Latest news:


WELCOME TO THE MIDDLESEX ROOM, THE ONLY MESSAGE BOARD ON THE INTERNET DEDICATED TO MIDDLESEX CCC

Let the 2019 season begin


Goto Page: Previous12
Current Page: 2 of 2
Re: Middlesex v Kent, 1st August
hdo 01 August, 2019 23:30
Quote:
Fozzie
I think that Sterling came on for 2 overs because Toby's first two went for 35.

Absolutely, it was clear at least one over was needed from somewhere. But after Stirlo had bowled one over, the skipper would've known that unless he wanted Sowter in the final four overs, TRJ was still going to have to bowl one more at the death - and therefore Sowter should've had the other over Stirlo bowled. Baffling and annoying to me.

Re: Middlesex v Kent, 1st August
Jonathan Winsky 01 August, 2019 23:38
What cost Middlesex tonight was probably our bowling. Our batting wasn’t great either, as none of our five main batsmen passed 28, but we eventually reached 176, which was roughly the target it looked like we would be set, until Heino Kuhn and Alex Blake took Kent way beyond that.

I am not surprised to see posts questioning why Nathan Sowter only bowled 3 overs, especially as he and Mujeeb ur Rahman were our two most economical bowlers. After Toby Roland-Jones conceded 19 off the 3rd over (despite conceding only 3 runs off the first 3 balls to leave Kent without any boundaries off the first 2.3 overs of their innings) and 16 off the 13th over, Paul Stirling then bowled 2 overs, at which point I (and probably a few other people) expected that TRJ would do no further bowling, and our four other main bowlers would bowl their full allocation. However, it turned out TRJ did go on to bowl another over (the last of the innings, in which he actually improved his economy despite conceding 12), stranding Sowter on 3 overs. I guess the reason why Sowter did not bowl a 4th over was because Dawid Malan felt that his style of bowling would have been unsuitable at the death. Also, the fact TRJ took hauls of four and five wickets last week (and took a hat-trick) may have made Malan reluctant to strand TRJ on 2 overs.

As we required 205, I felt that we needed our top six to make some big scores and partnerships, and to bat most of the overs, as I didn’t fancy the idea of our five other players having to come to the crease with a lot of work required. However, my wish wasn't really fulfilled, as we found ourselves 65-4 after 7.4 overs, meaning that Eoin Morgan and John Simpson had a lot of work to do, and although they did OK, it felt like game over once their partnership of 51 in 6.1 overs ended. I was doubtful the rest of our team could score quick runs, but TRJ and Sowter proved me wrong, although their scoring rate wasn’t at the level which was required at that point.

Matt Roller has produced a report for Cricinfo.

Stuart Law has spoken to our YouTube page about this match:




Re: Middlesex v Kent, 1st August
adelaide 02 August, 2019 00:22
My interpretation was that Malan was intending to use Sowter at the death but was concerned that the well set Blake and Kuhn would deposit him over the boundary repeatedly. Instead they deposited first Finn and then Helm over the boundary big time. In a curious way, the further the seamers went, the more reluctant Malan may have been to turn to Sowter.

Finn had bowled three good overs before getting clobbered. Toby got hit throughout but had bowled well in previous matches. Helm has been our best seamer and has more variation than the other two but still got the treatment. I suppose you have to be philosophical and accept that any bowler is going to get that treatment once in a while. They did seem to be feeding Blake's strengths (though that assumes that what we saw were his only strengths).

Kent looked strong all round and we don't have to play them again in the group stages. No point in being too critical of the performance, I think.


Adelaide

Re: Middlesex v Kent, 1st August
dingy bags 02 August, 2019 07:34
Kent were the steamroller, Chunky. Sadly, we looked more like a Robin Reliant against them last night. They have all bases covered in this lark.

Re: Middlesex v Kent, 1st August
Seaxe_man1 02 August, 2019 07:34
One relief there was no sign of Nat Jackley.. Given his position in the Essex game and the number of sixes that went in that direction. Likely, he would have got clobbered.

Re: Middlesex v Kent, 1st August
chunkyinargyll 02 August, 2019 07:41
It's always tempting to look at the person who only bowled 3 overs (in this case for 22 runs) and say, 'Why didn't he bowl his final over?' but quite honestly that could easily have gone for 18 runs, which would have taken him up to 40 (much the same as Finn and Helm)

The one who doesn't bowl at the death tends to end up with the better looking figures (when the oppo has two well set batsmen, and wickets in hand) but it doesn't follow Sowter would have fared any better if he had bowled his fourth over.

Re: Middlesex v Kent, 1st August
hdo 02 August, 2019 09:21
Yes, but he wouldn't have been bowling at the death if he'd just carried on and bowled his fourth instead of Stirlo bowling his first.

Anyway. It's done now.

Re: Middlesex v Kent, 1st August
BarmierKev 03 August, 2019 18:06
In case anyone is worried there will be a match report on this game , I’ve been promised to be delivered tomorrow morning.



Barmy Kev
I'm only here for the tele

Goto Page: Previous12
Current Page: 2 of 2

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net