People are overreacting.

I can't of think anyone who has been on such a sustained run of bad form that they actually should be dropped. Indeed we don't need wholesale changes to the squad at all. To say this season is similar to last season is way wide of the mark. Last season we struggled to bowl sides out and barely won a game. When we batted we batted so slowly that even when we batted 100 overs we might have only made 240. This season we've bowled sides out, put up bigger totals and actually won some games. Won away at Hampshire, we don't do that often. Beat a strong Essex side at home. Beat Kent on a flat pitch with the useless Kookaburra ball, a huge win, wouldn't have won that last season. We were capable of none of this last season.

In terms of the squad after losing Sibley and letting Lamb leave we are probably a back up batter light but prior to this game. Bethell has done quite well particularly when you factor in what he's been exposed to i.e Essex away on a raging turner and S. Harmer. Players like Bethell need to be given opportunity, they won't always do well, he's had 1 bad game in a game where many batters didn't get a score. Barnard is getting criticism but remember he wasn't exactly a heavy wicket taker at Worcestershire though yes he has had a poor 3 games with the bat and he could do with a score. He balances the side, a 4th seamer who can run through some tight overs and maybe nick us a wicket, he has done this for us. He's never gonna run through sides, he's never done that.

One area that does need addressing at the moment is game management. That's 2 weeks running now where we've had a significant collapse right at the start of the day. Today's was totally avoidable, Hain getting out like he did to de Caires exposed the lower middle order to the new ball against fresh bowlers. Mousley getting out yesterday afternoon was huge in the context of this game, Middlesex were starting to look a little bit demoralised and were dying to get off for the forecasted rain. So for Mousley to get out the way he did, after playing so well, with the field set the way it was (no slips in, Middlesex were in total defensive mode), was incredibly frustrating/naive. Had we have started today with Hain and Mousley, 2 well set batters at the crease against the new ball, today could have gone a different way. Maybe.

Game management.

Losing to a fairly poor side in virtually two days and people are questioning some of the players/management. I would not call that overreacting, its not accepting average performances.

Successful teams don't accept mediocrity. Dropping a player or two isn't a big issue, they can come back from it.

You've lost me here. Mediocre this season?

Who, outside of the XI who played here, could have made a difference to the outcome of this game had they been selected instead? Considering we lost an absolutely enormous toss Tuesday morning.

You say players can come back from being dropped, they can also come back from a bad performance.

Too many players missing, particularly the bowling attack which is threadbare. Really miss Norwell who hasn't bowled at all this season. Even our best bowler Rushworth is now out with a hamstring problem. Even so, after all the good work yesterday, the collapse was poor today.

Andy wrote:

You've lost me here. Mediocre this season?

Who, outside of the XI who played here, could have made a difference to the outcome of this game had they been selected instead? Considering we lost an absolutely enormous toss Tuesday morning.

You say players can come back from being dropped, they can also come back from a bad performance.

Where did I say mediocre this season ? That was a mediocre performance. Its been a average season so far.

As I mentioned in my first post, the issue we have is squad depth. Hence the issue we have is that we can't replace people easily. Surrey have a big squad and can replace players struggling for form if required. Someone like Davies (in my opinion) would benefit from competition.

I do think our Batsmen have been fairly mediocre. Hain has carried our red ball and white ball side all season.

I have zero criticism of our bowlers I think we've had a great attack for years.

I bet us and Surrey have used the same amount of players this season in the Championship. Roughly.

Difference between us and Surrey performance wise this season is that they get way more runs from their lower order than we do. JOverton, Abbott, Clark, Lawes etc are all decent run getters down the list, a different one puts theyre hand up each game.

They get quality overseas players in too all season.

Id imagine their batters averages aren't too much different to ours. I've gone out on limb there though admittedly.

Whatever reason for the defeat, it was a bit of a shock as Middlesex have so far had a dreadful season but I suppose by that measure, they were due a good game somewhere along the line but just a pity it was us. Not impressed after watching the first 2 days and after 20-6 when I arrived, it would take a real turnaround to comeback from that. Surrey are a bit like we were in 1994, Lara apart, no one could see why we did so well as we appeared to have journeymen as opposed to stars. On paper, Surrey do not look as strong as other sides but their bowling doesn't seem to require players taking 5 wicket hauls as everyone seems to chip in. Hampshire's first 3 are better but their whole team lacks batting. I now hope that we don't go into a spell where everyone looks tired and fed up and just wants the season to disappear.

Andy wrote:

I bet us and Surrey have used the same amount of players this season in the Championship. Roughly.

Difference between us and Surrey performance wise this season is that they get way more runs from their lower order than we do. JOverton, Abbott, Clark, Lawes etc are all decent run getters down the list, a different one puts theyre hand up each game.

They get quality overseas players in too all season.

Id imagine their batters averages aren't too much different to ours. I've gone out on limb there though admittedly.

Probably have used same number of players ..but odd comparison as you don't change a winning side!

Just had a quick gander. We've both used 18 players. Hain averages more than any Surrey player this season. Yates averages more than Sibley, Davies is averaging more than Burns.

A different player seems to do something exceptional every game though, something match winning. One week Abbott, the next week Worrall etc.

Our tail is a little bit like once we're 6 or 7 down we're all out sharpish. Look at our last 3 championship games, G. Stewart, Bailey and TRJ have all come in against us down the order at no.9 and done some damage. Can't expect that from OHD, Rushworth etc but i wouldnt swap those 2.

It's odd comparing us to Surrey. We don't have the financial clout to attract the best players like they do and we don't produce enough quality players through out pathway like they do consistently.

Moeen and Woakes would improve the side in the same way Sibley and Burns availability have bolstered Surrey's. Unfortunately we're not going to get them back I don't think. We're starting to be affected to a similar extent to how Lancs are traditionally affected

Andy wrote:

People are overreacting.

I can't of think anyone who has been on such a sustained run of bad form that they actually should be dropped. Indeed we don't need wholesale changes to the squad at all. To say this season is similar to last season is way wide of the mark. Last season we struggled to bowl sides out and barely won a game. When we batted we batted so slowly that even when we batted 100 overs we might have only made 240. This season we've bowled sides out, put up bigger totals and actually won some games. Won away at Hampshire, we don't do that often. Beat a strong Essex side at home. Beat Kent on a flat pitch with the useless Kookaburra ball, a huge win, wouldn't have won that last season. We were capable of none of this last season.

In terms of the squad after losing Sibley and letting Lamb leave we are probably a back up batter light but prior to this game. Bethell has done quite well particularly when you factor in what he's been exposed to i.e Essex away on a raging turner and S. Harmer. Players like Bethell need to be given opportunity, they won't always do well, he's had 1 bad game in a game where many batters didn't get a score. Barnard is getting criticism but remember he wasn't exactly a heavy wicket taker at Worcestershire though yes he has had a poor 3 games with the bat and he could do with a score. He balances the side, a 4th seamer who can run through some tight overs and maybe nick us a wicket, he has done this for us. He's never gonna run through sides, he's never done that.

One area that does need addressing at the moment is game management. That's 2 weeks running now where we've had a significant collapse right at the start of the day. Today's was totally avoidable, Hain getting out like he did to de Caires exposed the lower middle order to the new ball against fresh bowlers. Mousley getting out yesterday afternoon was huge in the context of this game, Middlesex were starting to look a little bit demoralised and were dying to get off for the forecasted rain. So for Mousley to get out the way he did, after playing so well, with the field set the way it was (no slips in, Middlesex were in total defensive mode), was incredibly frustrating/naive. Had we have started today with Hain and Mousley, 2 well set batters at the crease against the new ball, today could have gone a different way. Maybe.

Game management.

“Raging turner” are you joking? Dom Bess bowled close to 30 overs on day one, one maiden and never turned a ball. If it was a raging turner why didn’t Mousley bowl a single over?

Dom Bess is rubbish and Dan Mousley seldom bowls in 4 day cricket. The fact that we picked 2 spinners in game says all you need to know about the pitch. Its Chelmsford and it was off the back of a sustained period of hot weather, it turns.

Look at the scorecard, it’s all you need to know!

Indeed, shows Harmer, Critchley, Bess, Lintott and Yates (briefly) all bowl a serious amount of overs between them. Simon Harmer open the bowling in our dig and get appreciable turn. It was a spinners track hence OHD not being selected. The fact that Bess bowled dross was on him. 12 of our 20 wickets fell to spin.

How are we back to talking about this game?!

Andy wrote:

Just had a quick gander. We've both used 18 players. Hain averages more than any Surrey player this season. Yates averages more than Sibley, Davies is averaging more than Burns.

A different player seems to do something exceptional every game though, something match winning. One week Abbott, the next week Worrall etc.

Our tail is a little bit like once we're 6 or 7 down we're all out sharpish. Look at our last 3 championship games, G. Stewart, Bailey and TRJ have all come in against us down the order at no.9 and done some damage. Can't expect that from OHD, Rushworth etc but i wouldnt swap those 2.

It's odd comparing us to Surrey. We don't have the financial clout to attract the best players like they do and we don't produce enough quality players through out pathway like they do consistently.

And as I said, Hain has been carrying us. I wasn't comparing our financial muscle to Surrey merely stating the benefit of competion for places and we can build a squad that is based on competition, we certainly have the capability to do so.

All in all, losing to Middlesex the way we did is really poor and I'd like to see tweaks to the size if we play so poorly in our next red ball game.

I've long thought to realistically challenge for the title we needed to push the boat out and recruit a quality middle order batsman. This result shows where we are.
We do not have the depth of Surrey or Essex and the seconds are not awash with players ready to come in. There's a few young prospects and in the ODC we may start seeing the likes of Khan and Johal showing they are ready to earn a run in the championship team.
I'm disappointed we didn't get Jack Haynes from the Pears, it seems Notts are back to hoarding players from other counties. I hope we are at least in the market for this type of player if we want to improve.

I think the glaring issue is that we have only played one overseas at a time. And as much as I liked Ali, Maxwell and Hamza, and they did an ok job. None has blown sides away.
Surrey have played 3 at times this year (2 technically by the rules). But they’ve been able to play Worrall plus 2 of Abbot, Latham & Roach at various times this year.
Lancashire have been able to play 2 of Mitchell, Williams and Villas. Hampshire with Abbot and Abbas. Essex with Harmer and Bracewell. Even Kent have Singh and Stewart.

Even those that have only played 1, their contribution as a difference maker has been better, look at Henry for Somerset.

It’s definitely tougher to get a top batting overseas, but if other teams have been able to recruit a Latham or a Pujara, you’ve got to think we’d be able to get one too. But needs to be top quality, not another Pieter Malan.

Awkwardly though, if you were to bring in an overseas batsman, the person whose place would be most at risk is Will Rhodes.
But a team of say:
Yates
Davies
Latham/Pujara/A.N Other
Hain
Mousley
Barnard
Burgess
Briggs
Ali/A.N Other
Rushworth/Brookes
OHD/Norwell

Would be a real tough proposition for any side. Also don’t think we can underestimate how good Norwell is at this level, and we’ve recruited like he’s going to play. But I think we need to accept that’s not the case and perhaps take a similar approach as Surrey with our bowlers. Stockpile and rotate. As we’ve often been left with an attack that doesn’t have that real point of difference that Norwell offers.

BristolBear wrote:

I think the glaring issue is that we have only played one overseas at a time. And as much as I liked Ali, Maxwell and Hamza, and they did an ok job. None has blown sides away.
Surrey have played 3 at times this year (2 technically by the rules). But they’ve been able to play Worrall plus 2 of Abbot, Latham & Roach at various times this year.
Lancashire have been able to play 2 of Mitchell, Williams and Villas. Hampshire with Abbot and Abbas. Essex with Harmer and Bracewell. Even Kent have Singh and Stewart.

Even those that have only played 1, their contribution as a difference maker has been better, look at Henry for Somerset.

It’s definitely tougher to get a top batting overseas, but if other teams have been able to recruit a Latham or a Pujara, you’ve got to think we’d be able to get one too. But needs to be top quality, not another Pieter Malan.

Awkwardly though, if you were to bring in an overseas batsman, the person whose place would be most at risk is Will Rhodes.
But a team of say:
Yates
Davies
Latham/Pujara/A.N Other
Hain
Mousley
Barnard
Burgess
Briggs
Ali/A.N Other
Rushworth/Brookes
OHD/Norwell

Would be a real tough proposition for any side. Also don’t think we can underestimate how good Norwell is at this level, and we’ve recruited like he’s going to play. But I think we need to accept that’s not the case and perhaps take a similar approach as Surrey with our bowlers. Stockpile and rotate. As we’ve often been left with an attack that doesn’t have that real point of difference that Norwell offers.

Norwell played for the 2nds earlier in the week and will be available for the 50 Over games. PERHAPS he'll be back for the remaining CC matches.

I was surprised that Mark Rpobinson put the defeat down, in large part, to the players being tired. Looking at the team that played, I can see that Davies, Yates, Mousley and Burgess have played through the T20 and Championship games (Burgess for Sussex in the T20); but the others have had plenty of time off - Hain through injury and the others through not being selected for all games.
OK, gone are the days when Jim Laker could take 19 wickets in a Test at Old Trafford and have to travel overnight back to the Oval to turn out for Surrey the next day. And I also respect that Mr, Robinson knows far more about the game than I do and is much closer to the players.
But.....