Latest news:


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

Eating away over the winter


Goto Page: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2
T20 v Kent 29th August 2020
Discussion started by chunkyinargyll , 28 August, 2020 14:06
T20 v Kent 29th August 2020
chunkyinargyll 28 August, 2020 14:06
Unchanged 14 man squad-

[www.middlesexccc.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2020 15:47 by BarmierKev.

Re: T20 v Kent 29th August 2020
Seaxe_man1 28 August, 2020 15:34
Fair enough. Did better than I expected versus Essex shorn of some of our experienced players from 2019. Has to be said due to a huge innings of a ton not out by Max Holden with support. Tons in T20 don't come along too often.

Re: T20 v Kent 29th August 2020
Jonathan Winsky 28 August, 2020 19:04
It would be a surprise if Middlesex’s line-up is any different from yesterday’s match, unless we wish to revert to last season’s tactic of fielding two specialist spinners and thus bring in Luke Hollman in a move which would strengthen our batting.

Kent have named a 14-man squad for this match consisting of Daniel Bell-Dummond, Alex Blake, Jordan Cox, Zac Crawley, Tim Groenwald, Calum Haggart, Fred Klassen, Jack Leaning, Matt Milnes, Marcus O’Riordan, Imran Qayyum, Ollie Robinson, Hamidullah Qadri and Grant Stewart.

The weather forecast suggests that this match will see a result, although you will have to ask me tomorrow evening whether or not that is good news for Middlesex! Unless there is a result in the match between Warwickshire and Somerset at Edgbaston, where there was an inspection due at 7:00pm the last time I heard, the situation tonight will be that all 18 counties will have been due to have each played one match, with only one of those nine matches having seen a result. What happens in the two other groups is actually relevant to Middlesex, as - unless I am incorrect in assuming that the format is like it was when this competition was last played with three groups of six - the group runner-up with the most points will get a home quarter-final like the three group winners, and only two of the three third-placed teams will reach that stage.

Cricinfo report that this coming Thursday’s Twenty20 match between Surrey and Hampshire at The Oval is due to see 2,500 mainly or exclusively Surrey members admitted, so hopefully that will actually happen, go well, and maybe lead to some matches at Lord’s being played in front of spectators.

Re: T20 v Kent 29th August 2020
Seaxe_man1 29 August, 2020 08:17
The Kent batting looks strong from your list JW. Luke Hollman batted well against Berkshire but Kent of course are a step up. Luke born Islington as was Godleman.

Re: T20 v Kent 29th August 2020
Seaxe_man1 29 August, 2020 08:19
Blake down their order is a decent tonker.

Re: T20 v Kent 29th August 2020
Jonathan Winsky 29 August, 2020 14:26
As I feel that Middlesex can ill-afford to lose early wickets in this competition, I am very happy that the Powerplay saw us lose only one wicket (although admittedly it was Thursday’s centurion Max Holden) and score 56 runs. However, the first ball after the Powerplay saw Martin Andersson fall.

We will have to see how the rest of our order bat.

Re: T20 v Kent 29th August 2020
Jonathan Winsky 29 August, 2020 15:19
I was hopeful that this competition would see Stevie Eskinazi have more success with the bat than he has had in the Bob Willis Trophy, as it often happens that players can perform better in one format than in the other. It appears that this has indeed happened, as Eski followed his 24 off 11 v Essex at Chelmsford on Thursday by scoring 84 off 52 today.

Well done too to Nick Gubbins on scoring 53 off 33 and sharing in a partnership of Nelson with Eski.

It is great that Middlesex have 209 runs to defend, and also that our top six all scored at a strike rate of more than 141, with John Simpson and Dan Lincoln scoring 29 off the final 11 balls of the innings.

Re: T20 v Kent 29th August 2020
Seaxe_man1 29 August, 2020 15:38
209 defendable.

Re: T20 v Kent 29th August 2020
Jonathan Winsky 29 August, 2020 15:55
Kent were 52-0 after 4.1 overs when their match v Hampshire at Canterbury on Thursday was a abandoned due to rain, and their start today was even better, with 56 coming off the first four overs. With rain forecast at around 4:00pm, this match could conceivably be rained-off and come done to DLS (as long as more than five overs are bowled in Kent's innings, as they will soon be), on which Kent will surely currently be ahead.

Were the match not to be rained-off, then I still believe Middlesex can win thanks to the runs we scored, but we will have to pull the match back very soon.

Re: T20 v Kent 29th August 2020
tallliman 29 August, 2020 17:00
10 wides and 3 no balls, Kent need 3 off 4 but this is frustrating that there have been many extras in this innings. 13 runs and 2 overs extra bowled isn't good.

Re: T20 v Kent 29th August 2020
tallliman 29 August, 2020 17:05
A tie, well done on a wonderful last over from Helm.

Re: T20 v Kent 29th August 2020
Seaxe_man1 29 August, 2020 17:10
We batted well. Out cricket not as good. Did well in the end.

Re: T20 v Kent 29th August 2020
chunkyinargyll 29 August, 2020 17:10
In the end we did well to get a point.

I realise Tom Helm was trying to tuck the batsmen up, but all his leg side byes meant Gubbins was needed to make sure we started the final over before cut-off time. I don't think Gubbo bowling a comparatively cheap over was inspired captaincy- more a case of needs must.

Re: T20 v Kent 29th August 2020
tallliman 29 August, 2020 17:17
Quote:
chunkyinargyll
In the end we did well to get a point.
I realise Tom Helm was trying to tuck the batsmen up, but all his leg side byes meant Gubbins was needed to make sure we started the final over before cut-off time. I don't think Gubbo bowling a comparatively cheap over was inspired captaincy- more a case of needs must.

I didnt think it was for time reasons but it did seem strange. 2 overs extra to be bowled but we shouldn't have been so close to the cutoff.

Re: T20 v Kent 29th August 2020
adelaide 29 August, 2020 17:22
Definitely a point gained after the assault and battery by Bell-Drummond. It wasn't as if it was all bad bowling. I do wonder though whether James Harris is just the right pace (for the batsmen) in T20. Andersson not used.

Tom Helm owed us that last over. Some of his wides were wider than Lord Wide of Wide City. I'm still surprised we didn't cop an over rate penalty, which would have been a direct result of the wides. Is more time allowed because the players have to find the ball in the stands perhaps?

Eski seemed to manage in the middle overs OK - what do I know?

Kent must be livid at not seeing it through, on top of what happened against Hampshire.


Adelaide

Re: T20 v Kent 29th August 2020
chunkyinargyll 29 August, 2020 17:24
The clock on the scoreboard said 4.55 for the start of the final over, and we just made it.

I know umpires usually bottle it and think of an excuse not to award the opposition runs (is it 6 penalty runs?) but it wouldn't have been the first time it's happened to us.

And self inflicted, because of all the wides.

Re: T20 v Kent 29th August 2020
Jonathan Winsky 29 August, 2020 17:33
Considering Middlesex’s fast bowlers were expensive, with James Harris’s three overs going for 45 and Tom Helm bowling 7 of the 10 wides we conceded before going for only 4 in his final over, and considering I was surprised we were not (once again) penalised for a slow over rate, I actually feel relieved we achieved a tie.

It is not the first time that Helm has saved us from a seemingly-certain Twenty20 defeat by bowling an inexpensive final over, as he conceded only 2 runs off the final over when Sussex needed 5 to chase down our 147-6 at Lord’s in 2017.

I have previously expressed my surprise about Middlesex not selecting a second spinner in addition to Nathan Sowter, and the way this match went has left me wondering what would have happened had we bowled more overs of spin. When Kent bowled, their three most economical bowlers were Imran Qayyum, Alex Blake and Jack Leaning. When we bowled, Sowter proved to be our most economical of our specialist bowlers until Steven Finn added some respect to his economy by conceding only 6 off his final over, while Nick Gubbins looked decent in the one over he bowled and would have claimed a wicket had Stevie Eskinazi held on to a catching opportunity.

I could rue the fact we nearly achieved a run out off the final ball, but I was too busy writing the paragraph about the economies of the spinners in this match to have paid much attention to it, so I rue other factors on why we didn’t win.

Re: T20 v Kent 29th August 2020
snicko 29 August, 2020 17:50
Not impressed with Finn hiding during the power play and then, as captain bowling himself with the long boundary in his favour, whilst his team mates toiled manfully against the short Tavern boundary. That’s not leading by example to me !

Re: T20 v Kent 29th August 2020
adelaide 29 August, 2020 17:54
Good point about spin, Jonathan. I'm not convinced that Sowter is suited to the powerplay given the wide open spaces. Having said that he'll probably take a hat trick in over 2 next time round, given my track record.

Kudos to the commentators, not so much for the (annoyingly just ahead of the feed) commentary but for sticking it out without asking for a mercy drop of more blankets.


Adelaide

Re: T20 v Kent 29th August 2020
chunkyinargyll 29 August, 2020 18:00
With one short boundary. would two spinners have been a good idea?

And the other one would have had to have been Walallawita, or Hollman, with no T20 experience at all.

I can understand going with experienced seamers ahead of no experience spinners.

Oh- and I refuse to put the central heating on in August- even in Scotland.

I'd sooner shiver- which I am.

Goto Page: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2

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