Deeply disappointed there are no comments about the openers.

Though I will say, that catch by Burgess was spectacular. That would be hard enough off side, but down the leg side that’s simply stunning.

What has to be considered too is that we’ve only batted 5 times in 4 matches. So naturally taking out a batsman’s highest score at this stage of the season will do that.
What’s important is that as a lineup they are currently able to put scores together. That might change, then questions might need to be asked. But currently, it’s early season, the ball has moved and seamed, batting has been hard and the bears have by far the most batting points of any side in Div 1. So there’s room for improvement, but needs to be in perspective too.

Think the best thing for me is that unlike last year where after the first loss we spiralled, this year we’ve seen it as a wake up and reacted to it.

Also this side is probably the most balanced side we’ve had in quite some time. Not just in terms of batting and bowling but also youth vs experience. I’d definitely say a more well rounded squad than 2021.

Plenty of bowling options, plenty of different ways to take wickets, lots of options that could be brought in.
In the batting we haven’t quite got the same depth in the squad, but we’ve got a lot more players in form than we’ve had for some time. I mean, we’ve only batted twice in one of our 4 matches so far.

Rushworth is doing a Norwell.

In a situation like this let’s be honest, if the bears have to bat again by bowling them out, Hampshire haven’t scored 300+. If they’re 3 or 4 down early, they’ll remove all risk, try take time out the game. So the awkward chase at the end is more likely to be a case of, do you have the overs left to score 60-70.
Whereas declaring overnight, means even if you bowl them out cheaply, you give Hampshire something to defend. So less brave, more stupid.

Looks like today is a total washout. Shame, as I suspect that robs us of a chance to get a win unless something very dramatic happens.

Excellent work by Hain, Barnard and Burgess.

Hain seems to be batting much slower this year. But Burgess and Barnard really upped the rate, got the 2nd and 3rd batting bonus points. Hopefully we get some play tomorrow, these 2 continue, get a 200-250 lead and we’ll see what happens.

Either way this is a great response from last week against a decent team and one of the best attacks on the league.

With Rhodes at 3, we’re basically 2 down every time we lose the first wicket.
I get he’s a championship winning captain etc but he hasn’t scored good runs for 2-3 years now. He’s being carried, and you can’t win anything carrying a player like that.

A great day. Think that last session shows that it’s a good batting pitch, and the bowlers did really well to get Hampshire out cheaply.

Considering Abbott and Abbas are two of the best bowlers in the league, and there was plenty of cloud cover, it’s an even better outcome.

I think for me it’s a perspective thing from the toss. The pitch looks pretty true, decent pace, good for batting. They chose to bat, and if we get them out for under 250, we’d have definitely taken that at the start of the day.

white-lightning wrote:

BosworthBear wrote:

Meanwhile Henry Brookes has 5-8

Not a good decision to let him go on loan?
I know it's a Division lower, but 10 overs and 13/5 is some going!

I suspect it says more about the division and how rare speed like his is in Div 2. Henry has been given chances the last couple of years and has been wayward and not always that threatening. But good to see him doing well. Maybe it’s a confidence thing.

Wicket for Coolerking

Thought Woakes and Rushworth were good first up. OHD and Barnard have released the pressure a bit.

As we’ve discussed on here before, it definitely says something that Burgess comes straight up to OHD. It’ll be interesting to see how Briggs goes now, but I think we also have to remember that Hants won the toss and chose to bat, so you’ve got to think it’s good batting conditions and a decent wicket.

Yes I do find it odd the comments about bringing in Benjamin to “strengthen” the batting.
A bloke that averages 25 in FC cricket, has shown he struggles unless it’s a placid pitch and who has been pretty poor at seconds.
Considering the batting has been good this season until last week, I think you give them the chance to make it right.

Doesn’t say just that he and Bethell are still out.

13 man squad announced.
Ali rested.
Benjamin, Briggs and Miles in from the other 10 who played last week.
Norwell and Bethell still injured.

I imagine it’ll depend on the pitch as to whether they pick Briggs or Miles. But from Robinsons comments about the bowling line up saying it’s usually it’s 4 seamers plus a spinner, I wonder if he’d like Briggs back in.

coolerking wrote:

I'd say so. Norwell is quicker and a better bat. Also, as metronomic and nagging and skilful as OHD is, Norwell is more likely to run through a side. I must say it doesn't sit right with me that our keeper stands up to several members of our pace attack. Burgess is doing all he can to disadvantage the batter and increase the chances of getting a wicket but it should be done once in a while, not routinely, as it's becoming. If I was facing a seamer and the keeper came up then I'd immediately feel like I didn't have much to worry about from the bowler.

I think part of it is that Burgess as a gloveman is similar in mindset to Piper and Russell. He sees it as his job to pose a threat, not just stand back and stop the ball. Which I must admit I love to watch, and he’s kept superbly so far.

But also our seam attack is very samey, so little to make a batsman have to adjust their stance etc and players seem to have started coming down to bowlers more to negate swing, so keepers have to help prevent that when the bowler isn’t fast enough to push the batsman back.

Norwell is definitely a point of difference but still seems to be not ready yet. I wonder if Woakes is rested, do we bring in Briggs and put men round the bat. Or I wonder if Miles might be considered, decent bat, and has a yard of pace on OHD and Rushworth.

Agree, why have him just sitting around? Get some overs in his legs. Get a better player back or at least a player ready for the T20’s who’s bowling fit.

The most prevalent argument I saw against 9+9 was there’s always one team in each league sat out.
But apart from the first and last week of the season. There’s always at least 2 teams sat out in each league anyway. So why is that an issue? There were only 4 sides playing in Div 1 this weekend with 6 sat out. So I can’t understand why that’s an issue at all.

I completely agree about the honesty. It’s time to admit the purpose and what the long term plan is. Then allow people to judge its success using relevant criteria. Whereas currently you’ve got people defending or attacking it using everything from revenue, attendance, tv deals, future investment, protection from IPL, keeping English players in England, basically anything.

Surrey have just been incredibly smart in their recruitment.
They’ve recruited and kept players knowing they have 2, sometimes 3 in every position. Their squad is enormous. Financially they have that ability whilst no one else does. But what it means for them is that, their overseas typically stay all year. And they can’t and don’t get overly weakened by England selections, but have international quality throughout most of the side. When England are playing they lose Pope and Foakes. But then Smith keeps, Steel comes up the order, in comes a player like Geddes. They have Overton, Roy, 2x Currans who are unavailable, and a couple players on loan but all could come in later in the year. Chris Jordan and Laurie Evans used as white ball only specialists.

Where I think they could get unstuck is if it gets difficult. Maybe lose a couple matches in a row, fall back in the table, have a couple of injuries whilst they have players on international duty. They strike me as excellent front runners. Not sure how they’d do coming from behind. You feel some of them could just check out, not be up for the fight.