp, Essex are a good side. Didn't think much to their bowling mind but a strong side all in all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jun 8, 2016 12:41:23 GMT
A fair synopsis of the match using the SKY footage to offer greater gravitas. "The Sussex scoring-rate was pedestrian," sums it up when compared to some of the other RLC games. www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpv15Z8OYUc |
|
