Championship v Kent (Tunbridge Wells) Sun 17 - Wed 20 Jul

We effectively lost 7 wickets for 29 runs with 33 overs of dot balls between them.

But it was a road for the Kent batsmen? 

Not exactly a road. Let me describe what I saw in two sweltering, tedious days (Monday and Tuesday) enlivened only by the company of friends, several from this forum.

The wicket itself is slow and rather spongy, with strong bounce from one end only, the pavilion end, whence most of the wickets have fallen. The ball doesn't come easily onto the bat and so it inhibits strokeplay. In that respect, not very different from the wretched Hove wicket v Glamorgan a couple of weeks ago, and numerous others up and down the country this season. The outfield is very slow as well, most of the strokes that would normally go for four ending up as twos. The reason for that is that it is a public park and the gardeners there have ensured that all the grass, either side of the boundary rope is of the same uniform length, quite respectable for walking on but not up to county standards.

As the game has progressed two things have happened: the bounce from the pavilion end has become more variable, and the heat and the pressure of getting to that big score have worked on the minds of the Sussex batsmen. The two Lukes both played their normal game, which was what we would have wanted them to, and both perished; Wells playing forward constantly, determined not to give his wicket away, content to pick up whatever runs he could, in the end succumbed to a medium pace cutter from Claydon that didn't rise as it should have; Wright played to his strengths, determined to lead by example and for a time succeeded while Taylor took a back seat, but it was not a pitch for handsome strokes and in the end Rabada got one to lift a little more and he top-edged.

That doesn't excuse Sussex but it would probably have been similar if Sussex had won the toss. They would certainly have batted first, found it hard going but made a big score and then Jordan and Whittingham would have exploited the variable bounce, Magoffin might have got some batsmen trapped by his movement, and Briggs would have done as Tredwell did and pinned down one end: both in fact operated largely from the railway end. It would be nice to think that, faced with a Sussex 575, we might have induced something closer to 233 in reply.

Now we have to hope that in cooler, overcast conditions Sussex block away until either a rainstorm hits, or an early handshake. Another dreary game to add to the score this season, with the slight inspiration of Wright getting back into form and Taylor doing what he should have done at least twice before, in his final game. Briggs' bowling was a qualified plus, he bowled tightly for long periods and only got the hammer he endured because of a lack of support from the other end. Beer didn't exactly get carted but in his several short spells gave no hint that a longer spell would make any difference: he is good enough to appear in a first-class match without disgracing himself but no more than that. A fourth seamer, particularly Robinson if fit and firing, could have helped, but the pitch would always be the master.

Listening to the game, reading this I think that the wicket is not quite good enough.
Kent probably in retrospect batted too long. BM has the right idea, set a target that is gettable and entice Sussex.

Briggs has done well.
Beer has done OK. Some of you forget that a leg spinner is an attacking bowler. They need a wicket that gives a bit of assistance and batters
perhaps attacking. His games so far haven't had that.
Give the boy a chance. 2 and a bit games is that really fair to judge someone?
I think this is the team format to go with. I don't see 4 seamers doing much more apart from taking a long time to bowl overs.
I think Sussex have some good seamers coming through and some already good first picks. I think Briggs and Beer will turn out to be a good combination. Give some time, they'll learn from each other and improve.
The batting has some youth (Finch, Macham, Wells)
This should now be a development season ready for 2017. This season, consolidate, learn and now build.
I always felt it unrealistic to expect the bounce back.
Too many of you are dreamers.
The disappointment for me is the T20 performances of Nash (one score, albeit very good), Machan, Jordan (with the bat) and Brown/Cachopa (with the bat).
Bowlers as good as any team.

My only wish is for someone at the top to drive things. I don't see Greenfield as that person.

Interestingly, the story I heard is that TW is much more Kent's Horsham. It seems that a few years ago the local council told Kent they could no longer afford to sponsor the festival, and at the time Kent's marketing efforts were weak and they were on the point of giving up when a private sponsor underwrote the whole costs personally. Since then they have taken on a new and dynamic Marketing Director (coverpoint will know the person referred to) and they have secured a couple of commercial sponsors and saved the festival. You may remember hearing the announcements for Parker's Building Supplies - for all your needs! (Presumably not including pitch preparation). Unfortunately, unlike Horsham Kent don't have responsibility for grounds maintenance.

I've just noticed that Kent charge £!5 for admission to CC matches at Canterbury, but for the privilege of watching "Festival Cricket" at Tunbridge Wells, you have to pay £20. Having sampled the delights of TW this week, I'm feeling very p*ssed off about this arrogant pricing differential. What's the justification, Kent CCC? I've never known Sussex stoop to this behaviour.

Sussex charge £16 general entry for a CC game but for the tourist game they charged £18 to watch what was almost a second XI.