Devon_Bear wrote:

I think the team has an unbalanced look about it with Malik batting at 7, I would like to see Kai Smith back in at 7 and given another chance with the gloves on Friday. I also have a feeling that Rushworth will be in instead of Simmons. Quite why Simmons only bowled 9 overs out of 143.2 in the match only Davies can answer, but if he doesn't have faith in the youngster then why play him in the first place?

I have nothing against Davies, but i honestly believe Latham would be a much better choice as captain.

True I think Davies and Yates need some competition and giving the captaincy to Latham would ensure that Davies is selected purely on form only.

I'd rather Davies was wicketkeeper for now and coming in at 6 or 7.

Davies appears to do the same with Simmons as Chopra used to do with Rankin, keep him kicking his heels for 40 overs and then decide to give him a 'Few' overs. By that time, the ball is softer, if you have pace, surely a harder ball is better to bowl with. I would love to see Simmons given the new ball just to see what sort of pace, bounce and trouble he can cause. Why have a genuine fast bowler and keep him back. No batsmen like high pace so why hold it back.

paulbear wrote:

'...if you have pace, surely a harder ball is better to bowl with. I would love to see Simmons given the new ball just to see what sort of pace, bounce and trouble he can cause. Why have a genuine fast bowler and keep him back. No batsmen like high pace so why hold it back.'

Absolutely agree.

Frustrating result, clearly. Can't really disagree too much with people are saying here. Team selection does look a little odd on reflection. Looking at the XI I think we were maybe anticipating another flat pitch?
Wicketkeeper situation needs sorting, I've warmed to Davies a bit as I think he's really trying and has shown a lot of commitment but keeping/captaining/opening just won't do. I'm reluctant to get too critical, we're fighting hard, Hampshire just played really well this weekend.

It looks like we did anticipate a flat pitch given Yates was bowling so early in the first session.

But it’s strange because as I mentioned here the ground staff told me at lunch that day they had prepared the pitch v late to make it more lively.

I can’t stop being annoyed at that first evening. When I left they were 230-8 and it looked an excellent day for us. By close we had let them get 300 and we lost two openers.

I think that then decided the rest of the game.

A shame as we show good signs.

I don’t think Davies is a captain and I’ve said so all season. He doesn’t seem able to shape a game or think outside the box.

I can't quite get too upset at this, as we said lost it on Friday evening. It's a forming team, we knew we would lose at some point and we're still in an OK position. The keeping problem (which I think is the crux Davies' triple role) is harder to resolve if you presume he keeps the gloves. If you shunt either him or Latham down the order you create a problem up top, we don't have cover there. I think what might happen is we limp through Worcs then hope someone's done enough with Kai for him to come back at 7 or 8. Bowlers I think will sort themselves out eventually and Simmons will get more overs next week.

For me, there’s a lack of consistency in everyone but Barnard and Webster this season. We saw it last year, and the consensus was that Barnard, OHD and Burgess were the only truly consistent ones. Well we’ve lost one of those, plus Rhodes who was reliable towards the second half of the year, and had the partnership breaking knack. Plus OHD has been overcoming an injury. Which means we need other senior players to step up. Hain and Davies especially with the bat.
Think there’s a few players just trying to be something they’re not, not being used in the right way, or still learning their game.

Yates is a great example, suspect for him the recent England selections that have got in his head. The idea that openers must go at it from ball one. Just puts doubt in his own mind, does he see the new ball out then attack or just attack. Seen a few shots that are inbetween and that’s going to cause him problems. Just needs to play his own game.

Similarly as others have mentioned, use Simmons when the conditions best suit him. Senior bowlers are all good enough to build pressure in those middle overs.

Davies probably has to accept that captaining, keeping and opening is too much. The best for the side would be to take the gloves off him. But who knows, it’ll say a lot about him if he continues to try and struggle on doing it if it’s having a negative effect on the team overall.

Malik, Hamza, Smith and Ali are still young and learning at this level, so you’d expect that lack of consistency.

paulbear wrote:

Davies appears to do the same with Simmons as Chopra used to do with Rankin, keep him kicking his heels for 40 overs and then decide to give him a 'Few' overs. By that time, the ball is softer, if you have pace, surely a harder ball is better to bowl with. I would love to see Simmons given the new ball just to see what sort of pace, bounce and trouble he can cause. Why have a genuine fast bowler and keep him back. No batsmen like high pace so why hold it back.

Could this be the explanation why Simmons was held back, because Westwood remembered Chopra doing the same with Rankin? Even so, it still seems odd that he was only given 9 overs to bowl in the entire match.

It doesn't make sense either way, Rankin with a hard ball was often a handful but he didn't do any better for Chopra bringing him on late so that cannot be the reason. The last thing we want is to lose a genuine fast young bowler who could be a match winner for the next 10 years because he was fed up with being given a soft ball that was 40 overs old. If he has pace, let him go and see what damage he can do when the ball is hard and shiny. His confidence should not be diminished before he has got a full season under his belt. We will never know what he can do with a new ball until he is given the chance.

I have also heard that they have some concerns about whether his body will hold up, but I'm sure even with those concerns he can manage more than 9 overs

In that case how about bringing him on when the ball is about 12-15 overs old and then again when it is less than 35 overs old. He will only get strength to bowl by bowling. As Fred Trueman said, in all the years he bowled, he barely had a single injury, bowled more than 1000 overs a season and only kept bowling because he knew he could because his body was up to it.

paulbear wrote:

In that case how about bringing him on when the ball is about 12-15 overs old and then again when it is less than 35 overs old. He will only get strength to bowl by bowling. As Fred Trueman said, in all the years he bowled, he barely had a single injury, bowled more than 1000 overs a season and only kept bowling because he knew he could because his body was up to it.

I agree, though I think the whole world has changed since Fred's day. (Sir) Alec Bedser used to reckon that kids built up their strength because they often had to walk miles to school. And don't ask me about drinks on the field! The great Tom Dollery once refused to have drinks brought out and said: "Drinks? Why do we need drinks? In the desert in North Africa during the war, we were allowed two pints of water a day. And one of those was for the tank." By contrast, yesterday when Hampshire got a wicket off the fifth ball of the first over, drinks were immediately rushed out to the parched players.

Rant over!

Didn't this drinks thing start in test matches so that Channel 4, or was it Sky, could have a lengthy advert break every hour? Since then it seems to have been introduced in all sports - even my local amateur rugby team has the drinks rushed on every time there's a score or a player down injured. "In our day" it was a slice of orange at half time!

a whole slice, bloody luxury, we only got the pips.

Pips? Luxury!

Luxury, we had to share the pips between 5 of us.