The Cricket Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Ball has done a bit most of the game. Fidel pace, Curran's swing, and Clarke's accuracy have exploited it the most.

(Wood also really got the ball to swing, but often away from Surrey's left-armers rather than into our right-armers like Curran is doing)
 
Six LBWs, and one clean bowled (which should really have been seven LBWs, because Abbott was plumb in front shortly before being bowled).

That wasn't us giving our wickets away. That was the ball doing a lot, and Surrey bowling excellently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saints_Alive
Somewhat bizarrely, if there's one thing to be disappointed about, it's Abbott's bowling from yesterday. Pretty much the only bowler who hasn't got the ball to do something.
 
Saints_Alive said:
Missing Bergy in this match..:(
Click to expand...

It's a shame that Wood was bowling at a lot of lefties than righties. I think he'd have had a few wickets to go with a his decent economy (and decent swing) otherwise. Don't get me wrong, he wasn't on a par with Curran, but he bowled well. And he can bat.

A few wickets for Wood, and it could have been Wheal making way for Berg next game. In April, when the ball often does a bit, I'm not sure about our strategy of picking Wheal as our 'bang it in, halfway down' bowler. I'd rather he was doing that on an Oval pitch in July, not in April.

Still, there's a second innings yet.
 
Sussex 384 for 7. Showing everyone else that batting is relatively easy. Either Sussex have good batting line up, or Leicestershire have very ordinary bowlers, or unlike elsewhere the pitch is a good batting strip.
 
The Ides of March said:
Sussex 384 for 7. Showing everyone else that batting is relatively easy. Either Sussex have good batting line up, or Leicestershire have very ordinary bowlers, or unlike elsewhere the pitch is a good batting strip.
Click to expand...

There's a reason why Leicester have only won once in about a decade.
 
Saints_Alive said:
Great knock from Northeast in the circumstances, at least Hants have shown a bit of fight today.
Click to expand...

And to be honest, I don't have too much of a problem with losing matches. I'd much rather WLWLWL than WDDDDD.

We didn't bowl our best in the first innings, and didn't bat our best in the fourth innings. But that happens. And we were without one of our star players in Berg (and possibly could have done with Crane on day three). That said, I'm still not convinced about McManus as an opener, or (as I said the other day) Wheal in this enforcer role.

(Can't comment too much on our third innings bowling, because I didn't see any of it yesterday.)
 
st_brendy said:
And to be honest, I don't have too much of a problem with losing matches. I'd much rather WLWLWL than WDDDDD.

We didn't bowl our best in the first innings, and didn't bat our best in the fourth innings. But that happens. And we were without one of our star players in Berg (and possibly could have done with Crane on day three). That said, I'm still not convinced about McManus as an opener, or (as I said the other day) Wheal in this enforcer role.

(Can't comment too much on our third innings bowling, because I didn't see any of it yesterday.)
Click to expand...
Undone by the 1st inns. collapse. Needed to get level or a little in front of the Surrey score (1st up) then the dynamic of the game may have been quite different...... and a lot closer on the final day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back