Bald_Reynard wrote:

MalmesburyBear wrote:

Danny has been an absolute joy in T20 cricket, turning many games in our favour with wickets and economy rate. At present I cannot see how we replace him, either through the current squad or by acquisition from another county. I think the only route is through an overseas acquisition. Many thanks Danny for some absolutely splendid performances!

I said on this thread a couple of days ago, that an overseas acquisition of a spinner is our No 1 priority this Autumn and he should be considered as a likely new Captain.

I didn't see him but that Aussie chap Rochiggiani (sp?) got excellent reviews on here, was there any talk of having him back? we knew Briggs was on his way out at the time

MalmesburyBear wrote:

Danny has been an absolute joy in T20 cricket, turning many games in our favour with wickets and economy rate. At present I cannot see how we replace him, either through the current squad or by acquisition from another county. I think the only route is through an overseas acquisition. Many thanks Danny for some absolutely splendid performances!

I couldn't agree more an absolute joy is exactly what he has been, its not quite the wrench that Jeetan's retirement was for me but he will be greatly missed and I'd be surprised if we manage to recruit anyone to directly replace him. Like you say nobody on the county circuit comes to mind, the names of left armers who come up to me would be, say, Callum Parkinson, Tom Hartley, decent bowlers but different styles and they don't have Briggs's stature or certainly not his prolific wicket-taking. It seems more an more common that finger-spinners are batsmen who bowl part time, the specialists seem to be a declining breed due to the prevalence of wrist spin?

I am fairly sure last season (2024) in the T20 marked his best single season's haul in terms of wickets with i think it was 29, so we may even have seen him at the apex of his powers. That's what I will be telling myself anyway. His record will stand for a long, long time I suspect.

my favourite thing to remember about Briggs is, the number of times batsmen would get out trying to repeat their 4/6 shot against him. Comparing him to Jeetan it seemed like Jeetan absolutely hated to get hit at all, whereas Briggs, it seemed like he wanted to tempt them just enough, getting them to hit a six and get excited was almost like he had them just where he wanted. I lost count of the number of times he got them out trying that 2nd consecutive big shot, to the point where I thought it was a bit of scouting/stat work they must have neglected, 'if you hit Briggs for six, whatever you do don't try repeating it'. He's all time leading wkt taker for a reason and if you think you've got his measure, its you thats the mug, now off you go boy.

He has single-handedly turned me off test match special, he's the most self-indulgent, infuriating comms guy in radio history. He honestly makes me think about doing serious violence to him.

Andy wrote:

In the penultimate over? After the boundaries Gleeson closed out that over with 2 dot balls to almost get us the momentum back and keep Dickson off strike going into the last. 2 massive dot balls at such a crucial moment.

also true! Momentum is a fickle thing in T20. i was mostly whinging about the poor option of the short wide one

btw for me a real sliding doors moment was that short wide one that Dickson uppercutted off Gleeson in the 19th. That was a poor option IMO, and then next delivery Gleeson seemed to come pretty close to nailing the wide yorker but Dickson to be fair timed the cover off it to hit that for 4, too. but those 2 deliveries turned it from an impossibility in the last over to a merely unlikely possibility. Its a bit unfair to Gleeson to be too critical as he still only went at 8s, but those 2 consecutive balls massively changed the momentum and got their fans right back into it and made them believe it was possible, and the pressure on Barnard increased greatly as a result. Like i say i thought it was a real sliding doors moment, if we go for say 6 runs off those two balls we win

what was the alternative to Barnard bowling the last? my mate at work just told me Mousley apparently shaped up as though he'd be taking the ball but davies ruled Barnard instead? whats the thoughts on giving it to the Mouse? would have been 'brave' but could it have gone much worse?

(Ironically Barnard's wide ball came when he tried the lesser-spotted (for him) slower ball changeup which he then didn't have the nerve to try again)

other than getting at least one more Lintott over in earlier, which I guess would have pushed Briggs's last over one later and allowed Gleeson and OHD to bowl out the last 3?

meashambear wrote:

Somerset supporters are the worst I have ever seen. You can tell that the banter to our players is not funny due to the reaction of them when taking a wicket.

For some reason, I thought they would be a knowledgeable & supportive bunch but they just seem one eyed, rude & entitled.

I got a text from my mate that the Somerset fans must have been heckling pretty badly but that was the exact opposite of my experience

I was in the Trescothick Pavilion lower and you couldn't ask for a better traditional set of proper cricket fans, smattering of polite applause for Bears boundaries, polite applause for reaching 50/100/150 and for Davies's 50, and a very generous hand for Davies for his innings when he got out. I guess that's where the members generally hang out, I definitely got the impression many of the people around me knew each other from sitting together for some years, but we shouldn't tar all SCCC fans with the same brush as in the MTP they were absolutely golden

Andy wrote:

Re. death bowling generally, we shouldn't have this issue next season because if fit Jordan Thompson will be doing it.

yes, and he is pretty damn good at it. one of those Stokes-type cricketers who (cliche) 'puts his hand up' and really, really loves the responsibility. on which point you make a really good point about Barnard's body language that 20th over. Davies's timewasting tactic weren't helping at all, either, (it got to the point where it seemed to me to go beyond tactical necessity, and beyond even gamesmanship to try and get the batters nervous, almost seemed like Davies did it because he was getting booed and he's such a contrary bugger he instinctively feels if he is getting booed he must be doing something right... he really isn't one to go through life like it's a popularity context is he, Davies?) But at that point it was clearly us with the pressure on, especially away from home, batter had momentum, we had the pressure of defending and the timewasting was making Barnard worse, not better.

I agree with pretty much all of what's been said already

I thought we were both 'lucky' and 'unlucky'. we were definitely lucky to put on 190 in the first place, take out that atrocious over Meredith bowled to Yates, and it was awful stuff from an international, take that out and we would have been setting 175 and there's basically no game. the lack of sixes was definitely a factor- I do worry about Kai Smith as a 'finisher' in that sense, as in that position sometimes you just need someone who will clear the front leg and send it over the leg side, and that isn't Smith's game seemingly.

(a word for our running between the wickets we pushed a lot of 2s running with great urgency and clearly out-did them on that front)

I have to say I thought they bowled exceptionally well overs 10-20, they bowled to their fields very well and we hadn't the form or power to just send it over the heads of the men on the wide boundaries.

on the other hand up to over 16 we basically bowled very well and it took an absolute freak of an innings to beat us- in the same position another 5 times would Dickson even manage that again 1/5 times? I don't know but that isn't a knock he or anyone else is replicating often so we were definitely 'unlucky' in that sense

RE: the bowling changes/Lintott. I was actually thinking during the game how well Davies had managed the bowlers, up to 15/16 it worked pretty well, they never had chance to get on top of one bowler and each bowler did pretty well.

With Lintott, they got the sweep out against him right away and I think we were intimidated by Tom Abell being at the crease, and his reputation of playing spin very well (which he does). By the time he was out, it was the 16th over (I think) and at that point probably too late to bowl a wrist spinner. maybe could say we could have put him in against Dickson when he was fresh at the crease when Rew went, but Abell was still there at that point and the seamers and Briggs were bowling well

I take the point that we shouldn't change the gameplan and leave a bowler on the sidelines just for one bad over but by the same token, if we had bowled Jake another and he'd got hit for another crucial 12 I'm pretty sure someone on here would be saying 'why bowl him? he'd already been hit for 15, disastrous decision'.
I'd definitely have given him another, but I don't think its as simple a decision as is being made out whilst Abell was at the crease, and by the time he was gone it was death overs, basically. And had Lintott been given another over and it was disastrous I absolutely guarantee someone on here would be giving Davies pelters for it

We can definitely talk about Hain being a big game bottler, by the way, can't we? That's definitely 6 failures in QFs now (he didn't get anything in the win vs Surrey what seems to be decades back), I love him, and most of our QF capitulations have been characterised by team batting collapses where absolutely nobody has showed up (Saturday being the exception and I'm pretty sure Davies's 71 makes the best single contribution we have got in the 5 defeats), but if we are looking at root causes, our best batsman never showing up for a single QF has to be one of them.

Again, take Yates's slightly freakish knock out and that card is basically Davies, plus failures, and Smith with a marginal contribution at the end but getting his runs too slowly for the match context. In terms of this year I have lost count how many times Hain has middled/near-middled it straight to fielders, he's hit pretty much the same shot straight to mid-off at least 3 and I think 4 times, and 2 more that I recall to midwicket.

Looking back, at first I was slightly critical of Davies's shot selection to get out, not sure he needed to play the high risk option there but we were getting a little bit bogged down, it looked like a 220 par pitch, and he had Hain who had played himself in, Barnard, Smith, Garton Lintott still to come with just 8 overs to go, so I can't be too critical. It turns out, we needed him to stay at the crease more than it looked at the time.

anyway I will be at Taunton, for all I am going not even in hope never mind expectation hahaha. Edit: I just looked at the Somerset squad , and rather wish I hadn't! At our best I don't think our batting is that much short of theirs, especially without Banton. But bloody hell, the bowling, and the seam bowling in particular, seems a level above ours.
Riley Meredith, Craig Overton, Jake Ball and Gregory as the seam all rounder, bugger me. There is major pressure on Danny Briggs here with those small boundaries and the bowlers around him.
we really need to see the new ball off here and I'll be delighted and surprised if we do.

Gleeson is a concern for me too. Last year he was incredibly tight and economic, this year both for us and the 100 he has been taken for 10s in most games.

Andy wrote:

Think Michael Booth's lack of experience in this comp goes against him for this particular game. Having said that I thought Taz (0 t20 appearances) might have atleast got in the squad...

Actually think Miles fielding has probably got him the nod over, say, Booth. We'll see.

.
hmmm. I don't think Miles's fielding is that much better than Booth's, certainly not to the extent of it being a point of difference worth picking over and especially as Booth is far ahead of Miles with the bat. and what price Miles's experience in T20, given he's been going at 10+ an over in his sporadic appearances in the last couple of years? I'm not arguing with you that it may be their logic, I just think they're wrong if it is their logic, Booth is a perfectly serviceable fielder, decent athlete and mover and good enough hands an reflexes to take a superb low catch at Rugby vs Northants. and Miles's long-legged athleticism is actually less of an advantage with those much shorter boundaries/smaller playing surface., admittedly as we've said before he is a bloody good boundary-rider

But if we were needing 45 off the last 3 overs with the bat, 7 wickets down, we could look at Booth coming in an he'd have a chance of doing it. His equivalent won't be nearly as much of a gamewinning option at the end

I'm normally Mr Half Full but I wasn't optimistic about this game in any case, and less so now.

I would have loved to have seen Taz Ali but totally accept it was probably verging on the over-optimistic especially with the small Taunton boundaries

Re: Ed as opener. Hmm. that was my initial take but his experience, skill and versatility later in the innings as a 'finisher' may be more important than his ability to anchor the innings.

I have long thought that, to an extent, powerplay batting is kind of 'easy', at least in terms of not requiring too much tactical ingenuity or technical versatility, there are a relatively generic series of plans and fields being bowled to. Put bad balls away and, if you're feeling your oats, maybe start stepping down or creating room for yourself to buy some boundaries.

Once it gets down to the death, more pressure on, much wider variety of plans and fields being bowled to, its far more demanding in terms of the range of options and the pressure on execution is far greater

I mean, Yates at his best could anchor the innings (and had a decent period where he and davies had a pretty consistent if not gamechanging opening partnership).
In his wildest dreams, though, Yates isn't coming in with 8 overs to go and scoring 40 off 20 or 65 off 32 and using ramps and scoops to play to death-bowling fields like Ed can.

all in all I'd lean to giving Yates the job he is at least capable of doing at his best (and giving him the advantage of the fielding restrictions) rather than making him a fish out of water in the middle overs or beyond

also, I suspect will be very much in the selection criteria, Yates will provide both a left hand/right hand option up top, and also a tall man/short man combination, both of which can help pick up a cheap boundary now and then

oh, great, I thought I'd read he was only captaining a one-off match for England but could have misremembered that

Andy wrote:
The numbers would suggest the batters have batted well this comp, most strike rates there look good.

speaking of opening partnerships, by the way, the more they complement each other's styles the better they tend to be and a combination of left/right hand, taller/shorter batsman, aggressive/accumulative style and front foot/back foot player, if you can tick all of those boxes you have it perfectly IMO. IMO, Latham and Davies worked so well together as they tick 3 of them. the left/right is particularly useful as they pick up cheap boundaries when bowlers don't quite adjust their lines when they change strike, but taller/shorter and front foot/back foot can be similarly useful in bowlers not adjusting their lengths. left/right is also sneakily useful in continually forcing fielding changes and ultimately putting more pressure on them to get overs in before the cut-off which could pay dividends at the end with rushed overs or extra fielder in the circle.

the above is why I'd have Barnard opening as he's much more a threat than Davies on the front foot and driving down the ground and has played the anchor role to a tee in 50ov cricket, I think he and Davies complement each other well. But with Bethell being left handed and the golden-child elect I'm guessing he will be the opener (personally i'd have him at 5 because he is by far our best bullier of spin and really the only player we have who looks like he can take spinners down for 24 off an over at will when he's on form)

personally my choice for the QF would be

Barnard to replace Latham as the 'anchor' opener
Davies usual role
Hain/Mousley flexible to come in replacing either Barnard/Davies so if the designated quick-scorer gets out early Mousley comes in and if the anchor gets out Hain comes in for him. I personally think Mousley bats too high at 3 if the openers start well, if they do get a start we need to give Hain max time at the crease and shift him above Mousley in the order IMO. IMO we should and teams in general should be far less dogmatic and far more flexible in terms of batting orders but with Hain this season, having your best batsman at 4 and fairly consistently only having 10 overs to work with seems counter-intuitive to me.
Bethell
Garton
Booth
Lintott
Briggs
Taz Ali
Gleeson

Garton is obviously very high at 6 there (depending on circumstances i might even say bring Lintott in earlier than him and ask Lintott to play partner to whichever batsman is left in, and leave Garton to come in last c4 overs and slog for those short boundaries) but fitting Taz Ali in whilst still having 3 genuine seam options (and not Barnard as one of them) means something has to be sacrificed, and Booth and Lintott are coming into the game in very good touch with the bat and make up for that a little. Still its bowling-heavy and a bit batting-light but that's my preference.

what I suspect will happen is they will play Bethell as opener and he will swing himself off his feet trying to over-hit everything and Kai Smith will play, and I don't know if they will play Lintott or another seamer.

and I very much doubt they will play Taz Ali, I'd love to see him in there as an x-factor wicket taking option, not even necessary for him to bowl all 4 with the range of options we have in that lineup (3.5 seam 4 spin)

Tayls79 wrote:

We've consistently seen a need for faster bowlers (ie Garton could be useful), a left armer (Garton) and a solid number eight bat (Garton again) so think there was a need for him and would have been good to convert him to CC. Does the club want him to? Does he not fancy it? Or will he just disintegrate if he has to bowl more than four overs? I genuinely don't know. I think the ships sailed now though with Barker, seemingly only here to play CC, unless Garton has a year and a half timeline on being red ball ready? Also don't think they're on massive money for 14 blast games.

with his age, injury record, and considerable bulk/size, I'd be fairly certain he would rather not risk his body (and franchise money) with the grind of long-form cricket. AFAIK he hasn't played any in years.

Andy wrote:

Great post ITE7376, so many good points. The numbers would suggest the batters have batted well this comp, most strike rates there look good.

cheers. from a pure stats perspective, Ed Barnard getting well over 300 at over SR160 is probably the most impressive single achievement for me. Especially when you consider that the top 4 ahead of him all faced an awful lot of balls, to get that gross weight of runs was very impressive as it wasn't like he was continually coming in overs 4-10, quite the opposite. When he did come in relatively early after an early run of wickets it seemed like he got a good contribution every time, and the season SR speaks eloquently of the success of his shorter cameo innings and his 'ability to score quickly from ball one'. Very good consistency, when he was coming in at a position in the lineup where consistency is difficult. Again those factors being as prized as they are (apparently) in franchise recruitment I'm slightly surprised he didn't get picked up, as the 'specialist finisher' does seem to be a role they actively recruit for.

Our ex-Bear Ethan Brookes had a near-identical season with the bat in both gross runs and SR and is a more successful T20 bowler than Barney on recent form as well as a brilliant fielder and, again, both his stats and the way they fit with franchise wishlists make it surprising to me nobody picked him up. I honestly question the quality of the scouting in Brookes's case as although (IIRC) his bowling was expensive this year, he does take wickets and is a useful no6 bowling option/very useful no7 option. I do strongly suspect that the scouting/recruitment will catch up with Brookes sooner than later and wouldn't be at all surprised if he is playing Big Bash within another year or two

Highveld wrote:

The above was a "party political broadcast" from the "Alex Davies fan Club", membership 2, Alex Davies & ITE7376.

Remembering the infamous "Jean" from the previous boad, perhaps they are the3 same person?

your comments about Davies are now saying far more about you than they are rationally saying about him.

as a different context, across 18 counties there were 60 top 5 batsmen. Davies was 22nd in the scoring. in the top 3rd, pretty impressive stuff. imagine how many bad dismissals the 48 below him must have had

Highveld wrote:

Tom Latham scored a very similar number of runs, at a similar strike rate, without the stupid dismissals, but some here claimed he was too slow.
I know who most people would prefer to haver in the side.

Latham's strike rate was greatly increased by a single innings (the ton, plus another against Notts), though, Davies's was consistent across most of his innings. The comments on here about him scoring slowly were, firstly, made before the season, secondly, based on a significant sample size across his T20 career, and thirdly, born out in 12 out of 14 of his innings last season.

Without the 2 innings as outliers, and they very much were outliers, he'd have been right back to his career strike rate in the mid-130s

As for 'without the stupid dismissals'?, they were both dismissed 14/14 innings, and I recall plenty of unnecessary or poor shots from Latham getting him dismissed. At this point it looks like you're just inventing reasons to shout about Davies I'm afraid because Latham played his fair share of shockers too.

I'd also suggest you are misunderstanding somewhat the role Davies has been given/given himself. Latham was the 'play through the innings' opener and Davies the quick scoring one. Same as Mousley's role was clearly to come in and score quickly (his strike rate went up about 20 from last year) and hain's, as ever, was to bat through. Getting out earlier is somewhat built into Davies's role the same way it was for Neil Carter. Teams nowadays don't have batsmen each coming in hoping to anchor the innings and get a NO from wherever they are in the order. They have players for different roles. Even given that, I'd personally like to have seen Davies kick on past 50 much more often in his time with us, but you aren't looking at the stats through the right lens in my opinion.

given his role as quick scorer in my opinion, with the risk taking that implies, Davies getting nearly 400 runs is a good/very good gross total matched with SR.

as for 'most people' would prefer Latham, well for one thing it never fails to amuse seeing people's assumption of the universality of their own viewpoint but that aside, there is a perfectly reasonable standpoint saying they actually complemented each other beautifully, and I think formed the highest-scoring opening partnership in the whole competition.

it may be a scandalous idea but- they don't have to be either/or, and you can praise both at the same time, or one of them without deriding the other. Opening partnerships can work badly or well, we had a partnership scoring 800 between them and you're slagging the guy who got half the runs? ah well.

Tayls79 wrote:

I don't want to interrupt a little debate, but the Birmingham / Warwickshire thing and two potential reasons behind it...

i) Wasn't it partly done as per a package of things to curry favour with Birmingham Council when they effectively paid for the ground works? and partly ii) as a positioning exercise ahead what became the 100? 'Look here ECB, we're already a city-based franchise, we can just take one franchise on already, we're ready now.'

Either way, I don't think it was ever designed to disenfranchise or enfranchise one set of supporters. Just political. I never took any notice, but I suppose I'm from Moseley so I wouldn't mind.
.

exactly my point earlier, it was BCC's pound of flesh for the loan for the new stand. no rebranding, no new stand, and likely no test status in the long term.