Username
Password
Hunt on for Hampshire

Will he play?
By grockle August 17 2008
Our one day performances have not been the consistent animal we would like them to be so today is another must win game if we want to mount a challenge in this competition. There's no real info on who will play today but it would be expected that Wes Durston will keep his place after the prominent role he played in last week's victory against Notts. Caddick will rest once again.

v Hampshire Pro40 @ Taunton Sunday 17 August 2008

Scorecard

Langer is keeping his cards close to his chest for this one but we have to expect the team to be along the lines of last Sunday's outfit who beat the Outlaws.  The weather is overcast in Bicknoller this morning so it is certainly not going to be sunny and dry out there - there will probably be showers.

Marcus Trescothick and the skipper will open - although there are those who think Justin should move himself down the order.  Zander de Bruyn, James Hildreth and Craig Kieswetter would also be expected to remain in their places from last week.  Wes Durston should stay in and Charl Willoughby and Alfonso Thomas must also play.  The three other places should be given to Arul Suppiah, Peter Trego and a presently under-performing Ben Phillips.  This is because Ian Blackwell is presently not being considered (will his performance in the four day game change that I wonder?) and Omari Banks seems to be a bit of a favourite with the selection committee (based on what I'm not sure although to be fair he bowled quite well last weekend).

I would pick Ian instead of Ben but then again I would bowl Trigger although that seems to be an outside option to the captain at the moment for some reason.  I therefore expect Ben to play - though he seems to be not yet completely fit.  If Omari plays at the expense of Trego or Blackwell then it is a travesty (he's neither a better bat than Peter or a better bowler than Ian).

We'll wait and see how it pans out.  Outside possibilities?  Mark Turner for the extra seam bowling if Ben isn't right?  The conditions don't favour Mike Munday but who knows?

Coverage should be on Somerset Sound as long as Forest Green Rovers or Yate aren't in action but I'm sure Radio Solent or someone like that will have sent someone along if not and if they haven't it might be Phil Tottle doing the commentary for them anyway.

Enjoy.  There'll be little in-game comment because I'm going along to this one as a spectator with friends.  But I'll try outdoor uploading if the rain doesn't get in the way.

Limited access to the net today so only the odd info I'm afraid. Somerset have won the toss and will bat. Wes does keep his place at the expense of Peter Trego and Jonah replaces Ben Phillips.  Banks is in as is Suppiah. There's a huge crowd for a nasty day and lots of 20/20-ish supporters in who aren't really sure who is who and who they are supposed to be supporting if anyone.

Our innings takes on a usual front end as Banger lays about himself with aplomb hitting everyone everywhere for what seems like ages but only actually ends up as being 5.2 overs for 25 (including 4 fours and 1 six).  Then he goes one too many and skies a catch and we is out.  But with 41 off the first 5 we look like we're going for something big.  The running order therefore changes and Craig Kieswetter is in next rather than Zander - I assume the theory being that the captain will hold up one end while the young keeper gets to play a few strokes and push the score along.  It might have been the theory but as we then take another 4 overs to get to 50, it doesn't seem to be the practice!

We have pushed it to 71 before CW looks to put one into the River and fails and it's 76 for 3 when Langer is judged to have been caught behind.  He doesn't believe it and neither does Billy Taylor when he finishes the over and comes over to field - he doesn't think it hit anything either from his expression.  Nevertheless he is out and de Bruyn and Hildreth have some rebuilding to do. 

For once Zander is looking to get the innings moving again and in trying to straight drive Taylor he is nearly caught and bowled - very difficult chance which the bowler does well to get a hand to.  But it isn't much of a problem as he snicks the next ball to Pothas on 87 and we are falling apart in the usual way we seem to have settled into for one day games. Wes Durston joins James for the second reconstruction of the innings.  But this time it gets into more of a rhythm and starts to build towards some kind of reasonable total with a partnership of 82 before Wes misses a straight one and is bowled by Balcombe.  With a score of 155 at 30 overs the crowd would expect a total near the 250 mark but the loss of Durston with less than 10 to go makes that almost impossible as we feel the lack of 'big' batsmen in the middle order.  Just when we need a heavy knock from Trego or Blackwell to move the score on at 8 or 10 an over, we get Arul who is in and out before anyone really notices for 4, followed by the other mainstay Hildreth trying to slog sweep a ball to get things moving again.

It's 179 for 7 and we have to rely on Omari and Steffan  to get us somewhere.  Jonah tries but is caught mis-hooking at 184.  But at least he got bat on ball which is more than Mr Banks can do!  In the last over, the only scoring shots are from Alfonso who takes singles to get the big hitting man on strike.  However, despite being bounced four times in the last over courtesy of Taylor (and the umpire).  Omari fails to connect with any of them and his six from the previous over is the only thing that contributes to getting us to a 197 target in a poor batting display from all but 4 members of this side.

It's cold and there is rain about but 197 is far from defendable unless we hit them hard and we hit them early!!  Once again the job has been left to the bowlers to get us out of trouble on our own ground.  Totally unimpressive and baffling that the selection committee can continue to put out an inferior side and expect to win games.

The Reply

Charl and Jones get the new ball to take it to the Hampshire batsmen.  The conditions haven't changed.  The light isn't wonderful and the banks of grey clouds that have been flowting around all afternoon look like they will drop something at some point in the proceedings.

We all get a little excited when Jonah beats Lumb for pace and he snicks one behind with only 17 scored...things are looking up! However, Carberry has been a thorn in our side before in one day games and he sets about minimising the problem with a solid partnership with Adams.  We have little to play with so it is good news when Willoughby gets some rewards for excellent accurate bowling with Carberry's wicket LBW at 68.  the problem is that to keep the score down, Langer has had to bowl the lefty through and when he finishes with 8 over 1 for 26 we are scrabbling around for someone else to look as difficult to get away and as dangerous.  Jones is getting up one head of steam but we need him at the end of the innings and so we turn to de Bruyn for a few military medium gems to break up things.  When that doesn't work Thomas is introduced and then Banks gets a go.  Finally it is him and the keeper who join forces to fool Benham with a quicker delivery which leaves him stranded up the pitch with the ball breaking the stumps in the hands of Kieswetter. By then however the score is 163 with lots of time and balls left.

Rain makes a brief appearance and the sides are off long enough for the score required to drop to 185 off 37 overs.  No problem at all really as they have about 10 overs left and a run rate of well under 5!

Resistance is still there from the Somerset bowlers.  Fielding is ferocious at times and the Hampshire batsmen don't find it that easy.  Alfonso keeps hope alive with the big wicket of Adams for 86 at 177 but it's effectively all over by the time Jones dismisses Dawson with another Exocet of a delivery snicked to the keeper.  The captain Mascarenhas does his job and wellies the first ball to the boundary for the inevitable win and we all shiver off home with too little surprise about the outcome.

Too few runs from too slow and deliberate batsmen with no flair or ability to increase the drive of an innings which rumbled along at far too low a level of activity. Suppiah and Durston going at over 6 an over in the spin department.  The aggression of Jones costing over 7 while only Charl, Alfonso and to some extent Banks held the visitors in some kind of check.

Even if the two allrounders not in this side were 'omitted' some time ago for under-performing, can I now suggest that their replacements have also performed below par and now we are effectively out of this competition we should look carefully at how we intend to turn our pitiful overall batting around.  I don't think anyone is covered in glory at the moment but we have a solid front and a bowling attack that can get some results.  But seriously gentlemen.  get this middle order sorted out.  Either play your best players of come clean, get rid and lets do something to rebuild core of our side before we return to some second division of the short game.

Woefully inadequate I'm afraid. 

Bookmark or share this story with:

Goto Thread: PreviousNext
Goto: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Goto Page: 123Next
Current Page: of 3
Pro40 team V Hampshire
Posted by: cricketjerry-mouse (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:16:10:25:37

Andy C being rested tomorrow. Arul Suppiah and Wes Durston definitely play.

Hampshire without Chris Tremlett who is in the England one-day squad to play Scotland at Edinburgh on Monday.

Re: Pro40 team V Hampshire
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:16:11:49:38

Good to see that Wes definitely gets a further chance.

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:17:10:44:04

It's looking a bit of an overcast and possibly damp afternoon from Bicknoller Towers so bring your brollies if your coming...could be wet for part of the afternoon and there's not that much shelter on the ground any more.

(Sm72)

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: Grizzzly (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:17:14:16:16

Key one day game.

No place for Trego or Blackwell.

But Banks & Suppiah play.

Explanations on a postcard would be appreciated !

Grizzzly

P.S. No comment on Blackwell re one dayers, on the Official site for quite some time now. I notice he hasn't done his usual weekly column for Apple FM since 25 July. Anyone know how he is feeling about his 'future' at SCCC at present ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:17:14:18:33 by Grizzzly.

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:17:15:39:28

I'm not sure we can win this one as I haven't heard Tractor yet, though I fear that, as we are playing on the Surrey strip he has been forbidden from occupying his favoured post below the commentators.

How can our babbies perform properly without his vociferation?

LoL

Sixty Seasons a Somerset Supporter



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:17:17:41:45 by Loyal of Lhasa..

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:17:16:55:52

I had Mark Church and his friends looking for you in the book sale last week LoL.
They heard that you'd be in disguise and looking a bit "James Bondish".
Is it true you blended in with the books in a cunning disguise and they couldn't find you?
If so,which one?
I go for Wind in the Willows.

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: fRed (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:17:17:04:13

Who's winning on D/L? I have a nasty feeling it's them.

Cricket's the winner.

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:17:17:32:32

I was wearing my WiseDen outfit...

LoL

Sixty Seasons a Somerset Supporter

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:17:17:38:28

Was this batting performance as underwhelming in person as it appears on paper?

We still don't appear to have the side right.

You could make a case for including either or both of Ian and Pete ahead of any number of the people that are on the team sheet.

On the plus side, it was good to see James and Wes avert complete disaster with the bat, but other than that..

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:17:19:11:09

Was Trego injured? If not, I can't possibly see how Ian and Pete are not in our best one-day side while 3 or 4 others seem to be. I can see why we might want to give the likes of Suppiah and Banks more than just one game in the Pro40 to stake their claim, but even so it doesn't seem right that Blackwell and Trego are the ones to lose out.

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:17:19:34:35

Now that is quality LoL.
Wasn't that written by S.P.On`aje?

What happened in the cricket?
Been an odd day.
Better than the even ones in my book.

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: Mike BOS (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:17:20:21:21

Was it the wrong selection?

Why is Banks playing instead of Blackwell? Is it to save the clubs embarrassment after signing him on.

Why is De Bruyn playing in a one day match he can't score quickly enough?

Trego could have played instead of De Bruyn.

I'm glad that Hildreth and Durston played they made some of the earlier batsmen look like ………, by the time they came in the run rate had dropped which put more pressure on them to score quickly.

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o244/mixstar_album/cricket.gif

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: Botham (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:17:20:54:00

I can confirm that I haven't seen either Blackie or Trego, but Turkey is not just for Christmas.

http://www.freemyspacegraphics.com/Graphics/Funny_Animations/images/32.gif

You're treading on thin ice!

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: Grizzzly (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:17:21:30:56

Anyone at the ground/in the press box able to comment on the selection policy re Blackwell/Trego ?

I'm pretty surprised at the lack of any comment by the Club regarding this.

Grizzzly

P.S. Maybe they are relying on the apathy that seems to abound (e.g. judging by the paucity of contributions on this thread!).

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: fRed (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:17:22:51:54

Maybe they're being saved for the CC?

Cricket's the winner.

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:17:22:59:54

I think that makes a lot of sense fRed.
Imagine how we'd feel if we'd feel if we lost a key player in one of these matches?
Both have had injuries and there is ample competition for their places.
Give the "fringe"players a blast,see what they can do.

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:17:23:08:27

Inadequate and poor display. What are we resting Peter and Ian for? They are hardly getting bowling paractice as it is in Championship games and both need bat time at the crease. There was no push on at all in the last 10. Shame Wes went when he did but Arul, Omari, Alfonso and even Jonah were trying run a ball stuff when we were 20 runs from a 200 total with time and balls running out. When we needed big hitting players to go for it we had none.

Bowling wise, we needed tight bowling. Jones was pacy but he had too few runs to play with and although he got two he went for over 7. Charl and Thommo kept the score down but our second spinners went for 6+ and 7+. Surely a couple of overs from Zander and Wes with a few more from Arul did not provide the control that a full 8 from Blackwell and a more pacey attack from Trego would have done a better job.

More runs up the front end, less runs conceded at the rear and we may have been a competitor in this game. Too few runs gave our bowlers no target and put them under too little pressure to make it count.

Not impressed at all even though there were some individual gems. It's a team game and if you want to win it you play your best team. Sort out the issues off the pitch but put your best eleven professionals on the thing!!

(Sm72)

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:18:08:18:21

The bottom line is surely that we are playing TWO players - Arul and Omari - in a bid to replace one player who is not in need of replacement.

Seems to me that Arul is in the side to try and replace Ian's batting and Omari is in the side to try and replace Ian's bowling. And the absurd result of this is that Peter Trego then ends up missing out on a place as a casualty of the decision to ignore Ian. Brilliant. You couldn't make it up, really.

And, no, I doubt if anyone is injured. After all Mr Hurry said on the other site - before the Surrey game - that everyone was fighting fit.

The sad reality is that, whatever Mr Rose may tell the other site, neither Arul nor Omari have fully justified their inclusion in the Pro 40 team. Arul has made a few nice six-hits, but his bowling seems to have been pretty ordinary. And that epithet can probably be applied to Omari's bowling too.

It's great to see that Wes has come in and grasped his chance with both hands in the last two outings. Those are the kind of performances that Arul/Omari need to justify keeping Ian and/or Pete out of the side.

Back to the drawing board, Mr Rose, if you please...

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: cricketjerry-mouse (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:18:08:30:44

Two other factors that contributed to defeat against the sort of side we should be beating were:

The mistake in using the same pitch that had been employed for the Surrey championship match. It was slow and low, just like the Rose Bowl. We were far better at the aggressive shots (five sixes to one), but Hampshire held all the cards in knocking it around for ones and twos, just like they do at home.

Our statistics of 129 balls going scoreless speaks for itself. Then, rather ironically, we lost five of our eight wickets to batsmen going down the wicket to try to play shots - and then failng to execute them.

Secondly, we still haven`t got our batting order right, especially when we lose an early wicket. Despite his good knock against Notts the previous week, Craig Kieswetter seems at odds over his role at No.3 - pinch-hitter or playing normally for 20 or 30 overs? Yesterday, he took 24 balls to score five runs - exactly one-tenth of the 40 overs available to Somerset - and then played a wild yahoo.

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: Mike BOS (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:18:08:49:36

I have been looking at the stats for the match.

Is this what’s required for a one day match? Kieswetter faced 24 balls for 5 runs, in anybodies language that’s 4 overs, 10% of the overs. ( see score card :- [content-uk.cricinfo.com] )

While I am thinking about team selection why wasn’t Jones picked for the last championship match against Surrey. He is the second highest wicket taker in the championship for Somerset behind Willoughby. See stats:- [stats.cricinfo.com]

I hope the team is not being picked on who is flavour of the month.

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o244/mixstar_album/cricket.gif

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:18:08:49:48

To be fair, Omari bowled fairly tightly but I think AG is right. Peter is missing out as we try and put a quart in a pint pot. We still can't pace an innings and we missed too many balls at the end while allowing the pressure to build up to that point by playing it safe.

This time it wasn't particularly down to the tightness of Hampshire's bowling which was pretty ordinary.

(Sm72)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:18:10:02:53 by Grockle.

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:18:11:02:23

We can't expect every player to play in every game.
We have a squad and we must have faith that the squad players are able to come in and do a job.
We know that Trigger has been carrying an injury,none of us know for sure what is up with Blackie.
Performances have been poor in the one day stuff.
Let's hope they work on this as a matter of urgency.
The County Championship is our goal this season and it is apparent that we,for the time being,are not able to mix being competitive in the one dayers with being competitive in the longer stuff.
Of course this is not ideal.
It's not the end of the world either.
Whatever is going wrong needs to be looked at and addressed.
Have faith.
As hard as that may be.

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:18:11:15:01

No injuries according to Andy on the official site. We should expect to see our best side of the moment play and that isn't happening.

We are able to be more competitive in the one day events.

We are choosing not to be by picking a side with problems that have been evident in recent matches while players who should be able to help with those problems are sitting and watching games they are able to play in.

Peter Trego was named in yesterday's side and then replaced. There was no fitness test that I am aware of. Neither he or Ian can possibly be tired given the amount of play they have been involved in.

We are fourth in our FPT group. All the sides below us have games in hand on us and although we are still only 2 points behind Notts at the top, Durham are only 2 points from us at the bottom.

We can still win the group but present indications are that we will probably be fighting not to receive the wooden spoon. Saturday against Gloucs is a big game and although it is our second objective this season, it is still an objective and a premier club should be representing itself to the best of its ability in both forms of the game.

Faith in our ability to win games - I have that. Faith that the team that can win will be picked....little more wobbly I'm afraid.

(Sm72)

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:18:11:23:00

We're just speculating though aren't we?
Trigger has had an injury.
He was in the squad,perhaps after a warm up he didn't feel up to it.
We simply don't know.
The fact is we're not playing well enough to win games,even though we do have a team out there strong enough to do better.
There could be many reasons for this,once again we can't know for sure what they may be.
I just go from what I'm told but there does appear to be a lack of urgency and application out there at the moment.
Maybe a change of one day skipper would be the answer.
Perhaps this needs to be looked at.
A change of captain.
A change of direction.
It wouldn't hurt.

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:18:11:39:21

Interesting, BJ - I was thinking last night whether we'd be better off with a different one-day captain from the four-day stuff.

We have all been perplexed by some of JL's decisions in one-day cricket - though I'd be the first to concede that he knows more about the game than I ever will!

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:18:12:20:37

No I don't think we are speculating. We are being told that there are no injuries and there is no issue about Ian being fit to play. The players are playing four day games. They are not being picked for one day games.

This is some alternative plan for the one day squad. I'm sure there is some reasoning behind it but it isn't working.

It seems that the idea is to develop Omari and Arul as one day specialists and I appreciate there is little second team opportunity to do that development. But it is severely weakening our batting prowess because at this time some of the top five are not performing adequately and therefore extra pressure is being put on these players to save games

If Justin, James, Zander and Craig were consistently building on the start usually given by Marcus then this wouldn't be such an issue because it would give our seam attack more to play with and the slow bowling would not be as important. But it isn't happening consistently and we are looking to Wes, Arul, Omari and Steffan to double scores made by the front end - that is also not happening. There is a place for Peter in this line-up and it's probably at the expense of Steffan or Arul at the moment

We then find ourselves needing everyone to be tight and there is more pressure on the slow men to be first string one day spinners - and they aren't. Omari is showing more with the ball but still as a second option. Our first string one day slow man is not being considered. Irrespective of his batting prowess or lack of it at the moment, Ian Blackwell should be in a side having problems in the batting aspect of its game without doubt.

It's time to accept the plan has not worked and go back to a side a little more like the one that got us to second place in the one day campaign last year.

Trescothick, Langer, Kieswetter, de Bruyn, Hildreth, Blackwell, Trego, Durston/Jones/Phillips (depending on fitness and conditions), Banks, Willoughby, Thomas

That looks stronger to me.

(Sm72)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:18:12:23:19 by Grockle.

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:18:12:35:45

That's fair enough Grockle but when I said speculating I meant about the whole kit and kaboddle not just the injuries.
Unless we're told specifically about what the current way of thinking is then we can only speculate.
Nothing wrong there of course,we all do it most of the time.
I'd play the strongest side every time,the one you mentioned above seems fine.
If the likes of Omari and Arul don't fit the bill there seems to be little point in forcing them into something they're not comfortable with.
A change of thought and direction is obviously needed for the shorter stuff.
We've a ready made leader in Banger if he wants it.
That of course is another matter altogther.

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: averageside (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:18:12:52:14

Theres nothing particularly smart about the Club and captains policy when it comes to 1 day cricket.
The strongest team is not being selected(been well aired on here) , because of the effort to win the CC I assume. If thats how the county are approaching one day cricket I would suggest paying punters dont bother going, because if yesterday was any example of the attitude to pro 40 alongside the performance and captains tatics,you aint getting a fair contest.

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:18:12:53:16

Not going to happen in any scenario BJ. MT isn't going to take that responsibility and JL isn't going to give it up.

He'll see it as his responsibility to sort it out but that may require him to accept that things need changing and a possible solution is available - now there's something I'll be happier to see but I'm not holding my breath.

I think we'll have more of the same and pressure will fall on the leading batsmen in positions 3 to 6 to contribute far more than is presently happening to take the pressure off the weaker aspects of our bowling.

But if we can't do it on the Taunton track then we'll struggle to do it away from home.

It'll be down to Banger to lead with the bat to possibly cover Justin's inability to lead with the strategy. But we'll see.

The half full jug isn't leaking yet but there are a few cracks that need urgent attention.

And agreed Average. A full house yesterday saw the strange situation of people who were obvious Somerset based watchers supporting Hampshire because there was only one side in it by the last couple of hours. Performances like that are certainly not going to attract the punters back on a regular basis.

(Sm72)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:18:12:56:38 by Grockle.

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:18:13:12:19

"It was slow and low, just like the Rose Bowl. We were far better at the aggressive shots (five sixes to one), but Hampshire held all the cards in knocking it around for ones and twos, just like they do at home."

And this remains the predominant problem in our one day cricket, Cjm. Not just team selection. Certainly not pitch selection, per se (we can't pick the pitches for our away games, after all.)

But it seems we have almost no-one that is adept at pushing the ones and twos. That being the case, it would make even more sense than is obviously the case to get Ian and Pete back. Not because the ones and twos are their forte, either, but rather because they are better than most at the big boundary shots (and by the sounds of it many others perished trying to hit those strokes.)

I think we're just going to have to accept that pushing the ball around in the middle of the innings is not really a strength and;

a) work hard to rectify it in the winter with our incumbent players.

and

b) try to sign a couple of batsmen in the winter, for whom that is a strength.

In the meantime, we need to select our most explosive stroke-makers!

Of course, it should also go without saying that we should also pick our best slow-bowler (in all forms of the game.) Let's face it, even if he isn't in prime batting form, Ian is worth a place for his containing spin bowling, on its own.

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:18:13:19:06

Also, I've touched before on the issue of Craig Kieswetter and his role in the batting line-up. I've been saying since the start of the season that I am not compeltely sure what his role is nor - more significantly, am I 100% certain that he has been thoroughly briefed as to what his role is?

So far as I can ascertain, he sees his role as being to bat in a responsible way whilst others provide the more explosive stuff at the other end. If that is the case, then I am bound to ask what are JL and Zander for, exactly?

I think the situation with Craig is indicative of the general confusion as to 'best policy,' with our batting line-up. This isn't a criticism of Craig. If the powers-that-be had asked him to pinch-hit, I'm pretty sure we'd see him playing big, yahoo, type shots. It's usually fairly obvious, after all, when someone has been asked to pinch-hit by the manner in which they play. In other words, Craig is doing his best to do what has, probably, been asked of him, but I do not know why we are picking players that fill that role in positions 2, 3 and 4 in the one-day team? Is this strategy predicated on the assumption that Banger will bat for 25 overs or so, scoring at a run-a-ball almost every time?

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:18:13:25:10

Personally, for the rest of the season, I'd like to see Peter Trego back in the top four of the one-day team, with the others present being Banger, Langer and Zander. That gives us a better balance, IMO, of aggression versus solidity.

Team for rest of the season please, Mr Rose;

Banger
Trego
Langer
De Bruyn
Hildreth
Wes (put him ahead of Ian, for now, on the basis of earning it in the last two games.)
Ian
Arul/Craig
Craig/Jonah/Banks (must be Craig if Arul at eight)
Alfonso
Willow

The above team is very much stronger in batting than what we picked yesterday (Banks at eight!) (esp if you include Arul and Craig, rather than Craig and Jonah)

But I don't think it's any weaker in bowling, either??

In which case...

And, yes, Ian for Omari would weaken the ground-fielding but then Pete for Jonah would redress the balance in the other direction?

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:18:13:49:32

Craig's roile yesterday seemed to be the next choice if Marcus went first. Had Justin been the first to go (as has been the situation in other games) then Zander would probably have come out.

So he seems to be the stroke maker and not seen as an anchor player. It's a good move beause if he is settled then later he tends to run between the wickets better and you want that from him. You don't want him coming in trying to push it on because his calling needs some work and run outs are most certainly NOT what you want.

He was sent in against Surrey to support James around the lunch break and it worked to some extent. He is getting more mature about his batting and it should be him, James and Pete who push the ball about and get the runs in that middle section of a one day innings with Blackie as the big hitter perhaps.

(Sm72)

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: Mike BOS (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:18:15:38:27

Here is a fact about yesterday, did anybody notice?


When Justin Langer was given out he was fuming, it was obviously by his reaction he didn’t think that he hit the ball. After he got to the dressing room everybody came outside onto the balcony.

The fact was that it was the same umpire (B Dudleston) that gave Justin Langer out yesterday that was standing at square leg in the Durham match, when Turner was taken off (wrongly) for bowling a bouncer that wasn’t.

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o244/mixstar_album/cricket.gif

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:18:16:03:17

well, hopefully he'll take it out on Hants if the weather relents sufficiently for us to get on the field.

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: Grizzzly (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:18:18:24:38

Still don't get it re the selection.

To have IB & PT kicking their heels on the sidelines simply to pursue some half baked experiment seems daft to me.

Other Counties must think we are nuts.

Grockle - do you/the press boys think IB will be with us next year ? (As JL won't be from 2010, that would be a criminal waste).

Grizzzly

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:18:21:03:25

He was also the umpire who was standing at the wicket allowing Taylor to bowl 4 bouncers at Omari Banks in the last over.

He tried to hook them all and failed with every one. If he is hooking tyhe ball at his height one would expect that the deliveries were over the average player's shoulder. Did Duddleston warn or say anything to Taylor? Not that I saw.

(Sm72)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:08:19:09:20:35 by Grockle.

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:19:09:12:48

Are we going to play today?

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:19:09:22:00

The water seems to be going across and up rather than blanketing the South coast. But it might be an on and off day.

(Sm72)

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:19:10:00:15

Start delayed due to rain - now when have I heard that before?

LoL

Sixty Seasons a Somerset Supporter

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:19:10:06:23

[www.metoffice.gov.uk]

Met Office forecast for today is poor (above).

Tomorrow is not too bad. Thursday and Friday are fine.

The Thursday forecast is in direct contradiction to the BBC one, which threatens 'persistent rain on the south coast.'

Everyone seems to agree that, like last week, Friday will definitely be fine.

Realistically, I think our best chance of a 'good,' outcome is another maximum points draw.

That would put us nine points ahead of Notts from equal games played, with the game at Trent Bridge up next.. In other words, win at Trent Bridge and Notts hopes would be all but ended..

Of course, Durham remain a threat. They're at Sussex this week, where they have an execrable record.

Re: Hunt on for Hants
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:19:10:12:03

However, the actual met office rainfall radar for the UK suggests that there shouldn't be too much wet stuff around Southampton, right at the minute.

I didn't realise this (apologies if old news)
Posted by: tufnell parka (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:19:10:07:48

From The Guardian's - The Spin.

Well done Langer - a very interesting insight.

EXTRAS

Occasionally, just occasionally, cricket throws up ethical dilemmas the likes of which are not possible in other sports. Shortly after 6pm on Friday in a four-day game long since condemned to a watery draw at Taunton, Mark Ramprakash was single-handedly supervising Surrey's pursuit of 400 runs and thus a full set of first-innings batting bonus points.

Two leg-side sixes off Somerset's Peter Trego were enough to inch Surrey, by now nine wickets down, over the line.
But the meaty blows left Ramprakash on 199.

What to do? Cricketers, after all, are keen to point out they never look at stats (well, not much anyway), and the Spin can exclusively reveal there is no 'I' in team. To make matters more delicate, Ramprakash is currently captaining Surrey in the absence of the injured Mark Butcher, and there were one or two suggestions during his agonising pursuit of that 100th hundred that he had been a little, er, distracted.

So it was full credit to Ramprakash when he tucked his bat under his arm and looked round for a Somerset hand or
two to shake.

Enter Justin Langer. Australians have been accused in the past of displaying an unsentimental approach to the game, but Langer now motioned to Ramprakash to continue until his double-century was in the bag. Good for him. One ball of Trego's over remained. Langer motioned to his fielders to drop back and allow the single that would signal the end of the match, only for Ramprakash's defensive push to
be collected by the bowler, who promptly hurled the ball towards the stumps with Ramprakash, having set off for a single, struggling to regain his ground. On another day, the umpire might have given Ramprakash run out. Instead, we now had the farcical situation of a new over with the Surrey No11 and career-rabbit Pedro Collins on strike.

Then - all hail Collins! A single first ball into the leg-side off Charl Willoughby returned the bowling to Ramprakash. But, with the field still back, Willoughby now sent down a bouncer that soared high above the batsman. Things were starting to get embarrassing; more
importantly, the Spin had a train to catch. Were the Somerset bowlers deliberately ignoring Langer's tacit instructions? Ramprakash dug the next delivery into the leg-side, where Willoughby - with Langer in
earshot - duly let the ball dribble through his legs. The batsmen trotted through for a single and everyone went home.

The Spin's initial reaction was that the whole incident had been vaguely humiliating for Ramprakash, who had played like a man freed of the burden of seeking that landmark hundred. But the more it mused, the more it felt a warm glow. Few other high-profile sports would have tolerated such generosity, or been so in thrall to a statistical moment that a captain was in essence giving away a single. Langer may not be everyone's cup of tea, but on Friday he
went up in the Spin's estimation.

Re: I didn't realise this (apologies if old news)
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:19:10:14:30

All sounds rather odd. Does not sound like our bowlers were overly-keen on Langer's gesture towards his friend, Ramprakash. After a long day of toiling for wickets, I can see where they may have been coming from.

Re: I didn't realise this (apologies if old news)
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:19:10:14:50

Very interesting, for a number of reasons.
Given that some have questioned Langer's communication skills, it's interesting to observe that Trego and Willoughby don't seem to have been informed of the plan. Or should we just be happy that their competitive instincts wouldn't allow them to yield immediately?

Re: I didn't realise this (apologies if old news)
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:19:10:20:04

It was a nice gesture but I'm not sure JL would have done it for anyone and I'm not particularly surprised that the bowlers were unaware.

(Sm72)

Re: I didn't realise this (apologies if old news)
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:19:10:21:02

Langer missed a trick - he should have come on to bowl that last over

LoL

Sixty Seasons a Somerset Supporter