Derbyshire batted ok, Ali very unlucky to be given out leg before to what looked a poor decision, but the Lancashire bowlers varied their pace and we never really looked like setting a target that would challenge a strong batting lineup.
Madsen was again the pick of the batters, although du Plooy gave good support, as did Dal and Donald. 179 was above par for the ground, but I never really felt comfortable.
Wells led off in fine style and took the attack apart. The disappointment was that we didn't appear to have learnt anything from when Lancashire bowled. There was little attempt to mix it up and the game was pretty much over as a contest before the halfway stage.
We pulled it back well, once Wells was dismissed. The three seam bowlers came back for better second spells and there was a greater versatility in the type of ball being bowled. Khan looked much better after perhaps being over excited in his first spell, but the win was more convincing than the school book shows.
You cannot legislate for someone playing well on the other side and Wells was the difference between the two sides on this occasion.
But there are plenty of reasons for encouragement. We go again next week and will hopefully focus on the things that we can do better in between times.
And in the words of the old song, it's not how you start, it's how you finish.
I agree, Steve, despite the defeat, there were encouraging signs in the performance. We batted pretty well, with everyone getting into double figures, and we cleared the rope ten times. The bowlers pulled it back towards the end. However, allowing Lancashire to score so many in the power play meant that it was unlikely be could win the game.
ReplyDelete180 was a good target to set ( above the par for Edgbaston ) aided by some poor Lancashire fielding . I thought the lbw for Ali was borderline on another day might have not been given . The bowling was not great in the powerplay and it was had to understand the plan …
ReplyDeleteScore book Steve,not school.
ReplyDeleteThe scoreline gives this game a rather false impression, Lancashire won that at a canter. Batting wise we were OK, bowling was pretty pathetic tbqh. We're still missing that big big hitter in this squad, Wayne can hit it for sure, but he can't do it consistently, that's our problem. Ali is a concern for me, I'm just not sure he's going to be the answer.
ReplyDeleteOn to the bowling and it was a real mish mash, Chappell was probably my pick but that's saying something, Khan should improve given games, but Mckiernan shouldn't be playing in my eyes, a waste of a space in this team. On to Notts then and pretty much more of the same coming
Much like Paul in the earlier comment, I was very concerned by the bowling in the powerplay. The fields set seemed a little naïve and certainly didn’t seem to correspond with what was then offered up by the bowlers. I admit that later in the match we did start to drag things back well, although at the same time Lancashire didn’t exactly need to be reckless after getting off to a rapid start. There’s a long way to go, and positives to be taken with most of the batters looking in decent touch, but we can’t afford too many powerplays like that.
ReplyDeleteSarah
Thehing to remember is that they were losing finalists last year. With the players they have to come back in, they should be in the mix again this year.
ReplyDeleteHad it not been for the innings of Wells, I suspect we might have edged that one..