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!
I suppose the one benefit to the three week break is that we might get some bodies back. The Lions games will be finished, so Mayes and Jack will be available for the first time. Jofra will have taken his place in the squad for the third test, so unless there are injuries, Baker will presumably be released back to us (albeit maybe only for a couple of games, depending on whether he is selected for the India t20 series). Vince will presumably be fine. And Wheal could be back too.
 
I didn't watch the Surrey innings live but it was pretty much as I expected: Lumsden - you are allowed to pitch it up you know, you don't have to bowl everything so it bounces closer to you than the batter!!

Good win, but could have done with that 6th bowler, as I stated at half-time. Vince back in for Lehmann but then, ultimately, to get a 6th bowler in it would have to be either Weatherley or Orr to drop out and I don't really want to do either at this stage.
 
Oscar Cricket said:
I didn't watch the Surrey innings live but it was pretty much as I expected: Lumsden - you are allowed to pitch it up you know, you don't have to bowl everything so it bounces closer to you than the batter!!

Good win, but could have done with that 6th bowler, as I stated at half-time. Vince back in for Lehmann but then, ultimately, to get a 6th bowler in it would have to be either Weatherley or Orr to drop out and I don't really want to do either at this stage.
Click to expand...

There's no way that Weatherley will be left out.

There is no good solution for bringing in a 6th bowler - and it will only get more difficult when Mayes comes into the equation. I'm sure some people would put him ahead of both Orr and Prest. It all goes back to not replacing Howell; every game we now have to play either a batter light or a bowler light. Fortunately, the promotion of Dawson up the order has been such a success, that I think the batter light option is less risky than the bowler light option.

Listening to Wood's interview yesterday though, I get the impression that we're comfortable with continuing the current five bowler strategy. And to be fair, once Baker is available, an attack of Wood-Baker-Currie-Dawson is pretty alite at county level. And maybe we just accept four overs for Fuller. Having Baker in for Manny means that we can hide Fuller a bit more during the middle overs, whilst also keeping back Currie's second over for whenever we need a wicket during the middle overs.

What I am happy about is that, aside from the first game (with Potgieter), we haven't tried a "bits and pieces" player to fill the Howell gap (such as Organ or Kelly). I just don't see a place for that type of player in t20. Far better to play someone is either a good enough batter, or a good enough bowler; do one thing well, rather than two things badly.
 
Surrey were meant to have Chahar available for this game - and he destroyed us in the final game of last season. But I see that visa issues have delayed his arrival. Phew.

That said, the current weather doesn't scream spin friendly conditions.
 
st_brendy said:
Good thing that we've returned to our non-batting spinner. Looking like a great pick for this test...

Did we pick Bashir based on last week's weather?
Click to expand...

Apparently only the third test match ever in England without a single ball of spin bowled.
 
We're bowling Tom Prest on a wicket which is almost as green as the outfield.

I wouldn't be surprised if Surrey already have more runs than we'll muster in the match.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back