Andy wrote:
It's not the XI I'd have picked, but we move...
I suspect you like I would have gone with the extra batsman?
I can only think they see Bresnan as a genuine contributor with the bat at 7. And that Burgess is able to keep and bat at 6.
I’d like to see what Bresnan does end up contributing with the bat over the season, but also how many other keepers around the counties bat at 6 or higher. All our opposition so far have the keeper at 7.
Streetly_Bear wrote:
Rhodes out early again, at the moment he has a touch of the Ian Bell when he is at the crease. He looks comfortable and then gets out.
When is Management going to make that necessary decision - the Captain is NOT an opening batsman ! Indeed I'd go so far to say now, that he is not a specialist batsman any more - he's a genuine all rounder. He should move down the order, possibly well down the order - to at least 5. I'd agree with Andy, we should go with 6 batsman / all rounders, with Burgess at 7. Rhodes would be the fourth seamer, with Bresnan as backup (he is not good enough with the ball to justify being in as a bowler) - but his batting (and experience) does merit him coming in at 5 / 6. Yates and Malan open (when Sibley disappears) and Hain / Lamb at 3 / 4 (I think Lamb's technique and concentration makes him a better 3 than Hain)
BristolBear wrote:
The wonky camera is awful. Also, this live stream makes the one at Edgbaston look like sky sports.
I quite like this angled view in fairness. There is a depth to the tactical game that is often missed by constantly having umpires view. Far rather see the entire slip cordon in the shot and quite like seeing the bowler running in too. The cutaway by the Essex editor from bowler running in to batsman and slips awaiting the delivery is far superior to Warwicks editing where countless times we get left with a square leg view for 2 or 3 deliveries at a time.
Not sure about this pitch although we did choose to bat and overheads must be playing a part.
Interesting choice to bat first, considering the weather and recent rain, also every other side who won the toss this week chose to bowl.
Both Robinson and Farbrace have mentioned first innings runs this week, so I wonder if this was a decision that was more about making a statement than the conditions.
The statement being that we don’t score many first innings runs!?
There is something to admire about backing players in certain positions however I like the look of the batting suggested by bald_reynard. A couple of all rounders lower down the order and allow batsmen to focus on batting alone. We shouldn’t expect Bresnan and Rhodes to bowl all day but being able to bring them in and out should be a good tactic. It just so happens that Rhodes has the best average for us at the moment (I believe looking at the BBC).
It's quite the statement if that is what they were going for!
Agreed it was a bizarre choice. Rhodes really struggling to justify his place as a batsman currently, he has been better with the ball so far this season.
I suspect that we also didn't want to give Harmer the chance to bowl in the fourth innings.
Or perhaps we just wanted to avoid the humiliation of having to follow on, now 76 - 5
Is it just me or does the outfield seem to be very slow?
The more I watch, the more the decision to bat seems odd. It’s clearly tough to bat. No one ever looks comfortable, runs are very hard to come buy. Outfield is definitely slow.
Burgess and Bresnan looked like they were doing well, until Burgess seemed to have misjudged a cutter.
Weather prospects look pretty grim for today.
What an awful start to the day.
We are going to need it to be rained off.
Looking at the forecast, they might struggle to get back on today. Tomorrow is more showery, Sunday is much better.
Whilst it’s raining, I’m going to ask the question I suspect many are thinking. What are the club going to do about Rhodes? Can’t drop him after making him captain. But the top order is an issue. Too often we’re 50/3 or worse. They need a reliable opening partnership.
He’s yet to get a 50, only Averaging 16. Everyone knows the talent is there, but I wonder if when Sibley goes, opening with Mousley and Yates, move Rhodes to 4 or 5, and allow him to bowl more.
The game being rained off is better than losing it, but those lack of batting points have already cost us with this group being so tight. A few have mentioned Rhodes. It's only a few matches in so I don't think there's thoughts of him moving yet. But Yates and Malan opening (once Sibley goes to England) Lamb, Hain, Rhodes might work better. Not sure about Lamb moving up to three at this stage anyway, everyone apart from Bresnan is averaging below potential at the moment.
I think we're being a little harsh on Rhodes. He's not having a great season with the bat, but putting young Yates in there isn't the answer either imo. Let him develop in that number 3 role.
It’s bowling like this that makes me feel Rhodes should move down the order. Yates will have to open anyway when Sibley goes to England. If they bring Mousley in to open, have Malan at 3, Hain 4 and Rhodes 5. I think he’d be more likely to bowl himself, and also be more likely to score runs.
BristolBear wrote:
It’s bowling like this that makes me feel Rhodes should move down the order. Yates will have to open anyway when Sibley goes to England. If they bring Mousley in to open, have Malan at 3, Hain 4 and Rhodes 5. I think he’d be more likely to bowl himself, and also be more likely to score runs.
I'm not sure opening with Mousley is the answer. He's having a poor season with the Seconds. They've tried him at 4 & 3 and now opening in a couple of matches - and I think he's struggled to get much into double figures (and some ducks!). IMO, Malan will have to be tried as an opener (he hasn't been yet) and give Lamb a go at 3.
I have long argued that Rhodes should move to 5 - so agree with you on that BB.