The Cricket Thread
- Thread starter TheSecondStain
- Start date
-
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
-
garysfc
Well-Known Member
Shame we didn’t play like this earlier in competition. We’re obviously not a cup winning side but neither are we a bottom side. Still nice couple wins recently. Love a win at the Rosebowl esp with a few IPA’s & nice weather.
Just a win in t20 is a surprise enough. Let alone a massive one!
If only we'd not messed up just one of those two run chases vs Somerset and Surrey, we'd still be in the hunt.
Tonight's defeats for Surrey and Essex have pretty much wrapped up the group. The best the three of us can do is 15 points. Hence Kent have qualified, and Sussex need a maximum of one point from their final two games (and they probably won't even need that). Somerset and Gloucs still have to play each other, so the winner of that will qualify. Which just leaves the loser, who would need to win their other game. In Gloucs' case, their other game is against Surrey - and hence Surrey do retain a sniff of qualification (eg beat Gloucs, and hope that Somerset do likewise).
If only we'd not messed up just one of those two run chases vs Somerset and Surrey, we'd still be in the hunt.
Tonight's defeats for Surrey and Essex have pretty much wrapped up the group. The best the three of us can do is 15 points. Hence Kent have qualified, and Sussex need a maximum of one point from their final two games (and they probably won't even need that). Somerset and Gloucs still have to play each other, so the winner of that will qualify. Which just leaves the loser, who would need to win their other game. In Gloucs' case, their other game is against Surrey - and hence Surrey do retain a sniff of qualification (eg beat Gloucs, and hope that Somerset do likewise).
I agree with you on McManus. Doing this once (or twice) in the group stage each year isn't enough. He's experienced enough now that he should be doing this four or five teams a year.
But in the case of Weatherley, I've alluded to before that we should be looking to bat him between about overs 8 and 16. (Not necessarily for the entire 8 overs, but going in and out at some point during that period.)
He doesn't have the power to finish off an innings at the death, and he'll generally chew up too many balls in the powerplay. But he's more than capable of knocking 1s and 2s around in the middle overs, coupled with the odd slog swept boundary. The problem with that though is that we bat him down at no.5. In theory, as I've said before, that should ordinarily be too low to play that role. If your batting innings has gone well, your no.5 should generally be there at the end; or at the very least, not getting out with 4 or more overs still left. If we're batting him in the wrong place, that is our fault more than his.
Somewhat perversely though, our failures at the top of the order today and vs Gloucs have allowed Weatherley to come in much earlier than a no.5 should. Basically coming in as a no.4 (but with the added pressure of an extra wicket being down, and not too much to follow). That has duly allowed him to play like he can, making reason contributions and at reasonable strike rate, before then moving aside to let someone else finish it off (McManus tonight, Fuller last week).
But we can't find ourselves in a situation where we want the top order to fail, just to suit Weatherley. That's idiotic! Much better to just move him to no.4!
Who would've been the one to drop out had Donald been fit?, i'm guessing Weatherley because they seem reluctant to use Alsop as a WK.
I guess we don't know how much Donald's injury influenced our decisions over which overseas players to sign.
But if we assume that it would still have been Short and CDG, then I'd suggest a batting line-up of Short, Donald, Vince, Weatherley, Dawson, CDG, McManus, Fuller. (Or swap McManus and Fuller.)
For me, CDG should be our finisher. He's more destructive than the likes of Weatherley and McManus, and more reliable than Fuller. But because of our lack of a third big hitter at the top, I very much understand (and agree with) us using him up the order.
The above side would also have given us my preferred bowling make-up - namely three bowlers (eg Wood, Wheal, Crane) and three all-rounders (eg Dawson, CDG, Short). For example, that is how we won in 2010 (Cork, Wood & Briggs, Ervine, Razzaq & Christian).
