Solbear wrote:

A decent effort but not quite good enough; interesting and somewhat ironic that the two main contributors with the bat today were deemed unfit for T20 under previous management, just a shame that one was for the opposition.

to be fair to management Rhodes wasn't just 'deemed' unfit, his T20 record for us was mediocre. I've trotted his stats out on here before. Barnard was the far more glaring selection mistake last year, who is a better bowler and IMO a better T20 batsman with much better SR than rhodes

It is impossible to understand how the management works behind our T20 efforts. Yet another game goes by where we should have come back from a tuff away fixture with a win. We seem so unbothered, bad luck fellas, good effort. I am sure, if they put some focus and effort in we would do far better. Yesterday, please tell me how we did not select our T20 specialist Gleeson and instead opted for Miles who has yet to play a T20 game this season. Gleeson is on a contract for the T20, he has only just become available following injury, bowled lovely on 1st appearance and then not selected, If we had picked Gleeson we would have won yesterday. Gleeson bowling 4 overs would have easily turned over a 8 run defeat. Just Why?

Things like the omission of Gleeson and Moeen needs to be explained to the supporters. The total lack of communication shows complete disdain to the paying public.
I can only assume they didn't want to risk Gleeson's hamstring so soon after Friday and Moeen could not be bothered to make the trip.

On the selection side of things, our T20 campaign is so muddled and we haven't found a winning formula or settled on set plans of how to approach this competition. Yates now in at 6... the ever expensive Miles coming in from the seconds... Lintott doing the hokey cokey... Moeen turning up to fulfil his contract... Barnard given the final over to bowl. Its a mess.
We are sleepwalking through this competition and will be found out. A big week beckons.

A lot of posters on here were calling for Mo to be dropped immediatetly so don't think there can be too many complaints on that. Gleeson is a little confusing though, unless he is on graduated return to play or something. Yesterday's side did look very ad-hoc overall, Yates and Latham really shouldn't be playing in the same side and it leaves the top six short of firepower. I get it if Yates will drop in for Latham when Latham leaves (does and will he leave soon??) I think the bowling overall is alright but we are, no matter which way you look at it, an explosive batsman short without Mo. I'm not sure a Bethell return will happen, unfortunately, but that would solve it.

Overall though, I sort of get the feeling that not qualifying for the QFs and having experimented a bit is in line with the clubs ambitions this year. If we sneak 4th, get Hants away and get battered in the QF, it really just continues the run of form that got Robinson sacked. It's just that any experimentation or introduction of academy players this year hasn't really happened, at least successfully, either.

If you are using an agressive attacking player as one of the openers, it is essential that that player does not, repeatedly, get out playing stupid and inappropriate shots for the game situation. If he does, as seems to be the case, he should be replaced.
In any workplace, if a senior employee is allowed to consistantly under perform, it has a demorallising effect on the rest of the workforce. This goes a long way to explaining why key players have chosen to move elsewhere &/or retire from the professional game.

Unless there are unpublished fitness issues, the selection is illogical at times and shows a lack of clear planning, and understanding of the opponents.

Nothing coming out of club about Mo or Gleeson .
Nothing on website about news of squad ,on who’s available for games ,match review on opponents .
Not sure who is responsible for the information given to supporters /members on the above ,before it was Mark Robinson giving us some info ,but nothing now .

Specifically about yesterday's game, Chester le Street is such a difficult ground to chase on with the large boundaries, one of the keys to playing there is turning 1's into 2's and we just didn't do that well enough, particularly in the first half of our innings. Game management let us down.

Post #25 - not sure I understand describing Moeen as an explosive batsman. Since he returned he has done very little to even justify his place and, to me, gives the impression of just turning up for a final pay cheque.
Latham, to me, has been a big disappointment and hardly justifies being selected ahead of Yates.

Latham's T20 record was something I looked at before he played his first game and it is not very impressive so why he is at the top of the order where we need to take advantage of the 'Powerplay', is beyond me. Moeen has not been the player we saw when he played against us for Worcestershire. He appeared to relish making big match-winning scores but has not really got going for us.

Highest T20 strike rate of any of our top order with the exception of Bethell (who has a smaller sample size). It way well be true to say he isn't performing right now, however. Overall point still holds though, if Mo ain't there we still need a fast scoring batsman.

LeicesterExile wrote:

Post #25 - not sure I understand describing Moeen as an explosive batsman. Since he returned he has done very little to even justify his place and, to me, gives the impression of just turning up for a final pay cheque.
Latham, to me, has been a big disappointment and hardly justifies being selected ahead of Yates.

Tayls79 wrote:

Highest T20 strike rate of any of our top order with the exception of Bethell (who has a smaller sample size). It way well be true to say he isn't performing right now, however. Overall point still holds though, if Mo ain't there we still need a fast scoring batsman.

LeicesterExile wrote:

Post #25 - not sure I understand describing Moeen as an explosive batsman. Since he returned he has done very little to even justify his place and, to me, gives the impression of just turning up for a final pay cheque.
Latham, to me, has been a big disappointment and hardly justifies being selected ahead of Yates.

whilst his career SR isn't that good it really struck my eye that Barnard's has been just over 160 this year, what a fantastic all round cricketer he is

Tayls79 wrote:

Highest T20 strike rate of any of our top order with the exception of Bethell (who has a smaller sample size). It way well be true to say he isn't performing right now, however. Overall point still holds though, if Mo ain't there we still need a fast scoring batsman.

LeicesterExile wrote:

Post #25 - not sure I understand describing Moeen as an explosive batsman. Since he returned he has done very little to even justify his place and, to me, gives the impression of just turning up for a final pay cheque.
Latham, to me, has been a big disappointment and hardly justifies being selected ahead of Yates.

Looking at the stats for this season - Moeen has played 8 innings scored 123 runs at a strike rate of 135 whereas Barnard has played 10 innings scored 233 at a strike rate of 163. Some difference.

At Latham's scoring rate, we would get an average score of 156 if everyone batted at the same rate. That isn't going to get us very far which suggests everyone needs to 'Get a move on'.

In terms of our younger players, apart from Kai Smith, they are just not given a fair run in the team. As soon as an overseas player or an experienced player are fit again, the youngster is always the one to drop out.

Look at Taz Ali. I thought he showed real promise in our first two games of the season, first up against Sussex taking 3 wickets in their first innings and another in the second. In our second match he took 4-66 in the first innings against Durham. Both these games were played on pitches that didn't give much help to the spinner, yet i thought he bowled well in both matches. We had a good start in our first 2 games, winning one & drawing the other, but in our third game of the season we played Notts and Taz was left out to accommodate the return of OHD. Fair enough, but why not drop Fernando who was unimpressive in the first two matches and a complete waste of money for the 3 matches he played in. As soon as he departed then Beau Webster came in, so what chance does Taz have in a team that doesn't commit to playing it's youngsters for more than 2 matches at a time?

As for Che Simmons, what is the point of picking our quickest bowler and then waiting until 2.30 to bowl him? What is the plan here? What must Che be thinking? I bet he would love to open the bowling or at least be first-change bowler. I find it hard to believe they even think about picking crocks like Rushworth over Simmons. It wouldn't be so bad if we were challenging for the championship but we're not, we are a mid-table team so give the youngsters a run in the team for the last 5 matches of the season. If they prove their worth then great, but even if they don't it would still be good to see Westwood showing some faith in them and at least give them a chance.

Personally I think Westwood was a bad choice as coach but we really didn't help ourselves leaving Robinson in post so long after last season ended.

Devon Bear, you are right about the selections and you wonder at what point does a young player think he will only get picked if no alternative can be chosen instead. A genuine fast bowler like Simmons should also get some overs with a new ball, if I was an opener, the last thing I'd want first up is to face some pace and England do the same with Wood, wait until a batsman is set and then bring the pace on when the shine is off the ball.