The Bear Facts - the Reply
Spin Leader
By Grockle
June 14 2008
A terrible batting performance has left the Somerset bowlers with absolutely no space to make any kind of mistake. Ian Blackwell and the spinners may have to do the business to pull this one back. It is highly unlikely that this one can be retrieved and that means we will leave this tournament at the group stage and miss out on the later monetary rewards. But it's not quite over yet.
v Warwickshire Twenty20 @ Taunton Saturday 14 June 2008
Ben Phillips and Mark Turner open for us in the second half of this game and it is more of the same. The bowlers seem to have as little idea how to deal with this type of cricket as the batsmen. Where the men with the sticks couldn't hit a barndoor unless a fielder was in front of it, the bowlers seem incapable of bowling a full ball to a set field. 14 off 2 becomes 24 off 3 as we get short ball after short ball hammered away.
There is a piece of absolute brilliance though when Trott skies one. Three fielders converge on the steepling ball and it looks to fall between them. That is until Marcus Trescothick drives forward and flies full length to take an immense one handed catch inches from the ground. 24 for 1. But after that comes more short stuff and more ful bodied blows as the Bears move towards a target that will give them no trouble against this type of attack. After five the score has moved to 42 for 1. Full tosses and half track nice ones ain't gonna do it boys I'm afraid.
Turner must have been listening because he finally gets one full and straight and Carter doesn't keep it out. 44 for 2 - "loverly" ball dude. More of those please! So...on comes Alfonso at the OP a tighter spell than the last from that end is vital. It's OK and it fits in with the first spin as Ian Blackwell starts his four overs at the River in the 8th. The Warwickshire 50 is up and we are still in contention but we fell apart about 20 runs from here and there is no indication whatsoever that they will so they should beat our score with about 5 overs to go at the present rate. However, they still need nearly 7 an over so if we can hold them......
Thomas helps us along the way by bowling Frost for 7 at 57 and then Turner turns fielder and nearly gets a run out at 58. They are scrabbling a bit and the fielding has gone up a notch in the level of intensity but you still feel that Warwickshire will have to lose this rather than Somerset win it. the run rate is up above 7 and the pressure is increasing. But we now put the game inthe hands of Wes Durston bowling to the left handers with them on 59 at half way. A boundary off the first isn't quite what we want but we have to keep the faith. 71 at the end of it
Arul's on at the River for the 12th and produces an excellent over with only 3 from it. The Wes experiment didn't work and we turn to Phillips to replace him for the 13th with the visitors needing 57 from 8. He finishes with 4 overs for 32 and they have 82 with 7 to go. A round 50 required but there is some sterling fielding going on and it may not be that easy if the bowling stays tight.
But it doesn't really because JL decides to move Mark T to the OP and he is immdiately deposited into the graveyard for 6. Warwickshire move to 100 in the 15th. Turner goes around the wicket but nothing really changes unless it's the Bear's scoring rate. He's trying to bowl 'yorkers' but they are turning into full tosses. He's only lucky that they can't get them away. However, it doesn't seem to have affected Arul who bowls Troughton going for the big 'heave ho' - 110 for 4. They need 21 off 4 overs. Turner got 2 for 32 but bowled too much short stuff.
Thomas comes in from the OP for over 17 and produces the goods 114 for 4 when he finishes. 18 off 3 with Blackie sent in to do the same at the River. A dot is followed by a boundary however and we don't have enough to play with. 121 with 2 to go. There's almost a runout as they go for two off ball 3 but it's not close enough and they get the vital run. Alfonso comes back firing and nearly has Powell LBW. Luckily for us, Powell stands in the middle waiting for the umpire to say no and while he does that we run him out. Botha comes in for the 7 balls left with the Bears needing the same number of runs. Thomas finishes with 12 runs off his excellent 4 overs and Ian B gets the chance to win the game!
Ball 1 - single (6), Ball 2 - dot (6), Ball 3 - 4 (2), Ball 4 - single (1), Ball 5 - 4 Warwickshire win
It will read closer than it actualy was. If we were going to produce this bowling display we should have produced a better batting performance. Overall it will look decent. Actually it was a pile of steaming manure from our point of view with a couple of flowers masking some of the stink.
Alfonso Thomas bowled exteremly well and once again Marcus lead from the front with Justin. Other than that and some little bits from fielders and Arul with the ball it was all pretty predictable.
The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: Grockles.com (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 16:10
The Bear Facts - the Reply
Warks 20:20
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 10:56
Mr Rose says that he cannot understand why the middle-order is performing so badly and is threatening a 'major discussion,' about it all this morning.
Personally, if we could actually bat first, I would expect to see the middle order do much better if not under the pressure to get a high run-rate with the field back and no chance to play themselves in.
Personally, if we could actually bat first, I would expect to see the middle order do much better if not under the pressure to get a high run-rate with the field back and no chance to play themselves in.
Re: Warks 20:20
Posted by: Palairet (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 14:59
Perhaps Justin Langer is getting the hang of it all at last. He won the toss and decided to bat first!
Re: Warks 20:20
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 15:08
Tried to announce the thread but the thing wouldn't have it so there is story building as we go at on the front end.
Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 13/06/2008 15:26
Dismally, Mr Rose says that even though Charl has a slight hip injury, we might 'be forced,' to play him tonight because we 'can't afford another defeat.' This 'despite our initial intention to rest him.'
Yes we can, Mr Rose. If we lose, big deal. If we lose Charl, there will be an awful lot of fans that will be irate that he was risked despite having this slight injury.
In other news, Ben Phillips and Arul Suppiah are also in the squad.
Yes we can, Mr Rose. If we lose, big deal. If we lose Charl, there will be an awful lot of fans that will be irate that he was risked despite having this slight injury.
In other news, Ben Phillips and Arul Suppiah are also in the squad.
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: Exiled Tim (IP Logged)
Date: 13/06/2008 16:04
It is a big deal, potentially lost, if we lose.
He can be rested from the not so important CC games.
He can be rested from the not so important CC games.
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 13/06/2008 16:08
Nope, he can't. He needs to play every CC game in order to help make 99% of folks here very happy by helping us to win the CC.
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: bloke (IP Logged)
Date: 13/06/2008 16:16
You wait for a bus......
Radio Somerset (1548AM and 1566AM) commentary of Glamorgan v Somerset, starting at 7.00pm. Don't know about online.
Commentary will also be on Radio Wales (882 and 657 AM, and online)
Radio Somerset (1548AM and 1566AM) commentary of Glamorgan v Somerset, starting at 7.00pm. Don't know about online.
Commentary will also be on Radio Wales (882 and 657 AM, and online)
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: Scrumper (IP Logged)
Date: 13/06/2008 17:07
Has Brian Rose actually said what our priority is, CC or T20? There's potential big bucks for the T20 finalists.
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 13/06/2008 17:09
I don't think he wants to say much publicly, lest he upset his captain, since JL has made it very clear where his priorities lie, and rightly so.
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 13/06/2008 17:11
Everyone keeps talking about the big bucks from the T20 finals.
But don't people think that most or all of the money will end up in the pockets of the players anyway? It doesn't benefit a club if they win loads of money but 99% of it dissappears out the window in win bonuses.
But don't people think that most or all of the money will end up in the pockets of the players anyway? It doesn't benefit a club if they win loads of money but 99% of it dissappears out the window in win bonuses.
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: smallfrysom (IP Logged)
Date: 13/06/2008 17:39
Brian Rose in a Press comment was saying how the batting of Somerset was not up to standard in recent matches and that when many batsmen are failing it was putting pressure on middle and lower order. (Which is pretty obvious observation after the Kent,Yorksire and 20/20 opener) it was ever thus in all forms and levels of cricket, but these are professionals so expected to do better and paid for their efforts.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008:06:13:18:51:07 by averageside.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008:06:13:18:51:07 by averageside.
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 13/06/2008 18:59
Why are we batting last again, also under lights?
The link to my Photos on Photobucket - [s1152.photobucket.com]
The link to my Photos on Photobucket - [s1152.photobucket.com]Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: smallfrysom (IP Logged)
Date: 13/06/2008 19:11
Its so puzzling. winning the toss and putting the oppostion in so somerset will bat in twighlight , and different light and Glam are 34-0 in 4 over.
I will offer odds of 4/1 Somerset ,1/3 Gamorgan any takers?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:06:13:19:11:57 by averageside.
I will offer odds of 4/1 Somerset ,1/3 Gamorgan any takers?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:06:13:19:11:57 by averageside.
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 13/06/2008 19:29
Two wickets down for Glamorgan that may slow the runs down a bit.
Keep taking wickets is what we didn't do the other night.
The link to my Photos on Photobucket - [s1152.photobucket.com]
Keep taking wickets is what we didn't do the other night.
The link to my Photos on Photobucket - [s1152.photobucket.com]Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: RadstockRob (IP Logged)
Date: 13/06/2008 19:58
I'm not listening but Wes takes a wicket with his first ball.Now he's got Gibbs.What a star.
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 13/06/2008 20:11
I'm not listening either but it's good to hear that Wesley Hall and Lance Gibbs are engaged in the current Caribbean Test.
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: RadstockRob (IP Logged)
Date: 13/06/2008 20:17
Glam 170/5 off 20. We should knock them off easy.
My mate (Andy Balderdash) tells me that Radio Wales are doing a great commentary.They interviewed Steffan a moment ago.I suppose he's the only Somerset player they understand.
My mate (Andy Balderdash) tells me that Radio Wales are doing a great commentary.They interviewed Steffan a moment ago.I suppose he's the only Somerset player they understand.
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 13/06/2008 20:21
Are you admitting, BR, that you've got mates who are listening tonight?
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 13/06/2008 20:26
I wonder why Blackwell only bowled three overs at less than five an over.
I hope he is not injured.
The link to my Photos on Photobucket - [s1152.photobucket.com]
I hope he is not injured.
The link to my Photos on Photobucket - [s1152.photobucket.com]Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: smallfrysom (IP Logged)
Date: 13/06/2008 20:33
Goodness me whatever next , Ex footballer Bobby Gould commentator giving"expert Summaries" on BBC Somerset,aaaghhh I think over to Radio Wales
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:06:13:20:35:08 by averageside.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:06:13:20:35:08 by averageside.
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: RadstockRob (IP Logged)
Date: 13/06/2008 20:41
Yes LoL I'm admitting I've got mates.
Switch to Radio Wales Average.My mates tell me it's a better commentary.They had Steffan on.Only Somerset player they could understand.
Switch to Radio Wales Average.My mates tell me it's a better commentary.They had Steffan on.Only Somerset player they could understand.
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 13/06/2008 21:44
Steffan played for Llangennech last week or so I'm told.
Bowled well without taking a wicket apparently.
Is this match on now?
Bowled well without taking a wicket apparently.
Is this match on now?
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 13/06/2008 21:51
Do you mean the West Indies Test? Yes, I'm enjoying it.
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: Exiled Tim (IP Logged)
Date: 13/06/2008 21:51
Played 2 lost 2, oh dear!
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: smallfrysom (IP Logged)
Date: 13/06/2008 21:54
Remarkable prediction . I heard Dean Cosker say on radio in Glams 2nd over that 170 would be winning score on the pitch they were playing, it was slow . And thats why they were playing 3 spinners. Seems Glamorgan ouplayed and outhought somerset even losing the toss.
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 13/06/2008 21:57
I think the prices you were offering very early on proved a point too Average.
This was sadly predictable.
Unlike the four day matches we've taken part in this season which could have gone either way right up to the end.
You can't deny the facts.
This was sadly predictable.
Unlike the four day matches we've taken part in this season which could have gone either way right up to the end.
You can't deny the facts.
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: fivehead phil (IP Logged)
Date: 13/06/2008 22:01
How disapointing. would it be contraversial to say we need to drop Hildreth and play de Bruyn or Suppiah
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: Sloop John B (IP Logged)
Date: 13/06/2008 22:12
WHY are we inserting and batting in the gloaming - it makes no obvious sense.
Our middle order were dire again - 3 ducks and the old fox Croft gets 3 wickets!
Time for a rethink methinks.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:06:13:22:13:06 by Sloop John B.
Our middle order were dire again - 3 ducks and the old fox Croft gets 3 wickets!
Time for a rethink methinks.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:06:13:22:13:06 by Sloop John B.
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: RadstockRob (IP Logged)
Date: 13/06/2008 23:43
Wurzel I don't think the great Bill Shankley would take H&G seriously.It's only a mickey mouse game for a bit of fun and a bit of cash.
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 13/06/2008 23:44
I've been disappointed with these 2 games.We've had good starts in both our replies but have chosen to chase. I suppose tomorrow in bright sunshine we'll bat first!!. At least the guys playing belong to us. I find it difficult to believe that Durham can be happy with their win tonight when 6 of the wickets were taken by Pollock and Morkel who were signed purely for the 20/20. This brings the whole competition into disrepute - (or should I say into even more disrepute) although they are not the only county to do this.
JH is so out of touch that to rest him would do him a good turn.
I would go with the following line up tomorrow -in batting order.
Trescothick Kieswetter Langer Trego Blackwell Suppiah Durston Jones Philips Thomas Turner AND would bat first.
JH is so out of touch that to rest him would do him a good turn.
I would go with the following line up tomorrow -in batting order.
Trescothick Kieswetter Langer Trego Blackwell Suppiah Durston Jones Philips Thomas Turner AND would bat first.
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 00:03
This is so boring. Both defeats were hugely predictable from early in the piece. If anyone can think of a good reason for Ian only bowling three overs, I'd like to hear the theory?
But.. we're all but out of this.. or will be if we lose to Warks tomorrow, which I strongly suspect we will. I don't really care, but if we're going to opt out can we please do so properly and show this comp this disdain which, frankly, it deserves. I am so bored with it already.
As SLB said, inserting was also the height of idiocy - again.
But.. we're all but out of this.. or will be if we lose to Warks tomorrow, which I strongly suspect we will. I don't really care, but if we're going to opt out can we please do so properly and show this comp this disdain which, frankly, it deserves. I am so bored with it already.
As SLB said, inserting was also the height of idiocy - again.
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: RadstockRob (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 00:14
They are saving Ian for the C.C. that may be why he's rashioned in overs.It's also not fair on the others if he gets a bat and bowl and they don't.
A little known fact is that while a child Chesterfield Mum and Dad bought Ian a bat and ball hence he can excel at both disiplines.
Shame they didn't get him a fielding machine.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:06:14:00:17:25 by BristolRob .
A little known fact is that while a child Chesterfield Mum and Dad bought Ian a bat and ball hence he can excel at both disiplines.
Shame they didn't get him a fielding machine.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:06:14:00:17:25 by BristolRob .
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 00:16
huh? Ian not bowling six balls will be key in resting him for the CC??? You jest, surely???
We should just withdraw rather than risk anybody in this dross.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
We should just withdraw rather than risk anybody in this dross.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: RadstockRob (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 00:19
Caching,caching,caching.No way can they withdraw.The bank manager wouldn't be too happy.
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 00:28
When I was young my parents bought me a typewriter.
Needless to say I excelled at rugby.
How I now wish I could find my unused typewriter,sitting all alone and dusty in a cupboard with my maths text books.
I think it's gone forever though.
Gone,but never forgotten.
Needless to say I excelled at rugby.
How I now wish I could find my unused typewriter,sitting all alone and dusty in a cupboard with my maths text books.
I think it's gone forever though.
Gone,but never forgotten.
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 00:33
But if only Mr Barclays would let us withdraw, Jim?
We could get everyone practicing for the imporant stuff to come.
I was delighted to see that Mr Rose did not bother to field Charl and I would like to think that he won't appear at all in this dullsville competition.
Does anyone have any info on the second XI? I feel a serious hankering for even three day second XI cricket - esp with Caddy involved, rather than this 20:20 garbage.
We could get everyone practicing for the imporant stuff to come.
I was delighted to see that Mr Rose did not bother to field Charl and I would like to think that he won't appear at all in this dullsville competition.
Does anyone have any info on the second XI? I feel a serious hankering for even three day second XI cricket - esp with Caddy involved, rather than this 20:20 garbage.
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: RadstockRob (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 00:37
There are no 2nds fixture during H&G season.The idea is that all players will be available for 20/20
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 00:43
Christ, that's awful news.
Does anyone know whether Caddy will have any games for Clevedon etc?
Does anyone know whether Caddy will have any games for Clevedon etc?
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: Grizzers (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 02:39
"Re: Glamorgan 20:20 new
Posted by: BristolRob (IP Logged)
Date: 13 June, 2008 23:37
There are no 2nds fixture during H&G season.The idea is that all players will be available for 20/20"
Absurd in the extreme !
Grizzzly
Posted by: BristolRob (IP Logged)
Date: 13 June, 2008 23:37
There are no 2nds fixture during H&G season.The idea is that all players will be available for 20/20"
Absurd in the extreme !
Grizzzly
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 07:31
I went to bed last night feeling depressed. Yes, the CC is the most vital and no we shouldn't play Charl or Caddy but I'd like to see a bit of a fight.
I woke up this morning feeling optimistic realising that today we shall get our act together, hammer Warwickshire win the other 7 matches as well and top the group.
I woke up this morning feeling optimistic realising that today we shall get our act together, hammer Warwickshire win the other 7 matches as well and top the group.
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: Exiled Tim (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 08:19
All is not lost, but it's bloomin depressing. I can't comment on last night, not being there, but we didn't look up for it on Wednesday.
For the majority on here, these defeats are even worse than you thought, as they destroy confidence, which we need when we resume other formats.
For the majority on here, these defeats are even worse than you thought, as they destroy confidence, which we need when we resume other formats.
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 09:00
We try and stay away from personal attacks on here, but I think questions need to be asked.
Never mind the 20/20 crowd it wouldn't do any harm to ask the players in confidence on what their opinion is on why this is happening.
The link to my Photos on Photobucket - [s1152.photobucket.com]
Never mind the 20/20 crowd it wouldn't do any harm to ask the players in confidence on what their opinion is on why this is happening.
The link to my Photos on Photobucket - [s1152.photobucket.com]Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: smallfrysom (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 09:13
Having the attitude showing " disdain for Comp that it deserves" is frankly silly. 20/20 is here to stay and if anything will get bigger whatever traditionalists , like many of us think. Somerset havenot been very good at it since winning the first year and many other counties have improved. Having listened to the Glamorgan match I can see why, Bad decision inserting ,not reading the pitch well, and failure with Top order batsmen. I find it strange that the captain seems to prefer batting second in one day matches recently because it aint working, the batsmen not handling the pressure chasing very well.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008:06:14:09:22:01 by averageside.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008:06:14:09:22:01 by averageside.
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 09:32
I'm really not at all convinced that 20:20 is here to stay. It produces for too many uncompetitive matches.
At the very least, I think they should introduce a preliminary knock-out round to get rid of those teams that lack interest in/aptitude for this form of the game. At least that way we would not have to play seven dead rubbers as we will probably have to after today (especially if we end up batting second again!)
In both games, we have appeared clueless with the bat once the field has gone back.
I suppose, this time, we're due to lose an early wicket or two which means middle-order players might just get 6 or 7 balls in which to play themselves in and we'd see what they can do then (or not?)
At the very least, I think they should introduce a preliminary knock-out round to get rid of those teams that lack interest in/aptitude for this form of the game. At least that way we would not have to play seven dead rubbers as we will probably have to after today (especially if we end up batting second again!)
In both games, we have appeared clueless with the bat once the field has gone back.
I suppose, this time, we're due to lose an early wicket or two which means middle-order players might just get 6 or 7 balls in which to play themselves in and we'd see what they can do then (or not?)
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 09:38
"For the majority on here, these defeats are even worse than you thought, as they destroy confidence, which we need when we resume other formats."
Yes, Beefy, I will admit that does concern me. Which is why I think anyone of importance to the CC side should not play again after today (assuming that Warks will win the game today). We don't want people getting in a huge trough.
I think the remaining 7 games (assuming defeat today) should be an ideal opportunity to give young and enthusiastic cricketers a chance to play in front of larger than normal crowds. Why not give us a chance to see someone like Lloyd Alley? I think it would be a good reward for any and all SCCC youngsters that have worked hard at their games.
Yes, Beefy, I will admit that does concern me. Which is why I think anyone of importance to the CC side should not play again after today (assuming that Warks will win the game today). We don't want people getting in a huge trough.
I think the remaining 7 games (assuming defeat today) should be an ideal opportunity to give young and enthusiastic cricketers a chance to play in front of larger than normal crowds. Why not give us a chance to see someone like Lloyd Alley? I think it would be a good reward for any and all SCCC youngsters that have worked hard at their games.
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 09:44
What an excellent idea AG.
I too had feared that these defeats would dent the confidence for the CC but I have faith that we're now single minded enough not to let them effect the players too much.
Only time will tell of course but I think we can be assured the management will have everyone back on course come the four day stuff.
I too had feared that these defeats would dent the confidence for the CC but I have faith that we're now single minded enough not to let them effect the players too much.
Only time will tell of course but I think we can be assured the management will have everyone back on course come the four day stuff.
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 09:57
If I lived near Taunton, I might even go to see one of the games if we were fielding guys that I've never seen before and that might be part of our future. I'd certainly rather watch that than watch a bunch of hired hands who have been drafted in specifically for the competition (as many other counties have done.)
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 10:06
You'd have to remember to take the ear plugs.
I heard Lemmy from Mororhead complained about the volume of the PA system at a T20 match recently.
He was heard muttering "it just aint f..... cricket".
I heard Lemmy from Mororhead complained about the volume of the PA system at a T20 match recently.
He was heard muttering "it just aint f..... cricket".
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 10:27
The Catch 22 though gentlemen is that if you want to attract the new young supporter you have to give them the "caviar" and not the "cod roe" (no disrespect the the up and comers implied).
Rest Caddy by all means, this isn't his format. but you're not doing dervice tot he paying punters if you don't play the people this format is made for.
Willow and Phillips should do well at this. Blackwell and Hildreth were made for it and Marcus is taking it by storm. Rest Craig if you're not going to use him properly and let Carl keep. Give Munday a run and Banks and get Turner fit using it. Maybe rest el Capitan.
But play a side that should win with stars in it who should play. If not you're no better than Arsenal in the FA Cup.
It's a major competition and if we are in it we should plan to win it and give our support a good look at the good stuff while we do.
Rest Caddy by all means, this isn't his format. but you're not doing dervice tot he paying punters if you don't play the people this format is made for.
Willow and Phillips should do well at this. Blackwell and Hildreth were made for it and Marcus is taking it by storm. Rest Craig if you're not going to use him properly and let Carl keep. Give Munday a run and Banks and get Turner fit using it. Maybe rest el Capitan.
But play a side that should win with stars in it who should play. If not you're no better than Arsenal in the FA Cup.
It's a major competition and if we are in it we should plan to win it and give our support a good look at the good stuff while we do.
Re: Glamorgan 20:20
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 10:43
Interestingly, Grockle, we have been heavily favoured by the bookies in both of our first two games and are heavily favoured again today. I can't quite work out why, but those are the facts.
Presumably, Grockle, you would not really advocate playing Charl if he does have (as Mr Rose has suggested) a 'slight hip injury,'??
Presumably, Grockle, you would not really advocate playing Charl if he does have (as Mr Rose has suggested) a 'slight hip injury,'??
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 16:15
I've stuck everything together because it's much of a muchness at the moment.
In reply AG. I'd favour playing anyone who has an idea how to play this game.
It isn't good enough to accept going for 6 an over with the ball and it isn't good enough to only want the odd single in an over with the bat but we seem to have a knack of doing both with the sides we have put out.
If Charl is injured then he shouldn't play but we employ these people to play the games we have.
They know what they are signing up for and they are the squad we advertise as being 'Somerset'. I'm all for blooding players and if we can support them then get them in but we have a product and it's what we sell.
Then again we might as well play anyone at the moment because we don't seem to have a clue.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:06:14:16:59:04 by Grockle.
In reply AG. I'd favour playing anyone who has an idea how to play this game.
It isn't good enough to accept going for 6 an over with the ball and it isn't good enough to only want the odd single in an over with the bat but we seem to have a knack of doing both with the sides we have put out.
If Charl is injured then he shouldn't play but we employ these people to play the games we have.
They know what they are signing up for and they are the squad we advertise as being 'Somerset'. I'm all for blooding players and if we can support them then get them in but we have a product and it's what we sell.
Then again we might as well play anyone at the moment because we don't seem to have a clue.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:06:14:16:59:04 by Grockle.
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 16:18
I think we may be coming from this from a slightly different angle Grockle.
It's obvious that some of our established"names"are badly out of sorts.
Maybe their minds are on the Championship,maybe they just need a rest.
Perhaps a bunch of raw youngsters with a point to prove would be a more interesting proposition.
I think we'd all agree that a professional cricketer should be able to focus at all times but sadly some of our lads just aren't producing the goods in this shortened format.
So do you play the "names"just to keep the crowd happy whilst they struggle or do you give somebody else a chance?
Surely little Johnny would rather see the Sabres victorious than a bunch of tired SCCC players badly out of form and losing?
I want to see the club successful in everything they do.
This obviously isn't working.
It's obvious that some of our established"names"are badly out of sorts.
Maybe their minds are on the Championship,maybe they just need a rest.
Perhaps a bunch of raw youngsters with a point to prove would be a more interesting proposition.
I think we'd all agree that a professional cricketer should be able to focus at all times but sadly some of our lads just aren't producing the goods in this shortened format.
So do you play the "names"just to keep the crowd happy whilst they struggle or do you give somebody else a chance?
Surely little Johnny would rather see the Sabres victorious than a bunch of tired SCCC players badly out of form and losing?
I want to see the club successful in everything they do.
This obviously isn't working.
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 16:20
I wondered what had happened to my post of about 20 minutes ago.
If the one above looks familiar then you know what has happened.
If the one above looks familiar then you know what has happened.
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 16:51
Not sure who is badly out of form BJ. We were leading the championship and got to the quarters of the one day. Who needs a rest? And how do they get back into form if they don't play?
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: Fiddlesticks (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 17:11
I think as far as 20-20 goes Langer's captaincy needs questioning.He seems to want to protect bowlers rather than use them to take the initiative. At one point warks were wobbling when westwood came in thomas was 2 overs for 6, Blackwell 2 overs for 7 and both were taken off to bring on Durston and Suppiah! Durston goes for 11 pressure off in a tight match. He seems to like not giving any bowlere more than 2 overs in a row which is fine if theyre getting battered but doesn't make any sense otherwise.
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 17:12
Badly out of form in the T20 format Grockle.
I only go on what I read.
One poster complained that certain individuals were struggling.
If that's the case then let someone else have a go.
Sort of makes sense in an odd sort of way don't you think?
I only go on what I read.
One poster complained that certain individuals were struggling.
If that's the case then let someone else have a go.
Sort of makes sense in an odd sort of way don't you think?
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 17:33
Yep Hildreth and Durston are two who aren't doing much in this and maybe that's where you make the changes.
In some cases the captain isn't helping. He moved Turner from the end where he'd taken wickets to the other for one over, he bats Kieswetter low down, he uses Durston when it makes little sense given his present form with the ball. But I don't see where James is going to get better in the nets, he needs to play through it.
These games are not deciders of form really, especially for bowlers. but when they keep on falling at the hurdles then let's give someone else a go. Arul bowled fairly well today so let's keep him in and give Omari another go. We aren't going to qualify now anyway so we have a bit more leeway after this.
And anything has to be better than this garbage I have to say.
In some cases the captain isn't helping. He moved Turner from the end where he'd taken wickets to the other for one over, he bats Kieswetter low down, he uses Durston when it makes little sense given his present form with the ball. But I don't see where James is going to get better in the nets, he needs to play through it.
These games are not deciders of form really, especially for bowlers. but when they keep on falling at the hurdles then let's give someone else a go. Arul bowled fairly well today so let's keep him in and give Omari another go. We aren't going to qualify now anyway so we have a bit more leeway after this.
And anything has to be better than this garbage I have to say.
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 17:37
Totally agree,this is not good enough.
Whilst I don't get too excited over T20 the point is we seem to be in a slump of form and confidence.
I have faith that the men who matter will sort this out pretty sharpish.
Whilst I don't get too excited over T20 the point is we seem to be in a slump of form and confidence.
I have faith that the men who matter will sort this out pretty sharpish.
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: Sloop John B (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 19:14
We don't seem to like being Bookies favourites!!
We batted very poorly after the openers had give a pretty good start on a slowish, two paced Taunton wicket.
Agree that JL's tactics didn't seem to help when we were beginning to build so pressure.
The Fonz bowled well again as did Blackie. But for me Turner was trying to be too clever and fooled himself rather than the batsmen!
We batted very poorly after the openers had give a pretty good start on a slowish, two paced Taunton wicket.
Agree that JL's tactics didn't seem to help when we were beginning to build so pressure.
The Fonz bowled well again as did Blackie. But for me Turner was trying to be too clever and fooled himself rather than the batsmen!
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 19:37
I'd have thought that Alphonso's figures might be the best ever by a seam bowler at Taunton in the 20:20??
Rich praise to him.
Once again, though, and this time with no excuse of chasing a huge target, it sounds as though our middle order played as if they'd never seen a spinner before.
7 overs, 5 for 20. That's what we've allowed Croft and Botha to do against us in the last two days. That's borderline embarrassing.
Is this now a real test for the Langer/Hurry regime?
five straight defeats in all competitions...
Rich praise to him.
Once again, though, and this time with no excuse of chasing a huge target, it sounds as though our middle order played as if they'd never seen a spinner before.
7 overs, 5 for 20. That's what we've allowed Croft and Botha to do against us in the last two days. That's borderline embarrassing.
Is this now a real test for the Langer/Hurry regime?
five straight defeats in all competitions...
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: Exiled Tim (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 19:44
Quote:Fiddlesticks
I think as far as 20-20 goes Langer's captaincy needs questioning.He seems to want to protect bowlers rather than use them to take the initiative. At one point warks were wobbling when westwood came in thomas was 2 overs for 6, Blackwell 2 overs for 7 and both were taken off to bring on Durston and Suppiah! Durston goes for 11 pressure off in a tight match. He seems to like not giving any bowlere more than 2 overs in a row which is fine if theyre getting battered but doesn't make any sense otherwise.
I agree, Fiddlesticks, I wasn't happy with JL's 1 day tactics last year and i don't think he's learned. I think Blackie was unamused when he was taken off, I may be wrong, but the body language wasn't good.
I thought the crowd were fantastic, getting right behind the team, but once again the member's areas were half empty. A re-think is required. The St James St car park was nearly empty and there was no catering in the CA restaurant, maybe there was no demand.
We had a thoroughly enjoyable day, but it would have been nice to see the boys reward the crowd.
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: Exiled Tim (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 19:46
What the tv people think of our performance/
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 19:47
Grockle - you say that Arul bowled fairly well. I think he is someone who rarely lets the side down with the ball and, as a brilliant fielder to boot, I cannot understand, for the life of me, why he wasn't in the team from the start?
A huge problem here is that there are no second XI games being played during this 20:20 interlude. If there were, I'd say send Hildreth to play a long innings for the seconds, but there aren't any.
Since it's obvious that James - along with Ian - is having huge troubles starting against the spinners and scoring at an acceptable rate, then I even wonder whether we should try James as an opener with Banger? He'd be starting against the seamers with the field up? Might give him the chance for some quick runs and some confidence? At the moment, I can't see him just playing his way out of this in his current berth, unless we suddenly play someone with no spinner. And, frankly, and opponent with a brain would pick as many spinners as they can find against our shambolic batting efforts, at the moment.
I think we're going to have to try some different folks - John Francis, Keith Parsons, maybe Neil Edwards, maybe even Zander? As you said, give Omari another go, maybe, though he does not exactly seem to be someone in whom the powers-that-be have much faith?
It's obvious, though - once again, that spinners are the way to go in this and having Phillips, Thomas and Turner is surely one paceman too many. Thomas must stay in the team, clearly, but I think one of the others should make way for giving Omari another shot at it.
A huge problem here is that there are no second XI games being played during this 20:20 interlude. If there were, I'd say send Hildreth to play a long innings for the seconds, but there aren't any.
Since it's obvious that James - along with Ian - is having huge troubles starting against the spinners and scoring at an acceptable rate, then I even wonder whether we should try James as an opener with Banger? He'd be starting against the seamers with the field up? Might give him the chance for some quick runs and some confidence? At the moment, I can't see him just playing his way out of this in his current berth, unless we suddenly play someone with no spinner. And, frankly, and opponent with a brain would pick as many spinners as they can find against our shambolic batting efforts, at the moment.
I think we're going to have to try some different folks - John Francis, Keith Parsons, maybe Neil Edwards, maybe even Zander? As you said, give Omari another go, maybe, though he does not exactly seem to be someone in whom the powers-that-be have much faith?
It's obvious, though - once again, that spinners are the way to go in this and having Phillips, Thomas and Turner is surely one paceman too many. Thomas must stay in the team, clearly, but I think one of the others should make way for giving Omari another shot at it.
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/06/2008 22:40
Mr Hurry 'cannot understand why so many of our batsmen are just not performing.'
'Maybe it's time for a change of personnel and that's something we'll be looking at before the next game.'
hhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... To be honest I won't hold my breath and would not be suprised if they send out very similar personnel again.
'Maybe it's time for a change of personnel and that's something we'll be looking at before the next game.'
hhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... To be honest I won't hold my breath and would not be suprised if they send out very similar personnel again.
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: Exiled Tim (IP Logged)
Date: 15/06/2008 06:34
Having watched most of the game, again, on tv, I felt we had them under the cosh, when Blackie and Thommo were bowling. They were really struggling for runs and we looked dangerous, then as another writer stated, the bowlers were changed.
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: Tormentor (IP Logged)
Date: 15/06/2008 08:09
I have never understood why they don't play Edwards in the one day/20/20 stuff. He nearly always scores quickly in LV.
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 15/06/2008 08:12
The only time we effectively held them was when Alfonso was part of the attack but that accounted for 4 to 8 overs worth.
The rest of the time the bowling was niaive - short balls in this stuff are exactly what batsmen want and we served up tons.
When we weren't doing that we were striving for full length deliveries and serving uo full tosses
But that would be putting the blame for this defeat in the wrong place. The bowlers had nothing to bowl at with a score of 131. Far far far too much waiting about for the bad ball before taking aggressive action and then far too much "swing and hope" without reference to the field.
The rest of the time the bowling was niaive - short balls in this stuff are exactly what batsmen want and we served up tons.
When we weren't doing that we were striving for full length deliveries and serving uo full tosses
But that would be putting the blame for this defeat in the wrong place. The bowlers had nothing to bowl at with a score of 131. Far far far too much waiting about for the bad ball before taking aggressive action and then far too much "swing and hope" without reference to the field.
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: smallfrysom (IP Logged)
Date: 15/06/2008 09:51
Basically what posters are saying is Somerset dont have any idea how to play the 20/20 game this year? cant argue with that.. ooppss I'm being negative, slapped wrists
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:06:15:09:54:27 by averageside.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:06:15:09:54:27 by averageside.
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 15/06/2008 11:01
Yep can#t argue with that either Average.
Pity we hardly hear from you when they do play well though I think that is the main point of any criticism you may be feeling.
There's definitely positive and negative in this season but you do tend to ally yourself to the negative. That's your perogative but others also have the perogative to point it out.
Pity we hardly hear from you when they do play well though I think that is the main point of any criticism you may be feeling.
There's definitely positive and negative in this season but you do tend to ally yourself to the negative. That's your perogative but others also have the perogative to point it out.
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 15/06/2008 11:58
Average,stop being so touchy it does you no good.
A lot of your posts are well presented and offer interesting debate.
The time you get jumped on,in my experience anyway,is when you simply tell us all how bad the team are.
That is your prerogative of course but this is after all a fans forum and the vast majority of us are so one eyed we make cyclops like a needy case for bi-focals.
Of course being so biased is never a good thing but for many that's what being a fan is all about.
Please don't take the flak you get back personally as it is not meant that way.
A lot of your posts are well presented and offer interesting debate.
The time you get jumped on,in my experience anyway,is when you simply tell us all how bad the team are.
That is your prerogative of course but this is after all a fans forum and the vast majority of us are so one eyed we make cyclops like a needy case for bi-focals.
Of course being so biased is never a good thing but for many that's what being a fan is all about.
Please don't take the flak you get back personally as it is not meant that way.
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: Julian Langdon (IP Logged)
Date: 15/06/2008 12:17
Andy Hurry mentioned a possible change in personnel and there could be a case for this including Keith Pars and some others like Edwards, with this perhaps we should shuffle up the order a bit. Perhaps open with Edwards and Tres, Hilders at 3 and Langer at 4, Pars at 5 and Blackie at 6 or maybe open with Wes. Just shuffle things up a bit to solidify the middle order a little.
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 15/06/2008 12:19
It makes a lot of sense,though sadly in the context of the competition a bit too late.
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: Exiled Tim (IP Logged)
Date: 15/06/2008 12:26
I don't think it's too late, Jim. Yes, it's a tall order but winning breeds confidence and maybe one win would lead to another and so on.
This season there are 10 20/20 matches, so seven wins on the bounce could equal qualification.
I favour a pinch hitter at the start, someone like Carter, who can give the innings some imputus, without risking a more solid batsman.
This season there are 10 20/20 matches, so seven wins on the bounce could equal qualification.
I favour a pinch hitter at the start, someone like Carter, who can give the innings some imputus, without risking a more solid batsman.
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 15/06/2008 12:55
If that's the case then I find it strange that they're waiting until now to make the changes.
It's obvious some players weren't enjoying the competition.
Let others with a point to prove have a go.
They couldn't do a lot worse.
It's obvious some players weren't enjoying the competition.
Let others with a point to prove have a go.
They couldn't do a lot worse.
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 15/06/2008 16:23
"It's obvious some players weren't enjoying the competition."
Anybody in particular, BJ?
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Anybody in particular, BJ?
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 15/06/2008 16:51
Only the ones who it was reported were looking unhappy.
I assumed they weren't happy.
Perhaps I shouldn't have done so.
I assumed they weren't happy.
Perhaps I shouldn't have done so.
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 15/06/2008 18:08
Highly informative BJ. Reminds me, as discovered recently, that your middle name starts with D.
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 15/06/2008 18:45
I knew it would please you.
You grumpy thing you.
You grumpy thing you.
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 15/06/2008 23:26
With another washout today plus the tie a lot of games are splitting the points so only Northants are getting away. 6wins could put us in the shake up and 7 would definitely do it. Why I should be optimistic I don't know but I haven't given it up yet.
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/06/2008 09:19
The bottom line is that we don't have very many proven 20:20 players. Banger and Langer with the bat. Ian and Charl with the ball (the latter not playing). And Thomas seems to be good with the ball.
So, we've arguably got only four players in the team at any one time who are, in any sense, proven in the 20:20. And only two of these are specialist batsmen. It's no wonder that we're not putting up worthwhile totals.
Last year, we also lost our first three games. We then recovered to win a few, but look in Wisden and the names C L White and M J Wood are listed pretty much whenever a decent total was actually reached. The year before, JL had joined the party too.
So, we've arguably got only four players in the team at any one time who are, in any sense, proven in the 20:20. And only two of these are specialist batsmen. It's no wonder that we're not putting up worthwhile totals.
Last year, we also lost our first three games. We then recovered to win a few, but look in Wisden and the names C L White and M J Wood are listed pretty much whenever a decent total was actually reached. The year before, JL had joined the party too.
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 16/06/2008 12:10
Quote:AGod
The bottom line is that we don't have very many proven 20:20 players.
We do still have in the squad 5 players who played all eleven matches required to win the thing in '05 (and one who played 10).
Parsons, Hildreth, Blackwell, Gazzard, Durston and (Caddick).
So it's hard to acceptn that we're short of proven 20:20 players. We are short of the Smith/Wood opening partnership, but that can't be simply down to the quality of the replacements.
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 16/06/2008 12:12
...and the opening aprtnership is the only part of our game that's clearly working!
Can I just say I'm fed up with 20-20 season already - there's no cricket to follow while I'm in the office all day, and nothing to take my mind off work!
Can I just say I'm fed up with 20-20 season already - there's no cricket to follow while I'm in the office all day, and nothing to take my mind off work!
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/06/2008 12:18
FE -- I think another factor is that our one-day pitches may be changing for the worse this season.
Counting the Warks game, I think we've now had three relatively low-scoring home one-day games in which the pitches were described in various media as 'very slow.'
Our problem seems to be manipulating the ball against slow bowling on slow pitches. We seem to be borderline clueless in this department at the minute.
As to your list of six, you are right that they are in the squad but, of course, only half of them are in the team.
Of course, there's also the point that not everybody contributes equally to each win (or even the majority of wins) as well.
It's pretty clear that, over the past two seasons, at least, Cameron White was the ace in the pack as far as 20:20 was concerned. And that was back when few other counties were loading up on 20:20 specialists and Kolpaks. In other words, that was when the opposition was arguably less strong than it is now (especially Northants who I would make favourites to win this year's 20:20)
Counting the Warks game, I think we've now had three relatively low-scoring home one-day games in which the pitches were described in various media as 'very slow.'
Our problem seems to be manipulating the ball against slow bowling on slow pitches. We seem to be borderline clueless in this department at the minute.
As to your list of six, you are right that they are in the squad but, of course, only half of them are in the team.
Of course, there's also the point that not everybody contributes equally to each win (or even the majority of wins) as well.
It's pretty clear that, over the past two seasons, at least, Cameron White was the ace in the pack as far as 20:20 was concerned. And that was back when few other counties were loading up on 20:20 specialists and Kolpaks. In other words, that was when the opposition was arguably less strong than it is now (especially Northants who I would make favourites to win this year's 20:20)
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 16/06/2008 12:36
It was the non-selection of some of those previous winners that I was obliquely questioning, AG.
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/06/2008 12:41
I cannot understand, for the life of me, why Parsie has been ignored.
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 16/06/2008 13:05
I think someone (sorry - can't find who or where) already mentioned that scores are generally lower this year. It's true; there's only been one hundred in the whole competition so far, and Surrey, Gloucestershire, Glamorgan, Durham players have yet to raise their bats to the crowd's applause at all.
The bubble's burst, Jim, burst I tell you.........
The bubble's burst, Jim, burst I tell you.........
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/06/2008 13:12
oh god, you know what that means, FE?
A raft of rule changes will be on the way;
1) All bowlers must bowl with their wrong hand.
2) No LBW law in 20:20
3) ten for a hit out the ground.
A raft of rule changes will be on the way;
1) All bowlers must bowl with their wrong hand.
2) No LBW law in 20:20
3) ten for a hit out the ground.
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 16/06/2008 13:29
How about semi-naked dancing girls,on mopeds,delivering pizza to the batsmen in the middle of every other over.
The batsmen then have to chase the girls around the pitch to the tune of the Benny Hill Show.
If the batsmen beat the girls to the hot tub,which they must dive into from a platform,the team are awarded ten runs and a free bucket meal from Thrombosisizus,the new fast food joint in town.
If the girls beat the boys into the tub then two wickets are lost and the team are given two bucket mealz from Thrombosisizus which they must eat,timed of course during the break.
All this is accompanied by the lager race where players from both sides have a relay race in drinking as much lager as possible.
Winner is first who drink all the ale and then jumps into the tub to let nature take its call.
All this would be accompanied by loud music,manic cheering from the crowds and a announcer that makes Roy Chubby Brown seem coherent.
A winner?
You know where to get me ECB.
The batsmen then have to chase the girls around the pitch to the tune of the Benny Hill Show.
If the batsmen beat the girls to the hot tub,which they must dive into from a platform,the team are awarded ten runs and a free bucket meal from Thrombosisizus,the new fast food joint in town.
If the girls beat the boys into the tub then two wickets are lost and the team are given two bucket mealz from Thrombosisizus which they must eat,timed of course during the break.
All this is accompanied by the lager race where players from both sides have a relay race in drinking as much lager as possible.
Winner is first who drink all the ale and then jumps into the tub to let nature take its call.
All this would be accompanied by loud music,manic cheering from the crowds and a announcer that makes Roy Chubby Brown seem coherent.
A winner?
You know where to get me ECB.
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 17/06/2008 00:03
Twere me FE who mentioned the lower scores and it happened again tonight Surrey/Msex. I have been looking on past experience as 180 as par. Anything over and you win, under and you struggle. Teams are failing to chase 150 this year and I wonder if the bowling is more canny, the fielding better or the batsmen trying to take it more seriously and falling between 2 stools.
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: Exiled Tim (IP Logged)
Date: 17/06/2008 08:12
Quote:Congar
I am sorry wurzel but re your post of 15 June, who is Carter? This has been puzzling me.
Some 2nd XI cricket is being played and a famous name (and possible one for the future) might be worth a pick:
Alley
Neil Carter opens for Warks, in 20/20. He's also a useful bowler.
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 17/06/2008 08:33
I think, GM, that all of your suggestions may be having an influence. Has perhaps the money now on offer for success inhibited the "gay abandon" with which this form of the game has been previously approached?
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 17/06/2008 09:22
The Times reports this morning that the powers-that-be at Trent Bridge elected to have huge boundaries for the game last night. In previous years they had, reportedly been brought in considerably, but not any more.
Their reasoning might be that guys like Samit Patel and Chris Cairns can six-hit over any boundary whereas many of their opponent's batsmen cannot.
And, yes, let's please see Lloyd Alley soon, Congar. Personally, I can barely wait to see him...
Their reasoning might be that guys like Samit Patel and Chris Cairns can six-hit over any boundary whereas many of their opponent's batsmen cannot.
And, yes, let's please see Lloyd Alley soon, Congar. Personally, I can barely wait to see him...
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 17/06/2008 13:08
"I think we can expect to see a different Somerset side tonight."
JL.
We shall see.....
(Though I doubt that, for all the rhetoric we will see a different side in terms of personnel)
JL.
We shall see.....
(Though I doubt that, for all the rhetoric we will see a different side in terms of personnel)
Re: The Bear Facts - the Reply
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 17/06/2008 15:25
The same side playing differently would do me
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.