That's the sort of target I had in mind too - though may be hard to set that. 30 overs morning session, needs to be about 4.5 an over? Quickest scoring since day 1. Might be OK with 10 wickets to utilise.

paulbear wrote:

Have to agree, strange angles to watch a game from seeing as it wasn't like that on the first day. Hope we can quickly get to a 200 lead and then the rest of the batsmen must be told to really try and "Give it a whack" and see if we can set them perhaps 280 in 60+ overs. Trouble is though, draw points are worth a lot now so a lot of teams might not be tempted to try and be positive. Essex already have 2 wins and drawing will only leave us and others, a big margin of points behind.

Definitely feel a bit for Burgess but Bethell I wonder about ... I was always under the impression he was a batting all-rounder but is seems the club have the view he's a batman that bowls and behind Yates with the ball. Do we think he's a long term option as a specialist number 5? I'm not sure I do.

Thanks Reabank. I will set this aside to have a full read in the future. Appreciate your analysis. I'm a part-qualified accountant, alas, and can't fully decipher the results from source. So defer to you as the fully-qualified analyst!

That's always a very interesting page on the BBC. Interesting to see how little there is in our section and how much there is in Worcestershire's on the very next entry, the talent they have lost is staggering - especially so they are playing up a division in 2024.

As BosworthBear says I think Warks need to concentrate on their academy players being able to make it into first team this post season while looking at stabilising their performances and playing under pressure. As always there's a space for an overseas, left arm quick would be perfect though I don't think we'll get that.

We could do with another opener. Forgive me if I mispell his name but is it Amir Khan a potential first teamer? Thinking of second team, Billy Godleman is released by Derby and he played for us the end of last year. Wouldn't be surprised if he joined but wouldn't really be excited about it either. Would be a kick for Alex Davies if it happened too,

Right, it's annoying if you're at the ground but in the grand scheme of things irrelevant now Hampshire have won, I guess knocking over four hungover lower order batsmen can be done fairly quickly.

Yes, agree with the sentiment in the previous comments. 3rd or 4th is all on Surrey against Hampshire and althought there is a big difference in those two positions it shouldn't change our assessment of the season. I'd say it has been a good season too, despite the fact there are some things to work on. They as an existing group, without too many new players, need to sort out between themselves and they don't need to rip anything up or start again. It's not a terrible place to be.

Surrey v Hants looks like it's going to end up a nailbiter as well. Which is more than can be said of Essex. If we do win this, and I think that's going to be tough from here, we will be very close to matching Essex and I didn't consider that a possibility until a few hours ago.

Yah, see my comment earlier up the stream about needing 400... Tough ask. It's good to be pushed like this though and the last game was the same re Hants. Appreciate people's comments that the players aren't fussed about 3rd v 4th position but for us hardcore it's a good watch and reflection on the CC.

BosworthBear wrote:

Given the Hampshire position we need 350 minimum here it seems to me.

I think we need that third place slot to prove we have had a good season. 4th seems mid table to me, 3rd you can say you're at the top and it would also demonstrate that we have started to heed that message that we can play in must-win games for them to ruminate on in the off season.

I guess Davies and Rhodes next is a key session with the ball getting older. In all the games this round the new ball has done massive damage, even if it's been later in the day, so here's to hoping. 400 for four batting points is a stretch target. That would put us ahead of Hampshire on the assumption both teams are weather-induced draws.

Seems easier to actually win the game. I remember reading somewhere that BPs don't tend to determine champo places and that would be the case here.

Incredible this game of ours that after a dramatic win, all that's really happened is we have closed by one point behind Hampshire in the table, after they had a pretty interesting win of their own. So many variables with the bonus points and the weather to keep track of. Good on the game, good on the Champo. Loads of teams have something to play for in the final round.

I'm in the city today, 3-4 miles to the east, and it is as if it is the middle of the night it's that dark.

Just musing over a Yates/Barnard OD Cup opening stand, Davies 3, Mouse 4, Burgess 5.

BosworthBear wrote:

Who can we open with to knock this off v quickly?

Bright sun shine and blue sky three miles west of Lords... Drying quickly.

True about the bonus points. We were five behind Hants start of this game so if we can chip away at a couple of those this round and we assume draws everywhere it's a big thing going into the final round.

HOWEVER - still think there's enough in this game for the win - and there's still enough time for Hampshire to lose. Middlesex aren't the strongest batting side and we still have four sessions plus a bit to bowl them out and knock off some runs. Quite a heavy shower in progress right now but it should clear up fairly soon, it's bright, and tomorrow looks good for most of the day.

BristolBear wrote:

Suspect it’s a case of just getting the batting points because unless the track completely changes overnight, a draw looks the only likely result. So get as many points as possible.

Can’t see us bowling them out currently for a total we could chase. And they won’t risk losing whilst Kent are doing poorly. So for them to get enough runs to threaten declaring they’d need to bat too long for it to be possible to bowl us out on a pitch only getting better for batting.

Yah, I'm surprised they got underway on time

Tayls79 wrote:

Weather looks OK today, maybe a shower mid afternoon, what also worth stating is it's incredibly wet here (3 miles from the ground). The heavy rain went on until about midnight and things are still soaked this AM with a heavy atmosphere. There is definitely a good case for declaring now and getting them in, but I think there's enough time to shoot for a BP or two with the bat, which maybe important, and the feel-good factor of Rhodes getting a first century for the season, maybe even Briggs too.

Weather looks OK today, maybe a shower mid afternoon, what also worth stating is it's incredibly wet here (3 miles from the ground). The heavy rain went on until about midnight and things are still soaked this AM with a heavy atmosphere. There is definitely a good case for declaring now and getting them in, but I think there's enough time to shoot for a BP or two with the bat, which maybe important, and the feel-good factor of Rhodes getting a first century for the season, maybe even Briggs too.

Yeah I get you, and indeed I think we all agree. I went out for my lunch at lunch on the game and was thinking to myself it would be great to play through this if the rest of the day is going to be rained off. And that would have really suited us.

BristolBear wrote:

Tayls79 wrote:

Raining now and that'll finish it so not sure the bad light for 15 minutes will have made much of a difference. In any case, another 72 runs would be great here. Allow Rhodes and Briggs to get centuries, two batting points and still five sessions plus to bowl Middlesex out for under 180 with the odd shower delay. It will just have to be tomorrow I guess...

No you’re right 15 minutes won’t make a big difference in the scheme of things for this match. It’s just more a wider point in general, it’s a frustration of mine, that cricket always seems to shoot itself in the foot regarding time played or not played. There’s a million laws and regulations about when not to play, yet nothing that allows common sense to prevail and increase playing time when possible.

Raining now and that'll finish it so not sure the bad light for 15 minutes will have made much of a difference. In any case, another 72 runs would be great here. Allow Rhodes and Briggs to get centuries, two batting points and still five sessions plus to bowl Middlesex out for under 180 with the odd shower delay. It will just have to be tomorrow I guess...

Looking interesting. It is due to absolutely hose it down here from now, though it actually looks OK in the city this instant. Looks like Hampshire are well out of the Essex game and they haven't picked up full bowling bonus points. One or two batting points for us would be very useful on the assumption both games get washed out, though low scores in out game mean we're never that far from a result. Looking up? Hard to tell and great for CC.

I didn't see this thread last week but I did read it in the news independently. I think there is possibly a bit too much detail in it to speculate on, but I think it's a binary decision being put forward:

Stick with franchises and 100 balls Vs return to T20 on county basis.

I've pretty much always found the argument on the 100 a bit misleading, surely the only difference that matters is smaller number of franchises or large number of counties. Naturally the ECB have messed it up a bit and the 100 rules / packaging make it less appealing to the existing followers of the game, but this is a minor bearing in mind the lengths of the game are similar.

Top work killer Bs and OHD getting it done. Handy win with Middlesex holding off Lancashire. Next round looks tasty as well. We play Middlesex then the teams above us play each other. If ever there was a time for a pressure game performance, this is it.