Kent 50
By Grockle et al
July 31 2014
The third 50 over game and a weekday fixture at home against Kent. Quiet and overcast first off with a crowd significantly lower than the weekend one (bit of a moveable feast the predeiction of how many will be in). Marcus has won the toss and will field with the only significant change is that Jack Leach is in for George Dockrell after a couple of poor games for the Irishman.
v KENT @ Taunton Thursday 31 July 2014
TUNEIN LIVE EVENT NUMBER 15
A grey and heavily clouded day at Taunton, some sun but also some dark coverings which suggest the possibility at least of a rain affected early period. Not all that suprising therefore that Marcus has decided to bowl first after winning the toss.
The team is (as far as we know - no scorecards)
Trescothick, Compton, Trego, Ingram, Hildreth, Gregory, Barrow, Overton C, Groenewald, Thomas, Leach
So the straight swop of George for Jack. No Rob Key and no Harmison for Kent.
We will see how Jack is for ourselves now because there have been rumours floating about the place about form and stuff but it has to be the right move given the last two performances by GD who is struggling for form and needs the space to go and sort a few things out.
Bell-Drummond and Northeast (captain) will open with the former facing Thommo first from the OP. Lewis opens from the River and the debate is about whether the side should wear their shirts in or out because the bottom of the shirt is white and so it is obvious who has their shirt out and who has it in. I did ask about the 'Men of Kent' v 'Kentish Men' argument and it does seem to depend which side of the Medway you are - though no-one knows which is which.
After 5 overs the new ball men have kept it tight and Kent have a mere 19 on the board. Tim is introduced for over 7 and keeps the brake on but Lewis starts to tire and Craig replaces him for the 10th must after the opposition pass the 50 mark. Cove's first isn't wonderful so the skipper introduces Jack at the River for the 12th and he goes for 8 as the Kent pair start to hit the gaps and look to move the game up a gear. The first six comes of Groenewald's next over and they have reached 84 by the start of the 14th. They look in little trouble at the moment.
Bell-Drummond goes to 50 during the 14th off 37 balls with 9 fours. The ratio of boundaries suggests we have a problem if we can't stem this rate, only Pete hasn't bowled yet and it is early to see batsmen hitting with this kind of freedom. The outfield is slow this morning as well! Expect to see bowlers changing ends to see if they can do anything with the other ball if this rate continues because 8 an over is too big a rate to allow them to sustain.
The Kent 100 arrives during the 14th and Trigger is introduced for the 17th to give TG a breather. He goes for 5 but there isn't a lot of menace in our attack. We definitely need a wicket but as that is significantly absent, Leachy and Trigger do start to operate the press more effectively. Between the 15th and the 21st over Kent lnly manage 17 runs and Jack tops it off with a good spinner's wicket when he has Bell-Drummond stumped by Barrow with 117 on the board. Millfield, stumped Kings bowled Bishop Foxes and the danger man back in hutch replaced by Brendan Nash
Sam Northeast reaches 50 at 125 for 1 off 65 balls with 4 fours and a six. Then Leach gets his second as Nash gloves the ball into the air and Barrow runs around to take the catch. 131 for 2 and Jack has them both.
Lewis takes the 25th from the OP and gets a bit more as Northeast bottom edges one for a streaky four and that is all they get from him. 135 at halfway. Stevens then succumbs to Lewis as he is caught by Thommo at extra cover with 142 up, then almost immediately Cowdrey snicks one past the skipper (would have gone straight into the mitts of second slip). Craig is re-introduced at the River and Northeast puts one into an absent second slips pouch as well as Overton finds some steepling bounce.
The 150 comes up at the start of the 29th in front of a crowd that has now moved up to a very healthy 3000+. However the bowling of Trego and Leach has severely curtailed Kent's vision of 300. Better spells from the other returnees has also helped. Cowdrey doesn't look comfortable and Jack has him all ways when he reutnrs from OP. He is dropped by Nick at cover off the first ball of the 32nd but then is caught at first slip by the Boss 2 balls later by one that leaves him. At 165 for 4 Marcus re-introduces Alf at the OP and then Greonewald at the River - who goes for 22 and lets them over 200. Billings got them all!! Alf puts it back on track with 4 and we see Jack back for his last as they try and claw back some of the mayhem of the 38th.
Kent took 53 off the powerplay and Billings hit 40 of them. He doesn't seem to be stopping because the spinner is on as he reaches 50 off not a lot (25 balls 5 fours and 2 sixes). He takes 14 off the over and Leach ends with 3 for 53 off his 10. Craig returns to the OP for the 41st and the 300+ is probably back on unless they get their collective radar connected a little better. Craig's 41st does not bode well, especially the full toss six into the Caddy, though he does keep it under 250 with a dot on his last.
Surprisingly, Marcus then gives Tim another from the River and the 250 arrives with a single off his first. They take their 262nd off his last so it's not wonderful and doesn't look to be getting better. With his spinner bowled out and all his other bowlers going at 10+ MT has little to work with. He is presently operating an even split field but his legside men are on the boundary and the Kent batsmen are simply walking across and putting the ball intl the empty legside and running 2. Lewis takes the 45th as presently no one since the powerplay has gone for less than 10 and Alf went for 20 in the 43rd. With 292 on the board, Northeast over 100 (it came up halfway through the 44th off 115 balls with 8 fours and a six) and Billings fast catching him we are looking at chasing something over 320.
The 300 arrives halfway through the 45th as the boundary board is hit regularly, it comes with a four and is followed by a four. The wheels are most definitely coming off and unless someone gets control 350 is not beyond the realms of possiblity. The present Kent pair have put on 140 in 12 overs, taking their side from looking longingly at 300 to looking realistically at 350.
No-one gets control. All the bowlers seem to have no answer, full balls are going as the batsmen are well and truly in, especially Billings but far too many balls are being hit by a Kent man walking a full set of stumps away from his guard and smashing long hops square. At 323 Northeast goes trying for another boundary caught by Hildreth coming in from the Somerset boundary for 137. This doesn't stop anything as Billings continues to go beserk in a controlled manner with breakfast bowling to chew on. His 46 ball toncomes at 337 with 11 fours and 4 sixes but he doesn't even stop to breath but simply continues to bludgeon anyone. Callum Haggett comes and goes as we see this man take us apart and eventually the pain ends with Kent on 383 and Billings on 135 off 58 balls with 17 fours and 5 sixes. The highest list A run score against Somerset ever beating Warks in a 60 OVER game in 1995.
Will we get anywhere near this? Hope springs eternal but realism suggests no.
The Reply
Bollinger starts the second half after a small rain shower which takes off 2 overs and decreases the total to 371. Marcus moves inside the first two wides and lets the 4 byes go before he hits the first boundary. Unfortunately the 5th ball moves away and the Trescothick snick is held by Treadwell!! 10 for 1 and silence as Peter Trego walks to the crease.
At 5 overs it was 30, 10 overs we've got to 49 and just before I report 88 at 15 Pete backs up too far and by the time he had turned around Northeast had removed the middle stump. Run out for 38 and Ingram now holds the hopes of the faithful with Compo on 45.
He reverse sweeps to his 50 with one ball left of the 18th at a score of 118 (50 balls and 8 fours). Nick reverse sweeping worries me but at least this time he got it right. It's 56 before he gets it wrong when he tries to straight drive Stevens back over his head and misses a straight one. Bowled at 131 and in comes James Hildreth.
The problem with JH is expecting him to do the business two matches in succession. It isn't really his forte except in those rare consistent seasons, which 2014 isn't. It proves to be so as he is judged LBW for 3 st a score of 136 and the hopeful start to wonder if their optimism is ill founded with the arrival of Alex Barrow to the crease. Alex simply cannot buy a first team run at the moment.
Somerset go into the doldrums as Colin Ingram's scoring dries up and Tredwell ties down the Somerset keeper at the same time. It does seem only a matter of time before something gives and when it does it is Ingram who misreads a slow bouncer and simply plops the ball into Callum Haggett's hands at short fine leg. 144 for 5. Lewis Gregory is the last real hope for some kind of miracle and he dutifully jelps take the score past 150 at the end of the 28th. Double 'Nelson' is required off 21 overs and the men left to help SCCC get there have never been in this kind of territory before. Still Gregory seems to be in decent touch and takes Claydon for 2 fours at the start of the 29th. D/L says they should be on 255 while they are on 162. 7 runs ahead of Kent at that stage of their innings but 2 wickets behind them in terms of losses.
The 200 arrives at the end of the 32nd and one owuld expect our chances to have gone when Fabian Cowdrey dismisses Lewis at 211. That, would be thinking without Craig Overton though who comes in ready to pummel anything short or wide and willing to run any number of runs between the stumps on the shorter stuff. He really does see the ball very well and is so quick through the shots that things jjst fire from ball one. He takes over the control of the innings, he pushes, cajoles and demands Alex gets a 50 and the young man duly obliges while the bowler hits 36 of his own before he is caught going once too often by Cowdrey off Bollinger at 266. It must be over now one thinks, especially as Barrow goes only 2 balls later caught for 54 by Haggett. The fact the keeper got slme runs under pressure has to be a positive from this but his dismissal has to be seen as probably the last nail in the Somerset coffin for this game.
Thomas and Greonewald are now out there with nothing to their names. The first objective is to take the score over 300 which does not happen in the 42nd but comes with the second delivery of the 43rd. It's 74 off 5 and a half at a rate of 12.7 (according to the scoreboard) so the next objective is to move towards 350 and see how things shape up.
Kent 50
Posted by: Grockles.com (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 10:40
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 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014:08:03:14:49:14 by Grockle.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014:08:03:14:49:14 by Grockle.
Men of Kent
Posted by: cricketjerry-mouse (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2014 15:12
Kent have added batsmen Daniel Bell-Drummond and Ben Harmison, and off spinner Adam Riley to the 11 who won their first 50-over match against Durham yesterday, for their visit to Taunton to play Somerset tomorrow.
Squad: Key (c), Bell-Drummond, Billings (wkt), Blake, Bollinger, Claydon, Cowdrey, Haggett, Harmison, Nash, Northeast, Riley, Stevens and Treadwell.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:07:30:16:34:07 by Grockle.
Squad: Key (c), Bell-Drummond, Billings (wkt), Blake, Bollinger, Claydon, Cowdrey, Haggett, Harmison, Nash, Northeast, Riley, Stevens and Treadwell.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:07:30:16:34:07 by Grockle.
Re: Men of Kent
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2014 15:51
I wonder how many times Somerset have played a side containing more former Millfield pupils than their own side...
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Men of Kent
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2014 16:33
Welcome back to Callum Haggett
Re: Men of Kent
Posted by: Clarence Parker (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2014 17:14
"Men of Kent" and Kentish Men!
Re: Men of Kent
Posted by: Bobstan (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2014 18:17
It's the Kentish Men from very far west of the Medway who worry me, eg Callum Haggett.
Re: Men of Kent
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2014 20:09
Does North East worry you too, Bobstan?
Re: Men of Kent
Posted by: cricketjerry-mouse (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2014 23:37
There was the unique televised T20 match between Durham and Kent when 12 players were on the field with NORTHEAST blazoned on their shirts - the 11 Durham players who were sponsored by North East Electricty and the Kent opening batsman.
Re: Men of Kent
Posted by: Roger ivanhoe (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 08:45
Somerset will select their final line up from the following squad- Marcus Trescothick (capt), Alex Barrow, Nick Compton, George Dockrell, Lewis Gregory,Tim Groenewald, James Hildreth, Colin Ingram, Chris Jones, Jack Leach, Craig Overton, Jamie Overton, Alfonso Thomas and Pete Trego.
Maybe they might go for Jack Leach in place of GD, other than that cannot see changes being made from the first two matches.
Maybe they might go for Jack Leach in place of GD, other than that cannot see changes being made from the first two matches.
Re: Men of Kent
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 08:53
Peter Trego needs to start scoring runs, his bowling has been very consistent though.
Re: Men of Kent
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 10:07
Somerset have won the toss and are going to bowl. Jack is playing and it is overcast with a bit of wind.
Re: Men of Kent
Posted by: Phrench Phil (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 10:34
According to cricinfo, Rob Key is not playing.
Is this true and, if so, why not?
Is this true and, if so, why not?
Re: Men of Kent
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 10:34
Good news in terms of both pieces of info relayed in Grockle's 10:07, I reckon.
Re: Men of Kent
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 10:38
Kent, arguably, look a little light in terms of length of batting order, IMO.
So if we can maintain the pattern of taking early wickets, bowling first, then we may be able to avoid the sort of recovery that Durham and, to a lesser extent Notts, managed.
So if we can maintain the pattern of taking early wickets, bowling first, then we may be able to avoid the sort of recovery that Durham and, to a lesser extent Notts, managed.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 10:59
Key retired hurt in a recent match, Phil, so I imagine that's why he's not playing in this one.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 11:07
Sounds like we need shot of Bell-Drummond in something of a hurry.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 11:11
Tough spot for Leach, at this rate, as he may have to come on to bowl with two batsmen well set and zero wickets down.
That was what was particularly disappointing from GD - he had what should have been two favourable situations to bowl in, with both Durham and Notts quite a few down for not that many.
That was what was particularly disappointing from GD - he had what should have been two favourable situations to bowl in, with both Durham and Notts quite a few down for not that many.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Phrench Phil (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 11:20
Quote:AGod
Key retired hurt in a recent match, Phil, so I imagine that's why he's not playing in this one.
Thanks.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 11:42
Jack coming back well after a tough start.
Otherwise, other figures apart from Alf's look rough/poor.
Kent must fancy a big score from here.
Otherwise, other figures apart from Alf's look rough/poor.
Kent must fancy a big score from here.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Phrench Phil (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 11:48
Quote:AGod
Jack coming back well after a tough start.
Very Well!
Bell-Drummond st Barrow bd Leach for 61.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Phrench Phil (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 12:03
Welcome back Jack.
Same combination - 131/2. Nash out for 8 ct AB bd JL.
Same combination - 131/2. Nash out for 8 ct AB bd JL.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Phrench Phil (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 12:04
I'm not stalking you AGod. Honestly.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 12:05
I think Roger may have been right when he suggested that, perhaps, IDB's comments on Leach were more about hoping for a coaching role!
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 12:14
Monumental wicket by LG (Stevens).
Absolutely massive.
Absolutely massive.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 12:18
Don't really understand why Tres would take Leach off - surely you let him bowl through?
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 12:30
always useful to keep a couple for the new man later on. And if he doesn't get his other bowlers firing it will make little difference anyway. Lewis and Craig looking better now though.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Phrench Phil (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 12:35
Quote:AGod
Don't really understand why Tres would take Leach off - surely you let him bowl through?
And that makes your post even more pertinent!
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 12:36
Took him off to change ends, had Cowdrey dropped at cover first ball and then cleaned him out 3rd. Leach on fire!!
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 12:40
Wonder if Kent will be wishing they'd picked Riley as well as Tredwell?
For our part, other than GD there was nobody else we could have picked in addition to Jack, unless JM is fit enough to resume. Max won't be with a torn quad.
For our part, other than GD there was nobody else we could have picked in addition to Jack, unless JM is fit enough to resume. Max won't be with a torn quad.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 12:41
One for Pete, too.
Need to apply a size 10 to the throat now.
Need to apply a size 10 to the throat now.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 12:55
Power-play imminent.
Having saved Jack one over, will Tres be bold enough to bowl him for a power-play over?
Having saved Jack one over, will Tres be bold enough to bowl him for a power-play over?
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 13:06
TG en-route to some nightmare figures, by the looks of it.
Six boundaries conceded, two of them maximums.
Six boundaries conceded, two of them maximums.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 13:10
If we don't get Billings very soon, then we're back to staring down a 300 total.
We might have got over the line in near-miraculous fashion vs Durham, but as the first part of that innings suggested, we're not a good enough batting side to be conceding 300 totals and expecting to win very often.
We might have got over the line in near-miraculous fashion vs Durham, but as the first part of that innings suggested, we're not a good enough batting side to be conceding 300 totals and expecting to win very often.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 13:17
Grockle - sounds like carnage now?
Does the track look an absolute flat-track belter?
Does the track look an absolute flat-track belter?
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: doc h (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 13:29
Why on earth is Marcus persisting with Groenwald
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 13:29
100 in 10 overs ouch. We do seem to lack a bit of control when a batsman lets fly.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 13:33
good to toss to win............has anyone ever chased down 450 in domestic 50 over stuff?
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 13:33
This is now starting to sound like absolutely desultory stuff.
If not for Jack, we might be staring at about 360!!
If not for Jack, we might be staring at about 360!!
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Phrench Phil (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 13:34
[quote AGod]If we don't get Billings very soon, then we're back to staring down a 300 total.
I would accept that at the moment!
I would accept that at the moment!
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 13:38
[sigh}
Yes, Phil, it's looking more like a 330 total, is it not?
Yes, Phil, it's looking more like a 330 total, is it not?
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 13:39
Ronnie - when we had Graham Rose we got 360 in 40 overs!!!!!!
The maths is the same!
That wasn't chasing though....
The maths is the same!
That wasn't chasing though....
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 13:41
Scratch 330, Phil.
Make it 350....................
Make it 350....................
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 13:45
I reckon we'd win this comfortably... (if we had the below top seven)....
Tres of six years ago
Kieswetter
Viv – when he played
Martin Crowe -whp
Greg Chappell – whp
Jos
Beefy – whp
Tres of six years ago
Kieswetter
Viv – when he played
Martin Crowe -whp
Greg Chappell – whp
Jos
Beefy – whp
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 13:46
5 overs, 12, 13, 14 16 and 15. Can i open my eyes yet
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Following on (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 13:46
A quick search (so I stand to be corrected!) reveals the highest score we have ever conceded in a List A game is 357-5 (60 overs) against Warwickshire in 1995.
The highest Kent have scored against us in the past was 339-10 (49.1 overs of a 50 over game) C&G semi final 2001 at Taunton which we went on to win by 5 runs.
The highest Kent have scored against us in the past was 339-10 (49.1 overs of a 50 over game) C&G semi final 2001 at Taunton which we went on to win by 5 runs.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Phrench Phil (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 13:46
This is now absolute carnage!
314/5 from 45 overs.
314/5 from 45 overs.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 13:49
Northeast finally holes out. Bowling is awful from everyone.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 13:49
NorthEast is out.
Not really the one we wanted, but it's a dot ball!!!!!!
Let's hope the new batsmen cannot get going and deprive Billings of the strike.
Well played to Northeast.
Not really the one we wanted, but it's a dot ball!!!!!!
Let's hope the new batsmen cannot get going and deprive Billings of the strike.
Well played to Northeast.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Phrench Phil (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 13:49
323/6, finally.
157 from 12 overs!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:07:31:13:52:36 by Phrench Phil.
157 from 12 overs!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:07:31:13:52:36 by Phrench Phil.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 13:53
Billings really has "done a Buttler," here.
Changed what would have been a "decent," total into one that is probably utterly impregnable.
Must have been an amazing knock to watch.
Changed what would have been a "decent," total into one that is probably utterly impregnable.
Must have been an amazing knock to watch.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 13:54
157 from 13.1
Billings has just hit a 46 ball 100 12 fours and 4 sixes
Billings has just hit a 46 ball 100 12 fours and 4 sixes
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Phrench Phil (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 13:56
I am not present, so have no idea what has happened.
I believe Grockle is at Taunton.
Is it a matter of rank poor bowling (as the commentary would seem to suggest) or is it simply the case that Kent are batting well (as they did a few weeks ago) on a good wicket?
I believe Grockle is at Taunton.
Is it a matter of rank poor bowling (as the commentary would seem to suggest) or is it simply the case that Kent are batting well (as they did a few weeks ago) on a good wicket?
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 13:58
Sounds like one guy batting like a dream but that, as was the case vs Durham, our lot absolutely WILTING with the ball/in the field when the pressure is (most emphatically) on.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Following on (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 14:00
This could put a massive dent in our net run rate if the chase goes badly!
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Phrench Phil (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 14:00
@ Grockle. 350 is not beyond the realms of possiblity.
Long gone, but at least we have another wicket!
Long gone, but at least we have another wicket!
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 14:01
Well depends. The batsmen were very good but the bowling since the powerplay has been absolutely dire. They have handed us our worst total with 2 to go and Hagett has gone trying to get it.
358 for 7 and it will get worse.
358 for 7 and it will get worse.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 14:01
Even if the bowling wilts, the ball still needs hitting. Sounds like Billings has had a really good day. If we win this we definitely deserve it
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: doc h (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 14:02
Wicket! Phew, for one moment there I thought we were letting them get away a bit.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 14:04
Right, so who are the favourites?
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 14:09
I'd say the favourite is Somerset to show about as much composure with the bat as it (sounds like we have) with the ball, Ronnie.
Would be little surprise if we find ourselves 75 for 5 or something when we bat.
Would be little surprise if we find ourselves 75 for 5 or something when we bat.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Phrench Phil (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 14:10
Never mind the 383/7 total, what a last ball shambles!
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 14:10
383 for 7
Billings was superb
Northeast was very good
Leach bowled well and Trigger out some good ones in in tandem but that really is your lot.
Good luck on this one. Marcus and Nick have to go off like a train and stay in!!
Billings was superb
Northeast was very good
Leach bowled well and Trigger out some good ones in in tandem but that really is your lot.
Good luck on this one. Marcus and Nick have to go off like a train and stay in!!
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 14:13
Quote:AGod
I'd say the favourite is Somerset to show about as much composure with the bat as it (sounds like we have) with the ball, Ronnie.
Would be little surprise if we find ourselves 75 for 5 or something when we bat.
I hope you had your fingers crossed behind your back when you typed that. :-)
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 14:14
The CC is my priority.
But if the club care about short form cricket then, suffice to say, there's been enough evidence this season that the club's short form cricket needs something of an overhaul if we are to have any real chance of doing anything much in short form stuff.
And conceding 375 from 50 overs may just be the cherry on the cake, I'm afraid.
But if the club care about short form cricket then, suffice to say, there's been enough evidence this season that the club's short form cricket needs something of an overhaul if we are to have any real chance of doing anything much in short form stuff.
And conceding 375 from 50 overs may just be the cherry on the cake, I'm afraid.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 14:22
is that with or without the icing
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 14:25
Well they've conceded 383 from 50 so that must be two cherries and isn't this about the club's priorities rather than yours AG?
I thought we were talking about being competitive in every format. If they chase this down they will have certainly put a stamp in the competitive column of the 50 over.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:07:31:14:26:56 by Grockle.
I thought we were talking about being competitive in every format. If they chase this down they will have certainly put a stamp in the competitive column of the 50 over.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:07:31:14:26:56 by Grockle.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 14:28
Yes, Grockle, it is, of course, about the club's priorities.
Nailsea - the cake has marzipan rather than icing. It's a better combination with cherries.
Nailsea - the cake has marzipan rather than icing. It's a better combination with cherries.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: rodders (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 14:30
Sounds like poor captaincy once more - stuck with the plan although they were getting carted - concede over 380 and two of our three most economical bowlers not bowled out - sorry but madness !
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Phrench Phil (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 14:36
So.
Rose tinted specs on again and let's go for it.
Seriously, it would be some victory if achieved - on a par with the Peter Denning inspired Gillette win against Surrey in 1974?
Rose tinted specs on again and let's go for it.
Seriously, it would be some victory if achieved - on a par with the Peter Denning inspired Gillette win against Surrey in 1974?
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Angell Face (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 14:48
First question Rodders12 - who was the third economical bowler who was not bowled out? Second question - how do you know that PT and Cove wouldn't have got the same treatment from Billings that the other bowlers received? How do you know what the plan was? We can always rely on you for informed and balanced comment can't we!
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Following on (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 14:59
Cricinfo gives the match as delayed by rain, don't suppose there is any chance of walking away with a point for a no result?
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 14:59
We have to go at 7 and over from the beginning... can I do my rain dance now.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: rodders (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 15:01
Well AF try reading properly - I said two of our three most economical so there wouldn't be a third would there.
And yes PT and Cove may well have also got carted but anything was worth a try when you are going for at least ten an over surely.
I don't know what the plan was but we seem to be very inflexible sometimes.
And if you don't like my occasional posts I suggest you ignore them - works for me !
And yes PT and Cove may well have also got carted but anything was worth a try when you are going for at least ten an over surely.
I don't know what the plan was but we seem to be very inflexible sometimes.
And if you don't like my occasional posts I suggest you ignore them - works for me !
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 15:04
I gather that the seconds have had a good outing in their match, including runs for Myburgh.
So there may be some options for shaking this side up, going forward.
Bringing Leachy in from the seconds certainly did not hurt us today.
So there may be some options for shaking this side up, going forward.
Bringing Leachy in from the seconds certainly did not hurt us today.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 15:06
I've now looked up the seconds stuff and see that Tom Abell made a double-ton.
Still can't see a good reason why we shouldn't get a look at him at some point this season?
Still can't see a good reason why we shouldn't get a look at him at some point this season?
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 15:09
The revised target is in Kent'S favour as it always is when there is a big score first up
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 15:11
Well, you could say that:
a) They've earned it.
and
b) We won the toss so we can't complain if the rain adjustment has favoured them.
a) They've earned it.
and
b) We won the toss so we can't complain if the rain adjustment has favoured them.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 15:11
Wouldn't have made any difference Rodders.
When Craig was re-introduced in the 41st he went for 12. Pete was brought back he went for more in the in the 43rd. LG was tried in the 44th I think and went for 15. It is difficult to captain a bowling side when all the main people are going for double figures at the end of the piece. Most of the economical overs came from the men you mention much earlier in the innings when we had them tied down. The 'economical' guys are economical BECAUSE they didn't bowl at the death
We have been conservative but when the problem is as big as this and you've bowled your spinner out I'd love to see you sort it out any better I have to say. Could have bowled the others but I doubt he would have got any credit from you had the result been the same and all indicators were that it would have been minor if there had been a difference at all.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:07:31:15:26:44 by Grockle.
When Craig was re-introduced in the 41st he went for 12. Pete was brought back he went for more in the in the 43rd. LG was tried in the 44th I think and went for 15. It is difficult to captain a bowling side when all the main people are going for double figures at the end of the piece. Most of the economical overs came from the men you mention much earlier in the innings when we had them tied down. The 'economical' guys are economical BECAUSE they didn't bowl at the death
We have been conservative but when the problem is as big as this and you've bowled your spinner out I'd love to see you sort it out any better I have to say. Could have bowled the others but I doubt he would have got any credit from you had the result been the same and all indicators were that it would have been minor if there had been a difference at all.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:07:31:15:26:44 by Grockle.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: rodders (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 15:23
Sounds like you think them scoring over 380 was just inevitable then Grocks !!
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 15:31
Wrong thread, there's a game going on.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: rodders (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 15:33
...............and not doing bad at the mo NF !
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 15:35
Yep when two men are in and seeing it like a football, your bowlers are all failing to hit their areas to keep them in check and it's Kent averaging 8.9 an over (742 runs in 80 odd overs against us). I think you will look at 350 as 'keeping them in check.
Billings was superb (seem to be missing that) Northeast was almost as good. You weren't posting when we did this to someone else this week Rodders but it was very much like that and very hard to defend against.
I'm sure you have a solution that another captain but Marcus could have employed. Paul Collingwood certainly didn't know what it was on Sunday when James and Lewis were doing this and we got the total with 20 balls to spare. It is a shame that we can only look at it after the horse has sort of bolted.
But this is still a game. Maybe Northeast will prove as poor a captain as you seem to believe Trescothick is and it is just down to a very poor bowling day versus an exceptional batting day
Over 350 became inevitable after Pete went for 20 in over 43. You could say that after that Marcus did well not to bowl him again because he may have gone for 80 on his own if he had bowled him out.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014:07:31:15:44:21 by Grockle.
Billings was superb (seem to be missing that) Northeast was almost as good. You weren't posting when we did this to someone else this week Rodders but it was very much like that and very hard to defend against.
I'm sure you have a solution that another captain but Marcus could have employed. Paul Collingwood certainly didn't know what it was on Sunday when James and Lewis were doing this and we got the total with 20 balls to spare. It is a shame that we can only look at it after the horse has sort of bolted.
But this is still a game. Maybe Northeast will prove as poor a captain as you seem to believe Trescothick is and it is just down to a very poor bowling day versus an exceptional batting day
Over 350 became inevitable after Pete went for 20 in over 43. You could say that after that Marcus did well not to bowl him again because he may have gone for 80 on his own if he had bowled him out.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014:07:31:15:44:21 by Grockle.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 15:37
It would be nice if on this site we could be spared a particularly inappropriate neologism common among tabloid journalists and second rate commentators, namely "maximum".
a) the word "six" says all that needs to be said
b) it is perfectly possible and not uncommon to score more than six off a single ball with the aid of overthrows.
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
a) the word "six" says all that needs to be said
b) it is perfectly possible and not uncommon to score more than six off a single ball with the aid of overthrows.
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 15:45
Where has that come up LoL I've tried to avoid it myself and will change it if it's me
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 15:50
Used on this thread this very afternoon, Grockle, but not by you.
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 15:50
It's still the maximum that a batsman can score, under his own aegis, off a single ball and so there is nothing wrong with it.
Regardless, we do not need a language police.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:07:31:15:51:59 by AGod.
Regardless, we do not need a language police.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:07:31:15:51:59 by AGod.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 15:57
Pete run out - backing up too far, no single. Northeast hit the stumps and PT was well out!! 88 for 2
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 16:05
It's not only current Somerset bowlers getting slaughtered today.
Mr Hussain managed to conceded 101 from his 10 overs for Northants.
And they outdid us overall, too, giving away 424 from 50 vs New Zealand A!!
Mr Hussain managed to conceded 101 from his 10 overs for Northants.
And they outdid us overall, too, giving away 424 from 50 vs New Zealand A!!
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 16:10
You are wrong (and guilty as charged, AGod!). Runs accrued from overthrows are credited to the striking batsman and there is actually no upper limit to the runs he can score from a single ball if overthrows continue indefinitely.
And while I'm in the mood, I also deplore the use of such phrases as "five boundaries and two sixes". Any ball that passes the line, whether touching it or not, is a boundary.
This is nothing to do with policing the language but everything to do with accuracy and elegance.
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
And while I'm in the mood, I also deplore the use of such phrases as "five boundaries and two sixes". Any ball that passes the line, whether touching it or not, is a boundary.
This is nothing to do with policing the language but everything to do with accuracy and elegance.
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 16:19
Couldn't give a Castlemaine XXXX about "elegance."
And there was a reason, LoL, that I said "under his own aegis." By that I meant without the input of some incompetence from a fielder. Or, to put it another way, no batsman can deliberately generate an overthrow.
Finally, what I had actually said originally, as your post rightly alludes to, is that there had been "x number of boundaries, y of them maximums." In that sentence "maximums," clearly relates to boundaries and nobody has EVER scored an over-throw from a shot that has crossed the boundary. Six is, most definitely, the maximum amount of runs that anyone can score from a boundary.
Edited as totally unnecessary from an equally imperfect poster as the rest of us mere mortals
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014:07:31:16:24:55 by Grockle.
And there was a reason, LoL, that I said "under his own aegis." By that I meant without the input of some incompetence from a fielder. Or, to put it another way, no batsman can deliberately generate an overthrow.
Finally, what I had actually said originally, as your post rightly alludes to, is that there had been "x number of boundaries, y of them maximums." In that sentence "maximums," clearly relates to boundaries and nobody has EVER scored an over-throw from a shot that has crossed the boundary. Six is, most definitely, the maximum amount of runs that anyone can score from a boundary.
Edited as totally unnecessary from an equally imperfect poster as the rest of us mere mortals
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014:07:31:16:24:55 by Grockle.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 16:23
I did not have you in mind at all, when I wrote my second paragraph, AGod. I was making a general point.
As for elegance, it may not be important to you, but it is to many.
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
As for elegance, it may not be important to you, but it is to many.
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 16:30
Grockle - what was edited?
I cannot see anything missing from my original post....
I cannot see anything missing from my original post....
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 16:31
Oh, I see it was my "Next!!!!". Perhaps I should have put a little (TIC) after it.
Meanwhile, Hildreth in lbw sweeping shocker.
Meanwhile, Hildreth in lbw sweeping shocker.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 16:35
Would have been better but no less 'necessary'
Alex Barrow in needing some runs.....??
Alex Barrow in needing some runs.....??
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 16:38
Well the team needs some, that's for sure.
We're almost down to playing for our NRR from here.
Just bat 50 (or rather 48) overs.
If get bowled out after 40, 150 odd short then the NRR will swing hugely to the minus column, one would think.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:07:31:16:51:11 by AGod.
We're almost down to playing for our NRR from here.
Just bat 50 (or rather 48) overs.
If get bowled out after 40, 150 odd short then the NRR will swing hugely to the minus column, one would think.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:07:31:16:51:11 by AGod.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Phrench Phil (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 16:41
Quote:Loyal of Lhasa
It would be nice if on this site we could be spared a particularly inappropriate neologism common among tabloid journalists and second rate commentators, namely "maximum".
a) the word "six" says all that needs to be said
b) it is perfectly possible and not uncommon to score more than six off a single ball with the aid of overthrows.
I agree and fail to see why somebody would wish to type 'maximum' (7 characters) as opposed to '6' (1).
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Phrench Phil (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 16:55
Something quite depressing when two consecutive 11/overs see the required run rate increase!
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 16:58
Alex and Lewis just taken Callum for 15 in the 31st. Another 19 of those and we'll be home and dry.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 17:00
Well, it takes us closer to limiting the NRR damage anyway.
As Grockle said, the openers needed to somehow both stay in for a long time and score like the clappers for us to have any real shot at this match. Tres did not manage the former and Compton scored at what would ordinarily be a decent lick but not, alas, in this match.
As Grockle said, the openers needed to somehow both stay in for a long time and score like the clappers for us to have any real shot at this match. Tres did not manage the former and Compton scored at what would ordinarily be a decent lick but not, alas, in this match.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Phrench Phil (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 17:30
Interestingly, we are 60 runs above the Kent run rate at the same stage (37 overs)!
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 17:31
Most obvious difference is that we have not had a single shot clear the ropes in this innings. I think Kent knocked seven or eight over the rope.
Sounds like Barrow will get run out backing up again here.
Sounds like Barrow will get run out backing up again here.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 18:00
Nope he didn't. Got his 50 but was caught trying to push on, as he had to with the loss of Craig.
Tim G looks considerably better with the bat than the ball today but I think the two men have given up trying to get the total and just seem determined to finish the game. Marcus and James 50's would have helped soooo much. Because we are gonna lose this by less than 50 all being well.
Thommo has just hit a one day career best going past 28. Tim's very close to s personal best as well. What more could you ask of the tail?
Tim G looks considerably better with the bat than the ball today but I think the two men have given up trying to get the total and just seem determined to finish the game. Marcus and James 50's would have helped soooo much. Because we are gonna lose this by less than 50 all being well.
Thommo has just hit a one day career best going past 28. Tim's very close to s personal best as well. What more could you ask of the tail?
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 18:05
Groenewald straight drives for four to take his career best past the 36 he used to have. 345 for 8 with 2 to go.
28 off 2
28 off 2
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 18:07
Whatever happens now, we have had three cracking 50-over matches, a great advertisement for a great form of the game.
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 18:15
15 off 6
Thommo on strike
Ball 1 = 4
11 off 5
10 off 4
Tim on strike
6 off 3
100 partnership and 50
5 off 2 and 4 for the tie
Thommo on strike
4 off last ball 3 for tie
Tim on strike
dot
won by 2 runs
bloody brilliant game
had it not rained I'd have had my money on us!!
Thommo on strike
Ball 1 = 4
11 off 5
10 off 4
Tim on strike
6 off 3
100 partnership and 50
5 off 2 and 4 for the tie
Thommo on strike
4 off last ball 3 for tie
Tim on strike
dot
won by 2 runs
bloody brilliant game
had it not rained I'd have had my money on us!!
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 18:19
quite right Grockle. I said earlier that the loss of two overs favoured Kent and was told that perhaps they deserved it. I would have backed us to score the remainder in the other 12 balls. why can't the top half bat like the bottom half.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 18:19
We know what the target was and did not quite reach it - but the result does challenge the validity of the DL system.
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: rodders (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 18:23
Unbelievably great effort from the team overall so well done to each and every one - if only..............but can't complain when we get that close to a mammoth total.
Never thought we would get within 50 but as has been proven many times what do I know ( before certain posters rush to remind me )
Never thought we would get within 50 but as has been proven many times what do I know ( before certain posters rush to remind me )
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 18:24
why not play the full 50 overs.....it was only quarter past 6. They are only to keen to shorten these games.
I think we should open with TG and AT next game and Tres and Hildy can open the bowling.
I think we should open with TG and AT next game and Tres and Hildy can open the bowling.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 18:25
Seems their captain struggled as much as ours did. Probably more because they had two men in absolutely superb form batting for them.
Well done to Tim and Alf. 103 in 9 overs Tim personal best 51. Alf personal best 49
13 off 2 more overs? I'd have gone for us, even if Jack had had to hit the winner
Competitive in every format? I think so. Great game to watch but the bowling has to get itself sorted because we lost that to boundary balls delivered to settled batsmen.
Gotta find a solid 'press' from somewhere.
Well done to Tim and Alf. 103 in 9 overs Tim personal best 51. Alf personal best 49
13 off 2 more overs? I'd have gone for us, even if Jack had had to hit the winner
Competitive in every format? I think so. Great game to watch but the bowling has to get itself sorted because we lost that to boundary balls delivered to settled batsmen.
Gotta find a solid 'press' from somewhere.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 18:25
*must not rant about DL again
*must not rant about DL again
*must not rant about DL again
...grrrr...hopefully I'll calm down and post considered comments later...
*must not rant about DL again
*must not rant about DL again
...grrrr...hopefully I'll calm down and post considered comments later...
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 18:27
Limiting damage to the NRR what rot. Great run chase by the last 5 batsmen who needs openers. Another great match and what fantastic Entertainment. Who can argue with that really.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: rodders (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 18:27
Totally agree LoL - 13 runs from 12 balls would have won it - DL a bit of a joke has I agree been proven - and as said why not finish the match 50 overs each - lots of time and not dark !!??
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 18:28
Agree with Ronnie, why not play the full 50 when there's time and light?
Also agree that we're competitive in all forms (well, T20 sometimes), and that 50 over cricket is proving a belter this season - loads of runs and high chases around the country again today.
Also agree that we're competitive in all forms (well, T20 sometimes), and that 50 over cricket is proving a belter this season - loads of runs and high chases around the country again today.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 18:33
WE need openers. The tail have proven they can do that time after time this year but they need a better offering from the openers so they can put a game to bed rather than chasing it all the time.
Marcus has to stay or step aside as an opener. We cannot afford to be something for 1 before we get 10 balls into these games. A 15 run over from the top and one less 20 run over from a bowler and this would have been done and dusted.
Marcus has to stay or step aside as an opener. We cannot afford to be something for 1 before we get 10 balls into these games. A 15 run over from the top and one less 20 run over from a bowler and this would have been done and dusted.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 19:00
I guess TG and Alf got their revenge then!?
I would actually make Darren Stevens MoM - only seamer not to get marmalised (of those that bowled a full or nearly full allocation)
I'd suggest DN should be getting our bowlers to look at whatever Stevens did! He's not Joel Garner for heaven's sake, so if he can do it then at least some of our pacemen should be able to as well.
As for an opener? Let's give Tom Abell a go, IMO.
Or possibly Myburgh in that role?
I would actually make Darren Stevens MoM - only seamer not to get marmalised (of those that bowled a full or nearly full allocation)
I'd suggest DN should be getting our bowlers to look at whatever Stevens did! He's not Joel Garner for heaven's sake, so if he can do it then at least some of our pacemen should be able to as well.
As for an opener? Let's give Tom Abell a go, IMO.
Or possibly Myburgh in that role?
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 19:15
Quote:geordie moonraker
quite right Grockle. I said earlier that the loss of two overs favoured Kent and was told that perhaps they deserved it. I would have backed us to score the remainder in the other 12 balls. why can't the top half bat like the bottom half.
Well the two new balls are presumably playing quite a big part.
Of six innings starts, only two of them (Kent today and us vs Notts) have gone well for the batting sides.
As for Kent deserving it you could look at it the other way too. As you said yourself that only happens when the batting side have scored loads...had we not conceded loads, then we would not have been disadvantaged by D/L!
I still think the old system was worse - it always favoured the side batting second. D/L can favour either side - what it does is exaggerate any advantage gained in the first innings of the match. That, surely, is fairer than automatically helping the side batting second as per the old system?
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 19:28
AG - you can keep on saying it until the cows are brought in for milking.
DN has pretty clearly said he will not expose Tom to first team cricket this season and there are others in front of the man who have first team experience and have been involved in pressure situations before a teenager who may be decent but only has a second team record..
DN has pretty clearly said he will not expose Tom to first team cricket this season and there are others in front of the man who have first team experience and have been involved in pressure situations before a teenager who may be decent but only has a second team record..
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 19:37
At some point they surely have to consider productivity at second team level of the various possible contenders for first-team places though!
A guy like Tom Abell should, IMO, have the prospect of a first-team debut ahead of him as an incentive, rather than just automatically ruled out on age/experience grounds without even being given a chance.
Productivity should always be rewarded, IMO.
A guy like Tom Abell should, IMO, have the prospect of a first-team debut ahead of him as an incentive, rather than just automatically ruled out on age/experience grounds without even being given a chance.
Productivity should always be rewarded, IMO.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: nelliec (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 19:47
Incredible finish today. Great game, Big Crowd (surprisingly for a Thurs) but we just can't get over the line in these tight games.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 19:48
He is not 'automatically ruled out'. It has been assessed that as part of his professional development this year he will be working in the seconds and his training programmes and planning will be based on that one would assume.
Just because others in the firsts haven't performed to your expectations why should a young member of the seconds have their development plans altered when the guys setting those out have as much experience as you in bringing players on and making sure their move up is solid?
Chris Jones is available, Johann Myburgh is available, Alex Barrow could come up the order, Lewis Gregory could come up the order, Marcus Trescothick could go down the order etc.
There are so many other options.
You need to revisit some of your posts at the start of 2012 (sorry) and your responses to suggestions of moving seconds up to the firsts as anything but injury replacements on a short term basis.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:07:31:19:54:45 by Grockle.
Just because others in the firsts haven't performed to your expectations why should a young member of the seconds have their development plans altered when the guys setting those out have as much experience as you in bringing players on and making sure their move up is solid?
Chris Jones is available, Johann Myburgh is available, Alex Barrow could come up the order, Lewis Gregory could come up the order, Marcus Trescothick could go down the order etc.
There are so many other options.
You need to revisit some of your posts at the start of 2012 (sorry) and your responses to suggestions of moving seconds up to the firsts as anything but injury replacements on a short term basis.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:07:31:19:54:45 by Grockle.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 20:15
It's not easy to have a 50% record from three games, but we've managed it! 
And the NRR is not only positive, but is better than Kent's a place above us.
A solid(ish) start to what looks like being a cracking competition.
And the NRR is not only positive, but is better than Kent's a place above us.
A solid(ish) start to what looks like being a cracking competition.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 20:21
No, there's no need to re-visit them.
Why not?
Because my whole point then was that guys were getting put into the first-team with nothing, run wise behind them even at seconds level! What I'm saying now is that guys that DO produce deserve a chance.
Chris Jones has said the same thing in relation to the first-team chances that he'd been given when he hadn't done anything in the seconds (he said it last season).
Jason Kerr makes the point, too, in his review of last season's second team campaign in the yearbook - namely that we need people to be going into the first XI off the back of strong scond XI performances vs doing what was happening before of guys failing in the seconds and then having to play first XI with 'nothing but hope behind them.'
Why not?
Because my whole point then was that guys were getting put into the first-team with nothing, run wise behind them even at seconds level! What I'm saying now is that guys that DO produce deserve a chance.
Chris Jones has said the same thing in relation to the first-team chances that he'd been given when he hadn't done anything in the seconds (he said it last season).
Jason Kerr makes the point, too, in his review of last season's second team campaign in the yearbook - namely that we need people to be going into the first XI off the back of strong scond XI performances vs doing what was happening before of guys failing in the seconds and then having to play first XI with 'nothing but hope behind them.'
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 20:23
it has certainly exceeded my expectations up to now
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 20:30
From a point of view of the 50 over stuff in isolation then the ECB may have got it right, scheduling wise, with it being in July and August so it's not played on damp 'win toss and insert and win game tracks.'
Of course, that has though come at a cost of no CC stuff in prime weeks of summer - weeks where - heaven forfend! - spinners might have come to the fore in the CC.
So I've mixed feelings about it, overall.
Do we have anymore games prior to next Thursday's trip to Lord's?
Of course, that has though come at a cost of no CC stuff in prime weeks of summer - weeks where - heaven forfend! - spinners might have come to the fore in the CC.
So I've mixed feelings about it, overall.
Do we have anymore games prior to next Thursday's trip to Lord's?
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Roger ivanhoe (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 20:31
Well what a match, nail biting finish, big crowd again, same as Sunday 4200.
The Long room was absolutely packed, they even ran out of food for a period during the lunch break.
Outfield suffering from the lack of rain, and probably the cause of some errors in the field rather than bad fielding.
Apart from Jack & Pete our Bowling lack control, I would like to see more balls in the batsmen block hole, far to many long hops and full tosses, which got carted.
Batting....agree with Grockle...Marcus please move down the order, open with Pete and Compo.
Could not understand why the umpires moved the game to 48 overs,the chances of further rain had gone, this resulting in us losing 2 overs 1 of which was batting power play, and yet the Target was only reduce by 12 runs.
DL.
The Long room was absolutely packed, they even ran out of food for a period during the lunch break.
Outfield suffering from the lack of rain, and probably the cause of some errors in the field rather than bad fielding.
Apart from Jack & Pete our Bowling lack control, I would like to see more balls in the batsmen block hole, far to many long hops and full tosses, which got carted.
Batting....agree with Grockle...Marcus please move down the order, open with Pete and Compo.
Could not understand why the umpires moved the game to 48 overs,the chances of further rain had gone, this resulting in us losing 2 overs 1 of which was batting power play, and yet the Target was only reduce by 12 runs.
DL.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 20:31
So Tom is not available because the system you now seem to accept works has said he isn't. Works for me and Tom will not be available so...sorry.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 20:36
Huh?
Didn't say anything about system working or not working now..Just that it was totally ineffective back in 2012 when we had guys failing every week in the seconds who were getting called upon to play in the firsts.
It only works if folks are productive in the seconds and if such first team chances as arise go to those who produce in the seconds.
A pertinent question for me is this: If, say Chris Jones, is supposed to be so much more appropriate for the first-team and further along than Tom Abell then how is it that Tom outscored CJ in last year's second XI and is doing so again this year too? From what I can work out Jones averages all of about 15 for his career in the second XI CC!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:07:31:20:51:30 by AGod.
Didn't say anything about system working or not working now..Just that it was totally ineffective back in 2012 when we had guys failing every week in the seconds who were getting called upon to play in the firsts.
It only works if folks are productive in the seconds and if such first team chances as arise go to those who produce in the seconds.
A pertinent question for me is this: If, say Chris Jones, is supposed to be so much more appropriate for the first-team and further along than Tom Abell then how is it that Tom outscored CJ in last year's second XI and is doing so again this year too? From what I can work out Jones averages all of about 15 for his career in the second XI CC!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:07:31:20:51:30 by AGod.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: cricketjerry-mouse (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 20:37
Brilliant game, and all credit to Tim and Alfonso for bringing us so agonisingly close to such a huge total.
Excellent crowd, too, but am I the only one who feels that Somerset still lack a professional edge on the administration side?
Two examples:
When the (quite heavy) rain started from a sky that had looked threatening for some considerable while, there was no sign of the ground staff or the covers for a good five minutes. This must have contributed to the delayed start after lunch - and the vital loss of those two D/L overs. Some wag behind me said they were down the pub.
And I would have thought it was pretty poor PR to spell the names of not one, but both umpires incorrectly on the scorecard. Former Leicestershire seamer David Millns appeared as D. Milne, and ex Hampshire spinner Nigel Cowley as N. Cowdrey (not another Cowdrey???).
I know some posters say it isn`t important how you spell names. But it is a matter of courtesy, surely. I bet World Cup referee Howard Webb won`t be listed as Howard Webber when he handles his first Manchester United game at Old Trafford next season.
Excellent crowd, too, but am I the only one who feels that Somerset still lack a professional edge on the administration side?
Two examples:
When the (quite heavy) rain started from a sky that had looked threatening for some considerable while, there was no sign of the ground staff or the covers for a good five minutes. This must have contributed to the delayed start after lunch - and the vital loss of those two D/L overs. Some wag behind me said they were down the pub.
And I would have thought it was pretty poor PR to spell the names of not one, but both umpires incorrectly on the scorecard. Former Leicestershire seamer David Millns appeared as D. Milne, and ex Hampshire spinner Nigel Cowley as N. Cowdrey (not another Cowdrey???).
I know some posters say it isn`t important how you spell names. But it is a matter of courtesy, surely. I bet World Cup referee Howard Webb won`t be listed as Howard Webber when he handles his first Manchester United game at Old Trafford next season.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 20:56
Marcus says on the site that 'We always knew it would be close.'
This comment implies that he did not necessarily think that Kent were that far over-par!
To which I can only say good grief if more than 7.5 per over is not considered much above par over 50 overs!
This comment implies that he did not necessarily think that Kent were that far over-par!
To which I can only say good grief if more than 7.5 per over is not considered much above par over 50 overs!
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: F Gurney (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 21:30
Not only did the D/L reduction favour Kent, but the power play was reduced by one over and two of their lesser bowlers only had to bowl 9 overs.
Seemed daft to be walking away at the end with the light perfect and, so I was told, still within the time allocated to Kent to bowl their overs.
Umpire Milns was consulting his rule book between overs.
No one has mention Bollinger stopping in his run up twice because AB was moving around the crease. What aws to stop AB repeating that?
Seemed daft to be walking away at the end with the light perfect and, so I was told, still within the time allocated to Kent to bowl their overs.
Umpire Milns was consulting his rule book between overs.
No one has mention Bollinger stopping in his run up twice because AB was moving around the crease. What aws to stop AB repeating that?
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 21:33
Total mess !! If one team was to suffer I guess it would be us!!
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 21:35
Agree with cjm about the discourtesy of misspelling the umpires' names - very poor.
I agree with AG that D/L is better than the old system - I don't think anyone disagrees. My contention has always been that (a) it's still not well-calibrated - as you say, it seems to exaggerate the benefits of good first innings or drawbacks of a poor one (I'm no statistician, but it all-too-often seems that the post-D/L result is easy to argue with); and (b) it's especially out-of-sync the shorter the match, eg when T20s are reduced to say, 10 or 8 overs.
I had understood that the actual calculations would be reviewed and revised regularly (after each season?)as more "evidence" is accumulated - does anyone know if this happens, cos it still seems wrong too often to me.
I agree with AG that D/L is better than the old system - I don't think anyone disagrees. My contention has always been that (a) it's still not well-calibrated - as you say, it seems to exaggerate the benefits of good first innings or drawbacks of a poor one (I'm no statistician, but it all-too-often seems that the post-D/L result is easy to argue with); and (b) it's especially out-of-sync the shorter the match, eg when T20s are reduced to say, 10 or 8 overs.
I had understood that the actual calculations would be reviewed and revised regularly (after each season?)as more "evidence" is accumulated - does anyone know if this happens, cos it still seems wrong too often to me.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Roger ivanhoe (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 21:51
I understood the cut of time was 6.30 based on the original 50 overs.
But neither scoreboard displayed any cut off time, although space is allocated on the new scoreboard for such detail.
If Kent had missed that cut off time, they would have lost 6 runs, thus given us the match.
But neither scoreboard displayed any cut off time, although space is allocated on the new scoreboard for such detail.
If Kent had missed that cut off time, they would have lost 6 runs, thus given us the match.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 22:03
I agree with those who have suggested that it's a little daft to have a cut off time unrelated to the light.... What was going to bappen at 6.30? Were the umps going to change into pumpkins at that time?
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: edinburghbil (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 22:06
20/20 seem to do a better job of avoiding d/l wherever possible. The only thing that could make sense is the desire to have the same playing conditions throughout the whole competition and however far north you are playing. Seems daft to me not to play the entire 50 overs a side where it is possible to do so in the one day.
It seems to me that although d/l is generally not too bad, there are some anomalies
It seems to me that although d/l is generally not too bad, there are some anomalies
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 22:10
Kent are the only one of the 18 counties to have won 100% of their 50-over games (in their case 2/2).
Despite being so poor at one-day cricket this season, allegedly, we are well and truly in this comp.
Surrey, Sussex and Lancs (two of those are T20 quarter-finalists) have played two, lost two.
Make of that what you like
Despite being so poor at one-day cricket this season, allegedly, we are well and truly in this comp.
Surrey, Sussex and Lancs (two of those are T20 quarter-finalists) have played two, lost two.
Make of that what you like
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 22:29
I'd say average rather than poor. An average level of performance and most definitely average results (1-1-1 in 50 overs and 6-7 and an abandonment in T20)... So 7 wins, 8 defeats, 1 tie and (I think?) one abandonment overall in short form so far.
Obviously if the club aims to win short form competitions (or at least get back to making Finals i.e. where we were under BR) then we'll have to be better than merely average.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:07:31:22:33:14 by AGod.
Obviously if the club aims to win short form competitions (or at least get back to making Finals i.e. where we were under BR) then we'll have to be better than merely average.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:07:31:22:33:14 by AGod.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 22:34
Today's photos.
I will leave others to say where things could have been done better.
Could this have won us the match if the umpire had called a wide? One run plus a extra ball.
I couldn't understand why it wasn't given if you can see through the dust you can just see the blue line to the right of the ball.
Some of the younger players showed what they can do today, Craig Overton hits the ball hard to the boundary.
And good on Alex Barrow, after getting his eye in he played some lovely shots this was a four.
The eagle eyed among you will just see one of Lewis Gregory bails in the air, it just clipped the bail without touching the stump from Fabian Cowdrey.
A bit of luck for Lewis Gregory the wicketkeeper made a pigs ear of stopping the ball and knocked it in the air given Lewis time to get back into his crease.
James Hildreth's favourite shot to get out too, lbw James Tredwell.
And this seems to becoming Marcus's favourite shot to get out too, ct James Tredwell bld Doug Bollinger.
Sam Billings played one of the best innings I have seen for a while, he loves to play on the leg side no matter where the bowler pitches the ball.
You would have loved to have seen this plan work from Peter Trego, he bowled three time to Alex Blake beating him every time. I watched him signal to Marcus he wanted a slip in and Marcus went to slip and the very next ball Marcus took the catch. Peter's reaction had to be seen.
Brendan Nash tried to play on the leg side off Jack Leach got a top edge Alex Barrow had to run several yards to take the catch.
I didn't quite get the stumping of Daniel Bell-Drummond by Alex Barrow off Jack Leach but you can see he is out of his crease.
I will leave others to say where things could have been done better.
Could this have won us the match if the umpire had called a wide? One run plus a extra ball.
I couldn't understand why it wasn't given if you can see through the dust you can just see the blue line to the right of the ball.
Some of the younger players showed what they can do today, Craig Overton hits the ball hard to the boundary.
And good on Alex Barrow, after getting his eye in he played some lovely shots this was a four.
The eagle eyed among you will just see one of Lewis Gregory bails in the air, it just clipped the bail without touching the stump from Fabian Cowdrey.
A bit of luck for Lewis Gregory the wicketkeeper made a pigs ear of stopping the ball and knocked it in the air given Lewis time to get back into his crease.
James Hildreth's favourite shot to get out too, lbw James Tredwell.
And this seems to becoming Marcus's favourite shot to get out too, ct James Tredwell bld Doug Bollinger.
Sam Billings played one of the best innings I have seen for a while, he loves to play on the leg side no matter where the bowler pitches the ball.
You would have loved to have seen this plan work from Peter Trego, he bowled three time to Alex Blake beating him every time. I watched him signal to Marcus he wanted a slip in and Marcus went to slip and the very next ball Marcus took the catch. Peter's reaction had to be seen.
Brendan Nash tried to play on the leg side off Jack Leach got a top edge Alex Barrow had to run several yards to take the catch.
I didn't quite get the stumping of Daniel Bell-Drummond by Alex Barrow off Jack Leach but you can see he is out of his crease.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 22:43
Mike - what did you think of Jack L today?
It does look as though we may have been hard done by viz the wide.
It does look as though we may have been hard done by viz the wide.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Sloop John B (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 22:51
A right cracking game to be at. Agree re: loss of the two overs. In the event it made the difference.
Billings was ridculous! He was a little lucky perhaps not to find a fielder with a few of his shots but it was the match winning innings.
Great to see Alex, Thommo and Tim get good scores.
Billings was ridculous! He was a little lucky perhaps not to find a fielder with a few of his shots but it was the match winning innings.
Great to see Alex, Thommo and Tim get good scores.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 22:55
I have always rated Jack from when I first watched him, I don't listen to others I make my own mind up I even said last year that I think eventually he will replace George Dockrell.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Sloop John B (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 23:00
Billings hit about 90% of his shots legside and only teo shots I recall to the off were via reverse sweeps.
Tres seemed very slow to react to that and kept a 5:4 field for much of the time.
Tres seemed very slow to react to that and kept a 5:4 field for much of the time.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 23:04
And once again like we were saying last year why didn't we bowl one of the most economic more than five overs?
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 23:11
Mike - he's not played that many first-team games in all formats but I think that, when he has played, JL has never let anyone down.
I'm not sure that GD is really moving forwards, which is disappointing. I still think he's got a lot of good attributes but I also think that one of those attributes - quite a classical high action - possibly leads to him largely being favoured over Jack more on grounds of style than substance.
I also think that even though both men are SLA, their bowling styles are significantly different - sufficiently different that, given suitable conditions, one could play both men in the same side without worrying about not having variety in the spin department.
I'm not sure that GD is really moving forwards, which is disappointing. I still think he's got a lot of good attributes but I also think that one of those attributes - quite a classical high action - possibly leads to him largely being favoured over Jack more on grounds of style than substance.
I also think that even though both men are SLA, their bowling styles are significantly different - sufficiently different that, given suitable conditions, one could play both men in the same side without worrying about not having variety in the spin department.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 23:12
To answer an earlier question. We play Warwick (who have stopped being Birmingham for the 50 over stuff) at Edgbaston next Tuesday for a day/night game before Msex at Lord's on the Thursday. I am hoping to be at both. I bet I don't see 750 runs off 98 overs though
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 23:16
A decent report on the Kent website but it includes the sentence
Somerset looked to be facing an impossible task, even when their target was slightly reduced.
I think we all agree that the implication of that sentence has got it backwards.
Somerset looked to be facing an impossible task, even when their target was slightly reduced.
I think we all agree that the implication of that sentence has got it backwards.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 23:22
I don't know if Doug Bollinger is any sort of bother, after he pulled up twice when running in to bowl when the batsmen moved across to off side before he delivered the ball the umpires got together.
Soon after that he dismissed Craig Overton something must have been said to Craig because several time he turn around and looked towards the Kent players while walking off (I don't know if the umpire heard anything said) before he bowled his next ball to the new batsman the umpire was seen talking to him.
Soon after that he dismissed Craig Overton something must have been said to Craig because several time he turn around and looked towards the Kent players while walking off (I don't know if the umpire heard anything said) before he bowled his next ball to the new batsman the umpire was seen talking to him.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 31/07/2014 23:33
Was it Doug Mike? I was looking at it from the side and the bowler looked considerably taller than Doug from the back (if you get what I mean)
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Roger ivanhoe (IP Logged)
Date: 01/08/2014 00:00
Yes it was Doug Bollinger to Alex Barrow, the umpire at the old Pavilion end made a gesture ( like a quack, Quack ) with his raised hand to the other umpire, the two umpires then had a brief discussion.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 01/08/2014 00:04
Yes I saw the incident and there was a bit of a palaver later on when Alf walked away just before the delivery from Doug (I think) as well. It's just that Bollinger looks much taller from side on than he does when you are looking at him running away from you as he bowls.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 01/08/2014 00:21
Two extra photos.
Nick Compton missed this ball from Darren Stevens.
This the talk between Doug Bollinger and the umpire, they were first talking face to face and carried on talking as Doug walked away from the umpire.
Nick Compton missed this ball from Darren Stevens.
This the talk between Doug Bollinger and the umpire, they were first talking face to face and carried on talking as Doug walked away from the umpire.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 01/08/2014 00:34
That thing with Alfonso and Bollinger was a bit different. The umpire had his arm out because Alf wasn't ready Bollinger ignored the umpires arm and started to run in. Alfonso looked up the umpired dropped his arm Alfonso saw the bowler was well on his way to the umpire so he pulled away.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Roger ivanhoe (IP Logged)
Date: 01/08/2014 00:52
Yes I remember that one also, it was pretty obvious that Alfonso was not ready.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 01/08/2014 08:24
Sorry one and all. Woke up to find this thread closed. No idea why. I didnt do it honest.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Grizzers (IP Logged)
Date: 01/08/2014 10:03
Astonished we got anywhere near that total. Great effort all round with the bat.
Three cracking games, but we have to find a way of slowing down the run leakage.
Not sure we can really complain re DL, as I'm sure we must have benefitted from similar (reverse) situations in the past. Can't readily remember when though.
Grizzzly
Three cracking games, but we have to find a way of slowing down the run leakage.
Not sure we can really complain re DL, as I'm sure we must have benefitted from similar (reverse) situations in the past. Can't readily remember when though.
Grizzzly
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: edinburghbil (IP Logged)
Date: 01/08/2014 10:16
Yes, you have to play within the conditions as they are and we can have no complaints, but I do feel that for the future we should look not to use d/l wherever possible and people should be looking at some of the anomalies it throws up and trying to fix them. It can never be perfect.
From Yesterday, how much does it affect you knowing you have 2 less overs to face? I can see that effect for 5 or more overs. Maybe a solution is to have a minimum of 5 overs reduction?
I agree with the comments that our main issue is conceding less runs
From Yesterday, how much does it affect you knowing you have 2 less overs to face? I can see that effect for 5 or more overs. Maybe a solution is to have a minimum of 5 overs reduction?
I agree with the comments that our main issue is conceding less runs
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: rambling sid (IP Logged)
Date: 01/08/2014 10:54
Haven't been all the way through this thread so I don't whether this has already been said. I thought the adjustment for D/L at the start of our innings was ludicrous. As the innings hadn't started and there was no question of adjusting for wickets taken etc it should have been a simple matter of reducing by the average no. of runs per over. As this was rather more than 7.5, the total should have been reduced by between 15 and 16. This would have made our target 367 - 369, and we would have won. At the time it seemed irrelevant but in the end it did matter.
On a separate matter I could not understand the field placing at the end of their innings. It looked there must have been some kind of power play going on. Surely that is not the case for the last five overs. There were several fielders round in an arc on the offside within the circle while there were only two on the leg side with massive gaps. I could have scored runs with that field.
On a separate matter I could not understand the field placing at the end of their innings. It looked there must have been some kind of power play going on. Surely that is not the case for the last five overs. There were several fielders round in an arc on the offside within the circle while there were only two on the leg side with massive gaps. I could have scored runs with that field.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Roger ivanhoe (IP Logged)
Date: 01/08/2014 11:14
· Powerplays to be restricted to the first 10 overs plus one five over batting powerplay to be completed by the 40th over
· In a non-powerplay over only four fielders are allowed outside the 30 yard circle
· An increase in the number of permitted short pitched deliveries from one to two per over
· In a non-powerplay over only four fielders are allowed outside the 30 yard circle
· An increase in the number of permitted short pitched deliveries from one to two per over
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: cricketjerry-mouse (IP Logged)
Date: 01/08/2014 11:14
The key point about the Doug Bollinger/Alex Barrow incident (when Bollinger twice pulled out from bowling at the very last stride afer Alex had moved across his wicket) was that the very next ball was the one so brilliantly captured by Mike in his first tranche of pictures.
It was obviously a wide to everyone on the ground - even without the help of Mike`s camera and the blue line there to assist the umpire. But one got the impression that umpire David Millns had received such a mouthful from Bollinger about the two aborted delivery incidents, that he wasn`t going to call a wide even if the ball had landed on the next door square.
It was obviously a wide to everyone on the ground - even without the help of Mike`s camera and the blue line there to assist the umpire. But one got the impression that umpire David Millns had received such a mouthful from Bollinger about the two aborted delivery incidents, that he wasn`t going to call a wide even if the ball had landed on the next door square.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 01/08/2014 11:15
Quite right that no power-play was in force.
The Beeb commentators said that (ITO) both Captains were 'guilty,' of leaving the leg-side "wide open," for long periods of the match.
I wasn't there but based on what I heard and the scores etc, I'd say this was one of those occasions where the track was so flat and some of the bowling so lacking in accuracy, that a Captain could have had 13 fielders, and still been criticised for not cutting off all of the scoring shots.
Viz the specific occasion at the end of our innings? Was the arc of men saving one on the off-side only present when the non Billings batsman was on strike? I could understand a strategy of bowling outside off-stick with a ring of people saving one on the off-side to the non-Billings man, to try to prevent the Kent 'keeper from getting on strike.
Equally, has Billings apparently hit almost everything through the leg-side, I could see a strategy of trying to bowl wide of off-stick to him, though not with loads of men in the circle and with only two on the leg-side.
The Beeb commentators said that (ITO) both Captains were 'guilty,' of leaving the leg-side "wide open," for long periods of the match.
I wasn't there but based on what I heard and the scores etc, I'd say this was one of those occasions where the track was so flat and some of the bowling so lacking in accuracy, that a Captain could have had 13 fielders, and still been criticised for not cutting off all of the scoring shots.
Viz the specific occasion at the end of our innings? Was the arc of men saving one on the off-side only present when the non Billings batsman was on strike? I could understand a strategy of bowling outside off-stick with a ring of people saving one on the off-side to the non-Billings man, to try to prevent the Kent 'keeper from getting on strike.
Equally, has Billings apparently hit almost everything through the leg-side, I could see a strategy of trying to bowl wide of off-stick to him, though not with loads of men in the circle and with only two on the leg-side.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 01/08/2014 11:19
We lost two overs 1/25 of play.
We lost one over of power play 1/10 at the start.
I would like to see the time allotted for each innings shortened there was so much time taken-up by the captain moving the fielders from one position and then moving them back again, there was a lot of indecisiveness going on.
In t20 the time is tight to get the overs in but in 50 overs there is plenty of time.
We lost one over of power play 1/10 at the start.
I would like to see the time allotted for each innings shortened there was so much time taken-up by the captain moving the fielders from one position and then moving them back again, there was a lot of indecisiveness going on.
In t20 the time is tight to get the overs in but in 50 overs there is plenty of time.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 01/08/2014 11:34
I suppose Kent may have even more to concern themselves with re: bowling than us, thinking about it?
We might be able to rationalise what happened to us as one guy having the innings of his life and playing phenomenally well?
But the second half of the Kent (bowling) innings involved them getting absolutely tanked by all and sundry.
Obviously Kent don’t have to bowl at Taunton again (in the group stage) but they might encounter a flat-track belter somewhere else.
We might be able to rationalise what happened to us as one guy having the innings of his life and playing phenomenally well?
But the second half of the Kent (bowling) innings involved them getting absolutely tanked by all and sundry.
Obviously Kent don’t have to bowl at Taunton again (in the group stage) but they might encounter a flat-track belter somewhere else.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 01/08/2014 11:37
Mike re: over-rates, I think they should be higher in all forms of the game, especially CC.
Increasing the mandatory over-rates in the CC would (in light of the fact that teams have points deducted for failing to meet them) be one quick way to get spin back into the game as a bigger feature of the cricket.
IN one-day cricket, I suspect that an analysis would show that most of the minute tinkering with the fields that you sometimes see between each ball is largely a waste of time (having no effect on run rates).
Increasing the mandatory over-rates in the CC would (in light of the fact that teams have points deducted for failing to meet them) be one quick way to get spin back into the game as a bigger feature of the cricket.
IN one-day cricket, I suspect that an analysis would show that most of the minute tinkering with the fields that you sometimes see between each ball is largely a waste of time (having no effect on run rates).
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Roger ivanhoe (IP Logged)
Date: 01/08/2014 11:54
They are also having 2 official drinks breaks, around 16 and 32 overs bowled in each innings, obviously drinks are needed in the heat, but I did note that a batsman was out on 32 overs, out came the drinks, two overs later the official break came.
As Bumble would say "Get on with the game"
Saying that I have enjoyed the 50 over games to date, and not put off by the earlier start,
And I think the extra 10 overs per side has produced a lot of entertainment.
As Bumble would say "Get on with the game"
Saying that I have enjoyed the 50 over games to date, and not put off by the earlier start,
And I think the extra 10 overs per side has produced a lot of entertainment.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 01/08/2014 12:31
I mentioned the weird field in my report. It was even weirder because batsmen were walking across to use it. Anything pushed into the leg side yielded 2 runs as the fielders on the boundaries had to race in to field it. Made little sense.
I don't think it was because of any kind of mouthful from Bollinger CJM because he wwas busy walking back to his mark and only had a conversation with the umpire after he hadn't given the, as you say, pretty obvious wide. I think it was more of a 'let's get on with it' decision
I don't think it was because of any kind of mouthful from Bollinger CJM because he wwas busy walking back to his mark and only had a conversation with the umpire after he hadn't given the, as you say, pretty obvious wide. I think it was more of a 'let's get on with it' decision
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 01/08/2014 13:00
The total match runs scored is equal ninth overall. [stats.espncricinfo.com]
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 01/08/2014 14:20
You wonder whether they will try to produce two more similar tracks for the final two home games?
In theory, these sort of tracks seem to me to be the sort of track where, at least 75% of the time, you'd expect whichever side bats second to win as the overwhelming majority of totals should be all but undefendable.
IF we fancy ourselves to be a better team than people like Glamorgan, then I don't personally think that we should try to prepare the sort of track where the toss is likely - more often than not - to all but decide the outcome of the game.
Obviously, I know that we won the toss but lost the match vs Kent, but the fact that we came so close to chasing an outlandish total despite the fact that Captain and Vice-Captain contributed 7, between them, from 14 balls and the fact that we, arguably, would have won anyway but for the D/L adjustment as well, re-inforces, to me, the idea that you simply MUST bat second if you win the toss on these sort of tracks.
To put it another way: Please nominate a total, on this sort of home track, where we would feel more than 90% confident that we would successfully defend it?
In theory, these sort of tracks seem to me to be the sort of track where, at least 75% of the time, you'd expect whichever side bats second to win as the overwhelming majority of totals should be all but undefendable.
IF we fancy ourselves to be a better team than people like Glamorgan, then I don't personally think that we should try to prepare the sort of track where the toss is likely - more often than not - to all but decide the outcome of the game.
Obviously, I know that we won the toss but lost the match vs Kent, but the fact that we came so close to chasing an outlandish total despite the fact that Captain and Vice-Captain contributed 7, between them, from 14 balls and the fact that we, arguably, would have won anyway but for the D/L adjustment as well, re-inforces, to me, the idea that you simply MUST bat second if you win the toss on these sort of tracks.
To put it another way: Please nominate a total, on this sort of home track, where we would feel more than 90% confident that we would successfully defend it?
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: mikeindex (IP Logged)
Date: 01/08/2014 19:00
Having finally managed to access my son's computer (my own resolutely refuses to let me log in here), my thoughts on yesterday's game.
Wonderful day's cricket as it was, was anyone else utterly baffled by Marcus' bowling changes? After the flying start Kent had - small discredit to our bowlers at that stage, Bell-Drummond (hugely impressive) and Northeast simply batted very very well - Jack (that's my boy) and Pete did an absolutely phenomenal job of stalling them.
Marcus then took Pete off - his figures at that stage were 4-0-10-0. A few overs later he took Jack off with 8-0-38-2 (16 off the first two).
When Pete came back he bowled two more overs for five runs and a wicket (6-0-15-1); Jack bowled his ninth over for two runs and a wicket (9-0-40-3). Both were immediately removed again. By the time Marcus brought them back Billings was well into his stride and their last overs were undeservedly clobbered.
Personally I'm a believer, by and large, in keeping a bowler going who's doing well and not upsetting his rhythm. The modern trend seems to be to twiddle the bowling relentlessly in limited-overs cricket regardless of whether it makes tactical sense or not. Bit of a change from the old Sunday League when changes were made strictly by numbers with equal lack of tactical consideration.
Obviously no-one ever knows what would have happened, but I can't help thinking that unnecessary bowling changes made a major contribution to Billings' getting his eye in as fast and to as devastating effect as he did.
Wonderful day's cricket as it was, was anyone else utterly baffled by Marcus' bowling changes? After the flying start Kent had - small discredit to our bowlers at that stage, Bell-Drummond (hugely impressive) and Northeast simply batted very very well - Jack (that's my boy) and Pete did an absolutely phenomenal job of stalling them.
Marcus then took Pete off - his figures at that stage were 4-0-10-0. A few overs later he took Jack off with 8-0-38-2 (16 off the first two).
When Pete came back he bowled two more overs for five runs and a wicket (6-0-15-1); Jack bowled his ninth over for two runs and a wicket (9-0-40-3). Both were immediately removed again. By the time Marcus brought them back Billings was well into his stride and their last overs were undeservedly clobbered.
Personally I'm a believer, by and large, in keeping a bowler going who's doing well and not upsetting his rhythm. The modern trend seems to be to twiddle the bowling relentlessly in limited-overs cricket regardless of whether it makes tactical sense or not. Bit of a change from the old Sunday League when changes were made strictly by numbers with equal lack of tactical consideration.
Obviously no-one ever knows what would have happened, but I can't help thinking that unnecessary bowling changes made a major contribution to Billings' getting his eye in as fast and to as devastating effect as he did.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Wickham (IP Logged)
Date: 01/08/2014 22:33
I agree with Mike's penultimate paragraph.
Another of my bugbears is that batsmen often wait until the required run rate has got to unmanageable levels before throwing caution to the wind. One of the pleasing features of Somerset's innings was that, despite the huge total which they faced, they didn't do this.
Conventional wisdom is that, facing a large total, at least one batsman needs to get a century. Somerset showed that contributions all the way down the order can be equally effective.
Another of my bugbears is that batsmen often wait until the required run rate has got to unmanageable levels before throwing caution to the wind. One of the pleasing features of Somerset's innings was that, despite the huge total which they faced, they didn't do this.
Conventional wisdom is that, facing a large total, at least one batsman needs to get a century. Somerset showed that contributions all the way down the order can be equally effective.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 01/08/2014 22:42
Yeah but we still lost so not as effective as 2 hundreds.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 01/08/2014 22:53
Not necessarily. Over 50 overs we might not have lost, so we are comparing apples and pears, and even on the 48 overs if one batsman had hit one dot ball for four it would have been a win without a hundred. The general principle holds true, although in most cases a hundred from one player will be what matters.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 01/08/2014 22:55
But it might be interesting to see how often a side wins after conceding two individual tons in the opening 50 overs..
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 02/08/2014 06:36
Dress it up anyway you want still lost. I want wins !! Hundreds will get you yhem in most cases. Check out last Sunday
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 02/08/2014 07:16
Hee, Hee were you banging the table with your fist when you typed that Ronnie
i think everyone on here wanted Somerset to win.
i think everyone on here wanted Somerset to win.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Bobstan (IP Logged)
Date: 02/08/2014 09:13
Sorry, Ronnie, but can you remind me who won the 50 over match between Somerset and Kent?
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: rambling sid (IP Logged)
Date: 02/08/2014 09:37
We lost by 2 runs on a totally unrealistic amended total. If you take out the run they got off the last ball after Barrow had hit the wickets instead of holding on to the ball, and one run for the no ball that Bollinger bowled but which wasn't signalled we'd have at least tied.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 02/08/2014 10:01
That reminds me of a saying my granny always said “If a grape had hairs it would be a gooseberry”
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 02/08/2014 10:16
If I'm at a game and Somerset can't win then I at least want a good game of cricket to watch and if I can't get that then on with lots of incident will do. This game was a bit of the last two and no less enjoyable because of it.
Somerset ain't gonna win all the time Ron sorry and all that.
A bunch of the front end popping in with 200, 250 will usually do it whether that is from 2 of them or 5. If it's consistently from 5 I'd be far far happier because the odd century a couple of times a season (like James) is OK for the player's average but it doesn't regularly win you games.
The top 5 getting 50ish each one day game individually will probably win you most of them.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:08:02:10:18:27 by Grockle.
Somerset ain't gonna win all the time Ron sorry and all that.
A bunch of the front end popping in with 200, 250 will usually do it whether that is from 2 of them or 5. If it's consistently from 5 I'd be far far happier because the odd century a couple of times a season (like James) is OK for the player's average but it doesn't regularly win you games.
The top 5 getting 50ish each one day game individually will probably win you most of them.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:08:02:10:18:27 by Grockle.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 02/08/2014 12:06
Glad to get a reaction at least.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 02/08/2014 12:51
As is the case in CC cricket, though, Grockle, it's very rare to see a top 5 or top 6 all make 50s in the same dig. Which is why you need someone to get in and stay in a la Sam NE.
Now, admittedly, on a track that is as much of a belter as these two have been then a whole load of guys all making fifties becomes more likely as, I suppose, was shown by what 6, 7, 8 and 9 did for us the other day. But even then with a new ball at either end, you are likely to see the odd failure near the top of the order.
Anyway, on to Edgbaston where it's usually a turning track and where GD has a history of some success including, I think, in a T20 semi as well as in the CC. So I wonder if we might actually see both of our SLAs selected for the match. If Craig O is with Lions then he'll need replacing so if we were to pick two spinners then we might possibly see two changes?
Now, admittedly, on a track that is as much of a belter as these two have been then a whole load of guys all making fifties becomes more likely as, I suppose, was shown by what 6, 7, 8 and 9 did for us the other day. But even then with a new ball at either end, you are likely to see the odd failure near the top of the order.
Anyway, on to Edgbaston where it's usually a turning track and where GD has a history of some success including, I think, in a T20 semi as well as in the CC. So I wonder if we might actually see both of our SLAs selected for the match. If Craig O is with Lions then he'll need replacing so if we were to pick two spinners then we might possibly see two changes?
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 02/08/2014 15:37
Of course AG your view is so much "righter" than anyone else's so please continue to justify its extra validity, if you feel the need, even though no-one is questioning it... I'll personally try to care but honestly might struggle.
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: rodders (IP Logged)
Date: 02/08/2014 20:34
Totally agree with you mikeindex but be careful - I posted similar and blamed MT for it as he is the captain - cue the usual lecture from Grockle as I posted it and not you - you may well end up in the Grockle detention class if you post such opinions !
Re: Kent 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 02/08/2014 22:16
Take your own advice Rodders.
If you can't handle a different opinion don't read it or respond (can't remember which one it was you suggested to someone else in relation to your own 'occasional' posts). It's a forum...this is what they are for.
Got the captaincy solution yet? You didn't provide it to me, Marcus, Mr Northeast or Paul Collingwood unless I've missed it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:08:03:22:28:50 by Grockle.
If you can't handle a different opinion don't read it or respond (can't remember which one it was you suggested to someone else in relation to your own 'occasional' posts). It's a forum...this is what they are for.
Got the captaincy solution yet? You didn't provide it to me, Marcus, Mr Northeast or Paul Collingwood unless I've missed it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:08:03:22:28:50 by Grockle.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.