|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jul 2, 2016 14:50:06 GMT
This team selection shows Wright obviously thinks this pitch is going to be going sideways later on. A friend of mine spoke to Grounders and said how amazed he was that we had gone with so many spinners. His reply was "No one is more amazed than me. Its not a spinning wicket" |
|
nemmo
Captain 2nd XI
Posts: 285
|
Post by nemmo on Jul 2, 2016 15:16:18 GMT
Thats slightly worrying....
|
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Jul 2, 2016 15:29:22 GMT
I actually don't mind seeing Briggs and Beer in tandem, it's a bit old school, but if the wicket might take spin, it's worth a gamble. To do it though, we've had to sacrifice a batsman, which leaves us with such a long tail, too long in my opinion. When it comes to selecting an overseas for next season, or even as a replacement for the departing Taylor, we simply have to bring in an all rounder. Davo and Luke have got our overseas completely wrong, and we've ended up with exactly the same problems we had last season. As I said, I quite like the idea of Beer playing in the championship, and if the conditions are right, playing both him and Briggs. We can only do this, if we have a seamer who is good enough to bat in the top six. Swap someone like Faulkner, for one of the seamers, and that would look a very interesting side
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jul 2, 2016 15:30:19 GMT
The time could be right to put that cynical theory to the test. Bring on Wells.
|
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Jul 2, 2016 15:31:36 GMT
I actually don't mind seeing Briggs and Beer in tandem, it's a bit old school, but if the wicket might take spin, it's worth a gamble. To do it though, we've had to sacrifice a batsman, which leaves us with such a long tail, too long in my opinion. When it comes to selecting an overseas for next season, or even as a replacement for the departing Taylor, we simply have to bring in an all rounder. Davo and Luke have got our overseas completely wrong, and we've ended up with exactly the same problems we had last season. As I said, I quite like the idea of Beer playing in the championship, and if the conditions are right, playing both him and Briggs. We can only do this, if we have a seamer who is good enough to bat in the top six. Swap someone like Faulkner, for one of the seamers, and that would look a very interesting side Agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jul 2, 2016 16:51:53 GMT
I actually don't mind seeing Briggs and Beer in tandem, it's a bit old school, but if the wicket might take spin, it's worth a gamble. To do it though, we've had to sacrifice a batsman, which leaves us with such a long tail, too long in my opinion. When it comes to selecting an overseas for next season, or even as a replacement for the departing Taylor, we simply have to bring in an all rounder. Davo and Luke have got our overseas completely wrong, and we've ended up with exactly the same problems we had last season. As I said, I quite like the idea of Beer playing in the championship, and if the conditions are right, playing both him and Briggs. We can only do this, if we have a seamer who is good enough to bat in the top six. Swap someone like Faulkner, for one of the seamers, and that would look a very interesting side Old school or new school, nobody would have any problems with seeing two decent spinners bowling together and giving batsmen a through testing, providing a) The pitch is likely to offer some assistance either through turn or bounce, and b) They can do the job properly The problem is that Briggs and Beer have so far bowled 29 overs, taking 1 for 84. That is, reasonably economical but not at all penetrative. 29 overs, 6 - 150 would be effective a la Mushtaq. As I write the seam bowlers have figures of 57 overs, 6-158. It simply doesn't matter if we have Faulkner or Imran Khan or Keith Miller playing in the top six if we pick an unbalanced side, unsuited for the conditions. |
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Jul 2, 2016 17:22:12 GMT
Bit of a dreary old game so far Maybe the spinners will come into their own in the second innings, if there is one. The point is, without a bowler who can bat in the top six, the side is always going to be unbalanced
|
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Jul 2, 2016 17:25:02 GMT
We replaced Machan and Robinson with Beer and Briggs. This not only weakened the batting but also the seam bowling. I hope this experiment will be reversed for the next county championship game at Tunbridge Wells.
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jul 2, 2016 17:49:28 GMT
Bit of a dreary old game so far Maybe the spinners will come into their own in the second innings, if there is one. The point is, without a bowler who can bat in The balance here is 5 batsmen plus Brown, not in the best of form, plus two additional spin bowlers - there are already two in the top 6 - and 3 seamers. Unless it is a really turning wicket this is ludicrous: a longer batting order is needed, and a bowling attack suited to the wicket. |
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Jul 3, 2016 8:53:59 GMT
The away team has the choice. This was not under Sussex's control. I think Beer and Briggs were selected on the basis of being the best two bowlers from last night. How many overs will Beer bowl? Not many by the looks of it so far. I worry about the length of our tail. I would rather have seen Machan instead of one of the bowlers. No: the away team has the choice to put thier opponents in without a toss. However, Glamorgan opted to toss and won it, then batted, obviously liking the thought of making runs in the first innings at least. Yeah, what he said. This must have been an especially confusing season for you Curriculum Vitae. Hopefully they'll blow this stupid idea off and go back to normal next season. 290-7 or so, I was expecting worse given the bizarre selection. Still, I've finally got my bowl-off. Let's see where this one goes. It's about time our big name OS got his first ton of the season. |
|
|
|
Post by philh on Jul 3, 2016 15:17:52 GMT
This is the session that might start to tell us whether the selection was right.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Jul 3, 2016 18:05:13 GMT
That'll do, good grafting from Sussex, we need a big lead (tricky on this wicket) because we want them to bat last if our spinners are gonna get anything from the wicket
|
|
|
|
Post by philh on Jul 3, 2016 18:31:42 GMT
It's hard to say how we are doing with such a long tail. I agree with jonboy that we need a decent lead. That looks possible but if the new ball tomorrow takes out Wells and Wright, the rest could follow quite quickly. If we can get to lunch with only two more wickets down and Wright or Wells going well, we could end the day being happy. We'll see. |
|
|
|
Post by joe on Jul 3, 2016 18:46:28 GMT
Decent start on a very slow and low wicket, honours even at this stage I think and all results still possible,
|
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Jul 3, 2016 20:44:58 GMT
Yep, even honours and dictation yet to be, dictated. Not sure why we're producing slow and low wickets at Hove, if that is the case. I don't remember that being on the agenda over the last two or three years. What's that all about?
Either I put the mockers on Taylor with my early morning ton talk, nice, or he is the OS I said he was when we signed him - quality one-dayer, not so much in the longer form. Right now he has about 20 more runs than Machan from the same amount of innings, a similar average and a worse HS and SR. Machan ain't no OS star but he has been dropped. Poor.
Tomorrow is another day - Monday.
|
|
