cricket
Latest News:

It is Sussex but not by the Sea


By Grockle et al
July 30 2016

The last home game of the 50 over regional league games and the chance of clinching a home quarter final place if we win this one.  The side may be a little jaded by the trip back from Southampton last night although many were rested with this game in mind.  We have also lost our Dutch contingent with Johann Myburgh out injured and RvdM and Van Meerkenen out on national duty.  As I get there around midday it is not going well with 4 wickets down and less than 50 on the board.

v SUSSEX @ Taunton Saturday 30 July 2016

Coverage on SK

Scoreboard

Commentary

A beautiful day in Taunton with an excellent crowd for the last 50 over regional match here.  We have a chance of booking a home Quarter Final if we win today but after an evening in Birmingham it doesn't look good when I arrive as we have lost Allenby, Trego and Jayawardene for less than 50 runs after winning the toss and putting ourselves in to bat.

The side is;

Allenby, Abell, Trego, Jayawardene, Hildreth, Gregory, Overton C, Davey, Davies, Groenewald, Waller

A good crowd is watching a game where players are getting in and then getting out except for Tom Abell who is holding his end up while others are losing their places too cheaply.  The 100 is up 2 balls into the 20th and hopes start to build that Hildreth can stay with Tom and get an innning moving,  He goes to 50 off 61 balls with 5 fours but almost straight after when James is LBW to Briggs at 117 for 26.  Four down and er are into the soft underbelly after Gregory because we are a main batsman down because we have lost the Dutchmen to injury and international duty.

Lewis starts confidently but he gets in and then flips the ball behind as soon as Sussex re-introduce Shahzad and we are 142 for 5. Josh Davey is promoted after his heroics against Middlesex but at 160 he chops on with 32 overs gone.  We will be struggling to see out the 50 overs at this rate as Ryan Davies is sent in to help Tom keep us in this one and get us to something over 200.  It does not look good at 182 for 6.  

It gets no better as Ryan shows that batting naivity again trying to pull a short ball from Archer, he top edges to Luke Wright for 10 and we are 182 for 7...200 looks hopeful at the moment I am afraid.

The great is though that we see Tom Abell's first 1 day hundred off 107 balls with 1 six and 9 fours. This happens just after a Cove single takes us over 200. After 43 we are 217 for 7.  But Cove doesn't stay.  Briggs fires one in flat and quick at the same time that Craig gives himself room to cut square.  He misses, Briggs doesn't spin it and he is bowled for 19.'  223 for 8 and not what we wanted.  Tim Groenewald is the next man in and takes us into the last 5 overs at 229 for 8.

Unfortuntately Tom becomes victim to a good piece of fielding and is run out by a direct strike from Finch at the end of the 46th.  232 for 9 and Max is the last man in.  Just keep getting Tim on strike Max. Excellent innings from Tom with 106. Saved our faces today but this is still not a good total to try and defend. 

The 48th over is up with 13 needed for the 250 and that is where we end with a middle stump yorker from Archer 5 for 42.  237 is NOT enough.

THE REPLY

Salt and Joyce open for Sussex with Cove bowling a tight first from the New Pavilion.  Then Josh gets Salt LBW with his second ball to give us the start we needed at 1 for 1.  No other earky stuff and Sussex are 23 for 1 after 5 - the scoreboard gave up at 10 for 1 3 overs in and we are taking our info from SKY predently.  Good close fielding on the pitch bit we need wickets to make any mark on the visitors ability to walk this with about 10 overs to go.  Finch looks solid and Joyce is just happy to wait.

And then we HIT THE STUMPS!! Tom Abell picks up a ball on the floor from Finch and in one fluid movement pipcks up and throws destroying the stumps before he gets up the other end.  Don't watch the fielder Harry!!  25 for 2 Brilliant!!

Somerset continue to leep it tight and after 10 overs Sussex have 36 for 2 and we introduce Lewis to bowl the 12th.  The visitors pass 50 in the 13th  but Tim Groenewald gets his 500th wicket in all formats with Luke Wright's scalp at 59, caught Max Waller.

Nash is the next man in, and the next man out as Lewis gets him to snick behind in the 16th and it's 66 for 4 Presently Tim G has bowled 5 overs and recorded 2 for 7 as he has the major wicket of Ed Joyce at 72 for 5 in the 19th.  Chris Jordan and Ben Brown are the last real batting partnership and then we are into the allrounder bowlers who bat a bit.

With 76 runs up at 20 the bowlers are doing a materful job.  Pete Trego comes on for the 22nd and nearly gets Jordan with a leaaxing edge which just falls short of MaxTim G is still bowling like a demon with 7 overs for 20 odd and 2 wickets.  He is a real asset when he gives us one of these spells.

He keeps it going as he bowls Ben Brown at 93 for 11.  The man is on fire and he nearly has Archer first ball. The 25th over goes for 1 run and a wicket TG 3 for 21 off 8.  But he is not the only one because Trigger then gets in on the act and has Jordan for 12 at 95 for 7.  Ryan Davies has been very very tidy behind the stumps today standing up - people say he has ability well he's had a very good day today with the gloves.

Tim G takes on the 29th and the 100 comes up before the excellent Somerset man finishes with 10 overs, 0 maidens 3 for 30.  Very very good bowling Mr Groenewald.  No Max Waller yet but we have Sussex at 108 for 7 after 30 overs.  Nut I post too soon as MW comes on at the New Pavilion for the 31st.  The two bowlers will look to score off him.  He holds them for 3 balls before Archer sixes him onto the Ondaatje roof. 116 for 7 without the 6 that wasn't bad actually.

Trigger continues fromt he River and he has only gone for 12 off his 5 overs.  Max goes for 6 but there is a need for a couple more wickets to get this one home.  17 overs left needing 114.  It's certsinly possible if the Sussex tail keep their heads.  We could be on the receiving end of what we did to Gloucestershire earlier in this competition.  Shahzad and Archer have to stay together for that to happen.  126 for 7 after 34

During the 34th a difficult catch from Archdr is dropped by James HildrethCraig is re-introduced in the 35th and Shahzad also gets a life as Tom Abell who has done nothing wrong all afternoon misses a fairly decent catch.  It's getting into 'squeeky bum' territory as Mahela just doesn't get to a Trescothick stand slap. After 36 it is 137 for 7 needing 100.

The ex ellent 8th wicket partnership reashes 50 with Archer on 33 and Shahzad on 23.  It continues to cause problems as Archer smokes Pete into the Somerset Stand in his next over.  Jim Allenby brings Josh Davey on at the New Pavilion and he keeps it clean nd tight with only 3 off his 39th.  The skipper then changes ends with Max and is rewarded with Archer's wicket, bowled with ball 3 for an excellent 35. 156 for 8.  We are down to Briggs and Beer and this game is there for us to lose now.     But you know we can do that without any real problem.

Josh continues and holds his line.  By the end of the 42nd they have 165.  Pete nearly takes a diving beauty on the Caddyshack boundary.  It's a six bit he got his fingers to it.

At the end of the 43rd it is 175 and they need 63 off 7.  63 off 42. Shahzad goes for broke off Max gets a leading edge and is caught by Tom diving and just getting his fingers under it. 175 for 9 and an excellent fighting innings from Shahzad comes to and end with 39 to his name.  Well done sir. 178 for 9 after the 44th.

Lewis takes the 45th from the New Pavilion, not the most 'supple' of our bowlers according to Banger on the TV commentary. By the end of the over they need less than 50 as LG bowls a no ball and goes for 15 off the over.  Not what is needed.

The 200 comes up at the end of the 46th with Beer on 21 and Briggs on 8 so Jim gambles on Craig at the Old Pavilion - Allenby has not bowled again in this game - even a slower paced over or two might have helped.  However it is Craig and he goes for 4 and Mahela nearly took the final wicket as Briggs tries to go for a reverse 'ramp'. 204 for 9 after 47 34 off 18.  Max stays on for the 48th and goes for 6.  28 off 12.

Craig has the big over because they will go for him. His first goes for a single, the second for two, the third is a single, the fourth is a dot, the fifth is a single and the sixth is...... also a single.  Great over goed for 6 and they need 22 off the last one.  Who will bowl it? Lewis gets the last one.

Ball 1 - single.  21 needed.  Ball 2 - single 20 needed. Ball 3 - single 19 needed. Ball 4 - six 13 needed. Ball 5 - single 12 needed. Ball 6 - single we win by 10 runs!!  Bloody awesome bowling performance but the Man of the Match will be Tom Abell he set it up but the bowling unit put it away.  ,Home Quarter Final 17th or 18th people!!  Bloody Awful season this is turning out to be!!

 

 

 

 

View a Printer Friendly version of this Story.

Bookmark or share this story with:

It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Grockles.com (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 13:06
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 2016:08:01:10:51:29 by Grockle.

 
Som vs Sussex not by the sea
AGod (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 11:06
Personally I'd have rather seen Jack picked than Max.

Some decent enough stuff up front from the Sussex bowlers. Archer looks very interesting,



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016:07:30:12:15:00 by Grockle.

 
Re: Som vs Sussex not by the sea
Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 11:08
I will not be going today's match, so no photos.

I am feeling not so well at this moment after having a bad night. I didn't like the prospect of queuing up at 9.15 with my heavy camera bag on my back just so I could get the seat on the Gimblett's Hill seating area where I normally sit.

I do have a Somerset Press Pass and do occasional do a job for the club but it still doesn't give me any advantage over any other supporter. (except I get invited to press day's).

Let hope the lads have a good game and keep that QF home place in the table.

 
Re: Som vs Sussex not by the sea
AGod (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 11:11
First really poor ball of match was the 16th from Jordan..would have been a wide but crunched to the point boundary by JA.

 
Re: Som vs Sussex not by the sea
AGod (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 11:12
Archer, who looks superb, picks up Mahela - bounced and left him, wishy washy shot though.

 
Re: Som vs Sussex not by the sea
AGod (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 11:16
Pete gone too. Awful shot vs Archer, hurried by a short one, flapped an easy catch on the onside.

 
Re: Som vs Sussex not by the sea
AGod (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 11:19
Archer's ball that got Pete delivered from miles behind the crease by the looks.

 
Re: Som vs Sussex not by the sea
AGod (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 11:22
Lovely on-driven four by Tom off CJ - great timing, beautiful.

 
Re: Som vs Sussex not by the sea
AGod (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 11:26
Jim, having had one lift past his nose from Archer, hooks another bouncer into the stands at fine leg.

Ajmal Shahzad, the mercurial Ajmal replaces CJ.

 
Re: Som vs Sussex not by the sea
Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 11:29
Let's hope he doesn't just play a few great shots and gets out cheaply. Jim out scoring him at a faster rate so far.

 
Re: Som vs Sussex not by the sea
AGod (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 11:31
Archer over-pitches, superb cover drive from Allenby. Things not going the young man's way for the first time today.

 
Re: Som vs Sussex not by the sea
AGod (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 11:33
Next one too short, dismissed through mid-wicket. JA looking confident.

 
Re: Som vs Sussex not by the sea
AGod (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 11:37
Jim played-on Archer. In two minds whether to play or not, deflected on from a tight line outside off.

 
Re: Som vs Sussex not by the sea
AGod (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 11:38
Hildreth needs something significant here or a heavy defeat could be in the offing, one fancies.

There's not much in the deck for bowlers.

 
Re: Som vs Sussex not by the sea
AGod (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 11:47
Excellent whip off the hips from Tom off Archer to the SL boundary

 
Re: Som vs Sussex not by the sea
AGod (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 11:56
Tom looking a little Azharuddin-esque - Sussex finding the line to him tricky with most things being whipped to leg.

 
Re: Som vs Sussex not by the sea
Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 12:00
Sorry to hear that you are unwell today, Mike. I hope you soon feel better and I look forward to seeing you next week.



LoL

Sixty-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter

 
Re: Som vs Sussex not by the sea
Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 12:08
Thanks LoL

It's just having a ticklish cough keeping me awake for a long time in the night, lack of sleep knocked the stuffing out of me.

 
Re: Som vs Sussex not by the sea
Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 12:14
I'll bring some of London's finest stuffing with me when I come to Taunton.

I've lost the commentary for about fifteen minutes. Am I the only one? I can pick up commentary from Worcester and so I think it must be a Taunton problem.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016:07:30:12:17:26 by Loyal of Lhasa.

 
Re: Som vs Sussex not by the sea
Kingston Black (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 12:19
I have also lost the commentary LoL - I concur that it's a problem with the BBC feed from Taunton.

KB



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016:07:30:12:20:36 by Kingston Black.

 
Re: Som vs Sussex not by the sea
Grockle (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 12:36
Arrived at the ground at midday from the joys of Brum. Tractor had noticed your absence Mike...get well soon and we'll see you at the Durham game.

Beautiful day and loads of people in on a Saturday. The size of the crowd today makes you realise how many people were here on Tuesday. Tom looking good and composed but we'd lost three so Sussex in ascendency and Hilda and Tom with a job to do to get it back.

Hilda gone as I post this and no RvdM because of Dutch commitments. Could do with him. More pressure on Josh and Ryan.



(Sm72)

 
Re: Som vs Sussex not by the sea
Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 13:03
Commentary is back.



LoL

Sixty-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 13:13
Josh did alright, briefly, but really only JA and Tom at the races today, IMO.

We shall need a special effort in the field..

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 13:17
Poor judgement from Davies once again. He's in over his head, I'm afraid.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 13:19
Craig needs to use his reach vs Beer. Accident waiting to happen on the back foot

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 13:20
Maynard should get out the tapes of Caddy batting vs Warne to show Cove how he should approach the wrist-spinner.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Grockle (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 13:24
200 anyone? 11 overs to go and we ain't gonna get 10 an over. Anything over 250 would be a real present this afternoon. Tom and not a lot else I have to admit today. Just hope they stay around long enough.



(Sm72)

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 13:25
Talk on the commentary that Barrow has been released. Is that official?



LoL

Sixty-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 13:25
Great sweep from Tom.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 13:31
Phew, TA edge eludes keeper. Tremendous Ajmal figures.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 13:34
Master-class. Magnificent, Tom.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Grockle (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 13:41
A very important and very well constructed maiden ton from Tom. Very measured and it meant a lot. Standing ovation and he deserved it all. Well played sir.



(Sm72)

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 13:43
Cove, who looked out of his depth throughout, bowled by Briggs' arm ball.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 13:45
Need to bat until the 48th over with this pair then allow Tim to try to hit the final 12 balls out of the ground.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 13:53
Tom run out. Gutted.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 13:57
Excellent from Max vs Archer yorker

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 13:59
A very composed and a well put together innings, the first of many hopefully.

A silly way to finish it though, maybe the batting coach needs to practice running between the wickets with them.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 14:05
Max should have played a free hit differently.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 14:05
That's it - The Archer, Abell and Ajmal show has ended.

Will have to bowl/field flawlessly to win from here, IMO.

Magnificent finish from Jofra A

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Grockle (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 14:08
237 isn't enough - 50 odd short



(Sm72)

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Grockle (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 14:19
Nothing official on Barrow from the commentators but many believe the writing is being put up on the wall.



(Sm72)

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 14:29
Frankly, if not for sentimental considerations, it would be a fairly easy decision.

He needs to go to a CC2 side and try and make a go of it with the bat at the lower level, IMO.

We've got George Bartlett to come through.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 15:40
Why do the bowlers bowl one short ball in an over, and nearly always go for a four.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Shepton Paul 2 (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 15:46
Watching on TV for the first time this season - I'd forgotten how much I despise Charles Colvile's comments. Out of touch, simplistic, lack of cricket knowledge and imagination.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Grockle (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 15:57
That was Tim Groenewald's 500th wicket in all formats



(Sm72)

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 16:16
I hope PT keeps the ball up and don't bowl short.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Grizzzly (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 16:31
Get well soon Mike !

Sounds like a terrific ton for Tom. Well done that man.

The rest somewhat scratchy by the sound of things, but we have clearly bowled ourselves well back into contention. Great bowling by Timmy G..

Methinks we are going to have to find a WK who can bat next season though.

Grizzzly

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 16:37
Well been out for a bit and get back to this, Where's the heavy defeat gone.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Grockle (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 16:40
Tim has been awesome this afternoon. Ryan Davies has also been very tidy standing up today including a very sharp stumping chance which wasn't referred and we were surprised.



(Sm72)

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Shepton Paul 2 (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 16:43
Watching Ryan stand up to TG and the other seamers, making catches and keeping very well, he seems perfectly good to me.

As I said a few times twelve months ago ref Bates, why not go for more runs from the likes of Cove, Gregory, Davey, etc and bat Davies at 10? I fail to see the problem with that - there's no law that says keepers have to bat 7.

Looks like a great toss to win today, top innings from Young Tom with others batting around him, and excellent containing bowling on a tricky pitch to bat on, esp from TimG.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 16:43
Thanks Grizzzly.

I will be well enough to watch the women tomorrow.

It is one of the best bowling I have seen from Somerset for the type of pitch it is. After the odd short ball was hit for a four earlier in the innings since then the bowlers have kept the ball up.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Bobstan (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 18:05
Well done, SCCC.

Seemed a brave decision to give Lewis the final over!

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 18:08
Hope that makes you feel better, Mike.



LoL

Sixty-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Grizzzly (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 18:08
Well, that was closer than it should have been from 90 odd - 7.

Still, after our innings we were looking down a barrell, so quite happy with another win, to take us to a home fixture in the QF.

Not sure why Jim A. didn't bowl, but PT performed a similar role no doubt.

Especially well done to Tom. In the context of the game, a massive performance from him.

Ah well, some will no doubt still find reason to complain.......

Grizzzly

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Shepton Paul 2 (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 18:10
Yes, a few odd decisions maybe, but an excellent win, runs for Tom and disciplined straight bowling, a great triumph on the telly!

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 18:58
Tom will have netted a massive PCA MVP score from that game. He And Archer And Ajmal And TG were The best players. Both sides' batting was totally outplayed by The respective bowlers. One would look At The score And conclude that The track significantly favoured The bowlers. I don't think It really did.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 19:12
Thanks LoL much better.

I found out my voice is returning when I cheered out a few times when we got a wicket. I don't know what my neighbours must be thinking.

I will see if I can take a few photos tomorrow (women's match) to make up for not taking any today.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Angell Face (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 19:13
Grockle, I'm going to have to reprimand you again. 50 runs short indeed. I knew at least 48 hours ago that Sussex wouldn't get 238.
Angell (with 2 lls. I'm no angel.)

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Shepton Paul 2 (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 19:19
I thought the pitch might be tricky as it had been used and thought 237 could be defendable if we took early wickets - which we did. But Tres said he was walking round the ground between innings telling spectators it was 50 short. Still, he's just making his way in the game, he'll understand it eventually.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 19:50
It wasn't. As per Abell, Maynard etc It was a great batting track which was what I thought watching on TV. Great bowling by both sides. Only really Tom And JA batted well.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 20:10
Quote:
Mike TA1
Thanks LoL much better.
I found out my voice is returning when I cheered out a few times when we got a wicket. I don't know what my neighbours must be thinking.

The radio commentators had to turn the effects mike down. The alternative was to put Mike himself down.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Tom Seymour (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 20:13
Saw most of today's play. Apart from Abell nobody else got going and it showed up our lack of batting resources. There were some inept shots leading to the dismissals of Jayawardene, Trego, Hildreth, Davies (in particular) and Overton. I thought at the halfway stage that 320 was a par score on this, so I felt that we were more than 50 runs short.

Poor Waller was not in for long but gave the impression that he had never held a cricket bat in his life. How has he scored so prolifically for our Seconds?

We bowled reasonably well in their reply with, as one would expect the odd loose delivery that was punished. Groenewald, Trego and Davey were the pick, but Gregory was generally disappointing.

The ground fielding was on the whole good. We held a couple of good catches, but we dropped some as well. Abell, Hildreth and Jayawardene (2) being the culprits. There were also a couple of half chances that would have been spectacular if held, but no blame can be attached for these.

After having Sussex 95 for 7, we took our feet off the pedal IMO, and the end result was a lot closer than it should have been. Allenby's presence as captain on the field of play was invisible and yet again our lack of killer instinct was apparent.

Still, a win is a win so whoopee.

I heard today from a source that Alex Barrow has left the club. If true, I feel very sorry for him and the way in which he has been devalued by the presence of a player from Kent who is not in any shape or form his superior.

I didn't see that stumping chance by Davies, Grockle.



A glass half - empty or a glass half - full?
Regardless, both glasses need filling up.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Shepton Paul 2 (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 20:20
Abell dropped one at gully he should have caught, Jaya didn't reach either of his so they werent drops, while Hildreth's was very low and very difficult - as much a drop as Trego's on the boundary that he hardly reached.

Sometimes you drop easy ones, sometimes you take tough ones. As long as they're all doing their best, which I firmly believe they are, it doesn't bother me after the game.

You really are a curmudgeon Tom, you could just have said well played, good victory.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 20:25
Tom Seymour does not HAVE to read the following post:

Two or three years ago we had three former pupils of King's College on the staff - I think that on more than one occasion they played together for the First XI. It looked then that King's might take over from Millfield as a nursery for Somerset players, but now all three have gone. Meanwhile Hildreth and Waller continue to fly the Millfield flag, with Bartlett (and possibly others) waiting for a chance.



LoL

Sixty-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016:07:31:15:55:48 by Loyal of Lhasa.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
mikeindex (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 21:00
Groenewald b Archer 6 …. well I suppose it had to happen sooner or later. First dismissal in CC or 50o since May 4.

I missed all Somerset's innings bar the last nine overs or so (made it for Tom's 100), and was not at all optimistic regarding our score's match-winning potential; but well done to the quicks for reducing Sussex to a position where they couldn't make it back despite the excellent efforts of the lower order (yes the opposition are also doing their best to play well, believe it or not).

Obviously if the missed catches had been taken it would have been a lot simpler - Tom's was sharp but pretty catchable, James' and Mahela's would have been blinders.

Reflecting on the performance of Sussex's 8-11, it strikes me that there are very very few old-fashioned No. 11s in county cricket any more. Mark Robinson probably wouldn't get a contract with one county these days unless he worked on his batting, let alone four (good thing for England women's cricket? Let the forest judge).

Last night I played bridge against a man called Ted Heath. Today I heard, as I thought, "Jeffrey Archer" announced as the bowler. I'm not sure whether Jeffrey Archer claims to have ever played county cricket, but if he does I'm sure he'd lay claim to five wickets and 35 runs per game as an absolute minimum.

Seriously, well done that young man (Archer, I mean) for a magnificent all-round performance. Anyone making fun of Max Waller's (successful) attempts to keep out his yorker has obviously never faced a yorker at anywhere near that pace themselves. I think we will hear more of him.

Anyway, somehow or other our bruised, battered, incompetent, hopelessly led, hopelessly mismanaged excuse for a cricket team seems to have managed not only to get us to the quarter-finals of whatever the one-day comp is called these days, but (with a match to spare) to guarantee the home draw allotted to 1st/2nd place finishers. Not sure how that happened, but no doubt some will have a theory.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 21:01
Don't care. Our guy from Taunton School is our true difference-maker. As Andy Flower said - he's our next proper Test opener.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 21:04
My post was a response to LoL, Not MikeI

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
sandhills (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 21:13
The only person who has a glass half empty is the man himself. Maybe empty the glass, shut one eye and look through the bottom the view might improve your opinion.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
cricketjerry-mouse (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 21:13
Plus eight Millfield alumni currently on the staff of other counties, LoL.

Four of them are at Kent (double Somerset`s quota) - Daniel Bell-Drummond, Calum Haggett, Charles Hartley and Sam Weller; along with one each at Derbyshire (Wes Durston), Hampshire (Adam Wheater), Glamorgan (Dean Cosker), and Glo`shire (George Hankins).

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
sandhills (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 21:16
Well played Tom and Tim and Captain Jim. Well done the bowlers in particular. An excellent day for Somerset congrats

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Shepton Paul 2 (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 21:29
Really, Mike, the oppo are trying to play well also? I thought the game was only about us, and they were just there to roll over at our feet. Who knew?

I saw Archer in the T20 at the Oval last Friday - 4-0-39-2 - that night, he looked quick but unremarkable.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Grockle (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 21:41
Ref the stumping Tom. You didn't see it because it wasn't one. Please read. There was a chance which was sharp. Ryan broke the stumps, asked the umpire the umpire gave it not out visually but did not refer it. WE DID in the press box because we have the technology to do that and on the basis of that thought it probably would have been a different decision had it been referred.

Other than that what you didn't see I really don't care about because you seem to miss an awful lot to be honest.

Well done boys. Poor batting - has to get better. Excellent bowling from everyone. Everything else is said in the frontpage.


A very enjoyable game. A very satisfying result for so many reasons. Not the least of which is that it seems to have put Tom's nose hugely out of joint.

(Sm22)
Hurrah!! OK Yah.



(Sm72)

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Cleavo (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 21:55
Allenby's army!

Outstanding and very mature innings from Abell and Tim superb with the ball. Winning a game when we had what looked like a below par score at the halfway stage can only give the team confidence going forward into the quarter finals. Par score was definitely not 300 on a used/worn pitch. I would say par was around 270-280 as spinners and slower bowlers were harder to get away.

Room for improvement of course, but momentum is key in one day cricket and is something we have in this competition. Bring on the home quarter final in front of a sell out crowd whoever we face!

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Roger ivanhoe (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 21:58
Good to get a win today, and great to get a home match in qtr finals.
Members will have to pay £15, non members £20.


While Ryan Davies will want to score a few more runs, I thought his keeping to today was excellent particularly up to the wicket.

Do not agree with your comment Tom re Alex Barrow being devalued by the arrival of Ryan Davis, Alex has had ample opportunities prior to this season to make his mark IMO, I am sorry if Alex is heading elsewhere, but its a professional sport.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Grockle (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 22:05
Confidence is a big thing Cleavo as you so rightly point out. The side once again stuck to their job. Jim mentioned it at the end. He also made a point about this is the second season that this group have been working in 50 overs....maybe that is one of the things.. confidence in each other because it is not new to them? It's a point of view.

We are seeing other things besides those wonderful individual performances by Tim and Tom.

Max was used in a different way today at it worked to some extent, the change bowler, not the bowl through spinner.

Lewis is re-developing that end of innings bowling style he used to exhibit. He had some real guts in that 50th over.

Josh Davey has tightened up and is difficult to get away now. Craig doesn't lose it any more... he seems to be learning that if he keeps to the task in hand he will get something.

The fielding has not been at its best in some formats, they field as a unit in this. We still can't hit the stumps but heads did not go down when the two chances were spilled. James' was difficult but he is good enough to take that one. Tom's should have been caught but head's stayed up and the objective was still in focus. That comes with confidence and belief.



(Sm72)

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
wsm fan (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 22:15
What a great day, top all round performance and NOTHING to be negative about hey!

Always room for improvement of course but no team ever plays the perfect game.

The aim at 11am was to win and by shortly after 6pm we did, job done!

A home quarter final achieved with one game to go. 4 home group games played 4 great wins and 4 bumper crowds.

Quarter sure to be a sell out and great spectacle for county cricket.

Tom came of age and showed he is so much more than a 4 day blocker, with RVDM to come back in too we are the team to beat!

Save September 17th in the diaries chaps!!!

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Grockle (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 22:18
Could be the 18th WSM won't know until sometime next week.



(Sm72)

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Shepton Paul 2 (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 22:22
Sept 17 has been in my diary all year, wsm - one if the reasons I like going to the 50-over final is that I'm a neutral and I don't mind who wins. Errrr...

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Grockle (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 22:49
Taking points from above. Yep had Pete taken the 'chance' he had (do me a favour) it would have been a fete of brilliant gymnastic prowess and the catch of the season. He did well to even get fingers on it.

Gregory was 'generally' disappointing? I thought he was particularly 'disappointing' bowling the final over when his cohones just got bigger as all they could do was take singles.

Yes we took our foot off the pedal after the 7th wicket. Sussex somehow failed to put their foot on the pedal instead (wonder why that happened). Luckily of course we had put our foot so hard on the pedal beforehand that the suddenly free Sussex players lost another couple of wickets and failed to finish the game as winners even though we gave them the leeway to do that.

The foot was off so much that Sussex scored 61 runs from the 81 balls between the 7th and 8th wicket and then a massive 19 runs in the 22 balls between the 8th and 9th wicket. So a massive 80 runs from 103 balls when they needed 143 runs....damn we didn't half let them off the leash didn't we?

Well done to Archer, Jordan, Shahzad, Briggs and Beer for making a game of it. They had to because the Somerset bowlers had removed 4 wickets for 36 runs in 66 balls. The only reason it looked like we had let them free was because our first press was sooo hard that moving at less than a run a ball seemed an acceleration.



(Sm72)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016:08:01:00:20:46 by Grockle.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
wsm fan (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 23:06
Grockle - Sept 17th is the fixed date for the final I believe, I know what i meant!!!

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Grockle (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 23:10
Yes sorry I'm getting it mixed up with August 17 and 18 which are the dates of the QF's... conscious of it because I may have to change my Oman return flight if it is the 18th....

So talking at cross purposes....



(Sm72)

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Tom Seymour (IP Logged)
30/07/2016 23:46
"Ref the stumping Tom. You didn't see it because it wasn't one. Please read."

No, Grockle - you read. I said, “I didn't see that stumping chance by Davies.” I can read the scorecard as well as anyone and knew that there had not been a stumping in the Sussex innings. That is why I said stumping chance.

I assume you watched the game on TV Shepton Paul. I was there and had a good view of all the missed chances. Who mentioned Trego missing one? I said “ There were also a couple of half chances that would have been spectacular if held, but no blame can be attached for these”, and into that category I included the half chance offered to Trego.

Loyal of Lhasa is still flying his Millfield flag I see, but what the relevance is to this thread I do not know. Perhaps he has or had connections with the school himself. Why else keep perpetuating the point?

And rest assured Grockle, you will never "put my nose out of joint", nor will any of the armchair critics who pass judgement on a day's play without having been within 100 miles of the ground. Yes, that is something to attach a falling - about emoticon to.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
wsm fan (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 00:09
We won, the sum was out, a bumper crowd for a Saturday, Tom came of age and we have qualified with a home quarter with still a game to spare, can we all just play nicely please!!!

It still never fails to amaze me how people can't just be happy with a good day, there always has to be a negative slant found somehow.

Has nobody yet mentioned the scoreboard freeze and reset fiasco, oops, now I am at it! ;-)(Sm14)

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 01:03
I note that, once again, Allenby did not deign to bowl even though LG was going round the park at a rate of knots.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 01:04
Otherwise?

Tom is special - end of.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Grizzzly (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 03:12
Looking at the two league tables, we have won more games and have more points than anyone else, and I don't really see anyone in the 'north' div. that we shouldn't be unable to beat. We play the team who finish fourth in that division, but too early yet to say who that will be.

If JM returns to fitness, the team selection for the QF could be tricky. Who do you drop ? Trego got a ton last week, Tom today, JA is skipper & has scored vital runs.

To me, it would come down to dropping either Mahela or James, both of who only average 22 in the tournament so far, James from seven innings, Mahela from only three.

If push came to shove, I think I would ask Mahela to carry the drinks, as James has shown previously he is more than capable of steering us home in difficult circumstances.

Grizzzly

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Wickham (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 06:06
Very cheering to read about what seems to have been a splendid win. I can't remember many times recently in this format when the bowlers have come to the rescue after the batsmen have achieved a below-par total - as others have said, it will give the team confidence that they are able to win in a number of different ways.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 06:33
Quote:
AGod
I note that, once again, Allenby did not deign to bowl even though LG was going round the park at a rate of knots.

Someone needs a new stylus

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 07:09
Grizz - VDM also available for the QF, has probably been our most consistent white ball bowler this season, so that's another one for the selectors to look at. I guess he may just swap straight in for Max, thus strengthening the batting too.

I don't think Hildreth has a particularly good record in the 'money,' games for us. I assume Mahela does in his career but am too lazy to check.

What every team craves is a guy like Marlon Samuels - a guy that comes up biggest in the biggest matches.

James did have one good knock viz partnership with Compdog in the Warks final before the rest collapsed in a heap against Imran Tahir. I also remember one good knock vs Essex in a very easy home semi-final win. But we played an awful lot of 'big' white ball games under Brian Rose (if we define QFs, SFs and Finals thus) and one under Mr Nosworthy (debacle at Trent Bridge) so I'm not sure only two decent innings in these games is a great return?

If Allemby is not going to bowl then, well though he started yesterday, his place should be up for debate, IMO, as part of the 'Mybs is fit again,' equation. That would avoid a 'drop JH or Mahela,' scenario. Unless we have concluded that Mahela is well over the hill, one would think that we will conclude that we have to back somebody with that kind of pedigree to deliver at least one game defining knock in this tournament?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016:07:31:07:14:02 by AGod.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 07:23
If you made me guess, on pain of death, the identity of the 4th place side in the 'North,' group, I would plump for the distinctly non-Notthern Northants are our most likely opponent at the QF stage.

Northants is only 'Northern,' to those of the 'Watford Gap,' persuasion.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 07:37
Actually, the best answer to a 'Mybs available again,' conundrum might be to order Jim Allenby to remember that he himself is a decent white ball bowler and, thus, leave out one of the bowlers?

I'd be lying if I said that Lewis Gregory batting as high as six fills me with confidence. If Mybs, JH, JA and Mahela all play, in addition to Pete and Tom, then we'd have a stronger look with the bat. Based on comments from JA/MM after each game, I'm unsure as to whether our batting line-up has made any scores in 50 over games at Taunton this season that our management would consider to be 'par' for the track on which the game has been played!? So we've arguably been winning inspite of our batting/because of our bowling - so maybe the team should be slightly re-balanced?

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Bobstan (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 07:57
The important point that needs to be made on this thread is that Northampton is south (just) of Watford Gap.

No, no; please don't thank me, I just like to be helpful.

Addendum: Our useless team has lost just one of its last twelve 50 Over matches.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016:07:31:08:04:31 by Bobstan.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 08:20
We need to finish top of the group to play the fourth place in the other group, second place plays the third of the other group.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 08:25
I thought we'd already sealed first place Mike?

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 08:29
And, finally, there's still the question of whether MT's form is now such that he'd actually be a better bet at the top of the 50 over order than Mybs, JA, Jayawardene or anyone else on our books?

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Sloop John B (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 08:34
Grockle is confusing it with the qf date which yet to be fixed. See sccc website.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Grockle (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 08:39
Hope you'll be there for the quarter final Tom. Don't forget to apply quickly for the extra game they have earned for you.

I do hope THE SIDE don't put your nose out of joint again on that day and earn you another extra game through winning again.

You see I don't have to bother about you and others on days where we are the better side. The evidence of progress speaks volumes for me on winning days.

I can leave the players you broadly classify as losers to do that kind of business every time they rediscover the winning formula and upset your rotten apple cart. It is even better when you are there in person to watch it and have to scrabble around for your morsels of negativity while the people around you are celebrating a win by their team.

My job is easy on days like yesterday. The balance is restored where it should be restored. On the pitch right smack bang in front of your face.

As you say. A win is a win and I've seen more of them in my live games than defeats this season. That includes 3 in the last 7 days so I am happy....You? Well that's for you to deal with.

Have a lovely Sunday.



(Sm72)

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Grockle (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 08:54
MT answered that one with a question from Chris Rogers on TV AG.

It's the fielding aspect of the one day game that he believes he is no longer suited for. He doesn't think you can hide a player in a 50 over game. But he did point out that the decision not to play 50 over cricket was not his...he made that pretty clear.

He pretty much admitted that age has caught up with him in relation to his outfield mobility and I doubt many would argue with that. His reflexes are still there but it's the duration that seems to be the issue. So fielding first might have an effect on his usefulness as a batsman.

Also Jim made a valid point about the fact that 50 over players have been a unit for 2 seasons and are starting to know how to play together in the format. Personally I've always been one for letting those who got us to the knockout stages play in the knockout stages. Bringing in 'semi ringers' always seems to devalue their contributions IMO.



(Sm72)

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Shepton Paul 2 (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 09:00
Sorry Tom, you misunderstand my point, almost certainly because I didn't explain it very well. Yes, I introduced Trego's "chance" to the conversation to make the point that I felt that JH's chance was every bit as difficult and would have been just as impressive if it had been taken.

Sorry to have watched on TV - I'd love to have been in Taunton but circumstances prevented that, as they do most of the time for most of us.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 09:09
Thanks, Grockle. Yes, as I said to you the other day, my understanding was indeed that MT had not opted to retire himself from 50 over cricket. I never think that folks coming out of retirement is a good idea or tends to end well, but the man himself seems to have confirmed that that, at least, would not have been an issue in this instance.

Viz the fielding, I suppose it's a question of how long one can reasonably field a slip for in 50 over cricket. If there's even a little bit of nibble in the track, then it could be justified, IMO. During Botham's drum-banging for a FTM during T20, I've often thought that I would not field one, but might well be tempted to just keep a slip in for the duration as it can be both an attacking role and can save runs through that area.. A really good example was how unfortuate Ajmal Shahzad was, IMO, with his bowling yesterday.. How many times did we nick him wide of the keeper (but down a notional first slip's throat?) - I think it was at least four or five times! Even Tom nicked him through there, if memory serves, to go from 94 to 98. In the case of the ones that I was thinking of, none of the shots that went through there was an intentional one, so I doubt that the batsman would have avoided hitting the ball there, had a fielder been in place.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016:07:31:09:12:07 by AGod.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 09:12
I thought we'd already sealed first place Mike? AG

Not yet AG, we need to win our last match to make sure of top, Essex have two games to go, if they win both game they will end on 13 point to our 11 that's if we don't win our last match.

Also if Somerset win their last match and Essex win both of their last two matches RR will come into it.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Grockle (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 09:25
Rrf fielding AG. Mahela worked really hard in the positions he was in yesterday and made a couple of excellent stops. He was never the fastest around the place but a younger man might have got a little closer to the two that dropped short near him...maybe. You do have to make those decisions about balancing one talent against another is hard. It is probably why Max plays sometimes.

It's the decision someone has to make. James or Mahela? Presently I'd plump for James because MJ hasn't delivered yet. Then I think back to 2005 and Jayasuriya....poor results and then Australia at Taunton. Who'd be a selector?

But again..quoting Jim last night (sorry people). It's a good problem to have when you have 13 who could all do a job for you.



(Sm72)

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Tom Seymour (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 09:48
Quote:
Grockle
...You see I don't have to bother about you and others on days where we are the better side...

Rest assured Grockle, I never bother about you, when we win or even when we don't, because I value my own opinion more highly.

And if my jibes get under your skin and thereby prompt another diatribe, then I consider that my job is done.

Edited to show the quote was taken out of a post of a larger size



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016:07:31:20:38:24 by Tom Seymour.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Bagpuss (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 09:57
Just think, for every Tom on this thread taking the negatives from a won, there will be a dozen Toms on the Sussex forum spitting feathers and bile over their team's failure to chase down 238. Matt Prior already been on Twitter trying to calm the calls for everyone's head from another team who has lost key players in the last year or two and now rebuilding.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Tom Seymour (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 10:02
Are you telling me that we are rebuilding then, Bagpuss? That's a good one.



A glass half - empty or a glass half - full?
Regardless, both glasses need filling up.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Grockle (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 10:24
The moment you use the word 'diatribe' Tom old boy....

Time to take you out of the oven sir. Don't want you overcooked and spoiled now do we?

Keep telling me I don't bother you Tom...if that's what you think, who am I to stop you saying it. You don't usually take notice of the evidence in front of your face so why start now and I'll let the audience decide.

As you say, I dislike everything and everybody - who can argue with logic like that. I certainly won't try. But I think it deserves another of these.

(Sm160) (Sm22) (Sm160)

Continue to enjoy your Sunday.

I've had a treat this morning but I think we'll talk about the game a little more and what you don't care about a little less from now on.

That is what I am sure the other posters would like so we need cricket specifics in your next post if there is one please.

But it has been fun seeing how little this game has affected you....



(Sm72)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016:07:31:10:27:39 by Grockle.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 10:46
Mike - thank you for info, gratefully received.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Bobstan (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 10:57
Coming all the way from underneath a bridge in Norway to Taunton for home matches is most impressive.

The post of 09:48 confirms that this is the case.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 11:07
I think the first tie-breaker is actually head-to-head result? But in the case of a tie between ourselves and Essex (in the standings) that would be a tea-pot of the chocolate variety, so it would indeed come down to NRR..

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 11:15
So everyone gets excited about jayawardene signing for this and now we want him dropped. What a fickle bunch you are!!!

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 11:18
Not Quite AG.

The Rules -

21.11.3 The top four teams from each group will qualify for the
Quarter-finals. The team finishing first in each group will
receive a home draw and play against the team finishing
fourth in the opposite group. The team finishing second
in each group will receive a home draw and play against
the team finishing third in the opposite group.
21.11.4 The tie-breakers for teams finishing on equal points will
be:
a Most wins in Group matches
b If still equal, the team with the higher net run rate in the
Group Matches will be placed in the higher position

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Grockle (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 11:25
Fickle means changing frequently Ron.

As far as I can see it is a case of buying someone with a significant track record in this format and putting him on the field and asking him to prove himself in match conditions.

Then you assess his contribution to the team in those conditions alongside the others in that team squad. After that he keeps his place on merit.

When you've done that you create a team from the 13 or so players who have played in games (usually more than one if you want to make a valid assessment) leaving 2 or so out.

You don't pick him because you signed him and you don't pick him if his recent record suggests others might be better. So considering Mahela's place is the same as considering Jim's place.

Ridiculing a discussion about dropping Mahela is like ridiculing a conversation about dropping Allenby - I'm sure you would not be party to that kind of activity.

And it is a discussion about the pros and cons. If you want to make fun of it then give us all the major contributions that MJ has made to the contest so far in relation to others and make a case for keeping him in - we're all quite willing to hear it. The conversation here is a consideration NOT an actual decision. We don't make that

But it isn't 'fickle' by definition because no one has been wafting back and forward about his inclusion; dropping him, picking him etc etc.



(Sm72)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016:07:31:11:30:00 by Grockle.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 11:26
Thanks again, Mike.

Good job nobody else can tie with us and Essex, otherwise we would both be disadvantaged by the outcome at Chelmsford!

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Grockle (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 11:33
It shows you how important yesterday's result was to our season I think. Had Sussex won yesterday it would have been one hell of a bun fight working out who was playing who where. Good to be out of it.



(Sm72)

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 11:33
I'd still keep Jayawardene in, Ronnie. He hasn't forgotten how to bat - if he had he wouldn't be getting starts, I would think - which he has done almost every time apart from yesterday. I think we shall need some big-game experience ... there isn't really that much left in the Somerset side:

TG - old but Derbyshire never did much and we haven't done much in white ball since he got here, so probably little big-game experience.

JA - Did Glamorgan ever do much? Can't remember

JH - plenty of big game experience for us, but not much of a record in said big games.

Mbys - joined after our long run of big games under Brian Rose.

Most of the others? Young..

So, Mahela aside, it may be that only James and Pete have much big-game experience..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016:07:31:11:36:05 by AGod.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Grockle (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 11:38
Johann has a lot of experience I believe but nearly all of it in South African games



(Sm72)

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 11:43
I'd keep Mahela in too AG . He must be due surely. anyway to those who wanted Allenby out and you know who you are. Aren't we so glad they never listened to you.

Allenby's army

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Grockle (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 11:52
I'm not sure they'd (and you know who you are) assess his contribution as massive Ron.

Having said that his captaincy did have some effect yesterday when he kept Tim on when he was going, used Max at one end where he did not look like causing problems and then moved him to the other end where the result was almost immediate.

I have been of the Tom S opinion that he had been invisible as skipper but he wasn't in the second half of the game yesterday - though I think we won in spite of him because if he could bowl in the T20 he could have turned his arm over yesterday in a couple of places to keep the pressure on rather than possibly bowling Lewis.

Again though I was criticising him for putting Lewis back on for the 50th and Gregory well and truly showed me.

I still don't think he would be much of a loss if we gave the reins to someone else and used his place in the side more effectively. His performances have convinced me you were right to question his inclusion. Still not totally convinced about the rest but would no longer be surprised.



(Sm72)

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 11:55
Jim Allenby stats looks ok to me. [stats.espncricinfo.com]

Batting ave. over 35.
Bowling econ @ 5.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 12:01
Indeed, Grockle, of course he could have bowled himself. He cannot possibly expect us to believe that he is too injured to bowl when he is Captain, given that he does bowl plenty when other people are in charge - it's nonsense!

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 12:05
Maybe he just doesn't rate his own bowling that much and others rate it more than he does? He gets enough grief without putting himself on and going round the park into the bargain !!! Although he never does he's very economical !!!

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 12:11
Well he had a massive pop at somebody on Twitter who said that he (JA) was not a front-line bowler............... posted his stats and then called said poster a 'knob,' for questioning his bowling credentials!

He cannot really have it both ways...

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Grockle (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 12:12
It's my information that there is no physio programme to deal with an injury to Jim. If I'm wrong then please Somerset tell us all that my info is incorrect.

I don't exactly want him to bowl himself out every game but a batting allrounder who does not bowl is NOT an allrounder.

I'd certainly classify him as a useful and experienced medium pacer even if it is occasional. But to not use that at all when you are in need of it and you've bowled out all your other options (Trigger bowled well yesterday).... well?

We are looking to get RvdM back into this side.



(Sm72)

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 12:17
Mr Maynard reported a 'slight groin problem,' back near the very start of the season.

But it's not remotely conceivable that Chris Rogers would not be aware of the existence of such a problem and one assumes that club policy would not be to bowl somebody with a problem to the extent (a lot) that JA has been bowled in the past two CC games...

... Not to mention that we would hardly then bowl him in a meaningless dead rubber in Southampton given that we had a very important game the very next day!

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Grockle (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 13:31
Well if it was 'very slight' towards the start of the season and he still has it then maybe he should have another investigation because it seems more than just a slight one.

Until then he has to be assessed as a batsman (his record as Mike says is not bad though he can be slow in contributing) and we need to look at getting another slow/medium bowler in with a knowledge of how to bat to help out Pete, Max and Johann if he is back.

So can Jim hold his own in the front half as a top 5 batsman with Johann possibly returning and Tom coming of age in this competition? Well if he can, who is to be? James or Mahela?

As Ron says.... you have that nagging feeling that Mahela is due. I'd not give up that as a possibility whether we won or lost.



(Sm72)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016:07:31:13:35:48 by Grockle.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 16:15
Neither would I.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 16:18
Quote:
Tom Seymour
[b]
Loyal of Lhasa is still flying his Millfield flag I see, but what the relevance is to this thread I do not know. Perhaps he has or had connections with the school himself. Why else keep perpetuating the point?


The relevance to the thread was that just two posts above mine was a paragraph about Barrow leaving SCCC. That paragraph itself must have been relevant, having been made by none other than Tom Seymour.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Tom Seymour (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 19:48
Yes, Alex attended Kings College, Taunton. What's the problem with that?



A glass half - empty or a glass half - full?
Regardless, both glasses need filling up.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Wickham (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 20:14
No-one suggested that there was a problem.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Tom Seymour (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 20:40
Well somebody has one, and its not me, Wickham.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Clarence Parker (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 20:50
...I don’t know Tom anymore than I know many of the regular posters on here and from reading his posts, I am sure that he can quite justifiably fight his own corner.

His post of 20:13 yesterday ...(showed that)... He attended yesterday’s play, which I did not – neither did I see any of it on television. So what did he say to warrant such an outpouring?

1) Apart from Abell, nobody else got going;
2) We have a lack of batting resources; some of our dismissals were down to poor shots and he thought that 320 was a par score;
3) Waller looked poor with the bat;
4) We bowled reasonably well – Groenewald, Trego and Davey were the pick, but Gregory was generally disappointing;
5) Good ground fielding with some good catches, but we dropped at least 4;
6) After getting 7 wickets, we took our feet off the gas and Allenby was “invisible” as Captain.

Is there anything bad in any of that? Some may not agree with everything, but do any of us always agree with everyone else’s opinions? If so there would be no point in having a messageboard ...

This is the cricket part of Clarence's post.

I have asked him for a discussion of what he wants doing with the rest of it and I'll be back on to let you know what he decides.

The questions here however are perfectly justifiable. I asked permission to post this from CP but either he is having trouble accessing his PM system or has not yet read my request. But this should be posted as there is no problem with it so I have been forced to make a moderation decision without the discussion and go ahead with the release of the moderated version.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016:07:31:23:24:12 by Grockle.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Clarence Parker (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 22:27
(Sm59)

Evening Clarence. Can you check your PM please? Thanks



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016:07:31:22:38:42 by Grockle.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Grockle (IP Logged)
31/07/2016 23:45
My point of view of yesterday is mostly on the front page because I was also there.

I don't have any problem with about half of the points made and did not reply to Tom regarding this game post, only to answer a point he made about a Davies stumping possibility.. However there were a couple of things that I did respond to in relation to it on other posts.

Lots of people started off thinking that we were 50-ish light at 230 odd so 280 was about the par. However, commentators on the radio revised that down when the Sussex innings started because both sides were struggling with the ball off the square. However, he was perfectly in line with most people who thought we were well under par.

Gregory was expensive in relation to the other bowlers but bowled a magnificent final over to finish off the match. The rest were very good and Groenewald did more than bowl 'reasonably well'. At the half way stage of his spell he had figures of 2 for 7. He bowled a remarkable spell.

We did not drop 4 'catches', Both Hildreth and Tom did not catch 'chances' though James' was a difficult chance but a good fielder as Hildreth is should have caught it.

Neither of the two air balls that fell near Mahela were chances...he was in no position to catch either of them. Pete had his fingertips to another but it would have been a remarkable catch had he got it. To be fair I don't think Tom identified 4 but there certainly weren't that many dropped.

The discussion of Allenby's captaincy also came up in a discussion later with Ron. I have made the same point about Allenby's invisibility before but he was not invisible at the end of yesterday's game and I identified about 3 things he did that did alter the game. I don't rate him as a one day captain but could not lay that charge on him at the end of the game on Sunday.

We also had a firm grip on this game even after the 7th wicket went down. The reason that it felt like we had let them off was because our grip was so strong up to the 7th wicket. We did not take all the wickets - maybe we should have but we left them going into the last over needing over nearly 3 runs a ball and beat them by 10 runs in a low scoring game. Between the 7th and the 9th wicket they could not score at a run a ball. Before that point they were down at less than 3 an over. I call that tight control but others may disagree.

So some agreements and some not. That deals with the cricket nature of the post. I've said anything I have to say about any other aspect. Can I ask others to keep your posts to the cricket aspects where possible please. There may be an opportunity to comment on anything else later on when I have discussed Clarence's concerns with him privately.



(Sm72)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016:07:31:23:51:15 by Grockle.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
AGod (IP Logged)
01/08/2016 08:08
Comments on the official site from after the game (from MM and JA) were still very much of the "this was a really good batting track," ilk. There was no real suggestion from them that the pitch was implicated in the low-scoring nature of the game. Both sides seemed to bowl really rather well, with few exceptions and most batsmen not named Tom Abell were out-played by the opposing bowlers.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Grockle (IP Logged)
01/08/2016 09:35
I simply mentioned that the commentators were saying that what they thought was a 300 plus track seemed to be a 280-ish track with a bit more for the bowlers than they thought and a little less for the batsmen.

Maybe it was hidden from them by the poor shot selection of the Somerset front end early on.



(Sm72)

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Monkey Butler (IP Logged)
01/08/2016 12:07
I've come to this thread very, but I find it difficult to be overly critical. There are a lot of things that Allenby and MM should be working on, but I don't mind if they save their best form for the knockout stages.

I think winning 'ugly' is good for the club to do. Back when we were a real force in all one day competitions we would breeze to the final and then struggle when things got difficult. If winning a match by 10 runs to take us top of the table is a poor performance then we are doing something very right in this team.

We even won without 2 of our best one day players in the side.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Grockle (IP Logged)
01/08/2016 12:19
Good point Monkey B. That seems to have got lost in the downers and the outrage at the downers and the outrage at the outrage at the downers.



(Sm72)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016:08:01:12:48:37 by Grockle.

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Tom Seymour (IP Logged)
01/08/2016 22:01
Thanks for that Clarence Parker. No to a reasonably minded person there is nothing wrong with what I said at all.

What's in the suppressed part of your post?

 
Re: It is Sussex but not by the Sea
Grockle (IP Logged)
02/08/2016 00:46
I'm sure if you PM him Tom he'll tell you if he feels inclined. I'm not inclined. It's not my post and it isn't suppressed it just isn't related to cricket. When Clarence tells me how he wants to proceed then who knows where it will end up but if he wishes you to see it you will have that opportunity I have no doubt.



(Sm72)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016:08:02:00:49:57 by Grockle.

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

Player of the Month for May?

See results > Submit >>