|
|
Post by coverpoint on Sept 1, 2016 14:35:51 GMT
This is an example of a game which has gone withe toss award. There was quite a bit of life yesterday which Kent exploited well and thus dominated the inexperienced young players. Today the pitch has played progressively slower and the hit the deck bowling of Wiese and Shahzad has been quite ineffectual and Briggs has been a token figure of impotence. Bad luck, bad regulations and a lack of batting depth have all contributed. Kent have played well and have benefited from their two late seaon recruits: Gidman and Viljoen. I blame the groundsman! If you produce a pitch with life in it early YOU will be put in to bat by the opposition captain! He would have been better producing a flat pitch (at least we might have stood a chance as our bowling is largely ineffective on all wickets). With the greatest of respect would Robinson, Shahzad, Wiese or Briggs, who collectively currently have figures of 3-294 in this game, get in the Kent team? Why is Briggs playing if there is nothing in the wicket for spinners? May as well have played Salt as the extra batsman at six. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2016 16:04:32 GMT
Well bowled Sussex. 496 all out represents a moral victory: at Tunbridge Wells in July Kent took the Sussex bowlers for 575. Good to know that Sussex are improving.  Glad I wasn't there to watch Gidman's giddy innings. Six hours at the crease - and he still didn't get to 100...  Nor did he deserve it. Taking a single from the first ball of every over from 94 to 99 with the number 11 at the wicket was ridiculous. He faced just six balls in the final five overs and left Claydon to get him over the line - with predictable (and perhaps just) deserts. Infuriating BBC commentary. They spent all day speculating about the timing of a declaration when Billings had more or less said on interview last night that Kent would bat all day or until they were all out... Fingers crossed that young Haines can avoid a pair on debut...on edit: phew, he's off the mark! |
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Sept 1, 2016 20:52:26 GMT
Are we in division one yet? I think it's time to play the kids - that winning U15s side maybe. 450 all out second dig and bowl them out for 120? Shahzad and Robinson Michelles? No I've lost it now.
Hey I don't wanna see Robinson, Shahzad or Mags banished to the seconds Borderman. Just commenting with a fair dose of ridicule on your ridiculous assertion about Garton, Archer, Shahzad and Robinson. Shahzad must be younger and less experienced than I thought though cos he conceded a multitude of runs over the two days and as you say, that's what the youth do.
What a season eh. See you on the ice suckers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2016 9:25:44 GMT
This is an example of a game which has gone withe toss award. There was quite a bit of life yesterday which Kent exploited well and thus dominated the inexperienced young players. Today the pitch has played progressively slower and the hit the deck bowling of Wiese and Shahzad has been quite ineffectual and Briggs has been a token figure of impotence. Bad luck, bad regulations and a lack of batting depth have all contributed. Kent have played well and have benefited from their two late seaon recruits: Gidman and Viljoen. I blame the groundsman! Astute comment, cp, because it seems that Ben Brown agrees with you. From his captain's interview last night: “It was disappointing that we didn’t quite get the pitch we wanted at home." |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Sept 2, 2016 9:31:05 GMT
Astute comment, cp, because it seems that Ben Brown agrees with you. From his captain's interview last night: “It was disappointing that we didn’t quite get the pitch we wanted at home."Astute fiddlesticks. There was some life in the pitch first day, which has gradually played slower. It is possible it may even turn by Saturday, but because Sussex's inexperienced top order went through one of their panicky meltdowns there won't be anyone playing to experience it. Ben Brown may tak as much as he'd like about disappointment, but there is no honour in blaming a groundsman for producing a wicket that offers something to bowlers as well as batsman. This was no natural graveyard, just a gooud bouncy track with a nice bit of early morning dew on it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2016 9:37:01 GMT
To be fair to BB, I'm not sure that what he says disagrees with your assessment, hhs.
In full:
“It’s been a tough couple of days, we’ve been outplayed and Kent have shown us the way with bat and ball.
They have had the best of the conditions but they have outplayed us really. It was disappointing that we didn’t quite get the pitch we wanted at home and the first day was a bit hairy for batting. Even Kent found it difficult but it does look better now, its slowed up and it’s going to be tough for us tomorrow. But if we work hard there are definitely runs to be had out there.
It is so frustrating to be without so many players this week. We’re on a roll after two wins but people who come in will have learned a lot in the last two days and will need to continue doing that going forward.”
I wasn't there but I tend to agree with cp and BB that with such an inexperienced batting line-up, that wasn't the cleverest track for Sussex to have produced, especially with the new toss/insertion regulations.
|
|
|
|
Post by philh on Sept 2, 2016 10:37:23 GMT
I tend to agree with cp and BB that with such an inexperienced batting line-up, that wasn't the cleverest track for Sussex to have produced, especially with the new toss/insertion regulations. I think that's the crux of the matter. A pudding of a pitch or a graveyard would have been better. |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Sept 2, 2016 11:49:01 GMT
I tend to agree with cp and BB that with such an inexperienced batting line-up, that wasn't the cleverest track for Sussex to have produced, especially with the new toss/insertion regulations. I think that's the crux of the matter. A pudding of a pitch or a graveyard would have been better. Fine theory, unfortunately not borne out by circumstance as yet again Sussex bang-crash their inexperienced way towards a 5 an over, under 40 over capitulation. This side would probably have been put in on any kind of wicket and exploited just as ruthlessly. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2016 12:06:02 GMT
Yes, this inexperienced side would probably have lost on any wicket other than a completely lifeless track like the earlier fixture between these two sides at Tunbridge Wellls.
But I don't think that's the point phil, cp or myself (or Ben Brown) was making. All that was being said was that with such an inexperienced batting line-up and a regulation which meant Sussex were always going to have to bat first, it wasn't the smartest track for Sussex to have produced. I honestly didn't think that statement was in any way controversial!
|
|
|
|
Post by joe on Sept 2, 2016 12:11:22 GMT
This has to be the worst team we've put out this season.
A comprehensive defeat and made to look like amateurs. Wayward bowling and very poor shot selection.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Sept 2, 2016 12:12:48 GMT
A train wreck of a season
|
|
|
|
Post by joe on Sept 2, 2016 12:30:07 GMT
Yes, this inexperienced side would probably have lost on any wicket other than a completely lifeless track like the earlier fixture between these two sides at Tunbridge Wellls. But surely you said in earlier posts that the side had been strengthened? Haines and H-P are inexperienced but so are Archer and Garton who were part of the winning side against Glamorgan. I predict a bit of back-peddling bm! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2016 12:50:28 GMT
Yes, this inexperienced side would probably have lost on any wicket other than a completely lifeless track like the earlier fixture between these two sides at Tunbridge Wellls. But surely you said in earlier posts that the side had been strengthened? Haines and H-P are inexperienced but so are Archer and Garton who were part of the winning side against Glamorgan. I predict a bit of back-peddling bm! Read the post properly. It said "with such an inexperienced batting line-up and a regulation which meant Sussex were always going to have to bat first, it wasn't the smartest track for Sussex to have produced" and was in the context of preparing a pitch on which Kent would be delighted to exercise their right to bowl first . Nothing to do with the inadequacies of the bowling attack on day two, when Sussex conceded more than 400 for I think the seventh time in 13 matches this season ! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2016 12:58:51 GMT
Haines and H-P are inexperienced but so are Archer and Garton who were part of the winning side against Glamorgan. So was Christian Davis. In fact the lad retires as a Sussex player with a 100 per cent record in the county championship - played two, won two. He must have had a gavanising impact on the side. Prior to his elevation to the first XI, Sussex had only won twice in their previous 21 games. And then as soon as Davis was gone, Sussex collapsed in a heap again! |
|
|
|
Post by joe on Sept 2, 2016 13:06:39 GMT
Whatever.
The fact remains that it was a woeful performance with bat AND ball, with the exception of Magoffin.
Kents first championship win at Hove since 1992.
|
|
Nor did he deserve it. Taking a single from the first ball of every over from 94 to 99 with the number 11 at the wicket was ridiculous. He faced just six balls in the final five overs and left Claydon to get him over the line - with predictable (and perhaps just) deserts.
