Username
Password
Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?

Twenty? Twenty?
By Grockle
May 23 2009
10:20 on a Quarter Final day on a sunny Saturday against Sussex and the ground is only really 20% full. Quite ironic that "20" reference. Have the club shot themselves in the foot by charging £20 for a match when others have declared prices in the £10 region? We shall have to wait and see if there is a last minute rush for the very available seats.

v Sussex FPT QF @ Taunton Saturday 23 May 2009

Scorecard

Commentary

A quarter final at God's own ground.  Nice thing in a season that was predicted to bring doom and gloom in many sectors of our game post the optimism of 2008.  We face Sussex.  It should be a crickt watcher's dream.  However, at the moment (and granted it is not 'kick off' - no irony in that by the way - time yet) they will be playing in front of a crowd reminiscent of a summer Championship first day.  With a family of 4 ticket at something well over £50 and no membership concessions at a televised match it's not surprising.

Somerset won the toss and have decided to bat.  They've kept to the side we've seen most of the time - the Banks version.

Trescothick, Kieswetter, Langer, Hildreth, de Bruyn, Trego, Suppiah, Banks, Phillips, Thomas, Willoughby

Max Waller is 12th man.

For Sussex, Kirtley is in for Collymore.  Martin-Jenkins plays (he likes us I seem to remember), Yardy and Goodwin are also in.  The Trescothick stand is 60% full.  The Somerset stand has about 30% in it and although the CA has a significant membership contingent in it, the green seats are less than 50% full.

Anyway we're off and running....and 1 down after one ball!  A lazy chip off a Kirtley loosener goes straight into Martin Jenkins' gut and Marcus Trescothick is on his way back.  It doesn't look a lot more hopeful after Kirtley's wicket maiden start.  Arafat has Kieswetter dropped at first slip by the aforesaid Kirtley off the first ball he faces!  One of those reaction attempts that the fielder punches in the air rather than holding on to. Hildreth's first scoring shot is a little better as he punches it for four.  We need you back in the runs James my boy!!  Just when we hope things are settled, James comes half forward to one and is rapped on the back pad directly in front. Arafat has his first and we are 2 down for 20 in the 7th. 

What follows is seems to be Justin's little quirk for this season.  Last season it was brining on the just departed batsman as a bowler to break difficult partneships, this season it is using Ben Phillips as some kind of big run making sort of "semi" pinch-hitter at number 4.  He did it at Edinburgh in a game where it was possible to try these things out.  now he does it here with his front end in some degree of trouble....answers as to why on a postcard to the usual address.  He manages 9 before he basically misses a full straight one and loses his leg stump bail and we go into the 11th over at 40 for 3 with a predicted score one short of 200.  Don't plan your semi-final weekend yet my friends.

The team 50 arrives in the 14th but the 4 an over scoring rate continues as Yardy keeps varying his bowlers and we don't seem to be getting a handle on this.  We've only reached 76 by the 20th and the 199 SKY prediction looks pretty good as we only move past three figures dead on the end of the 25th.  At this point Turner is sent out with new gloves etc and what seems like an order from the skipper to get a move on. The two men put 18 runs on the score in the next 8 balls and Craig goes to 50 at 120 off 66 balls with a measly 3 fours (very unusual for him).

They do put the peddle down because we pass 150 before the end of the 30th with Zander passing his half ton off 63 with 5 fours and 1 six.  It's 153 at 30 and something nearer 250 looks more likely.  Still don't think that will be enough though I'm personally afraid.  pologies if ZdB's score is wrong.  There was 10 minutes of scoreboard mayhem where the electronic one, the main one and SKY all had Zander at different scores in the same total.

The final powerplay starts with the 38th with Aarafat back on at the OP and Somerset on 179 for 3.

Then suddenly we are witness to the Kieswetter show for 15 minutes as he lets loose with some boundary hitting.  He brings his 100 up in the 39th and we pass 200 at the same time as he hits 3 fours off 4 balls of Martin-Jenkins.  He then smashes a mammoth six from the River end onto the balcony of the cowshed destroying the waste water pipe in the process.  Unfortunately when he tries something similar the next ball he skies it and is caught behind by the wicketkeeper who runs to Gully to take the catch and does well as another fielder comes running in to take the same catch and smacks into him.  Craig departs for 106 off 112 balls with 11 fours and 1 six.  which means his second 56 came off 46 balls with 7 fours and 1 six.

Peter Trego joins Zander for the last flurry (hopefully) and is on 12 by the time I get this down on the wordprocessor with a 6 into the green seats as his third ball faced!!  221 for 4 halfway through the 42nd.  It looks a lot better now and if these two can stay together?  Well who knows. It's 230 by the end of the over with 16 coming off it. 

But Trigger doesn't stay much longer as he follows his keeper back to the pavilion after letting the red mist just get the better of him at 246 - but he did put on 40 with ZdB in his short stay.  We then see another strange bit of captaincy as Justin sends out Omari in the 44th with a side that ought to be looking for the 300.  It's not a problem though because the West Indian(?) simply lobs his first to mid wicket and disconsolently wanders back for 0, passing his skipper sprinting out to take up the cause.

Zander smacks us past 250 with a huge six past the large TV at the OP end and Hamilton-Brown nearly gets him with the next ball as he tries the same thing again.  But he can only pat the ball down but nearly runs the South African out with the return.  This is followed by Chris Nash bowling the boss and 300 looks too far away.  256 and Arul is in to help finish it all?

Not over yet though as Arafat produces a deceptive slow delivery which de Bruyn spoons back and then wanders off very disappointed on 96 C&B by the Sussex man.  Unfortunate.  He deserved the 100 for the excellent anchor role he has played.  

In comes Thomas and we move into the 270's.  This isn't Suppiah's kind of game but the slog is definitely on and they are hitting anything anywhere as Arafat bowls the last over searching for the inswinging yorker.  Arul goes for him however and takes at least one boundary off him.  Alfonso faces the last and survives.  We make 285.  Better than expected after 10 overs.  Less than we thought we might get at 40.  

Sussex open with Joyce and Gatting against Charl (OP) and Peter Trego (River) and we start well in the sense that we get an early wicket - Gatting's nephew - with only 1 on the board as Charl gets some early luck that has been missing in his early spells up to now.  Gatting wafts and Kieswetter takes the catch.  Nash replaces him and with Willoughby being bowled through at one end Justin looks to vary the bowlers at the other end.  Peter is off after 2 and Ben Phillips replaces him but Nash and Joyce maintain their composure and a partnership develops that starts to be worrying after the first 10 overs.  The opposition keep moving along but they don't get away and the Somerset front attack keep at their jobs with the fielding unit doing its job and stopping the long twos and the boundaries well.

Around the 10 over mark, Omari Banks comes on at the River end to change the delivery and Thomas comes on at the OP after 7 from the left hander.  That breaks the partnership as Alfonso gets one past Nash and celebrates bowling him at 75 for a very good 41.  In comes Murray Goodwin, the man we need to see the back of as soon as possible.

Langer continues to vary the River end delivery using Zander, Omari, Arul and Peter T to bowl in two over sections. At halfway Sussex are in the 120's but Joyce is over 50 and Goodwin has made 22 and it is difficult to remember how he has got there.  The next 10 will decide this game IMHO!  

View a Printer Friendly version of this Story.

Bookmark or share this story with:

Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Grockles.com (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 09:45

What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:05:27:13:24:34 by Grockle.

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 09:48

Kirtley in for Collymore looks like a master-stroke after ball 1! What an anti-climatic start!

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 09:49

Sorry guys and gals but Marcus has just chipped his first ball (a Kirtley loosener) to Martin-Jenkins - 0 for 1 after 1!



(Sm72)

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 10:15

Hildreth out - LBW to Martin Jenkins 20 for 2 halfway through 6....and in comes.....Ben Phillips!!



(Sm72)

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 10:29

Phillips misses a straight one and goes at 9.5 for 9....39 for 3.

Zander in



(Sm72)

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Slow Left Chinaman (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 11:13

Anyone else's Somerset commentary not working? Having to listen to the Sussex lot!

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 11:23

Craig K to 50 at 120 for 3 in the 27th. They've been given the 'hurry up' by the captain!!



(Sm72)

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Streeter (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 11:30

Yep- Radio Somerset was right at first but it's dropped out on me now. Onto Radio Sussex now. Wouldn't want to miss this now.
Craig starting to go crazy.
Bye the way, Agods' spread is looking good. Even though I don't know what 3-13 means !

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Congar (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 11:32

I can only hear one commentator.

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 11:39

I've let the club know that one is very quiet and there was a Kirtley one minute loop for a while. Has that stopped now?



(Sm72)

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 12:51

BBC Somerset have sorted their audio problems now as well for those complaining about having to listen to the Sussex lot.

The garden shed audio will also be on for the second half and i'll be picking up comments on the thread if you want to put them in.



(Sm72)

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 14:08

Is the commentary on people? We hve little idea where we are.



(Sm72)

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Congar (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 14:47

Receiving you loud and clear in Barbados!

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Slow Left Chinaman (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 14:49

Yes it is.

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Grizzzly (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 15:13

Need a wicket chaps.

Grizzzly

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Congar (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 15:22

11.20am here, 9.20am in Alberta?

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Grizzzly (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 15:29

On the nail Congar !

You must be in the 30C range I guess. Pleasant enough here at around 20C today.

Now, about that wicket we need.........

Grizzzly

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Congar (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 15:32

Great wicket Omari!!

It might be a bit of a gamble to bring Pete back, Thomas, Phillips, Banks and Suppiah can cover the remaining overs

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Grizzzly (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 15:34

Got him !

Now, need Goodwin. 120 odd off 16+ overs @ 7.8/over.

Could be interesting.

Do we fancy our chances ?

Grizzzly

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Congar (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 15:43

About 84F, sunny and breezy.

Are you listening to the commentary G?

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Grizzzly (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 15:57

Yep......a few too many runs for my liking at the moment. Need a moment or two of Trego magic methinks.

Grizzzly

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Grizzzly (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 15:58

Hmmm, 12 off the over wasn't what I had in mind !

Grizzzly

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Congar (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 16:02

Yes I think we need a couple of quick wickets.

Are you listening to "our" commentary or BBC Somerset?

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Grizzzly (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 16:14

BBC Somerset at the moment. Coming through loud & clear, so I don't think I'll change it or else I'll risk losing it altogether knowing my luck !

Come on lads.

Grizzzly

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Congar (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 16:16

Our lord and master has been praising your reading of the game, he's monitoring this thread.

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Congar (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 16:24

Goodwin gone! It's going to be tight!

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Grizzzly (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 16:28

Have now switched to 'Grockles' for the climax.

Sounds like a finger nail biting job.............!

Grizzzly

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Grizzzly (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 16:30

Dare I ask what happens if the scores are tied ?

Would the result be based on the number of wickets down ?

Grizzzly

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Congar (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 16:37

Wrong result but thanks for the commentary guys.

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Grizzzly (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 16:42

Ah well, that's the end of the suspense Congar.

There must be a 2-3 minute time delay to here, as when you said 'wrong result', Sussex still needed 6 to win !!

As I write this, Grockle confirms the bad news...........

Grizzzly

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Congar (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 16:42

Strange really that Ben didn't bowl at the end, he was the most economical and may have made it a little tighter for the batsmen.

Never mind at least there have been competitive performances on the OD matches so far this year.

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 17:44

Congratulations to Sussex,they deserved to win I'm afraid.
We didn't push home the advantage when Craig and Zander had them on the ropes and too many of our bowlers just couldn't function with any degree of control.
Sadly Pete didn't have the best of days with the ball and Charl just wasn't able to find his regular line and length.
Omari bowled superbly and Alfie also did well.
Just not enough runs posted on the board when we bowl like that.
Very disappointing.



Trego for England

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 18:45

We were about 25 runs light I think and it needed a really good bowling performance which just didn't quite come. If Zde B had held that late catch I wonder what might have happened.
Still now for the real skill of the 20/20!!!!!

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: wsm fan (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 19:02

damn, we would have had a bye to the final too had we won!

lancashire v hampshire
sussex v glos/hamps

first ball realy cost us i think, as well as craig and zander played we just couldnt get off to that flyer banger usually gives us.

Langers run out of Yardy would have turned things too, tough at 1 stump though.

Oh well, good day, lovely weather, just wrong result.

What are peoples view on the crowd? View in my area was around 3000, i'd say just short of half full.

Dare i suggest cheaper tickets would have filled several thousand of those seats?
Better atmosphere, more beer/food/shop sales, a trick missed i say by the club

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: wsm fan (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 19:11

2500 attendance according to main site

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 19:43

Impossible to say.



Trego for England

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: rambling sid (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 20:06

Anybody else get thoroughly irritated by the music played after every six, four, wicket, or was it just me being a misery.
Enjoyed the day, but thought the crowd very poor. Hardly any more than for some of the zonal matches.Lessons to be learnt for next time.

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: wsm fan (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 20:16

Yep, poor crowd considering the occasion and the weather.

Best get used to the music for next few weeks as T20 is here sid!
Dont mind it when we score boundaries but dont like cheering and music when opposition score them!

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 20:17

Yep we were short and we weren't tight enough.

Good to see Marcus leaving first ball didn't destroy the batting and even though Peter and Charl were not at the best they've been, Ben and Alfonso and Omari kept us in it. It was good to see Justin keep faith in Trigger - and see him get the wicket although too late.

The Zander catch would have been very good. There were a couple of very close run outs.

We lost to the more consistent side but it swayed back and forth all afternoon and iot could have gone both ways up until probably 3 overs from the end.

Reading back through stuff this evening. How many expected an undefeated league section and a loss in a QF with 5 balls to go?

Nasty comment by Willis at the end, belittling the county's achievement in winning their league by suggesting this was the first game that mattered.

You have to win the other games Bob you berk to actually be able to compete in the knockout section!!!



(Sm72)

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: wsm fan (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 20:24

Willis hasnt got a clue about county cricket, fool.

Some truth in the fact we were so good in the group stage that we had no experience of a tight finish, our own fault for winning so comfortably.

No disgrace though, just not quite there on the day.
Lets pick it up for Cardiff Monday, with a top 5 of MT, CK, JH, PT, JL we have great potential for runs galore...

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 20:51

Just got back from the game.

The good?

I thought Zander played a beautiful, elegant innings.

In Craig Kieswetter we may have the quintessential big game performer, at least in limited overs games. He was the 2nd top scorer (Dexter) in the last year’s QF and the highest scorer in this one. I thought his innings showed great character and maturity. He will soon be lost to us (England ODI keeper)

I thought Ben and Alfonso bowled well. Banks showed more promise than I have previously seen from him.

The bad?

In a word: Langer.

I thought his decision-making today was deeply suspect, to say the very least. He also played the worst shot of the day by anyone on either side to get out.

To expand on the decision-making foibles;

1) The toss. Surely, if there’s anything in Mr Frost’s wicket it’s almost always in the morning? For this reason, I would have fielded first. Whilst I accept there was not loads in the wicket, first up, I thought RMJ moved the ball more than any of our guys were able to in the afternoon. A second good reason for fielding first is the idea that you should aim to put your stronger suit under pressure. And I really don’t think our bowling is our stronger suit. Having chased so well vs Warks and Middx, I think we might have chased successfully, even if they made a huge score.

2) Batting himself at number 7!!!! To put this in perspective, imagine that you received a call late last night from Michael Yardy. He said to you ‘I’ve got a brilliant tactical idea that I want to run by you [pause] I’m going to bat Murray Goodwin at number 7.’

Would you say;

a) What a brilliant idea, Michael, and go to be scarcely believing your luck

Or

b) would you say, ‘don’t be silly, Michael.’

I thought this decision was absolutely extraordinary. At first I thought he must be ill or injured but since he fielded, I assume not?
Effectively, what Langer did was to take himself out of the game by NOT using himself in a situation which called for his skills (sensible batting) upon the dismissal of Hildreth and then finding that, by the time he was required, we needed to hit the gas, a situation to which he obviously did not consider himself that well suited – given that he even sent Banks in before him!!!

Frankly, there was even a case for Langer coming out when Banger went to keep a right/left hand combination, never mind when Hildreth was out. And, of course, Phillips may well have been useful at the end of the innings.

Psychologically, I’m sure Sussex would have been glad to see Phillips coming out, rather than Langer.

I think this was a case of trying to be far too clever for his own good.

3) Approach in the field. Again, I believe he got it wrong. He refused to attack with any real close fielders , almost throughout. At one point, Sussex had two slips after Hildreth was out. We very rarely fielded even one. This cost us one wicket (Nash) off a genuine edge when Phillips was bowling well. But – more to the point – I don’t think the apparent strategy of just trying to contain and trying to win the game with run-rate pressure was ever truly viable? Phil Frost said we were 50 short. And Langer frantically sending in hitters near the end surely suggests that he thought we were short as well? Let’s face it, Sussex were never likely to finish on 270 for 7 or something like that. To defend 285 under a blazing sun, we surely had to bowl them out?

Of the first batch of bowlers, Ben and Alfonso were much the best. Langer, IMO, needed to bowl these two in tandem (instead of taking them both off) and put a catcher or two in, to try to get a wicket.

Some of the one-over spell stuff was also, I think, an example of trying to be too clever. For instance, Banks having looked ordinary to start with finally beat Goodwin (a great player) with a beautiful arm ball. It was the final ball of the over. Surely, Banks would have been likely to take confidence from that? So you give him at least one more over straight away, don’t you? Instead, he was immediately taken off and replaced with Suppiah for one over and then De Bruyn.


I assume that Langer probably captained well enough in the group games – to judge from results – though we did mainly make very good totals for the conditions in those games, which surely helped a lot.

But this was such a poorly thought out performance, in my opinion, that I’d like to see the guy take a rest from the T20. Instead of opening with Banger, let Craig do it and give the brain some time to formulate a way to improve the CC performances upon the resumption of that campaign.

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 20:59

"We didn't push home the advantage when Craig and Zander had them on the ropes and too many of our bowlers just couldn't function with any degree of control.
Sadly Pete didn't have the best of days with the ball and Charl just wasn't able to find his regular line and length."

Yep, Jim, Pete did not bowl particularly well.

Again, though, I do have to wonder about the apparent strategy of mainly just seeking to contain Sussex? How well suited is Pete to that kind of strategy? Surely he's an attacking, flair bowler who is often lots of wickets or lots of runs and sometimes, both. Perhaps Pete might also have been better off with a more attacking field?

Of course, I fully admit that we might have lost in 42 overs or something, with a more attacking field, but at least we'd have been following the strategy that I think we needed to follow to give us the best chance of winning, as opposed to postponing our defeat.

In my section of the crowd, the only moment at which we felt we were really in the game during the Sussex innings was in the first few balls after Joyce went when the Sussex batsmen suddenly looked a bit jittery.

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: wsm fan (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 21:05

some valid points there.

i understand why langer bats lower as he feels certain platers are more able to play the big shots at certain times of the innings.
i'd still have liked him to come in before banks, and as quoted id have put him at 4 after hildy went.

realy dont like this one over spell policy, think i count 8 consecutive overs where bowling was changed, his arguement will be it keeps batsmen guessing but as we didnt take a wicket in this period surely its more of a hindrance to bowlers rhythm than an advantage?

im fairly sure our top 4 in 20-20 will be tres, craig, hildy, peter, therefore if langer doesnt bat at 5 i realy dont see any logic in him playing at all, he doesnt bowl and we have better fielders.
if he sees phillips, arul and banks as bigger hitters than him will he bat at 7 or 8 then?
do we want him coming in at 7 with 3 overs to go?

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Exiled Tim (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 21:08

I'm with you AG, Langer was once again tactically naive and almost a passenger. When Tres got out, Langer should have used his experience to steady the ship. Everyone relies so much on Tres and it was a real shock to see him go to such a poor shot.

We didn't enjoy the best of fortune and we didn't take any of the few opportunities that Sussex gave us; catch and run outs.

Once again, as last year, our two most economical bowlers didn't bowl their quota. I think Langer captains like a rabbit caught in headlights.

As for the SCCC management cttee. Once again an own goal. The ground only a third full, only about 15% of the Business Club members present, on a glorious summers day. No 12th man that Trego requested as the atmosphere was flat, not the usual buzz of a full house.

Many people were moaning about the prices, the debit card charge and the lack of consideration for the loyal members. If the management team can't do better they should make way for people that understand the local economics.

All the refreshments are cheaper in the Lords Pavilion than at Somerset. Members deserve better.

There is now absolutely no point in becoming a member, as the public can pick and choose their games, probably at weekends and pay on the gate, getting a choice of seating.

Finally, apologies for accidentally ignoring Bagpuss and for mistaking Hackneyshire for a Sussex fan, whom I met at Arundel, last year and again at the break today.

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 21:10

"realy dont like this one over spell policy, think i count 8 consecutive overs where bowling was changed, his arguement will be it keeps batsmen guessing but as we didnt take a wicket in this period surely its more of a hindrance to bowlers rhythm than an advantage? "

It's a policy which could go either way, obviously. But when Banks had just beaten Goodwin with a jaffa, it seemed perverse to immediately remove him from the attack?

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 21:12

"We didn't enjoy the best of fortune and we didn't take any of the few opportunities that Sussex gave us; catch and run outs."

Yes, I thought Banks was unlucky with his dismissal. A (excrement) ball which deserved to go for four and a few inches either way and it would have done.

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 21:14

"im fairly sure our top 4 in 20-20 will be tres, craig, hildy, peter, therefore if langer doesnt bat at 5 i realy dont see any logic in him playing at all, he doesnt bowl and we have better fielders.
if he sees phillips, arul and banks as bigger hitters than him will he bat at 7 or 8 then?
do we want him coming in at 7 with 3 overs to go?"

No, no point in picking Langer at 7 for T20. I'd guess he's planning to open like he did last year. If he does not open or bat three, I don't think he should play. But I think Craig is a better choice for opener. But Langer might be the best choice for three.

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 21:22

I simply thought Langer was showing great faith in his batsmen,backing them to show what they had done in the earlier rounds and scoring quick runs.
His captaincy has been excellent this season.
You win some.
You lose some.
He wasn't to blame for some of our senior players having an off day.



Trego for England

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: wsm fan (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 21:24

i agree to a point but langer below banks and phillips is silly.
its not as if langer cant hit it off the square, he's arguably our best batsmen so to bat at 7 or 8 in any circumstances is a waste

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 21:25

In terms of the right/left combo and the value of Langer going in at 3 or 4;

Did anyone else notice how much trouble Charl seemed to have bowling at Joyce? - there was way too much leg-side stuff to Joyce. He was notably much worse vs the left-hander than the right.

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 21:27

Incidentally, does anyone know what the forecast was at the start of the game?

Did they get it wrong?

When Langer said it was a good toss to win, I wondered if heavy grey cloud had been forecast for later on, or something? It would have made more sense to bat, in that case.

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 21:34

Have to also agree with some of the strange things. Not sure why Ben came in at 4 - unless it was because he was expendable?

I thought Craig's innings was excellent - until its end. We needed him to be there and after pacing his knock so well he just lost it and went back to trying to hit the cover off the ball.

Peter came in at the perfect time but tried to swash his buckle before he was ready and lost it as well. That was when we needed Justin....we got Omari. Wrong!!!

Justin then sprints out and sprints back almost as quickly and leaves the innings with no direction.

I am actually encouraged to see JL moving the field and the bowlers about but in moderation please.

The problem today was that his planned death bowler was doing the job at the front end of the innings (Alfonso) and his front end tight bowler was not doing the OP end job he has done nearly every time he has been asked (Charl).

His bowling options were all over the place and he didn't adapt well. it was good to see him talking to his Vice and the bowlers but he still has a way to go. Still no real use of Arul but he did go for 11 off his 2 early. Not sure why he didn't use Ben except that he gambled on his wicket takers fromt he last few games - Thommo and Trego.

It didn't happen - Murray Goodwin is a real pain and there were two Chinese cuts that could have seen the back of him.

However we let Yardy get away - closer fielding might have helped.

Still not sure about Banks. He looked the part when he got the wicket but he's got to bat!! I think you're being charitable about his dismissal.

Zander wasn't there with the ball - it was doing nothing for him but he deserved 3 figures with the bat. We could risk Max if he was out of form because we could bring in Wes to cover the one day batting but we'd be daft to leave ZdB out of anything at the moment!!



(Sm72)

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 21:35

The forecast was for cloud cover coming in mid afternoon.



Trego for England

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 21:37

Ref the toss decision. I think he expected to hit big against an attack with four spinners in it. Didn't quite work - never in charge enough to take it to them.



(Sm72)

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 21:42

"The forecast was for cloud cover coming in mid afternoon."

I see - thanks, Jim. The forecast was, therefore, diametrically wrong.

I therefore qualify my earlier observation about the toss, especially as there was enough warmth about today that Langer may have believed that cloud cover+ warmth would equal swing.

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 21:44

I thought the Sussex spinners were pretty good, Grockle. Although, surprisingly, I thought their captain was their least impressive slow bowler.

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: CrookedFinger (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 21:44

I'm sure that Somerset would of one if they had received three extra powerplay overs or if Peter Willey had been umpiring.

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 21:46

"I simply thought Langer was showing great faith in his batsmen,backing them to show what they had done in the earlier rounds and scoring quick runs."

Somebody sat behind me expressed similar thoughts, Jim - that he was trying to groom the younger players.... I think that a cup QF is arguably not the place to try that, though?

If he wanted to do it in some poxy T20 group game, then great... but this was, arguably, our best chance of silverware this season.

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Fiddlesticks (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 21:50

Just got back from pub,post-game. I agree with many of AG's comments regarding strange decisions made by Langer during the game.Up until now you have to applaud his form and some very astute captaincy albeit with one or two exceptions this season.Not today alas.

The really frustrating thing is that we are a MUCH BETTER side than the one we just lost to fairly comfortably. They were missing Prior and Luke Wright, 2 of their best players and had some fairly young and inexperienced players.

Once Tresco was out our innings had no real impetus.As mentioned above they did get a move on and from 50 odd for 3, 285 was a very good effort and a credit to Zander and Craig. But even CK blew hot and cold and i guess this was due to the constant fall of wickets.This in turn leads to questions about the make up of our batting order.

So maybe it wasn't enough- but come on 285.A team should be able to defend that,its still a big score, even at Taunton.We got a great start but then for some reason the bowlers started dropping really short and inviting the cut and pull. For me Sussex were nowhere near as impressive batting but had the advantage of knowing what they were aiming at.They simply didn't make as many mistakes. I think they will get hammered in the next round.

At the end of the day its done and we are out.I hope that this is not too much of a blow to morale. I for one am glad that they have a bit of T20 before the next cc game to get it out of their system.It would be a great shame if a very promising start to the season suffered as a result of a bad day at the office....

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 21:56

"But even CK blew hot and cold and i guess this was due to the constant fall of wickets.This in turn leads to questions about the make up of our batting order. "

I think Craig had to cut his cloth to suit the situation, as you suggest. Again, though, I wonder if a right/left hand combination might have led to more scoring opportunities for Craig in the early part of his innings, as bowlers lost their line?

Of course, I should also say well played to Sussex. I really did think they bowled well and their ground fielding was very good, too. RMJ was very good early and I thought Arafat was excellent, as well as the spinners.

Good point about having the T20 to get it out of their system. I mean, let's face it, if we have a one or two game hangover from this loss, it's certainly not the end of the world if it affects a couple of T20 games..

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: edinburghbil (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 21:59

Langer did seem to tweak a calf chasing a ball to the boundary in Edinburgh. I wonder if he wasn't 100%?

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 22:02

Oddly I wish we had a Championship match hot on the heels of this dfeat.
I think there'll be a lot of frustration and some players very keen to show that this was a mere blip.
The only thing T20 is good for is late night re-runs on Channel Dave.
Hosted by Kerry Katona.



Trego for England

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 22:04

To be honest, if he wasn't 100% before the game, I don't think he should have played?

I did wonder whether, possibly, he might have developed a migraine or something shortly after the start.... I think the injury thing is surely less probable because if he wasn't fit enough to bat properly, then you'd think he would not field? A migraine or something could have cleared up by the time he went into bat, though?

But since nothing has been said about this by anyone watching on Sky, I assume that it's all just speculation on our part and not true. After all, the Sky guys normally seem to dig out anything like that..

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 22:05

I'd love to see them give Neil Edwards a go in T20. I still cannot fathom why he does not seem to get considered for the one-day team.

I'm thinking we may see Waller in the competition too.

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 22:07

I was thinking about Neil earlier on.
I'd love to see him given a chance in any format,I thought this may have been his year.
Obviously I was wrong.



Trego for England

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 22:09

Not sure what your point is CF. Shame you didn't get through either but them's the breaks.

You play in the environment you play in.

Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. If you're on your game then it works, when you're not and the other side takes the chances they put you down.

There are many 'if onlys' but they don't tend to change the result in Sundays papers I'm afraid.



(Sm72)

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 22:10

To me, that's the only thing to look forward to about T20 - different guys being given a go.

If I were Mr Rose I would use the T20 as a kind of laboratory in which to try out different tactical ideas that we might have in mind for 50 over cricket, but want to test out first.

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: wsm fan (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 22:27

T20 is very important (to the club) as its results determin qualifying division for next years EPL.
Therefore sure we will put out strongest teampossible to begin with at least.
Would expect todays team to be that that plays Monday and Wednesday personally, maybe Turner could come in for rotation and that bit of extra pace.
Not suggesting dropping Zander but not sure quite what role he will fill in 20-20 line up?
No real need for a staedy player, if there is it probably means we're in a mess and wont get a decent total anyway, dont see him as a number 6 or 7 hitter so if top 5 slots are to be MT, CK, JH, PT, JL, it may be his bowling is more use to the team than his batting...

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 22:42

And you need to keep the momentum goign for the LVCC and the One day comp at the end of the season. JL is making a lot of the fact that he wants to win everything they play in. That suggests no resting, no trying people out.

But some players aren't suited to the very short format and others are. Wes should be seen more, Max has to have a chance. I'd love to see Steff in but this supposed niggle may have come at the wrong time.

Mark Turner should rest his groin for the whole tournament. Caddy won't play in it. Zander isn't a great scorer in it.

Neil Edwards? I think he ought to get a go but I'm not sure the county see him in the same way supporters seem to. he almost seems to have been pigeon holed by his employers and that is working against him because he has only one particular opsition within the side to fight for.

Catch 22 for him isn't it?

So some new guys in but not as many as some may hope I think.



(Sm72)

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: wsm fan (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 22:47

dont see wes coming in, doenst seem in favour at all, when he does play he doesnt bowl.
would like to see turner and waller in, dont see any others, think i have more chance than edwards im afraid!

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Tractor (IP Logged)
Date: 23/05/2009 23:22

So £20 down, a good atmosphere, over 500 runs in a day, a very tight finish (which ok we lost) and no one, absolutely no one had a good day. Really sorry to hear that. We were beaten. Get over it, or shall we just continue to do our captain, players and admin all down? I thought we were supporters.
Cheers from someone who is a complete drunk (or so I've heard), has no house to sell, and who STILL enjoys himself. To any Sussex fan reading, congratulations. You deserved it today (I've only seen BJ give them credit).
Disappointed, of course.

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Grizzzly (IP Logged)
Date: 24/05/2009 01:19

Well, I wasn't there & only heard the last few overs on the commentary.

Won 7, tied 1, lost 1. Just a great shame we chose to turn in a slightly below par performance in the important one.

Can't really comment on the Langer Captaincy issues referred to earlier, albeit no. 7 does seem an odd place to bat.

On a few other issues:

1) I remember the time under Dermott, when the one day batting order seemed to be nothing short of whose name came out of the hat next. Would it not be better for all concerned to stick to a specific batting order (exceptional circumstamces apart - & that doesn't mean every game !!)?

2) We used to have a reputation for 'bottling' big games, so hopefully today was a one off, rather than being more broadly symptomatic. I tend to the view that it was just a badly timed off day.

3) Seems that the Clubs PR still has a bit of work to do.

4) The sooner the darned 20/20 lark is over the better.

Grizzzly

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Exiled Tim (IP Logged)
Date: 24/05/2009 06:23

Admirable support and loyalty, Tractor, as always. What do they put in that tea?

However, what other medium is there for the disgruntled to discuss their disenchantment?

Yes, Sussex played very well, but I'm not at all interested in them. They can look after themselves and have their own critics and supporters.

My definition of a good supporter is one who gives vocal encouragement, sober or otherwise, at all times during the game, but discusses matters openly and contructively before and after the play.

One major concern for me, is that there were about 5,000 members missing, yesterday, on a warm summer's day, for the biggest one day match for several years. Why was that?

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 24/05/2009 07:39

Suspect Sky had a hand in that, Beefy.

I don't think we 'bottled,' the game, Grizzly. Just got out-thought, in the main.

I think we some of us certainly enjoyed elements of the game, Tractor - such as the batting of Craig and Zander. And the warm sunshine.

There certainly wasn't too much to cheer about when we were in the field, though. 4 wickets in 50 overs (less a few balls) and only 3 of the bowlers hitting their straps.

Above all, it's a an anti-climax that, having swept through the group, we then got well beaten at the first hurdle.

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Exiled Tim (IP Logged)
Date: 24/05/2009 08:15

I often think that Sky televising the game, adds some interest, as with the big screen and the like, we get to see replays and interviews, rather than only seeing things once.

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: wsm fan (IP Logged)
Date: 24/05/2009 08:38

will screen stay for wednesday as its on sky?

are there plans for temporary extra seating, i'd suggest we wont have the need for it...

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 24/05/2009 09:35

At 20 quid a pop on the door WSM you may be right although a lot buy in beforehand for this tournament. We haven't sold out as last year as far as I'm aware. (Is the Gloucs match full anyone?).

BJ - you can't have T20 re-runs on "Dave"! What will happen to the "Red Dwarf" series repeats if that happens?

Tractor - really good to hear the applause for Murray Goodwin when Trigger finally got him. Even though there were some in front of the CA who were probably clapping with clenched teeth.

Grizz - thanks for your internet company yesterday along with Congar. Very strange three way conversation going on and "result by time lag" was a new one on me!!

Both - summer starts in June and 7,500 would have been a wildly optimistic figure for a quickly arranged fixture on a Saturday in late spring after a clod wet week. Most people were working on a 4,500 to 5,000 crowd so 50 - 60% down (at least that's what the 'Pork Man' - excellent breakfast fare - was hoping for and he knows his punters)!! Still not what they hoped though I'm sure.



(Sm72)

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 24/05/2009 09:59

Sorry Grockle,can I change it to Men and Motors then please?



Trego for England

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 24/05/2009 10:09

You can - not such a fan of Mr Clarkson!!

Check your PM's dude.



(Sm72)

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 24/05/2009 10:33

Cheers Grockle.



Trego for England

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Mike BOS (IP Logged)
Date: 24/05/2009 10:33

The main difference yesterday was the start of both innings.

Sussex bowled tight at the start this resulted in the loss of early wickets and a slow scoring rate at the beginning.

Without that slow start we should have scored over 300 runs.

Apart from the result it was a very good day’s cricket and it was nice to have some warm weather.

Photos.

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/1520/asmallcrowd.jpg

A small crowd. This was taken one hour after the start.

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/2006/marcustrescothickoutfir.jpg

This didn’t help our start with Marcus being out first ball, ct Martin-Jenkins bld Kirtley.

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/1251/jameshildrethlbwcmartin.jpg

Another minus is Hildreth’s form at the moment, he looked to have his front pad covered except he did not have the bat straight, resulted in being lbw to Martin-Jenkins.

And now my highlight of the day was another good innings from Kieswetter.

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/2941/craigkieswetterctbbrown.jpg

One of Kieswetter shots yesterday.

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/6790/craigkieswetter100runs.jpg

And I know Jim likes these photos.

Kieswetter getting a hug for 100 runs.

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 24/05/2009 11:14

Brilliant again Mike.
This hugging business really isn't my cup of tea but I have to say Craig did look very emotional yesterday on reaching his century so I'll forgive him.
We had them on the ropes at that point,we must learn how to kill sides off when in this position.



Trego for England

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 24/05/2009 18:21

True that, Jim.

Mike certainly has a point about our poor start.

However, Craig and Zander had turned things around to the point where we could still have made 300 or maybe 310 anyway.

I suppose one could be exceptionally churlish and say that maybe one of them needed to stay in and make 130 or so.

Though it would be fairer to say that it needed one other batsman to make even a reasonably substantial score.

Certainly, the wheels fell off at either end of our SCCC innings.

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 24/05/2009 18:52

We needed Craig or Peter to play through the last 10 overs to support Zander and take it on if he didn't. Both had 'red mist' moments and took the long handle to the wrong balls and that left ZdB with little support to push us over 300 and a possible winning score. It was said on commentary thatwe were about 25 to 30 short and that was about right I'm afraid.

But as Tractor pointed out, Sussex still had to get them and in Nash, Goodwin and Yardy they had the men. Two of our best couldn't get their line right and we suffered because of it. Glitch but a decent game for all that.



(Sm72)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:05:24:18:53:40 by Grockle.

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 24/05/2009 19:23

Yesterday was one of the first times I've seen Craig bat (on TV), and what struck me most was how much power he gets in his shots with such little backlift - very impressive.

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 25/05/2009 08:07

Yep, he's a real find, and no mistake.

Very well done, indeed, to Brian Rose.

Frankly, I'm starting to wonder about the following;

If;

a) The powers-that-be don't want to consider Neil Edwards for a CC opening spot.

and

b) Arul Suppiah does not start making good scores there.

and

c) Langer does not wish to open (and presumably he does not or he would be doing so?)

then.....

.... Will we see Craig getting bumped up to a CC opening spot?

Might necessitate Gazzard having to keep wicket, though, as could be too much to ask to keep and open?

Even if that does not happen, I would not be surprised to see Craig gradually creeping up our batting order.

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Sloop John B (IP Logged)
Date: 25/05/2009 09:43

The ball was moving about a bit in the first hour helped by the cloud cover that moved in after the Toss.

Tres' dismissal first ball was a HUGE filip to Sussex and put us on the back foot. Craig's century was most impressive given the early conditions, fall of wickets etc. and getting to 285 after the poor start seemed a good result.

All credit to Sussex for their tight bowling and excellent (by and large) ground fielding.

Their experienced men came to the party - ours didn't. That was a major factor for me.

Best moment of the day from McTractor "Cummon Omaaari - we have faith in OUR Banks!"smileys with beer

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Trevor Gard's Box (IP Logged)
Date: 26/05/2009 17:44

Afternoon all. Grockles has been "blocked" at my work (high treason !) so I'm "off the air" during the day and parenting takes care of the rest. Sorry for not posting much. I did get to see a bit of all this and I thought that it was a very good game that swung both ways and could have tipped our way if things had gone a little differently. I thought we'd done enough but 280 at Taunton is often only around par. Every time you play Sussex Murray Goodwin is ALWAYS the man to get out. He wins them games from so many positions and I was very impressed with Yardy's striking too. They targetted Peter Trego and they got too many balls away after we had tied them down. It's disappointing to lose at home after having played so well in the competition but Sussex kept their heads and played with a lot of common sense. There was a dropped catch here and an umpire's decision there but otherwise I really enjoyed it. I thought that when we got Goodwin out we might have them but they stuck it out and good luck to them.

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 27/05/2009 08:27

I have always thought that if I were a county captain going into a one-day game, I would always try to identify one or two bowlers on the other team that would be "specially targetted," i.e. for taking one or two extra risks to put them under pressure and hopefully see them fall apart so they can be hammered.

I just mention it because TGB said that he felt Sussex "targetted," Trego.

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Mike BOS (IP Logged)
Date: 27/05/2009 08:44

And Glamorgan targeted Max Waller.

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 27/05/2009 08:56

Well, they may have tried....

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: BristolRob (IP Logged)
Date: 01/06/2009 00:16

A big thanks to BJ for keeping me updated by text.

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 01/06/2009 11:37

Cheers,Rob.
It was good fun.
Especially when my phone conked out and I had to recharge it.
Then the credit went.
Then the phone got thrown.
Then the wife got angry.
Then we stopped talking.



I have an awful lot to thank you for,that's another round of pear cider in my opinion.



Trego for England

Re: Sharks - Sussex or SCCC?
Posted by: BristolRob (IP Logged)
Date: 01/06/2009 16:29

Making up is good fun though that's if you have.Going to send you a PM later.

Goto Thread: PreviousNext
Goto: Forum ListMessage ListLog In

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
 

Somerset Poll

Where do you expect us to finish in the 2010 Championship Race?