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
-
I'm not frustrated by the result, because I think we played well and Somerset are the stronger side. But I am frustrated that the batting intelligence which we showed when batting first today, we didn't show when batting first against Gloucs. That defeat in Bristol is still the result which I think has hurt us the most, leaving us currently in a tricky position to qualify.
If we'd gone hard up front against Overton, Henry and Meredith, in tricky conditions, they would have likely run through us. So instead we absorbed the pressure and then cashed in after the PP (although I thought that Somerset got it wrong by turning to Green and Goldsworthy together). It was almost a perfectly judged innings in the circumstances - we just needed to get another 8 to 10 runs off Goldsworthy's last over (which I think only went for 4).
And yet against Gloucs, we couldn't have judged it any worse if we'd tried.
If we'd gone hard up front against Overton, Henry and Meredith, in tricky conditions, they would have likely run through us. So instead we absorbed the pressure and then cashed in after the PP (although I thought that Somerset got it wrong by turning to Green and Goldsworthy together). It was almost a perfectly judged innings in the circumstances - we just needed to get another 8 to 10 runs off Goldsworthy's last over (which I think only went for 4).
And yet against Gloucs, we couldn't have judged it any worse if we'd tried.
That's a bad defeat for Surrey. But they'll still qualify (behind Somerset).
The upcoming matches this week which involve the other five sides are Middlesex v Hants (Weds), Gloucs v Surrey (Weds), Sussex v Kent (Weds), Hants v Glamorgan (Thurs), Middlesex v Gloucs (Fri), Kent v Somerset (Fri), Surrey v Glamorgan (Fri), and Essex v Sussex (Fri).
Both of our matches are must-win.
Kent surely have to beat Sussex to have any chance. They've had a dreadful past 72 hours. If Sussex win it, they'll be very placed with their Essex match to follow (and a game in hand to come in the final week).
The upcoming matches this week which involve the other five sides are Middlesex v Hants (Weds), Gloucs v Surrey (Weds), Sussex v Kent (Weds), Hants v Glamorgan (Thurs), Middlesex v Gloucs (Fri), Kent v Somerset (Fri), Surrey v Glamorgan (Fri), and Essex v Sussex (Fri).
Both of our matches are must-win.
Kent surely have to beat Sussex to have any chance. They've had a dreadful past 72 hours. If Sussex win it, they'll be very placed with their Essex match to follow (and a game in hand to come in the final week).
Unless he doesn't want the responsibility of holding the world record (very unlikely), I don't see him declaring on his own innings. And I don't see five wickets falling at the other end before he gets to 401. Therefore, it most likely comes down to whether Zimbabwe can get him out. In the nicest sense possible, I really hope they do. It's right that a record of that stature is held by a batter of Lara's stature.
Agreed, Lara got it against a main stream team. I was actually watching in St John's when Lara got it in 1994, the 375. Saw Robin Smith get 175 in England's reply
SA declared! 
If Mulder felt that Lara's record should stand or didn't want to break it against Zimbabwe then fair play to him.
If Mulder felt that Lara's record should stand or didn't want to break it against Zimbabwe then fair play to him.
BBC had just decided to start a live text of the potential new record...
Vince seems hopeful that Lynn will be back for Wednesday, but he isn't certain.
I suppose if we did find ourselves needing to recruit yet another overseas replacement, then a certain experienced Australian opener has just been knocked out of the MLC and now has a few spare weeks until he's over here for the 100...
I suppose if we did find ourselves needing to recruit yet another overseas replacement, then a certain experienced Australian opener has just been knocked out of the MLC and now has a few spare weeks until he's over here for the 100...
Pleased to see Archer back, but I personally wouldn't have selected him as one of just three front-line seamers/pacers. I'd be more comfortable if we'd also picked Atkinson or Overton or Cook in place of Bashir.
With just one innings under his belt for Sussex, asking him to either open the bowling - or be first-change bowler - is a lot. Especially at Lords, where spin probably won't be a big factor - and even more so, given Stokes' preference to bowl first (as an aside, that's another reason why I don't understand why he loves Bashir so much. We're rarely the ones bowling on day five.)
Having, say, Woakes and Atkinson to open, with Carse as first-change, would seem a much better way to manage Archer's workload. There would still then be Stokes (and a bit of Root).
With just one innings under his belt for Sussex, asking him to either open the bowling - or be first-change bowler - is a lot. Especially at Lords, where spin probably won't be a big factor - and even more so, given Stokes' preference to bowl first (as an aside, that's another reason why I don't understand why he loves Bashir so much. We're rarely the ones bowling on day five.)
Having, say, Woakes and Atkinson to open, with Carse as first-change, would seem a much better way to manage Archer's workload. There would still then be Stokes (and a bit of Root).
With both coming back from injury I don't think they want to take the risk of having both Archer and Atkinson in the side. I also saw Michael Vaughan say he'd heard Atkinson wasn't quite ready anyway. Personally I'd have Dawson in the side ahead of Bashir.
Poor umpiring. Du Plooy was short there. No wonder Vince isn't happy.
