There was some decent hitting. But ultimately it was only a cameo. I still maintain that a top bracket player should be someone who'll bat in the four, or will bowl 20 balls, in order to maximise their impact in a game. They should also be as elite as possible. Pollard's innings was useful. Pooran's innings was match-winning.
That's frustrating, I was getting my hopes up there with the news that Will Rhodes and Emilio Gay were moving on, only to find on Cricinfo that they're both signing for Durham. I've mentioned Gay before, he's a hard-hitting opener, and Rhodes would have been perfect - basically a better version of Holland to solidify the top order and bowl some handy overs too. Actually, after all our talk of needing to sign batters over the past few years, we could probably do with another (English-qualified) good county seamer. Abbott, Abbas and Barker aren't getting any younger and we need more back up than Turner, Wheal and a bit of Fuller.
Good day out yesterday. I didn't manage to get to the opening home matches vs Spirit, so yesterday was my first 100 trip of the season. Shame that the women lost (should have scored another 15 runs, based on their good start), but good to see the men win. Christ, Craig Overton was good! But as for yesterday's bigger news...
...The Telegraph reporting that we've agreed the deal with the owners of the Delhi Capitals. Fee of £120m, including paying off our existing £60m debts. The whole lot: Hampshire Cricket (men and women - the Vipers will be incorporated within Hampshire from next season), The Bowl, and the club's 51% share of Southern Brave. The sale is apparently just subject to the ECB giving their agreement. If some people feel concerned or cautious, I totally understand that. But I'm incredibly excited. Delhi Capitals are one of the biggest franchises in the world, and Indians are some of the biggest lovers of cricket in the world. I can only see them wanting Hampshire, and Brave, being as successful as possible. And I have every faith in Rod that he would only sell to a buyer who he was confident would be good for the club. If this helps us close the financial gap to Surrey, that's great.
Yeah this is excellent news. It really should put us up there when it comes to signing the top county players when they become available. It would be good if we could sign some Indian overseas players as well. Obviously I'm not talking about the Kohli's or the Rohit Sharma's here. But there are lots of very good Indian players who don't play regular international cricket who could be available.
To a large degree that would require a shift in the BCCI's stance, because they don't allow Indian players to play in the Blast or the 100 (or any non-Indian t20 competition). And the pool of Indian players available for Championship cricket is greatly reduced due to the clash with the IPL for the first half of the season. But I doubt the Delhi owners will be the only IPL-related investors into the 100. (Whether any others go as far as to invest into county cricket I think is less likely.) For example, I think the Mumbai Indian owners are very interested in London Spirit. And the more IPL-related investors there are, the more they can collectively put pressure on the BCCI to change their stance. My focus is more on your point about the top county players. If you look at the current Hampshire men's squad, almost everyone is younger than 24 or older than 32. That's a huge problem. I think only Organ, Weatherley, Wheal and Gubbins fall into age range (and it's a very big age range!) - and with the greatest respect to all four of them, they're hardly elite.
I think the BCCI would be open to changing their stance though, especially if other Indian franchises invest.
Got my ticket to the bi annual trip of Southern brave to the West Midlands tomorrow. As I sadly no longer live in the south (not out of choice) Portsmouth, Hampshire and Southern Brave games are more meaningful. They aren't just cricket games, they are a way to connect to my past, my home, who I am.
Dunno if anyone's watching the women's game, but Birmingham just finished their innings on 137. Not watched much women's cricket before so no idea who I'm seeing/whether they're international players or elite or whatever... Though that Lauren Bell seems a good bowler
Oh dear. Brave were bowled all out with about 3 or so balls to go. There was a good partnership between Danni Wyatt and someone else, but before and after that, the wickets came a-tumbling. Let's hope the men can do a bit better
We badly lack batting depth (but then so do a lot of women's teams), so once Perry had ripped through our top order, it was always going to tough to come back. We haven't been outplayed in any of our four matches. But without Shrubsole this season, we're finding ways to lose (or tie) - whereas under her, we would find ways to win.
Turner and Weatherley both made available to play vs Lancs. My guess is that Eckland and Kelly will make way.
Nice to hear the thoughts of someone who clearly knows the sport! Regardless of the result, it's pretty cool how many people were there to watch a women's cricket game. The hundred may be maligned by cricket snobs, but I'm fairly sure there weren't literally thousands of people watching women's domestic cricket before it
