I'm not sure what to make of the current game tonight.
Only 77 ahead with six wickets left, we have a lot of work to do to get our noses back in front on the face of it, although events after tea today suggest that the wicket may be playing up a little. With Surrey losing their last six wickets for 25 and us our first four for 26 something happened. Swing?
Having been in Belfast all day and away from things I'm not sure, but if such conditions continue (and we bowl better than we did in the morning and early afternoon today) there could yet be a twist in the tail. Of course, the weather could yet have a say in proceedings, but a game that looked dead at lunchtime suddenly looks a fair bet to produce a positive result.
Should be a good last day...
I might have caused this by talking about consistency, but I doubt whether there was a sudden change in conditions. It was a bright, dry, breezy afternoon in Nottingham, so it was probably much the same a few miles along the A52. Someone on FF who was there seemed equally perplexed.
ReplyDeleteDerbyshire seem to have bowled shockingly badly - 6 plus per over for 50 overs can't be defended - but all the reports indicate a pitch which offers help to bowlers, so perhaps it just required radars to be fixed, and both sets of bowlers managed to do it in the same session.
However well it goes in the morning, Surrey probably won't be chasing a lot more tomorrow than 200-250, and the worry is that on his showings so far this season, Mark Turner can't be risked with a small target.
In most games this season, we've had either him or Ross Whiteley either leaking runs at an alarming rate or not being trusted to bowl. If our fourth seamer can't be trusted, why are they playing? Whatever problems Jake Needham's winter in South Africa created, surely the result can't be worse than we're getting from Turner and Whiteley? At least we'd then know whether we can free up two or three contracts at the end of the season.
Ive been today and we did bowl badly. Very badly for the most part. There,s no great secret in how to bowl economically. Just get the ball in the right place and build some pressure on the batsmen. I felt sorry for Sutton today,he didn,t stand a chance. If you continually bowl short and/or wide you will get clattered. Its as simple as that. It makes me wonder what these coaches actually tell them. Maybe they don,t listen. Either way it makes me question their value,both from a monetary and a practical sense. Now then,if we got rid of them,how much money can we save towards the playing budget.....?.
ReplyDeleteA Disgraceful capitulation of Sri Lanka proportions. I fear that this is the point where our season falls apart and we have 3 1/2 months of rubbish to look forward to. Still i hope Luke and the boys enjoy their golf round this afternoon.
ReplyDeleteJohn -Member for 44 years
I thought that the season was going quite well until John Morris was sacked. Presumably as we are having to pay him any way, the decision was made in order to improve performance. Instaed since then perform,ance has dropped,
ReplyDeleteAnd the bowling has been short and wide far too often. I don't think the stumps were moved around between innings but it looks like Surrey are on a different pitch...
ReplyDeleteSpireite Tim
Shocking today I'm affraid and unless anyone hasn't noticed we haven't won a match since we sacked our so called 'problem' John Morris. Come on Mr Grant please reinstate John Morris with immediate effect. I'm affraid if some of the players don't like him telling them the truth then tuff!
ReplyDeleteLangers to Kent then! To be honest I'm sick of turning on my Sky Sports to read about the other so called 'poorer' counties signing on exciting players for the 20/20. If we are not going to replace Khwaja its about time someone from the club came out and told us what we are going to do with the money that we would have been paying him.
ReplyDeleteNot much sign of 'Player Power' today I'm affraid! The only option is to bring back John Morris straight away.
ReplyDeleteMorris is not coming back.Not today,not tomorrow,not ever. What possible difference would it make anyway?. He,s not on the pitch,is he?. Surely nobody can naive enough to believe that Morris,s presence would have made the slightest difference to what happened on the pitch yesterday. Things like that happened often enough when he WAS here, or have some people only got selective recall!. Remember folks, this is Morris,s team you are looking at. They are his players,either signed by or brought through by him. The only exception that springs to my mind is Smith. In fairness to Morris,some of his signings have been okay,but as everyone knows,in this world you usually get what you pay for.
ReplyDeleteGet this in perspective - We have dominated both Essex and Kent in the two previous games only for the weather to ruin our chances (the Essex game was a near cert win). Even the Surrey game we batted well first time round - even though we didnt bowl well we still had a first innings lead (and then batted abysmally 2nd time round) - this against a team who should walk this lead and can buy anyone they want in the division.
ReplyDeleteLets see where we are in a couple of months and then get a balanced option.
I do agree with the point about time selection as in the last few games Turner and Whiteley have just been making up the numbers - dont understand the policy??
'but a game that looked dead at lunchtime suddenly looks a fair bet to produce a positive result.
ReplyDeleteShould be a good last day...'
Well Peakfan, no disrespect here, but it produced a negative result and, no, it was not a good last day!
A play on words admittedly, but we had a shocker.
Bearing in mind Tremlett, Dernbach and Meaker were not bowling at us second time around, that made the performance all the poorer.
I don't want to single anyone out specifically, but we do appear to have some bowlers struggling to meet the required standard, which makes Footitt's omission all the more strange if it is a seamer we prefer. Is he injured again?
I did say it after day 1 - "I have worries about the bowling in this match - nothing I've seen of Turner yet convinces me that he'll deliver and the years might finally be catching up on Jones."
ReplyDeleteWithout being there, comments from those who were suggest that this was lost by the bowlers rather than the batters, and Surrey's bowlers were as guilty in the first innings as ours. They may simply have got their act together earlier, as everything suggests this could have been a low scoring match if bowlers had kept their heads.
Yes, it's one match (actually three hours) before Peakfan tells us not to knee-jerk, and as I've been keen to point out, Morris' departure has been followed by an unusual period of consistency. But I'm worried by the number (and cost) of our non-combatant bowlers - Turner and Whiteley who play but aren't trusted, and Needham and Foottit who don't or can't play. In case anonymous is counting, three of these are Morris era, and Needham seemed to be developing well until JM took over.
Jones performance (if not his spirit) is well past his best (and perhaps his sell-by date). This leaves us with Groenewald, Palladino, Clare and Smith, none of whom have been consistently containing in limited-overs. Durston, Hughes, Park and Redfern could be the winning combination.
It could be a long 20/20. How do you think our batting is equipped for 200 plus?