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 Sussex
Discussion started by chunkyinargyll , 31 August, 2020 14:05
T20 v Sussex
chunkyinargyll 31 August, 2020 14:05
Cullen recalled from Surrey loan!

At 24 hours, this must be the shortest loan of all time!

15 man squad named-

[www.middlesexccc.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/09/2020 16:19 by BarmierKev.

Re: T20 v Sussex
Seaxe_man1 31 August, 2020 15:37
Stuart Law made that call I suspect. How can you develop players lobbing them out in all directions. Gone on for years.

Re: T20 v Sussex
adelaide 31 August, 2020 16:21
Surely the loan would not have been made without Law knowing.

Trouble is, Cullen now has to be fumigated...


Adelaide

Re: T20 v Sussex
Jonathan Winsky 31 August, 2020 16:38
I suppose it isn’t a surprise that Blake Cullen has been recalled from his loan to Surrey before many had noticed that he had briefly left (I would have thought that only those who closely follow news from either club will have noticed), as Middlesex are short on fast bowling cover. The area of our squad which has given me the least concern has tended to be the fast bowling department, but the only fast bowlers shown on the squad page on our official website other than the four fast bowlers to have played in our two Twenty20 matches so far are Toby Roland-Jones (injured), Tim Murtagh (he has probably played his final match in this format, with his two most recent appearances for us being in July 2016 and June 2013) and two youngsters in Cullen and Ethan Bamber. By recalling Cullen, we will not be forced to select the same four fast bowlers, unless of course we wish to change tactics and play an extra spinner in Cullen’s former England U-19 team-mate Luke Hollman. If a fast bowler makes way, it would surely be James Harris.

All six teams in the south group have played two matches each, but the fact that the first round of matches saw three no-results and the second round saw two ties means that Sussex are the only team in the group to have registered a win. They have named a 15-man squad for this match consisting of Luke Wright (C), Will Beer, Ravi Bopara, Danny Briggs, Ben Brown, Jack Carson, Mitch Claydon, Harry Finch, George Garton, Tymal Mills, Delray Rawlins, Ollie Robinson, Phil Salt, Aaron Thomason and David Wiese.

The weather forecast suggests that if this match does not produce a winner, then it would not be the weather’s fault.

I will be due to pass through St John’s Wood station at around 5:30pm tomorrow, so I can see myself feeling sad that I am not allowed to alight and go to Lord’s.

Re: T20 v Sussex
freddie tittlemouse 31 August, 2020 19:34
Quote:
adelaide
Surely the loan would not have been made without Law knowing.
Trouble is, Cullen now has to be fumigated...


Adelaide
U-turns are all the rage these days.

Re: T20 v Sussex
Seaxe_man1 31 August, 2020 19:39
Quote:
adelaide
Surely the loan would not have been made without Law knowing.
Trouble is, Cullen now has to be fumigated...


Adelaide
Left-hand not knowing what the right-hand is doing Adelaide. Suggests all is not well within.

Re: T20 v Sussex
chunkyinargyll 01 September, 2020 17:53
Luke Hollman makes his debut in place of Miguel Cummins.

Sussex asked us to bat first.

Re: T20 v Sussex
tallliman 01 September, 2020 18:58
5 overs of spin have yielded 2/21. Hope its a spinners pitch but we can't get the runs at the moment. 80/3 in the 12th.

Re: T20 v Sussex
Jonathan Winsky 01 September, 2020 18:59
I imagine that many people assumed that if Middlesex were to replace one of the fast bowlers who had played in our first two matches with either a second spinner or an alternative fast bowler, then it would be James Harris to make way. Hopefully Harris will leave me eating humble pie.

The way Middlesex’s innings has gone so far suggests that it was a wise decision to select Luke Hollman in addition to Nathan Sowter, as we had a good powerplay in which all six overs were against seamers, finishing on 58-1, but have scored just 23 runs for the loss of two wickets in the following 5.2 overs since the introduction of Danny Briggs and Will Beer.

Re: T20 v Sussex
Jonathan Winsky 01 September, 2020 19:36
I feared that Middlesex would find it difficult to post or (not that we have had to do this yet) chase large scores in this competition, but our scores in our three matches so far have been 184-5, 209-4 and 165-5. No doubt Sussex will make tonight's total - which would have been higher had Ollie Robinson not bowled a Tom Helmesque final over - seem inadequate.

As I write, Stevie Eskinazi’s tally of 187 runs at a strike rate of 168.46 puts him top of the list of highest run-scorers in this competition and high up in the list of best strike rates (and even higher if a qualification is enforced).

[edited as I incorrectly wrote Middlesex's score in this match and Eski's strike rate, and I also inputted the links in the incorrect order]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2020 19:48 by Jonathan Winsky.

Re: T20 v Sussex
Jonathan Winsky 01 September, 2020 20:02
In hindsight, Midddlesex’s total doesn’t sound imposing, although it is actually higher than any side posted around the county circuit today.

After not bowling until the 8th over v Kent at Lord’s on Saturday, Steven Finn bowled the 2nd over today and ensured that he had accounted for both openers by dismissing Luke Wright the over after catching Phil Salt. I am glad that all that had happened after 1.4 overs rather than them both still being there in the 8th over. Apart from the fact it started with a six and finished with a four, it was a great over from Finn.

Re: T20 v Sussex
Jonathan Winsky 01 September, 2020 20:14
Like when Sussex bowled, Middlesex got through the opponent’s powerplay without using any spin. Unlike on Saturday, Steven Finn will be unable to bowl much in the 14 non-powerplay overs, as he bowled all three powerplay overs from the Nursery End and took two wickets. Therefore, many of the non-powerplay overs are set to be bowled by Nathan Sowter and Luke Hollman.

Well done to James Harris on conceding just 4 off his first over.

Re: T20 v Sussex
Jonathan Winsky 01 September, 2020 20:33
Well done to Luke Hollman on marking his debut by dismissing Delray Rawlins and Ravi Bopara.

After Hollman and Nathan Sowter kept things tight, it seemed surprising that James Harris bowled the 11th over. Maybe the logic was either that it would allow Hollman and Sowter to bowl a bit deeper in the innings, or that it would prevent Sussex’s batsmen getting settled against our spinners. However, the over yielded 15 runs.

I couldn't have lived with the idea of Bopara having a good match, as I go past a chicken shop he owns when I walk between St George’s Hospital and Tooting Broadway station.

I agree with anyone who criticises the commentary of Adam Collins, as he earlier said that it is unusual for the scoreboard at Lord’s to fail to keep up with play! Clearly, he is not a regular visitor to Lord’s!

Re: T20 v Sussex
BarmierKev 01 September, 2020 21:10
Any idea on that "no ball"?



Barmy Kev
I'm only here for the tele

Re: T20 v Sussex
Jonathan Winsky 01 September, 2020 21:16
I imagine a big talking point after this match will be the moment when it looked like James Harris had taken the massive wicket of David Wiese, only for a no ball to be given, with the video stream commentators saying it was due to there not being enough infielders. By my calculations, Sussex would have required 15 off 9 with two wickets remaining had the no ball not been given, but instead required 12 off 10 with three wickets remaining, as they ran a single off the no-ball. Hopefully the precise reason for the no ball will be confirmed in due course.

Maybe Miguel Cummins or even Blake Cullen should have played instead of Harris. Maybe Nick Gubbins or Max Holden should have bowled the over Martin Andersson bowled.

At least Nathan Sowter and Tom Helm bowled economically. I felt the match was set up for Helm to bowl yet another good final over to give us either a win or a tie, and had that no-ball situation not occurred, that may have indeed happened, and Helm would have surely had more than 4 runs to defend off the final over.

Re: T20 v Sussex
chunkyinargyll 01 September, 2020 21:19
To that I would add- maybe Harris or Sowter should have come in to bat when the 5th wicket fell.

Re: T20 v Sussex
snicko 01 September, 2020 21:24
15 runs short with the bat - we stagnated in the closing overs.

3 fielders behind square for the “no ball” as no free hit was given ?

Re: T20 v Sussex
tallliman 01 September, 2020 21:32
I assumed the no ball was to do with the fielding restrictions. Wiese won the day for Sussex in the end. Likely a few short with the bat. Their spinners were 8-0-50-2, ours 7-0-53-2 so a little more expensive but it felt like they dried the runs up a lot in the middle.

We seem intent on using 5.5 bowlers (i.e. 5 and an over here or there) whilst everyone we play seems happier using 6 or 7. Just an observation.

Re: T20 v Sussex
wembleylion 01 September, 2020 23:24
Wiese has said the no ball was for "above head height". Weird, or wierd?

Re: T20 v Sussex
Jonathan Winsky 01 September, 2020 23:44
There seems to be a consensus that the no ball was due to the ball being above head height, as the replies to a tweet from Mike Selvey suggests this. However, I thought that free hits are awarded in this scenario, although I don’t think one was awarded, which is why the alternative explanation is that it was due to our field.

The reason why I wrote that Middlesex had posted a third successive large score was because it seemed likely that we would post one until we slowed down in the last two overs. I suppose that reinforces why I feel it is important that we have top-order batsmen at the crease for as much of the innings as possible.

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