Tayls79
Member
Yeah I wonder if this is another turning point. Come in and got a crucial 40, so hard to see a way back for Pope next summer. Yet Jacob is off to IPL and will miss red ball games to warm up for the summer series. What does he do now? Until this point I suspected England were looking at him for test back up but essentially a white ball focus. For which IPL would have been beneficial.
Certainly fair to question who we appoint on these contracts. Even the Galacticos might fail a cost-benefit analysis. I think Maxwell and McCullum both got one great innings mixed up with smaller contributions but don't fault the ambition of shooting for it. I guess the art of doing it is being late enough but still early enough to secure someone who matches our weaker spots. I guess Sams is good for left armer duties but it seems like we will have lots of all-rounders in the team by then.
UrsaMinor wrote:
I don't mind finding another word for it but I still think it is valid to question whether a short-term import with no real "investment" in the club is as effective as one might like to think. If we can get a galactico like Maxwell or McCullum then I get it, but Sams? Good, yes but stellar, no.
Hassan's been very good for us, has played multi-format and has always looked like he's putting in full effort, no problems there. Just that there's always so much inconsistency with his injuries and the Pakistan CB. That's the only part.
In any case, I get a bit weary of the talk of "mercenaries". It's too strong a term, we're not talking about hired killers here. The Global game requires these short-term, contract-based players now all T20 competitions are played in some sort of block. We probably have had a few too many who haven't worked out, but I don't think that is a critique of the concept. Getting an OP who can stay longish term and play multi-format is more of a bonus than a minimum requirement now.
Reply to Richard and Gerry, indeed, I remember far more clearly Birmingham City Council's placatement over the naming though there was definitely media mention that naming a team after the city would be rewarded by the looming city-based franchises. Either way, that argument's gone now so just the council getting upset we have to worry about!
I was never that anti the BB name so can't really claim delight, but I do like the way the club dealt with it by acknowledging there was some pressure and they listened and responded to it. I made the point earlier this season (or maybe before) that the adoption of the name was seen as a way of getting city-based "franchise ready" and increasing the chances of a team with the Birmingham name being in it, guess that battle has been won too, albeit in the crisp league (where we can forget about it).
Yeah that certainly seemed like some well-balanced and nuanced points, fair dos for putting it out there. If him and Davies are an effective and complementary pair of co-captains that will probably get the most out of the group. They need to respect each other for that...
Wow - so just to clarify that is every single game? Including games opening the batting, bowling and games as captain?
GerryShedd wrote:
Ed Barnard is the speaker at the Cricket Society event at Edgbaston tomorrow afternoon. It will be interesting to hear what he says about cricketer workload, bearing in mind that he played all 14 four-day games plus 15 T20 and eight 50 over matches this year.
Longer piece in the Guardian, splashed it quite prominently as an England hero retiring from internationals. It mentions the point I raise a few messages up that it's contingent on what contract is negotiated about how much we see of him - final few paragraphs of the piece:
Defo crass from Key but I'd stop short of saying it's because he hates Warwickshire, just symptomatic of the current England management's glib attitude to these sorts of selection matters.
Be interesting to see what happens next for Woakesy. I can't see him getting much franchise action seeing as he is currently injured - and he was never really a hugely competitive T20 player. Also interesting to see if he gets back to full fitness at all having eschewed surgery to get fit for the Ashes. I think it asks too much to get a whole season out of him, every other game on rotation with Barker, Rushworth and OH-D maybe the best we get - a sort of swansong season so he can finish his career having at least done something. If not getting rapturous applause from a crowd, he might well get a few grudging claps and "bowled Woakesy" from a two man and a dog spectators.
Underpinning that is what Warks do with his contract, he'll be on our payroll for the first time in many years.
Interesting that it is out today, and not next week. My understanding was the vote was going to be pushed back until after the season had finished as it would affect the integrity of the current season with promotion and relegation - but maybe that is somewhat determined already if it is no change.
As with others posters, I'm glad CC isn't going to be reduced but it seems certain we will have this discussion again at some point. The 100 will not go away yet it's presence compresses the calendar and canibalises other competitions. Perhaps running a few rounds of CC in August would help here? I've mentioned before I like seeing the youth players have a go in the metro bank and I like using out grounds, so I think it still has integrity. Maybe the next focus is what this means for the metro and the blast? The latter has already lost some fixtures, there could be more to come...
Ah I see, I thought you were bagging Kai earlier. Agree with your point though, his comments were a bit patronising and misplaced I thought.
Anyhow, a reasonable first session this morning after the early wicket. Having said that, still advantage Notts in the title chase, dreadful start by Surrey.
GerryShedd wrote:
Northwalesbear wrote:
Highveld wrote:
Live scores link
https://live.nvplay.com/ecb/?tab=m_summary#m6a91ef02-15b3-4141-b3d7-6febd3d2bc21
If Kai isn't given time in the team, how is he going to improve his keeping? He should be the first choice keeper in all forms of the game.
I agree. I would also point out that Kai has a higher batting average that Davies in the CC this season, but that would be churlish.
Almost as churlish as Alex Davies' comments about Kai's keeping.
I think the decision has already been made. As you say, one CC game would have no bearing on judging his ability to play red ball against Aussie. The more likely scenarios as I see it either i) England want to use him at red ball, probably as back up for Pope and Stokes, and uses this game as prep. Or ii) England want him for white ball only for the next [x] time and he doesn't play versus Notts.
What England actually do (and this is pretty much entirely their decision, they could force him into our side if they wanted) doesn't seem to ever match my logical read of the situation however, who knows what will actually happen. As I say up the feed, doesn't play v Notts and does the Ashes tour is distinctly possible.
paulbear wrote:
No, I agree, there is no point now and any talk of an Ashes selection is irrelevant and playing one CC at the end of the season should not have any bearing on a selection for this particular tour. I am not sure how he would be on a tour of Australia seeing as those bastards lay into everyone as soon as they step off the plane, never letting up and getting in your face at every opportunity.
Yeah we've discussed it on these boards a few times. I can't see how the baseballers have it easier but it isn't quite the same, the games are around the same length as a T20, albeit with the potential to longer, though players can and do get subbed out of games a lot while a pitcher will only realistically start one game in five, they're properly rotated. You do also get slightly low key games where a glut of scoring happens early and means both teams throw in the towel, go through the motions, mass substituions and basically move onto the next game with plenty of the game in progress yet to be played.
Cricketers do need to take heed of this when they say they play too much, but I wouldn't want cricket to morph into something like baseball, it's a worse reality I think.
In a logical world you'd assume if Jacob played he's being lined up for an Ashes squad place. Very hard to decipher England's plans with him though. Probably doesn't play but still travels.
Forecast looked horrendous eh. I agree it would never happen but there are incentives to manufacture a win for both Essex and us. Though the prize is only really a possibility of third for us and a possibility of fourth for them - which I think isn't enough of an incentive to risk a defeat. Looks like Somerset will win and that pretty much guarantees them at least third. That's kind of it done, isn't it?
How's things looking weather-wise in Birmingham? I just saw on Cricinfo that play was due to start at 1320, then status reverted to delayed because of rain. Will they get on at all today?
Gilchrist's figures do stand out a bit this morning, don't they? He did play well against Surrey though, so we probably ought to give him a few games to assess properly.
Given the weather, this round does look like it is going to be a draw, however, interesting to see how much bonus points affect the table, bearing in mind Essex are behind us. Quick guestimate is we need at least a few BPs to keep them one whole game behind us.
Streetly_Bear wrote:
And back to the cricket….
Very early to say but Gilchrists figures have not been particularly good since it was announced he was joining us. Im not at the ground but he doesn't exactly look a marquee signing.
I can see why the different counties would want different things to be honest. I saw from the players poll that Surrey have 31 players, surely we don't have anywhere near that amount so they are naturally better rested. In addition they are probably younger, better paid, better resourced and have decent crowds in to watch them guaranteeing more exposure. These differences and more besides are spread across all clubs in the country and influence those votes.
mad wrote:
ajones1328 wrote:
Surrey chairman on future of county cricket
https://youtu.be/2m-kgGtRshg?si=d8AwghGU1a1SwZRx
Key takeaway
At a vote, all Surrey players want a 14 game County championship 31-0.
Surrey CC are clearly proud of the CC and its their main priority and the membership and attendance shows that.Baffles me that Warwickshire's playing staff wouldn't be on exactly the same page as the Surrey playing staff and not want any reduction to the county championship. Ditto most of the other sets of players across the counties.
So either were being misled by the PCA and the Warwickshire hierarchy or else we and other clubs have a playing squad that just doesn't like playing cricket????!??
Which in a way would chime with the overall poor results over the past ten seasons for Warwickshire just one slightly fortuitous county championship title in that time and continual failure in the Blast and ODC. A sign of a very badly run club at least from a playing aspect.
The hierarchy at Warwickshire should be nowhere near deciding they can instruct a successfully run county like Surrey or Somerset that they have to reduce fixtures IMHO
And down the line the Warwickshire members shouldn't put up with this regime for much longer either
Yup, played well. That Davies wicket just before the rain was a bit of a downer but still shouldn't affect the status of the match now. I hadn't watched the feed until today, but there was one commentator who seemed to be braying about how Surrey were "so good" in live time while it was becoming clearer, with the Notts game as well, how this round was slipping away from them. In all honesty I don't think he was that arrogant, just a little bit unaware of social situations and how he was coming across. As Bosworth says, you don't need to care about them.
It seems the weather is moving West to East as I got that rain about 20 minutes earlier. It's now passed and back to sunshine so I expect they'll be back, though that was useful time out of the game.
Slightly more interesting this morning than I thought, I watched the first three overs and saw very quick scoring albeit giving away a wicket, though from that point it seemed slower though still losing wickets. Probably Surrey didn't play it so well and did they sacrifice runs to allow Sibley to get a century? Overall weather is looking better down here though I am West London not South, at absolute worst we lose a bit to a shower but it won't be a long interruption if it happens. Looks like we have to bat out all those 7x overs...