Thanks Andy. I couldn't find the reference easily. Might be quite elegant that way around if he is surplus to quota then Che can step in. That is if he is fully qualified as well...

Booth is English qualified now. I think he's got an English parent and has done over five years residency, which happened over the off season. And jolly good too.

Reabank wrote:

Don't know much about Brummie Beau. Just looking at the cricinfo page he could bat 5 and be a genuine all - rounder at cc division 1 level? If so then with him and Ed Barnard in the top 6 we will have lots of options. Also am I right in thinking we won't be able to play Michael Booth alongside Webster& Latham as all are overseas players?

Yeah this is utterly aggravating with Bethell. I could take him going to the IPL and playing, massive opportunity. But I don't think he's played a single game. For this reason, I think he'll get something with us when he gets back though. He's got an England contract and they need him to play. I'm pretty sure he can't just go off to another franchise comp, ie the American one, because he wants to.

UrsaMinor wrote:

Highveld wrote:

Adding Latham, Webster and Bethell to the side would massively strengthen the top five of the order, as well as adding two good bowlers.

Changes to the top of the batting order are needed, and it would be a good idea for the club to see what top order batsmen are available on loan, as apart from Bethell we do not have any other batsmen on the staff that are ready for first team cricket.

Latham at 3 would make a massive difference. Yes, one of the top two are likely to go cheaply - that's what happens to opening batsmen. A solid number 3 is then really important.
I think we have to forget about Bethell. He's too embedded with England and franchise cricket now, even if he can't get a game in the IPL.

Looks ugly but it isn't anything new and it is where we are. Failed to get a crucial wicket or two in the field then familar failings with the bat. He's still young and gets a pass, but Hamza has had a whole load of 20s this season. Starts off OK but gets bogged down then gets out. Is that a mental or technical thing? Think it's been the same with his List A appearances too. Like I said last match - hope he gets the chance to work on it.

I don't think there will be a stage when he's over injuries and he'll be able to play a whole season of county cricket. It's permanent injuries he's got now and he's 36. Love him, but I think he either goes T20 / franchise only from this winter or he retires in full. I'm guessing he wants to go to Australia but don't see it unless he gets on the field for May and before the internationals start.

white-lightning wrote:

Andy wrote:

Blimey he only played about 4 games in that comp and that was way back in January.

I love the lad but he's made of glass.

Age and several injuries of late are catching up. England still see him as an important cog in the bowling attack and a useful batsman. I'd still like to see him play a couple of seasons for the Bears, fitness permitting.

Good fun to watch those runs come in. Doubly satisfying that so many of the academy players and new arrivals did the work as well which suggests there's more to come. I think it's only Hamza who hasn't contributed so far. He has got a few starts which suggest he's got it in him. Tends to get bogged down then gets out. I hope he's given the time to rectify it though. With four test players to come in though, plus OHD, I'm looking forward to going beyond last season's one CC win.

Good to see a contribution from Kai and Taz this game, considering FC debut for both this season.

Three wickets now ... yeah appreciated he got some underserved stick last match. I think the fact that Che is only just behind Booth (but deservedly) is a good situation to be honest, they can egg each other on. We get two academy products who can compete at FC level we're in a better place suddenly.

paulbear wrote:

Pity we lost the toss but 2 down for 104 is better than 120-0. Good that Booth got a wicket, he got undue criticism on here last week, he was tidier than other bowlers v Sussex and beat the bat many times more than most of the other bowlers.

I think probably better than 50/50 for a first game with two FC debuts and one more still a teenager.

The bowling will be frustrating this year even if they have at least tried to address it though as we can see not totally successfully. I think Simmons and Booth will share a bit of time as they did get through equal amounts of work pre-season. Booth has had just a bit more experience in top level cricket though so guess that's why he got the nod for this game. Maybe even double up but that would be asking a lot of them. Rushworth is 39 this year, it's inevitable he will be injured and will need a successor. I'm not expecting much from Woakes. Even in a perfect world he can't play that often with his long-term knee issue. He either plays a bit this summer for England or not at all, if not at all I still only see him with Warks for a minority of the time.

Would like to see Simmons as looked quite promising in the one game he played against Essex last year. Jofra-esque. Will bow down if Booth is better prepared in pre-season though. Think Briggs will get the spinner spot. If it was just bowling would prefer Lintott but it's a long tail without Briggs at eight.

Certainly has been the case but his knees (or at this precise moment, his ankle) are so bad he can only make the odd game and can't play consistently.

white-lightning wrote:

We could really do with Chris Woakes playing at the start of this season. Surely he needs some matches to build up his fitness? Or are the ECB going to deny him playing for us yet again??

In reply to a couple of comments. The "mutual consent" has just happened with Warren Gatland as head coach of Wales rugby, the WRU were celebrating it was done like this as it saved them paying out his contract. My guess is same happened with Robinson, he held out and this week was the deadline at which the club would sack him. So maybe it is actually a good outcome not to have to pay him out. Re Frost as batting coach. I think he could do it in isolation, seems one player per season makes good progress on their batting, but not overall and couldn't help multiple people at the same time. Perhaps he was more suited as batting mentor rather than someone with squad responsibility.

I think right decision overall. But it's been so late in the off-season and he's just gave a few quotes last week. "Mutual consent" seems to infer it took him a while to agree. It's the timing that's surprising more than anything.

Have to say a bit meh about the appointment, and also a bit meh about Robinson now being the mouthpiece for it. I'd have thought that a genuine fast, or big bounce, or left arm bowler is what we needed. However, if someone can prove with data that winning matches in the extremes of the summer needs right arm medium fast to fast medium then I'm happy to defer...

I think if we ever see him in the summer now comes down to whether that test number three slot is his. Personally I'm not sure (yet) that it is though this central contract and a Guardo column by Mark Ramprakash saying it is hint to the fact he might get a good run there.

Yup. That's totally what I was inferring. That England should keep the same side for the second test. However, when it comes to the home tests in 2025 and Aussie away - can you see Jacob as test #3? I somehow can't and don't think this was ever anyone's plan.

paulbear wrote:

I would leave it, with Woakes, Atkinson and Carse at 8,9 and 10 it is a long batting line-up. Pope kept well, made runs and so why bring in a new 'keeper who hasn't played in a while and is making a debut. It appears to be a bad move to change things if it not really needed.

Honestly expected Jacob to struggle more than that. Obviously he has a temperament for test cricket. It's an interesting thing to debate whether England have a space at three or not. Pope's had a long run but he's never been totally convincing and him batting six and keeping seemed to work in this game. Do England stick with the lineup from this game or revert to Pope at three then Ollie Robinson goes in with the gloves at six or seven?

Andy, yes I think he's kept more than occasionally and fairly recently too. Don't think he (or Davies) should be doing it in the cc though, top three is a job in itself.

I presume Latham goes in at three as a straight swap for Rhodes, which I think should be good.

It's irrelevant now, but I had noodled a month or so ago that seeing as Mo Ali isn't going to play for England anymore he could use his "play and pay" clause to bat three in cc and bowl spin. As it stands, however, think it's more likely he retires from.cricket than does this.

I was in Hong Kong at the time of this and was well up for it - it was advertised on buses, trams and online. Would have gone (£60) and was aware of Barney and Davies being there but England had been knocked out by Oman by the time I could do it. Oman celebrating well at the airport on the way home.

GerryShedd wrote:

This tournament went (perhaps rightly) under the radar; but from this report, it would appear that, as well as Ethan Brookes, Ed Barnard and Alex Davies also played for the England team:
https://wccc.co.uk/brookes-part-of-england-squad-for-hong-kong-sixes/
Losing to Nepal and Oman doesn't suggest that it was a very successful venture.

I'm relatively happy with his involvement in the England teams. I think Warks will lose him for white ball internationals but I don't think he'll have a lot of Test involvement which is about fine for his experience. Looks like he's going to get these games in NZ, from which I think the best that can happen is he finds he had a lot to learn. In a good way. Then he sets about trying to actually make that up.

I'm annoyed generally when we (Warks or England) lose any player to IPL. Don't see any developemt gain from it with the conditions so different.