I can’t recall a single occasion that I’ve seen when there was as obvious an occurrence of no shot offered that was still given as leg byes as that one today. Happy to be proven wrong though.

I've seen the odd example where it's not clear whether a genuine shot is being played; but I don't recall ever seeing umpires allow a leg bye in instances like the OH-D drama where he obviously wasn't playing a shot.

Interesting that in Dobells’ report of the match he comments on the number of extras and says ‘such statistics explain why Warwickshire are in the market for a new keeper’

Inside-edge wrote:

Interesting that in Dobells’ report of the match he comments on the number of extras and says ‘such statistics explain why Warwickshire are in the market for a new keeper’

Yes, I noticed that, also that neither George nor his sub-editor know how to spell Dan Mousley's name. (OK, they did get the Dan part right.)
I presume that he may be talking about the Ben Cox rumour.

GerryShedd wrote:

I've seen the odd example where it's not clear whether a genuine shot is being played; but I don't recall ever seeing umpires allow a leg bye in instances like the OH-D drama where he obviously wasn't playing a shot.

It literally happened this game, Woakes (I think?) on Crocombe day 2. Think people are misunderstanding me, definitely the right call yesterday, id just like to see umpires enforce that law all the time. Hardly something to go life and death over though...

Inside-edge wrote:

Interesting that in Dobells’ report of the match he comments on the number of extras and says ‘such statistics explain why Warwickshire are in the market for a new keeper’

Yes, we all knew on here we were in for a new keeper, the cats out the bag now though. It is a real problem for us, the keeper situation. Yesterday was the first time where I thought should we actually just give Kai the gloves and accept the drop off in keeping because he'll give more runs than Davies? Or should we keep the better keeper in and hope Davies can somehow cobble the odd innings together until we try and addrsssthis properly during the off season?

As long as I’ve played cricket and at every level I’ve played and watched that run wouldn’t have been allowed whatever the state of the game.

Averages after the Sussex game

https://countycrickethub.net/team-averages.html?teamid=16&comp=1&year=2026

There is no logical reason to select two specialist batsmen that are averaging less than 17 in championship games.

Malik should be considering himself very lucky indeed to have been given a two year extension. Remember he is 29, benefitted from a private school education, at one of the top cricket schools, and has spent about 10 years around professional county cricket. He's now at an age where it is highly unlikely he is going to improve into a consistant high performer at first team level.

Not only is Davies failing to score runs, but his batting is lacking any fluidity or timing and is actually painful to watch. His lack of batting form is affecting his wicket keeping, which was very sloppy in hte Sussex game. There is also the psycological affect on the rest of the squad of management contimuing selecting a player that is failing without any consequences. It really is time for him to be omitted from the side, and even allowed to leave if some other county would want him.

Big gripe of mine, it’s been a whole day - why do we not have an interview with Westwood or a player on the website?!