Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 13:51:41 GMT
Don't get carried away with Zaidi. Only the end having a slog.
Zaidi needs RUNS! Not good enough, as it has been said on numerous posts recently. Tredwell to stay? Not sure. Depends on the injury and availability situation I would think. The balance of the side. Even how many runs Machan gets and dare I say how many wickets Beer gets? He's got a few in his last 4-5 games. Essex dropped Panesar for no wickets and Phillips played because he got a few in the 2nds. That's management! Reward for performance.
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jul 8, 2014 14:16:31 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 14:51:27 GMT
The present 'LVI' Table. Unfortunately 5th place won't last long as Middlesex and Durham will soon overtake Sussex. Middx already have as they have taken 4 bonus pts in their current game v Somerset. Durham can only overtake in the current match if they pick up five batting pts to add to the three bowling pts they've already taken plus five pts for a draw, or beat Yorkshire outright. Durham have a game in hand, though... Current 'live' pts table: Middx 128 pts Sussex 125 pts Durham 116 pts The key number, as you say, is that Lancs are on 109 pts and have no game in hand.They have also played both their games v Northants. My gut feeling is that Sussex will be safe: two of our final three games in Sept are against Lancs and Northants.
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jul 8, 2014 14:54:02 GMT
Good win, you can only beat the rubbish you're up against etc etc. Sadly I think we've only jumped one place in the table, though.Think we need another win at Horsham to keep our heads above the relegation zone, otherwise it might be one step forwards, two steps backwards... Match figures: Tredwell 0-46, Zaidi 3-18. Interesting as I think the Kent man's month-long loan expires before the next LVCC match. Should Sussex be seeking to extend his stay? As battleaxe has said, Zaidi's wickets in both innings came from a few overs right at the end. Joyce clearly regarded Tredwell as his first-choice spinner and bowled him earlier but he was too flat to have any effect on what might have been a spinning wicket. I think we do need his relative control, though it doesn't look as if he is likely to be any more penetrative for us than he has been for Kent. Nothing I have heard suggests that Beer would do better in either respect, so I think Tredwell would be a useful stopgap until the end of the season. After that it must be a priority for us to find a spinner capable of settling to long spells, particularly if Hobden continues to improve and challenges for a regular place, as he will always give away runs in the quest for wickets. Sadly, Zaidi doesn't seem to have quite what's needed in either form of his game. A pity, as he is still an engaging and enthusiastic player - one fine piece of fielding throwing down the wicket yesterday drew gasps and applause around the ground - but the flowing strokes he displayed against Durham last year have been replaced by recklessness and misjudgement. And his bowling is a little too perfunctory to impress his status on the batsman, with at least one generous full toss every over. On to Horsham and another wicket that Grounders said was "Coming on nicely". He said that the new groundsman there had been in touch with the club and he thought the wicket would be very satisfactory. Asked if that meant that he'd been told what Steve Magoffin needed and he'd gone out to provide it, Grounders grinned broadly and made no comment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 15:15:43 GMT
As battleaxe has said, Zaidi's wickets in both innings came from a few overs right at the end. Joyce clearly regarded Tredwell as his first-choice spinner and bowled him earlier but he was too flat to have any effect on what might have been a spinning wicket. I think we do need his relative control, though it doesn't look as if he is likely to be any more penetrative for us than he has been for Kent. That is disappointing and sounds like a step backwards. At Arundel during his marathon 60 overs v the Yorkies, he was giving it more air and starting to get back the flight and dip that had deserted him and which was the reason Kent dropped him in favour of Riley. As for Zaidi, winkling out the tail has often proved an obstacle to Sussex, so I wouldn't necessary underestimate his wickets. If he has the happy knack of kidding nine, ten and jack into doing something silly, that could be a valuable asset in itself. And the three he got - Crook, Duckett and Willey - arern't regulation tailenders and can all bat.
|
|
|
Post by ketmandid on Jul 8, 2014 15:17:48 GMT
Great result - can I assume that there have been no points deducted for the pitch? Wrighty should be praised. I thought he had an OK season so far but many have said he has not scored too many this season. WHere can I find out his 2014 figures, Cricinfo seems to show career stats www.espncricinfo.com/county-championship-div1-2014/engine/series/691689.html?view=pointstableSussex now sixth but it has been a funny season with no break away leader of the CC, Notts lost last week which has stunted their hopes somewhat. Yorkshire look to be best placed but Durham will not be easy to beat and the weather looks a bit undecided for the end of the week as well. So even though we have played bad in the last nine and half weeks there is always a chance that three wins out of five might see Sussex push for third (or higher). I still think it is relegation that is the more likely reality
|
|
maxh
2nd XI player
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Posts: 96
|
Post by maxh on Jul 8, 2014 15:23:40 GMT
I'm amazed the inspectors were even there, frankly. 405 after being inserted doesn't scream minefield to me.
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jul 8, 2014 15:24:08 GMT
Great result - can I assume that there have been no points deducted for the pitch? Wrighty should be praised. I thought he had an OK season so far but many have said he has not scored too many this season. WHere can I find out his 2014 figures, Cricinfo seems to show career stats www.espncricinfo.com/county-championship-div1-2014/engine/series/691689.html?view=pointstableSussex now sixth but it has been a funny season with no break away leader of the CC, Notts lost last week which has stunted there hopes somewhat. Yorkshire look to be best placed but Durham will not be easy to beat and the weather looks a bit undecided for the end of the week as well. So even though we have played bad in the last nine and half weeks there is always a chance that three wins out of five might see Sussex push for third (or higher). I still think it is relegation that is the more likely reality Go here for season's averages: linkI agree with you about bunching, though I think Yorkshire and Notts will now draw away, the middle could still invert itself. One more win would make me feel much more sanguine.
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jul 8, 2014 15:53:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lovelyboy on Jul 8, 2014 16:08:12 GMT
Good win, you can only beat the rubbish you're up against etc etc. Sadly I think we've only jumped one place in the table, though.Think we need another win at Horsham to keep our heads above the relegation zone, otherwise it might be one step forwards, two steps backwards... Match figures: Tredwell 0-46, Zaidi 3-18. Interesting as I think the Kent man's month-long loan expires before the next LVCC match. Should Sussex be seeking to extend his stay? As battleaxe has said, Zaidi's wickets in both innings came from a few overs right at the end. Joyce clearly regarded Tredwell as his first-choice spinner and bowled him earlier but he was too flat to have any effect on what might have been a spinning wicket. I think we do need his relative control, though it doesn't look as if he is likely to be any more penetrative for us than he has been for Kent. Nothing I have heard suggests that Beer would do better in either respect, so I think Tredwell would be a useful stopgap until the end of the season. After that it must be a priority for us to find a spinner capable of settling to long spells, particularly if Hobden continues to improve and challenges for a regular place, as he will always give away runs in the quest for wickets. Sadly, Zaidi doesn't seem to have quite what's needed in either form of his game. A pity, as he is still an engaging and enthusiastic player - one fine piece of fielding throwing down the wicket yesterday drew gasps and applause around the ground - but the flowing strokes he displayed against Durham last year have been replaced by recklessness and misjudgement. And his bowling is a little too perfunctory to impress his status on the batsman, with at least one generous full toss every over. On to Horsham and another wicket that Grounders said was "Coming on nicely". He said that the new groundsman there had been in touch with the club and he thought the wicket would be very satisfactory. Asked if that meant that he'd been told what Steve Magoffin needed and he'd gone out to provide it, Grounders grinned broadly and made no comment. The Tredwell loan experiment has yielded 5 wickets at an average of 64!!!! (Economy 3.15) The much maligned Zaidi has 9 wickets at 31.... (Economy 3.23)
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jul 8, 2014 16:17:34 GMT
It ain't what you do, it's the way you do it, to quote a very old song. Zaidi was tried early on bowling long spells. He was only moderately economical, regularly gave away runs each over and never looked like exercising control. In this game he bowled, as has been said, in short bursts against the tail when they were slogging and picked up wickets accordingly. Tredwell has fallen a long way from his standards as support spinner in Bangladesh a few years ago, but he does give control on flat wickets: witness his long stint at Arundel against Yorkshire in support to Magoffin. He won't generally let batsmen get away with imposing themselves. And just for the sheer devilment of it, have you looked at his batting average?
|
|
|
Post by lovelyboy on Jul 8, 2014 16:21:48 GMT
Tredwell was also bowling against the slogging tail and got slogged rather than took wickets! As you can see there is nothing in the economy so you can't say he has given more control. However he has been magnificent in the slip corden and batted well.
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jul 8, 2014 16:45:31 GMT
Tredwell was also bowling against the slogging tail and got slogged rather than took wickets! As you can see there is nothing in the economy so you can't say he has given more control. However he has been magnificent in the slip corden and batted well. Well, yes, I can say that. Consider two key matches, both played on flat wickets: at Hove at the end of April, Zaidi was given the responsibility of bowling a long spell against Somerset. In part this was because we had fallen badly behind the over-rate and needed to get through overs quickly to catch up, but it was also to try to prevent the Trescothick/Peterson partnership from getting goign. The results were 21-1-75-1 and the score moving from 89-4 to 228-5. Peterson took a 6 off the second over Zaidi bowled and Trescothick walked down the wicket quickly to say to him "Don't do that, they'll take him off. Keep him on and we'll milk him". Relatively economic at 3.5 per over but a disaster in the context of the game and the first big setback for us that season. Now consider the Arundel game where we'd been bowled out for a sub-par score, which might have been a lot worse except for Tredwell's 45 and late order stands with others, and where Yorkshire were bristling with fast scoring batsmen. Magoffin bowled superbly and the only other control, and wickets supplied by another member of the attack was from Tredwell: 59-12-158-3. Better economy, but the point is the 12 maidens in that long stint, bowled to some some class players. Tedfious stuff, but such are the wickets we have, and without that spell we could have been fielding out to a 250 run lead in the second innings with plenty of time to be bowled outcheaply. I'm not vilifying Zaidi, who's a nice chap I'm sure, but is way out of his league in first-class cricket, nor am I suggesting that Tredwell is a world-beater. But the fact is, that we need someone who can at least keep batsmen penned down at one end, and that is not something that Zaidi can do.
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Jul 8, 2014 17:27:17 GMT
I agree 100% with Robinson's comments: www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/28216276There is nothing worse than watching 4 days of cricket where 2,000 runs are scored and 20 wickets are taken (slight exaggeration I know). Teams should be docked points where this occurs not because one team cannot bat properly. If Sussex can get 400 and an indivudal batsman can score 150 then there can't be much wrong with the pitch! The umpires should be charged with wasting time. HH I agree with you about Zaidi 100%. Tredwell unfortunately bowls too flat which is why he doesn't take more wickets in first class cricket. At Arundel he did a vital role. Beer needs to take wickets and Machan needs to score runs in the seconds and if they do this then they may be recalled. The balance of the team needs looking at. We won't beat many sides with just four batsmen!
|
|
|
Post by ketmandid on Jul 8, 2014 17:33:33 GMT
Go here for season's averages: linkThanks for the link, really interesting. Not too shabby from Wright even without his big score in this game. What a hero Mags is Hobden has made a good start. Shows Jimmy is not having the best season, he always used to go at 4-4.5 but would pick up more wickets - good opportunity for Hobs or Hatch Wasn't there a lot of furore over the Sussex scouring the loan market for a batsman and Tredders turned up.
|
|