|
|
Post by jonboy on Sept 23, 2016 21:11:00 GMT
Weirdly, Mark Davis in his post match comments, seems to think we've had a decent four day campaign. Just as bizarrely, he suggests, if we sign an overseas next season, it will be a bowler.
|
|
|
|
Post by irishexile on Sept 23, 2016 21:29:35 GMT
This artificial joke bowling always leaves me feeling very queasy; it's just one team openly and brazenly agreeing to deliberately underperform in order to distort the progress of the match. Is it: a) match fixing? or b) conduct bringing the game into disrepute? or c) both of the above? Is there any other professional sport that would dare to condone this type of behaviour? No, no and no.
Teams win the Championship over a 16 game season and, with one game to play three teams could still have won it. The fixture list, prepared last year, put these two teams together in the last round of matches. Both teams had to win outright to win the trophy, and at lunchtime today the only way this was going to happen was through a return to the declaration bowling of yesteryear. Both teams agreed the chase, and it was essentially sh*t or bust for both.
Do other sports have such in the rules - probably not, but then the passage of play this afternoon breathed life into a match that was dying fast.
For Roland-Jones to take a hat-trick, complete a 10-fer and win the Championship in one ball was an incredible feat - and congrats to Middlesex for an unbeaten season and for being worthy champions.
Almost as exciting as Lancashire's last minute defeat to Surrey at the Oval which handed the Championship to Sussex a few years back...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 21:29:49 GMT
Weirdly, Mark Davis in his post match comments, seems to think we've had a decent four day campaign. Just as bizarrely, he suggests, if we sign an overseas next season, it will be a bowler. It's comments like that make you despair. Sussex came 13th. It was a position which flattered them and it was ultimately achieved by belatedly being able in the run-in to field the county's best quartet of seam bowlers in Magofin, Jordan, Robinson and Archer. Afrter that there's the promise of Garton and Whittingham, who are both going to have to wait their turn, and the proven quality of Shahzad, whose self-confidence has taken a battering this season and will next year be busting a gut to get back to to the brilliant form he showed in early 2015 before being cruelly sidelined by injury. And Davis wants to sign another bowler? When Finch, Haines, Salt and Hudson-Prentice are all struggling to come to terms with the difference in quality betwen first and second XI cricket? Mind-boggling... |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Sept 23, 2016 21:30:54 GMT
Salt is a naturally attacking batsman more suited to white ball cricket. Listening to the commentary yesterday he did have a few wild swings across the line but thankfully is still there at the close which is good for Sussex. The only reason he's in the side is because there's no one else but I think he's shown enough promise in the one day and T20 games to be kept on. Fynn Hudson-Prentice and Cachopa will be lucky if their services are required further than the end of the season. Cachopa has another year on his contract and Hudson-Prentice is only 20. To even suggest releasing someone at the age of 20 is absurd. |
|
|
|
Post by joe on Sept 24, 2016 5:11:25 GMT
Salt is a naturally attacking batsman more suited to white ball cricket. Listening to the commentary yesterday he did have a few wild swings across the line but thankfully is still there at the close which is good for Sussex. The only reason he's in the side is because there's no one else but I think he's shown enough promise in the one day and T20 games to be kept on. Fynn Hudson-Prentice and Cachopa will be lucky if their services are required further than the end of the season. Cachopa has another year on his contract and Hudson-Prentice is only 20. To even suggest releasing someone at the age of 20 is absurd. Jackson, who was 20, was released last year for much less! |
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Sept 24, 2016 12:20:09 GMT
Weirdly, Mark Davis in his post match comments, seems to think we've had a decent four day campaign. Just as bizarrely, he suggests, if we sign an overseas next season, it will be a bowler. It's bizarre if he's talking about a seamer - but only as bizarre as you and everyone else on here thinking we need a batter. We need a top spinner (Chawla, Mishra), they will win us games. Probably more important than any player is a full time batting coach though. Then you people might finally get the two or three batsman you're after.
The so-called top batter acquired for this season and his dismal performances were the main reason we drew so many games rather than winning. I honestly can't fathom how so many people on here, people with eyes and brains, think we need a batsman of two - utter nonsense. Nash, Finch, Wells, Wright and Machan will be the best top five in the division - along with Notts' probably. As long as the batting coach has started his work.
No need for Mags and Joyce, use their unquestionably high wages to get the spinner and the batting coach. It's a young man's game, we gotta be brutal with several players in this squad, at whatever cost.
Congrats to the Middle, worthy winners. A fairy-tale finish to the most competitive season I can remember - although I am only seven.
|
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Sept 24, 2016 16:05:18 GMT
Cachopa has another year on his contract and Hudson-Prentice is only 20. To even suggest releasing someone at the age of 20 is absurd. Jackson, who was 20, was released last year for much less! Three wicketkeepers (well according to the club) and could only justify keeping two. For me they released the wrong one. |
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Sept 24, 2016 16:46:12 GMT
Looks like we might have a couple of new batsmen, AND an all rounder next season, according to Mark Davis. All domestic signings as well, with an overseas bowler earmarked
|
|
|
|
Post by joe on Sept 24, 2016 16:55:20 GMT
Chesney Hughes anyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Sept 24, 2016 17:18:28 GMT
Yes, I think we may well have an interest. There aren't gonna be too many A List players left, so we'll be left with the likes of Chesney Hughes. He won't come near to replacing Taylor or Joyce, but is probably a bit better than Finch, Cachopa, FHP and Salt. Probably Machan too, at least on last seasons performances. Not sure how I'd feel about it, we certainly needed another experienced batsman on a few occasions this season, but I'm not sure I'd like to see all our youngsters replaced by County journeymen. That would be too much like the bad old days |
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Sept 25, 2016 10:34:18 GMT
Jackson, who was 20, was released last year for much less! Three wicketkeepers (well according to the club) and could only justify keeping two. For me they released the wrong one. If Cachopa had his contract extended before Jackson's expired it's obvious why we released the wrong one, ain't it. We have to give these lads like H-P longer, it could be very wasteful otherwise. They're cheap and we've already spent considerable time and money on their development. You can't bring a lad on from the age of 12 and then dump him at 20 because he didn't produce in about eight innings after being thrust into an injury hit team.
Unless these batters and an all-rounder we're supposed to be after are better than Chesney Hawkes there's no point in making these wasteful signings. A batting coach would probably be the easiest thing to find, let's spend good money on that.
|
|
|
|
Post by joe on Sept 25, 2016 11:49:06 GMT
Three wicketkeepers (well according to the club) and could only justify keeping two. For me they released the wrong one. If Cachopa had his contract extended before Jackson's expired it's obvious why we released the wrong one, ain't it. We have to give these lads like H-P longer, it could be very wasteful otherwise. They're cheap and we've already spent considerable time and money on their development. You can't bring a lad on from the age of 12 and then dump him at 20 because he didn't produce in about eight innings after being thrust into an injury hit team.
Unless these batters and an all-rounder we're supposed to be after are better than Chesney Hawkes there's no point in making these wasteful signings. A batting coach would probably be the easiest thing to find, let's spend good money on that.
Don't agree. Whittingham Archer and Garton are the same age if not younger, they were thrust in under the same circumstances and have produced some brilliant cricket. Archer took 4 Pakistani wickets in his first run in the team, Garton was top wicket taker in his first CC outing v Northants. The same can not be said for Hudson-Prentice who's had 8 innings with an average of 10. If he's been with the club since 12 then he should be capable of taking his chance when it's given to him. There are plenty of 19/20 year olds around the county circuit who are first team regulars, there's even a 19 year old in the England squad! |
|
|
|
Post by joe on Sept 25, 2016 14:24:12 GMT
Across all formats.
Garton 24 wickets @27
Archer 35 wickets @28
Whittingham 18 wickets @32
Can't ask for more than that from their first season being 'thrust' into the first team.
And on top of that Archer has 195 runs @24 with a top score of 73 from 8 innings. Even Garton has a better batting average than Hudson-Prentice and he's a No11 !
|
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Sept 25, 2016 14:47:19 GMT
Garton's younger, Archer and Whittingham are two years older. Whittingham wasn't close to first team cricket at 20 and I suspect Archer wasn't either. Players don't all develop at the same time. Your way of thinking would have seen Whittingham down the road two years ago cos he was barely a seconds player at 20 let alone firsts. They're already here, they are our own and they are cheap. Give them as much a chance as your Cachopas and your Zaidis, there's little to lose and much to gain.
|
|
|
|
Post by joe on Sept 25, 2016 15:46:15 GMT
Garton's younger, Archer and Whittingham are two years older. Whittingham wasn't close to first team cricket at 20 and I suspect Archer wasn't either. Players don't all develop at the same time. Your way of thinking would have seen Whittingham down the road two years ago cos he was barely a seconds player at 20 let alone firsts. They're already here, they are our own and they are cheap. Give them as much a chance as your Cachopas and your Zaidis, there's little to lose and much to gain. Whittingham was playing for Loughborough MCCU at 20, he is 22 Archer is 21. |
|
