Durham 50
By Grockle et al
July 29 2015
The first real Maynard team of the 'Maynard era' starts the 50 over tournament one game in. The 10 over slog on Sunday was unfortunate but not a test of the side as it stands so today is interesting in all kinds of ways. The decision to not look to the veterans has ruffled feathers or offered salvation depending on your level of pessimism/hope. Well let's have a look then boys and girls.
v DURHAM RL50 @ Taunton Wednesday 29 July
Cold, grey and downright autumnal and 3000 in on a Wednesday. The good and bad of a Somerset game in a mediocre summer but the faithful are still here. Jim Allenby wins the toss and decides to have a go with the bat in the changeable conditions (first opening for the critics if we lose) and then moves himself down the order from the T20 line-up and sends Tom Abell and Adam Hose in to start proceedings.
The side is;
Abell, Hose Trego, Cooper, Allenby, Hildreth, Gregory, Overton C, Overton J, Leach, Bates
Jack takes a place in the side while Max moves to 12th man as Tim Groenewald misses out
We start on time with the young openers who may be decent foils for each other. The solidity of Abell and the strokeplay of the 6'4" Hose. Harrison and Rushworth open for the visitors.. The first noticable difference is that no-one is looking for their first boundary, the two players are looking for gaps and playing it along the ground and lo and behold, they manage to work together past the 5th over.
The 50 partnership comes up 2 balls into the 10th and one has to say that Adam Hose looks like he has considerably more knowledge about how to play this game than just which end of the bat to hold. He has a little more trouble against the pace of Ashad and he finally snicked the man behind at 69 for an excellent 41 off 44 balls. In comes Pete Trego quickly follwed by Tom Cooper as his first namesake wafts one to Borthwick at first slip from Hastings. No change of score and we go from 69 for 0 to the same for 2 and it is now 'Game On' for the rest of the side to emulate the two openers.
Both the two new gents take the bowling on merit and by the 20th we have moved to 97 with both men sharing the runs although Pete has hit the first six into the New Pavilion to take us to 89. Durham have used 6 bowlers by the 20th while the 100 comes up off a nice shot from Cooper at the end of the 21st.
Orders seem to have been very clear to every batsman. Do not go over the top unless you can guarantee it's over them. There was however an almost miraculous catch from Collingwood (Anthony Gibson mentioned that the Durham skipper is the only player to have over 10,000 runs, 250 wickets and - presently 199 catches in one dayers). Cooper has certainly taken this demand to heart it seems as he is playing straighter than I've seen him play this season.
The 150 arrives halfway through the 30th and Pete brings up his own 50 at the same time with a boundary off Pringle off 52 balls with 7 fours and the 1 six. Unfortunately he is then dimissed off a top edged pull deep into the Colin Atkinson/Scoreboard corner, caught by Pringle off Hastings at 159. In comes James to keep Tom company. A 90 run stand between Trigger and Cooper is more like it. Unfortunately Hilda's run of poor luck/form continues as Borthwick takes a stunning diving catch at slip to send him back in off Hastings for 4 and we are 170 for the same number of wickets.
Tom keeps to orders and reaches his 50 off 60 balls with 5 fours and looks to murder the loose stuff, something he does to bring up the 200 by helping one around the corner to the Gimblett scoreboard halfway through the 36th. I then missed a small amount of play while trying to get a pair of glasses that allow me to see and by the time I got back. Lewis didn't bother the scorers much with his 4 but Craig Overton started to pepper the New Pavilion almost immediately and Tom Cooper looked to put the icing on the top of the most measured innings I've seen him play here. He finally got his ton off 95 balls with 12 fours while Cove put his third six into the NP before adding a final one into the Ondaatje.
The 300 arrives with a 2 off Craig who has moved to 41 off 18 and is looking to bludgeon everything anywhere. Coop finally misjudges on and helps it around the corner into Rushworth's hands. He leaves to a healthy hand from the supporters for an excellent 104 and out comes Jamie to join his brother. He makes his intent clear with a first ball boundary. The brothers also take on the Durham outfielding which has been pretty shoddy all the way through to be honest.
Harrison takes the 49 and does quite well until Jove gets hold of 2 towards the end of it and puts his ro' on strike for the 50. Hastings is responsible for the last with Craig on strike on 44. His first is sublimely lofted over the infield to the scoreboard and the half ton is most definitely on. 2 singles return the man to face. The next ball comes back at Hastings like a bullet from a gun. He holds onto it, looks around and asks, the umpires confer, Craig asks the fielders around him and walks on 49.
Bates arrives with one job; get Jove on strike. He does so and Hastings puts one on the fast bowler's feet and we finish on 327 for 8. A very commendable total and certain,y something for the bowler's to work with. The questions? How on target will Jamie be and can Jack make this HIS tournament?
The Reply
Craig opens from the New Pavilion end against Stoneman who is partnered by the 'Colonel' Mustard. Lewis takes the second after 5 comes off the first. His first skids through at a pace and they get 1 from his. Very good start from him.
However you do need to keep at batsmen like these and after 5 overs it is looking quite simple for the Durham openers who have 40 on the board as they pick their spots and place the ball to the boundaries too easily.
This prompts Pete to be introduced at the New Pavilion and we see the Durham 50 arrive in the 7th. But it seems this is just to move Craig to the River end for the 8th. This is followed by Lewis moving in at the NP for the 9th but the runs keep coming. By the end of the 10th Durham have 81 and Mark Stoneman has a 30 ball 50 with 7 fours and 2 sixes. This is not what the batsman need to see when they get it right.
Jamie is introduced for the 11th and shows his commitment to the cause by chasing his second ball out to Square leg to ensure only one run is scored off it. A wicket is what they need from him at the moment though.
The innings moves on with two men who are supreme at guiding the ball into space and letting the pace do the work doing exactly that while we serve them up ball after ball of the type they like. The only Somerset bowler who even looks like causing them problems is the newly picked Jack Leach who has been mightily unlucky to not take a wicket. Other than that Tom Cooper has kept it tight and the pace attack has been blasted wherever fielders aren't. Jamie had one spitting bouncer just swatted over the despairing fingers of Bates and NOTHING else.
Presently Durham are on 189 off 28 overs without loss. They look like they are going to get this in about 40 overs without loss and the only way we will make inroads into their batting line-up is if they allow us to and do something stupid.
So at the point in time when our batting gets some stickability and we post a truly competitive total, our bowling forgets to put its teeth in and provides all the bite of a lettuce. Ho Hum. We have used 7 bowlers and made no inroads at all.
And then. Just when all hope is gone. Craig gets a quick one on to Mustard and he top edges to Hildreth at backward point. He goes for 98, after taking part in Durham's largest one day partnership against any opposition and we 'breakthrough' at 211 for 1 in the 31st.
Mark Stoneman goes to another excellent ton off exactly 100 balls at 220 with 10 fours and 3 sixes and not long after the runs required drops below 100 with 16 overs to go. It's now all a little predictable.
Funny little incident is that Borthwick hits a few boundaries off Jove and then takes the bowler on in the field for a quick single. The Somerset man runs around to get the ball in one and fires it towards the keeper almost through Borthwick who gets his body out of the way but loses his bat and his footing. Not a lot of apology as the two men get themselves back together.
And then retribution as Jack Leach gets Stoneman caught Hose at short midwicket for 112 just after they pass 250 (253) and after he has changed ends. He finishes with an excellent 1 for 39 off his 1
By the end of the 41st Durham need 51 runs to win with 8 wickets in hand and although Allenby is still cinsicering options it looks unlikely that the North East county will lose from here. He's tried Trego from the River but he is going for more than 6 an over, dverything else has pretty much been tried inless we consider bowling James and Tom A in tandem. As if to highlight how pointless this would be Borthwick goes to 50 off 30 odd although Clark is then almost immediately caught by Lewis off the bowling of Jamie and it is 291 for 3 . Collingwood strides out with his side needing 37 off 7.5 overs.
Durham 50
Posted by: Grockles.com (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 11:54
What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015:07:31:10:37:20 by Grockle.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015:07:31:10:37:20 by Grockle.
Somerset vs Durham
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 10:35
We are batting first.
So I'll concede right now, Grockle, that it is unlikely that SCCC will concede 350+ runs today....
So I'll concede right now, Grockle, that it is unlikely that SCCC will concede 350+ runs today....
Re: Somerset vs Durham
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 10:36
I'm quite pleased that both Overtons are playing together as I think they may spur each other on, somewhat.
Re: Somerset vs Durham
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 10:41
Abel and Hose out there against Harrison and Rushworth. Bloody miserable morning but a decent smattering around the CA/Botham end
Re: Somerset vs Durham
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 10:41
Total List A games?
Durham: 983
SCCC: 656
Admittedly, Colly accounts for more than the difference on his own.
I'm amazed that Allenby has played only 97 List A games - he seems to have been around the County game for ages.
Durham: 983
SCCC: 656
Admittedly, Colly accounts for more than the difference on his own.
I'm amazed that Allenby has played only 97 List A games - he seems to have been around the County game for ages.
Re: Somerset vs Durham
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 10:43
Grockle - Given that the weather is forecast to improve markedly as the day goes on and that it is currently 'miserable,' any theory as to why JA elected to bat first?
Re: Somerset vs Durham
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 10:54
If we can get through Rushworth then we might be able to post a half-reasonable total.
If Harrison keeps bowling no-balls then that will help!
If Harrison keeps bowling no-balls then that will help!
Re: Somerset vs Durham
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 10:59
Well I'd assume he didn't want to chase 350+.
It certainly doesn't look all that promising - presently raining. Blue then grey then blue then grey and flaming cold - even for me.
It certainly doesn't look all that promising - presently raining. Blue then grey then blue then grey and flaming cold - even for me.
Re: Somerset vs Durham
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 11:00
Sounds promising from Hose though.
Re: Somerset vs Durham
Posted by: Phrench Phil (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 11:09
Listening to the commentary, it would seem that both our young openers are playing well - an opening stand of 50 so far, but also some nice shots with it (7 boundaries so far).
Re: Somerset vs Durham
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 11:14
It also sounds like there's nada in the track, if Beeb to be believed.
So I'd think we'd need an absolute minimum of 320 or so runs, and probably 350+.
These two seem to have set a nice base. But if the track is as flat as it sounds, I'd consider sending Jamie in next to try and shake it up and add some acceleration. And that goes double if Borthwick is going to be bowling...
So I'd think we'd need an absolute minimum of 320 or so runs, and probably 350+.
These two seem to have set a nice base. But if the track is as flat as it sounds, I'd consider sending Jamie in next to try and shake it up and add some acceleration. And that goes double if Borthwick is going to be bowling...
Re: Somerset vs Durham
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 11:20
Hard lines, Adam, sounded like a really promising start.
Well done.
Well done.
Re: Somerset vs Durham
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 11:35
I am really glad that MM had the courage to open the innngs with two young men who has the vast experience of ONE List A matches between them. I know they are both out now, but they gave the innings an excellent start.
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Somerset vs Durham
Posted by: Phrench Phil (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 11:50
Quote:Loyal of Lhasa
I am really glad that MM had the courage to open the innngs with two young men who has the vast experience of ONE List A matches between them. I know they are both out now, but they gave the innings an excellent start.
Exactly.
This was precisely the point I was trying to illustrate in my earlier post.
Whilst I remain unconvinced that Marcus Trescothick would not have been able to contribute (as an opener) in a 50 over match, I would say congratulations for picking such a young opening pair and, notwithstanding they are now out, I believe this was a wise, forward looking decision.
Re: Somerset vs Durham
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 11:54
If Maynard was honestly expecting SCCC to make a serious challenge in this competition, then we may still have seen Trescothick, IMO.
But with the limited overs side clearly in transition, it would have been a retrograde step to have picked him.
But with the limited overs side clearly in transition, it would have been a retrograde step to have picked him.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 12:07
Hmmm wonder if his 'old mate' Jim had anything to do with it seeing as he was the opener in the T20.... let's not give him any credit though because as we all know he is only captain because he is a mate of the DoC and not because he's ever done anything like this before anywhere. Love the idea that when anything is perceived as wrong then it's the captain's fault (well if your name is Trescothick anyway) but when something is to be applauded it is from the hands of the DoC as if the skipper is just taking orders and having no say in the structure of his own side.
Just love the consistency - as we look to get it on the field we lose it in poster comments (if we ever had it of course).
But Hose and Abell do look good together and seem to have a good balance. Adam hadn't quite got Ashad who is a little faster than he looks while Tom did play a loose shot.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015:07:29:12:46:30 by Grockle.
Just love the consistency - as we look to get it on the field we lose it in poster comments (if we ever had it of course).
But Hose and Abell do look good together and seem to have a good balance. Adam hadn't quite got Ashad who is a little faster than he looks while Tom did play a loose shot.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015:07:29:12:46:30 by Grockle.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 12:15
Stupid comment of the day (from Mark Davis, I think it was):
"Lewis Gregory is developing rapidly as an all-rounder but just doesn't get the runs."
And while we're at it, surely to goodness Davis should know that we have no "Tray-go," in our XI..
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015:07:29:12:28:59 by AGod.
"Lewis Gregory is developing rapidly as an all-rounder but just doesn't get the runs."
And while we're at it, surely to goodness Davis should know that we have no "Tray-go," in our XI..
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015:07:29:12:28:59 by AGod.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 12:17
Nobody said, Grockle, that Allenby is 'only Captain because he's MM's mate.'
The point was that MM needs to guard against any perception, from within the squad, that not all senior players that are giving "mediocre performances," are treated in a similar fashion.
The point was that MM needs to guard against any perception, from within the squad, that not all senior players that are giving "mediocre performances," are treated in a similar fashion.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 12:26
We may now have a decent base to build on, hopefully.
Still think we'll need a major end of innings explosion to get to a total that we could defend.
Still think we'll need a major end of innings explosion to get to a total that we could defend.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 12:31
Absurdly good figures for Hastings, thus far.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 12:40
Oh AG I think that is exactly what has been implied on more than one thread and in more than one post over the last few days. I sometimes misread meaning but that one has been pretty clear.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 12:43
At least Cooper has mustered a 50 for once.
Now can he go on and get us to a decent total?
Now can he go on and get us to a decent total?
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 12:45
60 balls and only 5 fours. One of which took him to the score off Ashad.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 12:48
Quote:AGod
At least Cooper has mustered a 50 for once.
We shan't know the value of what Cooper has mustered until we know how many Mustard has mustered. Time to pepper the boundaries, methinks.
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 13:00
I have now realised that Mark Davies and AGod are the same person; funny how long it's taken me to work that out.
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 13:01
The problem Somerset now have is, will the acceleration from this much more sensible batting display create a middle order collapse and take us from the base of 219 for 4 to 250 all out or something like that. But once you have got the side to this position you do need to start moving towards the 300 final total and beyond. That would be a really big confidence builder.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 13:21
Well, one or more Overton is going to get the chance to try and get us to a competitive score.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Goonie goo goo (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 13:21
Quote:Loyal of LhasaQuote:AGod
At least Cooper has mustered a 50 for once.
We shan't know the value of what Cooper has mustered until we know how many Mustard has mustered. Time to pepper the boundaries, methinks.
Take it all with a pinch of salt in this season of under-performance.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 13:32
Well done, Tom Cooper.
Let's hope this is the start of a strong 50 over campaign from him.
Answers, yet again, on a postcard please to MM as to why it is that Gregory comes in ahead of Craig O.
Let's hope this is the start of a strong 50 over campaign from him.
Answers, yet again, on a postcard please to MM as to why it is that Gregory comes in ahead of Craig O.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 13:43
Decent total in the end.
I think somebody will need to replicate the sort of figures that Hastings has produced, in order for us to win, however.
I think somebody will need to replicate the sort of figures that Hastings has produced, in order for us to win, however.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 13:45
Substanially the highest total of the day from this hopeless side of ours.
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 13:51
But the only one batting at Taunton, which is likely to prove relevant.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 13:54
In terms of short form cricket, Mr Maynard may want to look at moving Jamie Overton ahead of LG too.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 13:57
Hastings' figures look ridiculous in the context of the match.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Following on (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 14:02
Good team effort - well done to all and in particular Tom C and Craig O.
Is it enough? No idea
Would I have taken it at the start - too right I would!
Is it enough? No idea
Would I have taken it at the start - too right I would!
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Shepton Paul 2 (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 14:21
AG still expecting the loss. Yes, we might lose, but it's been a good batting performance which many if us will be very happy about.
Must be really dark in your world, AG.
Must be really dark in your world, AG.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 14:29
Throwing in your 'Taunton card' a little early aren't you AG? What do you think is par here then for the much better sides than us? 400? How many would we need to make this game even slightly competitive?
One thing that I didn't mention enough in the first half of the report is that Durham's outfielding was unusually poor
One thing that I didn't mention enough in the first half of the report is that Durham's outfielding was unusually poor
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: rodders (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 14:35
Can't complain at 6.5 an over even if Allenby and Hildreth were yet again disappointing. Whether we have the controlled bowling to defend it remains to be seen. Too close to call in my view !
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: cricketharris (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 14:36
Craig Overton on 49 and going like a train "walked" when, not obviously, caught and bowled while the umpires were still conferring. Excellent sportsmanship. And good to see Durham players applauding Cooper's century.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 14:40
Brilliant. We've moved from 'forgone loss' to 'too close to call' (not referring to you Rodders it's just how its gone this morning). Exciting afternoon in store and I'm up for the viewing. Move in the right direction
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 14:42
Oh I think we have about a 'par,' score Grockle, batting wise.
But that doesn't necessarily mean we have the bowling to defend it. If you look at it, it was virtually Hastings stick for Durham with virtually everybody else going around the park. So I think we'll need somebody to step up to the plate with a Hastings style bowling effort, otherwise we'll really struggle to defend this.
But that doesn't necessarily mean we have the bowling to defend it. If you look at it, it was virtually Hastings stick for Durham with virtually everybody else going around the park. So I think we'll need somebody to step up to the plate with a Hastings style bowling effort, otherwise we'll really struggle to defend this.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 14:56
Or everyone tries hard NOT to go ''around the park and we provide a more consistent attack. That would be much better than just assuming everyone will be rubbish and only one bowler will perform well. Certainly NOT what would be expected even if it happens.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 15:03
Well of course everybody should try to do that. But I think that Allenby and Leach may be our only real guys that might produce a Hastings type effort.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 15:08
Btw... It's not that I 'expect,' everyone bar one to bowl rubbish it's that I expect that a very flat pitch leaves virtually no margin for error.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 15:09
So two of them then instead of one. It's looking a bit easy for these men at the crease at the moment. Gotta hope they go and the rest aren't as consistent. No Allenby or Leach yet. Trigger on at the New pavilion to move Craig to the River.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 15:15
Durham's batting line-up is not the deepest but unless we take early wickets then that's unlikely to be relevant.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 15:18
258 needed from 41 overs. Pretty much a regulation chase in a 40 over game at Taunton, I'd say.
Somebody will have to bowl really well for us to defend this from here.
Somebody will have to bowl really well for us to defend this from here.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Goonie goo goo (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 15:22
all is well AG all is well my son!! don't fret!!
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 15:26
Let's hope to God that Leachy can do something or it looks like we might take a right royal pasting here!!
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 15:29
Needs someone to take hold of this because Stoneman and Mustard are as good as it gets in this stuff. Jamie on at the 10 and Jack on at 11 going for 2. If anyone is up for this it has to ne Jack in his first bowl for the first team in 2015.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 15:42
At least it sounds as though Jack is bowling Rehman further out of contention.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Botham (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 16:00
We bring in Leach, which was a no-brainer, then drop Max. Our pace bowlers don't have enough control so we need to take the pace off. Shame the people that make the decisions don't seem to understand the game.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Grizzers (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 16:03
Well, at least nice to see us post a decent score. Well done TC.
Also impressed to see Leach's bowling figures thus far, albeit we need a few wickets to state the obvious.
Grizzzly
Also impressed to see Leach's bowling figures thus far, albeit we need a few wickets to state the obvious.
Grizzzly
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 16:05
Quite right, Botham. As I said before this comp started we should pick both spinners for 50 overs at Taunton as our seamers usually get slaughtered at HQ in these games.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 16:11
What the hell have we taken Leach off for?
Amateur hour Captaincy.
Amateur hour Captaincy.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 16:25
I think they are holding him because no one else looks even close to taking any kind of wicket. It does make you wonder why JL hasn't at least been close to any other game appearance. I think he had the Durham guys in more trouble in his first 3 overs than any other spinner in anything but T20 this season.
Another priceless post Botham... always lighten a mood.
No pace threat since Lewis at the start of the innings though a couple of missiles from Jove have caused errors. Cooper is bowling so if Max can't bowl 10 then play him and let him bowl 5 occasional ones.. anything to get the pace off the ball. Especially against guys who are supreme at manipulating the ball into space and letting the pace do the rest.
Another priceless post Botham... always lighten a mood.
No pace threat since Lewis at the start of the innings though a couple of missiles from Jove have caused errors. Cooper is bowling so if Max can't bowl 10 then play him and let him bowl 5 occasional ones.. anything to get the pace off the ball. Especially against guys who are supreme at manipulating the ball into space and letting the pace do the rest.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 16:40
Jack's back but don't expect too much with both batsmen in the 90's and looking in no trouble at all.
Now Jack is in and on the basis of this dare we mention Josh Davey? Is he going to be a step down from this? Even if it is just because he seems to be lucky isn't he worth consideration?
Now Jack is in and on the basis of this dare we mention Josh Davey? Is he going to be a step down from this? Even if it is just because he seems to be lucky isn't he worth consideration?
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 16:43
Quite frankly, Grockle, when results are as they are then EVERYBODY on the professional staff should either be:
A) Worth considering
Or
Should not be on the staff
It's not just Jack that has come in and done well but Hose too, so anyone doing well in the twos should be worth considering.
A) Worth considering
Or
Should not be on the staff
It's not just Jack that has come in and done well but Hose too, so anyone doing well in the twos should be worth considering.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 16:50
I was thinking more because he seems to have a specific skill set at 50 overs that means he takes wickets. He goes for a few and I can understand that is a consideration but many out there at the moment are going for a few and look like taking nothing
Mustard has just top edged one that came on him a little quicker than he expected.
If you are waiting for the major announcement then put your anticipation away as it will now not be today.
Mustard has just top edged one that came on him a little quicker than he expected.
If you are waiting for the major announcement then put your anticipation away as it will now not be today.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 16:50
Speaking of folks doing well in the twos?
Eddie Byrom, of King's College, has taken Kent for 179 today. So some encouragement there.
Eddie Byrom, of King's College, has taken Kent for 179 today. So some encouragement there.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 17:13
First century for the seconds. 17 year old Zimbabwean with Irish connections I am reliably told. Well done Eddie.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 17:18
Excellent 1 for 39 off 10 for Mr Leach. Well done sir in the context of this game.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 17:30
Well, some pluses viz Hose, Cooper and Cove's batting plus Leach's bowling.
But, overall, we are going to be well beaten, I'm afraid, with the biggest difference surely being that Hastings displayed far more potency than any other bowler.
But, overall, we are going to be well beaten, I'm afraid, with the biggest difference surely being that Hastings displayed far more potency than any other bowler.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 17:41
... and don't forget Trego's batting.
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 17:54
It sounded as though Jamie O did fairly well with the ball, given how flat the pitch was.
Other seamers sounded as though they posed little threat and were too easy to score off.
Our batting total may have superficially looked really good but these tracks are so flat that, with such a young bowling attack, we somehow need to be getting 350+ in these home games. I suppose, but for Hastings, we may well have got 350. But I wouldn't usually expect this batting line-up to get 350+ even at home.
I'd suggest that moving one or both Overtons up the batting order might be the way to go on these flat tracks to give us more chance of 350+.
...Either that or, if we can, STOP producing plum batting wickets for these games at HQ, so as to give our seamers more of a chance.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015:07:29:17:57:18 by AGod.
Other seamers sounded as though they posed little threat and were too easy to score off.
Our batting total may have superficially looked really good but these tracks are so flat that, with such a young bowling attack, we somehow need to be getting 350+ in these home games. I suppose, but for Hastings, we may well have got 350. But I wouldn't usually expect this batting line-up to get 350+ even at home.
I'd suggest that moving one or both Overtons up the batting order might be the way to go on these flat tracks to give us more chance of 350+.
...Either that or, if we can, STOP producing plum batting wickets for these games at HQ, so as to give our seamers more of a chance.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015:07:29:17:57:18 by AGod.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 17:58
Should be play our home matches at Edgbaston?
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 18:04
Well we did win there with a strong bowling performance last year!
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: cricketharris (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 18:06
Can you imagine it? Collingwood came in , the second ball of the over and scores 15 off the next 5 balls! LoL must have loved it.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 18:08
Now he's playing at his proper level he can do no wrong and will probably bat until the end of time.
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 18:15
I couldn't get down today. Sounds like superb batting by Durham rather than poor bowling.
My choice would be to always try to get 2 or 3 spinners in and today perhaps it could have been Waller and Dockrell or Rehman rather than Gregory and J Overton.
Old Boy!
My choice would be to always try to get 2 or 3 spinners in and today perhaps it could have been Waller and Dockrell or Rehman rather than Gregory and J Overton.
Old Boy!
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Goonie goo goo (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 18:27
we had a bit there and a bit here and a bit more there. They could have chased 400 on that it seems.
Well done to them a far better "team" than we have no doubt. Mr M may not have realised just what a mess we were in when he arrived and it may be long time until we can any sort of mojo back.
Well done to them a far better "team" than we have no doubt. Mr M may not have realised just what a mess we were in when he arrived and it may be long time until we can any sort of mojo back.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: rodders (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 18:34
Well sadly AG got it right and my " too close to call " was never in it.
In truth other than Mr Leach we were just carted all over the park without exception and we thoroughly deserved to lose.
Why do we not play two spinners, why do we constantly produce a pitch aka a batting paradise, when we do why do half our side get out for peanuts, why is TG not playing when he is generally quite economical.
Sorry to the optimists but 50 over is not our salvation this season. In truth notwithstanding some good youngsters we are VERY average in every department of every format of first class cricket this year.
As for Mr Allenbury - what has he brought to SCCC - not a lot in my view.
In truth other than Mr Leach we were just carted all over the park without exception and we thoroughly deserved to lose.
Why do we not play two spinners, why do we constantly produce a pitch aka a batting paradise, when we do why do half our side get out for peanuts, why is TG not playing when he is generally quite economical.
Sorry to the optimists but 50 over is not our salvation this season. In truth notwithstanding some good youngsters we are VERY average in every department of every format of first class cricket this year.
As for Mr Allenbury - what has he brought to SCCC - not a lot in my view.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 18:35
He said in Bristol Post that it 'may have been a bigger job than I realised.'
I think Nosworthy previously said something similar.
Speaking of Nosworthy, Mark Davis claimed on commentary that DN had just told Jamie Overton to 'just bowl as quickly as you can and not worry about anything else.'
Brilliant stuff, Dave!!
I think Nosworthy previously said something similar.
Speaking of Nosworthy, Mark Davis claimed on commentary that DN had just told Jamie Overton to 'just bowl as quickly as you can and not worry about anything else.'
Brilliant stuff, Dave!!
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 18:56
'Got out for peanuts' 300 odd in any 50 over game is NOT peanuts. Before I read Hildreth has 'failed' again can we just put that one to bed please.
He was caught by Borthwick.
It will be one of the best slip catches of the summer and really he shouldn't have got anywhere near it.
Great shame that Cove went as well - Hastings had no idea he had caught it because it was that instinctive. He had to ask if he caught it. The umpires had to ask if he caught it. I think he did and Craig simply waited to check with the rest of the Durham team, once it was confirmed he went on his way with no issue whatsoever.
He was caught by Borthwick.
It will be one of the best slip catches of the summer and really he shouldn't have got anywhere near it.
Great shame that Cove went as well - Hastings had no idea he had caught it because it was that instinctive. He had to ask if he caught it. The umpires had to ask if he caught it. I think he did and Craig simply waited to check with the rest of the Durham team, once it was confirmed he went on his way with no issue whatsoever.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 19:09
Ref the Davis comment. We have heard that Jamie was bowling to orders under DN from a number of different people. Seems there may have been some truth in it. He did well today on a lifeless pitch. Unlucky on a couple of occasions and seriously questioned the batsmen with a couple of very fast ones. But our pace attack on the whole asked very few questions of anyone.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 19:15
Yeah, but we have a conundrum:
Our batting line-up has been short of confidence and form and the score that we got from them today was probably the best that we could hope for from them, given the circumstances. BUT.... it was always likely to, nevertheless, be a score that Durham would have a strong chance of chasing down, IMO.
We seemed to approach our batting sensibly and avoided one of our trademark collapses. But we didn't, ultimately, manage to push quite enough to get a big enough score for us to defend on such a good batting track.
If we push harder, we may collapse in a heap. But if we don't, then we probably won't get totals that we can defend.
If MM wants to pick this bowling line-up for the remaining two home games (rather than adding more spin), then I think we may have to promote one or both Overtons ahead of the likes of Hildreth (and most definitely, Gregory) in our batting line-up to try to get us to 350+.
I do think this team might go better away from home where there is probably more likely to be a bit in conditions for our seamers. And in such conditions we wouldn't have to risk pushing hugely hard with the bat either.
Our batting line-up has been short of confidence and form and the score that we got from them today was probably the best that we could hope for from them, given the circumstances. BUT.... it was always likely to, nevertheless, be a score that Durham would have a strong chance of chasing down, IMO.
We seemed to approach our batting sensibly and avoided one of our trademark collapses. But we didn't, ultimately, manage to push quite enough to get a big enough score for us to defend on such a good batting track.
If we push harder, we may collapse in a heap. But if we don't, then we probably won't get totals that we can defend.
If MM wants to pick this bowling line-up for the remaining two home games (rather than adding more spin), then I think we may have to promote one or both Overtons ahead of the likes of Hildreth (and most definitely, Gregory) in our batting line-up to try to get us to 350+.
I do think this team might go better away from home where there is probably more likely to be a bit in conditions for our seamers. And in such conditions we wouldn't have to risk pushing hugely hard with the bat either.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 19:18
Will I get into trouble if I suggest that Waller plays in the next match and that the man to make way for him is Allenby? I'll leave Botham to choose the captain - I think he has one or two (no actually only one) ideas about that.
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 19:20
Waller should indeed be given a chance, IMO.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 19:21
Why is it a conundrum?
The fact they collapse is the problem.
The way they batted today is the solution.
More of it please, a couple of breaks - two superb catches and we may have had a score over 350. Not saying that was enough but this is so much better and what they have to build on. It's not a problem they have to work around, it's a method they have to get working ALL the time.
The first thing that worked today is keep the ball on the bloody ground unless you are sure you can get it over the infield.
The fact they collapse is the problem.
The way they batted today is the solution.
More of it please, a couple of breaks - two superb catches and we may have had a score over 350. Not saying that was enough but this is so much better and what they have to build on. It's not a problem they have to work around, it's a method they have to get working ALL the time.
The first thing that worked today is keep the ball on the bloody ground unless you are sure you can get it over the infield.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Clarence Parker (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 19:42
Have just returned home after watching our innings and about half of Durham's.
Hose and Abell were playing very steadily, and just beginning to show a little impetus before they both followed each other back to the Pavilion. I was impressed with Hose who plays with a very straight bat and appears to have a good 'cricketing head' on his shoulders. This fact was also apparent when he fielded.
Cooper played sensibly and well, as did Trego who disappointed in so much as he didn't stay longer in partnership with Cooper.
Hildreth (in particular) and Allenby were both out to poor shots. Craig Overton (and to a lesser extent his brother) both played some powerful shots to the boundary, but 327 always looked to be slightly below par on another Taunton motorway.
The bowlers (with the exception of Leach) all took much deserved 'stick' and we never looked like breaking through. It was however difficult to understand why (putting injuries aside) Jack Leach had not appeared in Somerset colours before this season.
With the resources we have, I do not profess to know what changes we can make, so I expect to see an unchanged team v. Worcestershire on Friday.
Hose and Abell were playing very steadily, and just beginning to show a little impetus before they both followed each other back to the Pavilion. I was impressed with Hose who plays with a very straight bat and appears to have a good 'cricketing head' on his shoulders. This fact was also apparent when he fielded.
Cooper played sensibly and well, as did Trego who disappointed in so much as he didn't stay longer in partnership with Cooper.
Hildreth (in particular) and Allenby were both out to poor shots. Craig Overton (and to a lesser extent his brother) both played some powerful shots to the boundary, but 327 always looked to be slightly below par on another Taunton motorway.
The bowlers (with the exception of Leach) all took much deserved 'stick' and we never looked like breaking through. It was however difficult to understand why (putting injuries aside) Jack Leach had not appeared in Somerset colours before this season.
With the resources we have, I do not profess to know what changes we can make, so I expect to see an unchanged team v. Worcestershire on Friday.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 19:50
The Beeb reckoned that Cooper in particular appeared to make a conscious effort to not hit the ball in the air very much. So perhaps he has reflected on some of his earlier dismissals and made adjustments. That would be good to see.
The conundrum is that collapsing has most definitely been a problem and it's good that they avoided it today BUT you also have to put a winning total on the board.
Okay, maybe the batting group might go away tonight and think "If we'd bowled better we'd have won, or if we had better bowlers we'd have won," or what have you? And they might be right?
But the reality is that you have to bat with both the prevailing pitch conditions and the nature of your own bowling attack in mind.
With our attack, on those pitches we have the very difficult balancing act of trying to avoid collapsing whilst also trying to push to 350 or so - not an easy trick to pull off, I think one must admit.
Re: the superb catches. To be honest, had they not caught Hildreth I suspect we may have ended with a lower total because if he'd hung around for a while then that would have been fewer balls for Craig Overton to face and JH very seldom scores at the sort of rate that Craig did today.
The conundrum is that collapsing has most definitely been a problem and it's good that they avoided it today BUT you also have to put a winning total on the board.
Okay, maybe the batting group might go away tonight and think "If we'd bowled better we'd have won, or if we had better bowlers we'd have won," or what have you? And they might be right?
But the reality is that you have to bat with both the prevailing pitch conditions and the nature of your own bowling attack in mind.
With our attack, on those pitches we have the very difficult balancing act of trying to avoid collapsing whilst also trying to push to 350 or so - not an easy trick to pull off, I think one must admit.
Re: the superb catches. To be honest, had they not caught Hildreth I suspect we may have ended with a lower total because if he'd hung around for a while then that would have been fewer balls for Craig Overton to face and JH very seldom scores at the sort of rate that Craig did today.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 20:18
Quote:Clarence Parker
Hose and Abell were playing very steadily, and just beginning to show a little impetus before they both followed each other back to the Pavilion.
I am trying to picture the scene...
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 20:30
i thought it might be something to do with having two innings each... but mirrors is a better explanation, even if smoking is banned on the ground.
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Seventy-eight Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 20:50
We did lose today but I still enjoyed the cricket I watched.
Mark Stoneman, one of the most unlucky bowlers today was Jack Leach, I have forgotten how many times he beat the bat.
Craig Overton hit a straight drive so hard it hit his brother Jamie somewhere on the leg. You could see Craig was concerned about his brother when he put his arm on Jamie's shoulder.
Craig Overton got us to a good score of over three hundred, this is one of his sixes.
I have no photos of stumps being hit today so here is another one of Craig Overton's sixes, he was only one run short of two runs a ball.
Peter Trego was very scratchy when he came into bat, after a while he began to middle the ball, several ball had to be retrieved from the building site including this six.
Tommy Cooper look more at ease playing in the longer game he has more time to play himself in.
I think during this summer we have been encourage by some of the second XI players, Adam Hose is one that should have a good future with Somerset.
A leg glance from Adam hose that added four runs to his score.
I would have liked to have seen Craig Overton come in to bat before Lewis Gregory.
Mark Stoneman, one of the most unlucky bowlers today was Jack Leach, I have forgotten how many times he beat the bat.
Craig Overton hit a straight drive so hard it hit his brother Jamie somewhere on the leg. You could see Craig was concerned about his brother when he put his arm on Jamie's shoulder.
Craig Overton got us to a good score of over three hundred, this is one of his sixes.
I have no photos of stumps being hit today so here is another one of Craig Overton's sixes, he was only one run short of two runs a ball.
Peter Trego was very scratchy when he came into bat, after a while he began to middle the ball, several ball had to be retrieved from the building site including this six.
Tommy Cooper look more at ease playing in the longer game he has more time to play himself in.
I think during this summer we have been encourage by some of the second XI players, Adam Hose is one that should have a good future with Somerset.
A leg glance from Adam hose that added four runs to his score.
I would have liked to have seen Craig Overton come in to bat before Lewis Gregory.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Roger ivanhoe (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 20:57
I think that we might see Tim Groenewald in for Lewis Gregory on Friday,
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 21:47
The only fact AG is that Hildreth was out to a superb catch. Everything else you expected to happen had he not been is just hypothetical fluff
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 21:50
As was your suggestion that 'we msy have made 350 if not for teo brilliant catches.'
Or are you claiming that there was something factual about that?
Or are you claiming that there was something factual about that?
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 29/07/2015 22:03
Nope. That's why I used the word 'may'. 
I was also thinking more of Cove than Hildreth who would have scored 4 more had Hastings not got in the way.
I was also thinking more of Cove than Hildreth who would have scored 4 more had Hastings not got in the way.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: ChenorTom (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2015 03:35
Perhaps its a strange thing to say but I don't think we should be so upset with that result. Durham have won 9 white-ball games in a row now and are a perfect model of maximising individual and team capability. They are a very good team and a long way ahead of us in their development.
Hose did well, TC also; to his credit with good discipline, and I was actually very impressed with Joverton's economy (looks like he gained something from persistent T20 selection) and JL bowled some great stuff.
Its important that Somerset learn to defend good totals rather than praying that they can always bat second. If losing this game means that the young bowlers take something from the experience for the future, thats fine by me. Its something that needs a little thought.
Since we obviously play half our games at Taunton we need to be better in all formats at coming up with a strategy for the pitch. We frequently seem to lose shortened games, games in which we win the toss and games in which we are in relative control or at least very much in the game, such as this one. Now i know that the strategy was take wickets and it just didn't come off. But, sometimes I get the impression that Somerset let games drift if Plan A doesn't work.
I do find it curious that Allenby never comes close to bowling his allowance. I don't especially want to see him or anyone dropped, but if he isn't scoring runs and isn't bowling overs it is a legitimate question to ask if hes worth his place.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015:07:30:06:08:45 by ChenorTom.
Hose did well, TC also; to his credit with good discipline, and I was actually very impressed with Joverton's economy (looks like he gained something from persistent T20 selection) and JL bowled some great stuff.
Its important that Somerset learn to defend good totals rather than praying that they can always bat second. If losing this game means that the young bowlers take something from the experience for the future, thats fine by me. Its something that needs a little thought.
Since we obviously play half our games at Taunton we need to be better in all formats at coming up with a strategy for the pitch. We frequently seem to lose shortened games, games in which we win the toss and games in which we are in relative control or at least very much in the game, such as this one. Now i know that the strategy was take wickets and it just didn't come off. But, sometimes I get the impression that Somerset let games drift if Plan A doesn't work.
I do find it curious that Allenby never comes close to bowling his allowance. I don't especially want to see him or anyone dropped, but if he isn't scoring runs and isn't bowling overs it is a legitimate question to ask if hes worth his place.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015:07:30:06:08:45 by ChenorTom.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Grizzers (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2015 04:48
Curates egg of a performance by all accounts.
Have to admire Durham. Their tenacity & attitude is terrific, and their ability to achieve more than the sum of their parts is something we can only envy it seems.
Oh for someone like Collingwood to lead us !
Grizzzly
Have to admire Durham. Their tenacity & attitude is terrific, and their ability to achieve more than the sum of their parts is something we can only envy it seems.
Oh for someone like Collingwood to lead us !
Grizzzly
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2015 08:49
Realistically, their overseas player was the difference between the two teams, which has added poingnancy given that ours has had to be sent home.
We've effectively been playing with one hand tied behind our backs all-season due to having no effective overseas player.
It is absolutely vital that MM makes his first successful signing for the club to fill that role for the final five CC games.
We've effectively been playing with one hand tied behind our backs all-season due to having no effective overseas player.
It is absolutely vital that MM makes his first successful signing for the club to fill that role for the final five CC games.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: rodders (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2015 09:03
Actually Grockle I said that half the side got out for peanuts which is true if you look at the scorecard !
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2015 09:38
Yes and the other half didn't which is also true if you look at the scorecard!
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Roger ivanhoe (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2015 09:40
Quote:AGod
It is absolutely vital that MM makes his first successful signing for the club to fill that role for the final five CC games.
If the club do make a signing, you get not guarantees of success with that the person.
Most of the posters on this site (including myself) were happy with the signing of Abdur Rehman for the current season based on his past performances so feel it is unjust to blame MM for the failure of the player.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2015 09:50
Most of the posters on this site probably didn't delve too much into Rehman's recent form, Roger.
Which is fine because we are not paid to do so.
It's possible that Rehman was still in excellent form right up until the moment that he re-joined SCCC. But with him having been discarded by Pak despite the fact that the likes of Ajmal were banned from bowling, it is probably more likely that his game was already on the wane before he came here.
Ultimately any DoC will be judged, in part, on the performances of the players that he brings to a club, whether that is 'fair,' or not.
So far, MM has acquired five players. It's too early to fully judge Bates at CC level and far too early to judge Hose in any form other than second XI.
Rehman failed. Allenby and Cooper have yet to cover themselves in glory.
MM needs to get this one right.
Edited to say that, technically, I suppose MM has acquired six players if one includes RvDM who has yet to play for us under MM.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015:07:30:09:55:29 by AGod.
Which is fine because we are not paid to do so.
It's possible that Rehman was still in excellent form right up until the moment that he re-joined SCCC. But with him having been discarded by Pak despite the fact that the likes of Ajmal were banned from bowling, it is probably more likely that his game was already on the wane before he came here.
Ultimately any DoC will be judged, in part, on the performances of the players that he brings to a club, whether that is 'fair,' or not.
So far, MM has acquired five players. It's too early to fully judge Bates at CC level and far too early to judge Hose in any form other than second XI.
Rehman failed. Allenby and Cooper have yet to cover themselves in glory.
MM needs to get this one right.
Edited to say that, technically, I suppose MM has acquired six players if one includes RvDM who has yet to play for us under MM.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015:07:30:09:55:29 by AGod.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2015 10:01
Roger, I'm afraid IMO that was always going to happen if he failed as some appear not to have welcomed the appointment of MM in the first place. Also evidenced by the posts concerning our overseas signing where his removal is welcomed as a good decision but of course one that is made too late.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2015 10:05
Sorry, NF, but recruitment is part of the DoC's brief.
One could turn around and say that, in every case, if a player fails it's the player's own fault.
But the logical extension of that position is the "Shane Warne," view of the Coach/DoC figure i.e. "All they are good for is sitting on to get you to a game."
In which case there would be little point in MM (or anybody else) occupying the DoC role and we'd just let Marcus and the players get on with it..
One could turn around and say that, in every case, if a player fails it's the player's own fault.
But the logical extension of that position is the "Shane Warne," view of the Coach/DoC figure i.e. "All they are good for is sitting on to get you to a game."
In which case there would be little point in MM (or anybody else) occupying the DoC role and we'd just let Marcus and the players get on with it..
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2015 10:12
Bates has more than adequately fulfilled the role he was brought in for, the question is whether we are willing to sustain a specialist keeper who does not bat. However if anyone was in any doubt about his keeping then the run out during the Derbyshire match was the best example I've seen of the difference between a batsman who keeps and a keeper.
Only a skilled keeper would have made that. Bates assessed that the ball would not come over the stumps and therefore placed himself one arms length from them, took the ball and broke the stumps in one movement - really skilful. Had he been forced to go collect the ball and return to his position the batsman would have been in, he didn't and the batsman was out by a mile.
I'm not sure you can add Hose to MM's 'signings' Adam seems to have appeared rather than been scouted by Matthew. He has arrived through the seconds filtering process and all the DoC has done is to agree a 14 month contract on the recommendation of the people dealing with the seconds. Could be a good idea because he looks like something.
I was also pleased at the Rehman signing but as you say we probably didn't delve far enough into what he'd been doing for 3 years.
Allenby is here for what he is doing now and not for what he has been doing in the CC1 - MM, by his own admission expected more from the core unit at the club and they have not provided it. That means signings he made may not have been able to slot into the structure the way he wanted them to. Both Cooper and Allenby have played out of position dealing with problems and time frames that weren't expected so it's difficult to assess their worth to the club - that may take until the end of the season.
I saw patience from Cooper yesterday for the first time. If that is what he can do then he could still be of value but NOT as a number 3 Championship batsman.
The most striking thing yesterday from the batsman was that after nearly two years of us saying it they KEPT THE BALL ON THE GROUND.
Would MM have signed his planned 3 had he known then what he knows now? Well obviously not one of them and possibly not Cooper - though we were all pretty pleased about that at the time but not as a number 3. Allenby - most definitely and not as his mate. I think Jim may very well be a better signing than we presently give him credit for though again patience is a virtue he may have to learn to use a little more.
Only a skilled keeper would have made that. Bates assessed that the ball would not come over the stumps and therefore placed himself one arms length from them, took the ball and broke the stumps in one movement - really skilful. Had he been forced to go collect the ball and return to his position the batsman would have been in, he didn't and the batsman was out by a mile.
I'm not sure you can add Hose to MM's 'signings' Adam seems to have appeared rather than been scouted by Matthew. He has arrived through the seconds filtering process and all the DoC has done is to agree a 14 month contract on the recommendation of the people dealing with the seconds. Could be a good idea because he looks like something.
I was also pleased at the Rehman signing but as you say we probably didn't delve far enough into what he'd been doing for 3 years.
Allenby is here for what he is doing now and not for what he has been doing in the CC1 - MM, by his own admission expected more from the core unit at the club and they have not provided it. That means signings he made may not have been able to slot into the structure the way he wanted them to. Both Cooper and Allenby have played out of position dealing with problems and time frames that weren't expected so it's difficult to assess their worth to the club - that may take until the end of the season.
I saw patience from Cooper yesterday for the first time. If that is what he can do then he could still be of value but NOT as a number 3 Championship batsman.
The most striking thing yesterday from the batsman was that after nearly two years of us saying it they KEPT THE BALL ON THE GROUND.
Would MM have signed his planned 3 had he known then what he knows now? Well obviously not one of them and possibly not Cooper - though we were all pretty pleased about that at the time but not as a number 3. Allenby - most definitely and not as his mate. I think Jim may very well be a better signing than we presently give him credit for though again patience is a virtue he may have to learn to use a little more.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2015 10:40
I bet DH went blue in the face telling our guys to try and keep the ball on the ground as much as possible.
By some accounts that, more than any other single thing, was the most important and key attribute of Don Bradman's batting. Reportedly, he almost always hit the ball along the ground!
It was very good to hear our guys - especially Cooper - apparently making a real effort to do that.
As for the core and its effect on the roles of Cooper and Allenby?
I don't think there can be any question that MM must have been disappointed with Rehman in all formats and Alf in T20.
Otherwise? MM must have know he wasn't getting the Marcus of circa 2009!? So I don't think he can be more than mildly disappointed with Tres, at most, in the CC unless he had unrealistic expectations.
He can't have been disappointed with Hildreth's start to the CC season.
Batting wise, I'm not sure who else he was relying on, the failure of whom, can have impacted on the roles of Cooper and Allenby?
He probably had high hopes for Tom Abell - but Tom is doing fine.
Other than that, that leaves only Myburgh. If MM had done his research he'd know that JM was a very pleasant surprise in 2014 but I'd be surprised if MM had been expecting amazing things from JM this season?
I think it's more that NC left and CK did not continue - but the signings of Cooper and Allenby were, presumably, made in part in reaction to the departure of NC.
By some accounts that, more than any other single thing, was the most important and key attribute of Don Bradman's batting. Reportedly, he almost always hit the ball along the ground!
It was very good to hear our guys - especially Cooper - apparently making a real effort to do that.
As for the core and its effect on the roles of Cooper and Allenby?
I don't think there can be any question that MM must have been disappointed with Rehman in all formats and Alf in T20.
Otherwise? MM must have know he wasn't getting the Marcus of circa 2009!? So I don't think he can be more than mildly disappointed with Tres, at most, in the CC unless he had unrealistic expectations.
He can't have been disappointed with Hildreth's start to the CC season.
Batting wise, I'm not sure who else he was relying on, the failure of whom, can have impacted on the roles of Cooper and Allenby?
He probably had high hopes for Tom Abell - but Tom is doing fine.
Other than that, that leaves only Myburgh. If MM had done his research he'd know that JM was a very pleasant surprise in 2014 but I'd be surprised if MM had been expecting amazing things from JM this season?
I think it's more that NC left and CK did not continue - but the signings of Cooper and Allenby were, presumably, made in part in reaction to the departure of NC.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: brt1919 (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2015 10:59
Don't think many of us had foreseen the minimal benefits so far this season from our overseas signing. Certainly not that Rehman wouldn't always make the team even. Or indeed for that matter that Gayle in only a handful of games would have done significantly more than the others - LR was ok I guess but not massively more than that
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2015 11:07
I think the disappointment was at Alex not going on and filling a front place and possibly hoping more from Pete T but also the real loss of CK. Tom also took time to fire. I myself am surprised at the fact that few here rate Johann's contribution. I don't think he was ever expected to be anything more than filler and he has given us the top end of that most of the time. He has been more adaptable than I think we expected and done what has been asked of him more often than not. However his early ton possibly promised more to MM than was going to be provided.
I'm not sure it was the abilities that MM mis-assessed I think it was the fragility of the unit confidence at Somerset and the 'headless chickeness' of the side when they got into trouble. Something we have seen before but maybe something he did not expect from a veteran core.
Anyway. He knows what he has now.
I'm not sure it was the abilities that MM mis-assessed I think it was the fragility of the unit confidence at Somerset and the 'headless chickeness' of the side when they got into trouble. Something we have seen before but maybe something he did not expect from a veteran core.
Anyway. He knows what he has now.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Clarence Parker (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2015 12:30
I was surprised at the time, and said so on here, at the signing of Abdul Rehman.
Not least because I considered that the role for which he had been signed was adequately covered by the continued presence of Messrs. Leach and Dockrell.
Also it had been 3 years since Rehman had played a handful of end - of - season matches in which he admittedly excelled by bowling on some previously used pitches.
I knew nothing of his exploits in Pakistan cricket during the intervening period, but somehow his signing did not gel with me. I doubted very much that he could return similar bowling figures throughout a long English season.
However, I did not anticipate that his contributions to the Somerset cause would be so lack lustre and disappointing.
Sad that it worked out the way it has, but hopefully the club's management will have learned something from it.
Not least because I considered that the role for which he had been signed was adequately covered by the continued presence of Messrs. Leach and Dockrell.
Also it had been 3 years since Rehman had played a handful of end - of - season matches in which he admittedly excelled by bowling on some previously used pitches.
I knew nothing of his exploits in Pakistan cricket during the intervening period, but somehow his signing did not gel with me. I doubted very much that he could return similar bowling figures throughout a long English season.
However, I did not anticipate that his contributions to the Somerset cause would be so lack lustre and disappointing.
Sad that it worked out the way it has, but hopefully the club's management will have learned something from it.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2015 12:40
One wonders whether the desire to have somebody that was available for an entire season out-weighed other considerations.
I think we could all understand the desire to find somebody that would be available throughout, rather than chopping and changing.
I think we could all understand the desire to find somebody that would be available throughout, rather than chopping and changing.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2015 13:26
Gosh if we had all been as clever as you CP.
Surely the appointment of AR was welcomed exactly because the spinning option had NOT been very well occupied by the three spinners we had at the end of 2014. Max would not be trusted in four day games. George had been ineffective (and would be away for the whole of July) and Jack was still a secondary option at the start of his career (given that spinner development is expected to end in the early 20's).
Surely the appointment of AR was welcomed exactly because the spinning option had NOT been very well occupied by the three spinners we had at the end of 2014. Max would not be trusted in four day games. George had been ineffective (and would be away for the whole of July) and Jack was still a secondary option at the start of his career (given that spinner development is expected to end in the early 20's).
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: chunkyinargyll (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2015 13:31
Quote:Grockle
Bates has more than adequately fulfilled the role he was brought in for, the question is whether we are willing to sustain a specialist keeper who does not bat. However if anyone was in any doubt about his keeping then the run out during the Derbyshire match was the best example I've seen of the difference between a batsman who keeps and a keeper.
Only a skilled keeper would have made that. Bates assessed that the ball would not come over the stumps and therefore placed himself one arms length from them, took the ball and broke the stumps in one movement - really skilful. Had he been forced to go collect the ball and return to his position the batsman would have been in, he didn't and the batsman was out by a mile.
Well, some of us were saying that the moment he was signed, Grockle.
I think you were one of those who needed a lot of convincing at the time- along the lines of, 'If he's that good, why did Hampshire release him?'
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2015 13:33
Sorry Chunky I was still in Rehman conversation with CP and talking to a guy from the National Grid (don't ask)
I now realise you were talking about Bates. Yes I certainly needed convincing and still do. But he is a specialist keeper - not the saviour of Somerset or the greatest keeper ever known but the wicket he got against Derbyshire was definitely a keeper's wicket.
So, as a keeper he has fulfilled the requirement. As a replacement for Barrow, at the time, I could see no point because I expected Alex to find some form. He hasn't so Bates may as well play. Regan has not been particularly impressive in the seconds so may not make the grade. Again, the question is - as I pointed out - whether Bates can be kept as a non batting keeper? How many sides these days have a keeper coming in at Number 11?
Sorry for the lapse. Must try to not do two things at the time.
(Edited because of error)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015:07:30:13:51:48 by Grockle.
I now realise you were talking about Bates. Yes I certainly needed convincing and still do. But he is a specialist keeper - not the saviour of Somerset or the greatest keeper ever known but the wicket he got against Derbyshire was definitely a keeper's wicket.
So, as a keeper he has fulfilled the requirement. As a replacement for Barrow, at the time, I could see no point because I expected Alex to find some form. He hasn't so Bates may as well play. Regan has not been particularly impressive in the seconds so may not make the grade. Again, the question is - as I pointed out - whether Bates can be kept as a non batting keeper? How many sides these days have a keeper coming in at Number 11?
Sorry for the lapse. Must try to not do two things at the time.
(Edited because of error)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015:07:30:13:51:48 by Grockle.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2015 13:36
By the account of the Beeb yesterday, he's been told he needs runs here if he wants a contract for next season.
The shortage of same was clearly the reason that he got the chop at Hants.
I really do think, though, that as we have no non-batsman amongst our bowlers then we can afford to keep him if we are suitably impressed with his glovework.
Another way of looking at it is to say that we already have enough items on our likely shopping list for next season without having to find a new keeper too.
The shortage of same was clearly the reason that he got the chop at Hants.
I really do think, though, that as we have no non-batsman amongst our bowlers then we can afford to keep him if we are suitably impressed with his glovework.
Another way of looking at it is to say that we already have enough items on our likely shopping list for next season without having to find a new keeper too.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2015 13:41
Some of us were saying we should sign him before he was actually signed, Chunky.
And there was certainly a measure of dis-belief that he could be a particularly good gloveman given that Hants had dumped him.
And there was certainly a measure of dis-belief that he could be a particularly good gloveman given that Hants had dumped him.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: chunkyinargyll (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2015 13:43
Yes- I was one of them, AGod.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2015 13:52
Have revised my reply to you Chunky sorry about that.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2015 14:03
Personally, I don't believe that what other sides do should matter.
It's about the balance of our side.
I would never want to see an XI with 3 or 4 guys that average in single figures, or what have you.
But if you've got one guy that averages 14 or 15 or something (which might be all Bates is capable of at CC1 level) then it should not matter whether that guy is a bowler or a 'keeper, provided that they are very good at their primary role.
It's about the balance of our side.
I would never want to see an XI with 3 or 4 guys that average in single figures, or what have you.
But if you've got one guy that averages 14 or 15 or something (which might be all Bates is capable of at CC1 level) then it should not matter whether that guy is a bowler or a 'keeper, provided that they are very good at their primary role.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Clarence Parker (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2015 14:52
"Gosh if we had all been as clever as you CP."
I don't recall you challenging my opinions when they were originally made at the start of the season, Grockle.
Also, I would disagree with you when you claim that "spinner development is expected to end in the early 20's". A spin bowler takes longer than any other cricketer to develop IMO, so I would not expect Jack Leach to be the finished article for a few years yet.
As far as Bates is concerned, do we know for sure that he was released by Hampshire solely on account of his batting capabilities? I am not saying that this is necessarily true in the case of Bates, but some cricketers have been known to be released by their counties for entirely non - cricketing reasons - Somerset included on a few occasions.
I don't recall you challenging my opinions when they were originally made at the start of the season, Grockle.
Also, I would disagree with you when you claim that "spinner development is expected to end in the early 20's". A spin bowler takes longer than any other cricketer to develop IMO, so I would not expect Jack Leach to be the finished article for a few years yet.
As far as Bates is concerned, do we know for sure that he was released by Hampshire solely on account of his batting capabilities? I am not saying that this is necessarily true in the case of Bates, but some cricketers have been known to be released by their counties for entirely non - cricketing reasons - Somerset included on a few occasions.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Shepton Paul 2 (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2015 14:57
I think it really was lack of runs, CP, I've certainly never heard anything else even hinted at. I continue to state that I think Bates could be in our side next year at 9 or 10, with a number of all rounders above him - as I think AG has also said.
Agree with you developing spinners - I had thought Grockle was being sarcastic, tho may be wrong.
Agree with you developing spinners - I had thought Grockle was being sarcastic, tho may be wrong.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2015 15:12
I don't recall whether I did or not at the time either CP.
I am amazed at how spot on you got it though. Well done.
I am amazed at how spot on you got it though. Well done.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: rodders (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2015 18:55
Pedantic as always Grockle - my statement that half the side got peanuts was factually correct. I never said that the side as a whole got peanuts as they obviously did not. Sometimes you really do twist posts to entertain yourself I fear. Cue the usual Grockle knows the English language and can read it and understand it better than anyone else on the board reply.
Re: Durham 50
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 30/07/2015 19:37
I can't be pedantic I'm really not good enough I can read but I am by no means the best poster in terms of understanding the English language by a considerable margin.
But you haven't had a whinge for a while Rodders so I'll give you that one.
The good thing was the 'peanuts' weren't up the front end and one of them went to a stormer of a catch. So much better. Just a pity you look for the poor rather than crediting the good when they try and get it right.
Now had you gone for the bowling I might have gone with you.
Try not to let it play on your mind too long. You have more to find fault with by tomorrow I'm sure.
But you haven't had a whinge for a while Rodders so I'll give you that one.
The good thing was the 'peanuts' weren't up the front end and one of them went to a stormer of a catch. So much better. Just a pity you look for the poor rather than crediting the good when they try and get it right.
Now had you gone for the bowling I might have gone with you.
Try not to let it play on your mind too long. You have more to find fault with by tomorrow I'm sure.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.