Good, and important, win that. Some hopefully slightly easier games coming in what is the weaker pool. Greatly encouraging to see the young lads do well, particularly Hamza. If he'd got out early we would have been run through, when he was out the game was virtually won although Kai and Lintott played well to assure it.

With the 100 meaning so many players are unavailable this is fundamentally a development competition and I actually like that about it, it's good seeing what up-and-coming players there are. It's very hard to see our, or indeed anyone else's, prospects in it without knowing who we will have loaned back. Mousley and Bethell it would be good to see back and it would allow them to shoot for a leadership role seeing as they broke-out a couple of years ago now. Micky B wasn't in the washed out warm up against Wales, hope to see him though my biggest fear is if he doesn't play in this (specialist bat at number 4? Kai Smith to keep?) then he'll leave the club at the end of the season. Love to see Norwell get some bowling as warm up for the CC run-in even though I don't really see him as a white ball player.

mad wrote:

Agree I hope we target winning this competition this season rather than use it as a development competition as we appeared to last couple of seasons. We have enough points to be able to use the final two home Championship fixtures in September as development games for a one or two of the youngsters

It seems Middlesex pick one outground a year and play multiple games there. It was Radlett last year (which I went to, was nice but a weird slope and virtually all facilities were brought in) OMT school this year, Richmond in the past and a long time ago Uxbridge. Doesnt seem to be much difference between them as the same ubiquitious stack of folding chairs have been at all of them. On the Middlesex experience, there's no problem Warks playing at any of the grounds, as someone said where there's a will there's a way, but respect the answers of those who say grounds don't work for whatever reason.

Andy wrote:

Uxbridge is woeful do Middlesex still use it?

I saw and took part in a twitter discussion on it and that passage you quote, Gerry, was the crucial one. As interpret it TRJ was still wafting his bat around, overelaborately, when regaining normal position after his shot. So it is still his follow through and therefore he hadn't "completed any action in receiving the delivery". One thing we will probably never know now is if the ball was dead or not at this moment, ie hit the ground beyond the boundary. This is the subject of the next para in the rules, and neither camera has both in shot, understandably. Both umpires were watching the ball in flight. Personally I think moral out from the unnecessary, ostentatious even, bat waving after the shot ;-). But of course I am a Warks supporter.

GerryShedd wrote:

Back to the match - there has apparently been quite a bit of discussion on at least one umpiring forum about the hit wicket decision against Toby Roland Jones. The consensus seems to be that he was wrongly given out because it is not out if the contact with the stumps occurs, as the Laws says, "after the striker has completed any action in receiving the delivery" . As I understand it, the only exceptions to this are if it happens when the striker is setting off for a run or is seeking to defend his wicket, neither of which seems to have been the case.
The suggestion is that both umpires were (understandably) following the flight of the ball and didn't see what happened and that, had there been DRS available, the decision would have been not out.
What do others (and especially our resident umpire Highveld) think?

Reading between the lines I don't think he knows what he wants to do or is capable of. It was a while ago he said he wanted to come back and pay Warwickshire back for the time invested in him against time lost with England. Bell and Mo Ali said the same. But the fact these guys have a short careers and need to boost their earnings and the fact they're in a slump following international careers might mean this is quite fanciful.

With Woakes I hope he finishes internationals on a high and I'd be happy for him to play franchise gigs overseas that don't affect his stated availability for whatever tapered career with Warks he decides on.

GerryShedd wrote:

Interesting article - but I didn't see any mention of Warwickshire.

If there is to be an overseas who should it be?

I like the story of your previous visit to Canterbury Gerry. The flight there from Birmingham sounds interesting too. I've been to Canterbury three times in the last 18 years or so (easy from London, especially on the new fast train from St Pancras) and agree a very nice ground, in the same sort of category as Worcester though Worcester does shade it. I remember having two quite unpleasant conversations with some of their supporters there, bit boastful and crass about Rob Key of all people, but probably three or more more pleasant ones and was taken care of well when I had my then 14 month old son with me. So net-net all good.

To today it seems a slight shift in balance with Essex winning and Hampshire drawing. I said after a previous game I think 2nd is the best we can do this year and I think we will need to play really well to beat Essex to that. Hants seem on the wane a bit now and I think we'll see them off but Essex are at the peak of their powers. The run ins will be interesting.

It's hard to look far beyond a loss of temperament on the big day for me. Can point to supposed inadequacies with the team but that got us to top place so it was good enough. I wonder if last year's thrashing played on our minds a bit. Another thing that occured to me: are we a long way behind the southern teams in white ball cricket? I've suddenly got memories of a whole stack of southern counties giving us limited overs kicking in recent years.

Definitely an odd side and not just because of the parachuted in Bess. We always knew we were a bit light with the bat and asking Bethell to be Hain for a game was always a bit of an imbalance (although with 2x 30 he wasn't the worst batsman). I'm not going to look it up but how many CC sides look balanced when playing two spinners?

paulbear wrote:

Pity to lose that seeing as Surrey are struggling and could very well lose tomorrow. With a game in hand, it could have made things interesting. Surrey, even if they end up winning are vulnerable at times but seem to have people in their side to get them out of trouble but it can't work every time. That was a strange looking Warwickshire side and it didn't fill me with confidence even before the toss.

I think scoreboard pressure and all those overs in the field have done the batsmen over this game. I saw a Warks tweet that the last innings in Notts and the first here, back to back FC games, albeit with t20s in between, was 349 overs. I wonder if this had made the difference? It seemed having the liberty of not having to block to the death as the game was lost helped Mousley, Bess and Lintott get those runs.

A lot of misfortune this match. Lost the toss, missing a key batsman, missing the established number one spinner, usual situation with Woakes. Having said that, this might be costly. I don't expect Warks to catch Surrey, but I'd be disappointed to lose ground on Hampshire to lose grip on second. Weather in London has been a lot cooler today and dar clouds around, a random shower for a few hours might help to pick up a draw and got to hope their bowlers tire a lot before that ...

It's good to see how they managed to get back on track after a losing slide. I'm not sure what the best eleven is, but needs a squad of 17 or so to go deep in this competition and all of them need to contribute at some stage. I also took a look at Mousley in the cricinfo last matches bit. He's made a contribution with bat or ball (or field) in every one of the recent games. More significant to the side's success than it first appeared I would say.

Haha, I of little faith. And don't get me wrong, what will be, will be. My point was only really that Surrey and Hampshire, our competition, turned it on in co-ordinated fashion which would change the look of the top of table.

paulbear wrote:

Have faith Tayls79, Surrey have been out-played and showed that they are not invincible as some think but I know what you mean about a run chase in the 4th innings. Without any more rain I think we will win but a problem must be to enforce the follow-on or not. If it feels right to bowl, carry on and enforce it. All depends on what Notts get. If they are 200 allout, why bat again with a 370+ lead.

Gone about ad good as it could have done for Warwickshire today - but our opposition in the others games have had a good second half of the day as well. Surrey folded for 145, good to have them get zero batting bonus points, but have chipped away at Kent in the afternoon. Could easily see a situation where Surrey chase down 400 in the sun with plenty of time in the game while we can't quite break down Notts twice and the gap widens. Hants recovering well against Lancs, but they've got far more to do to get a win.

That's definitely true!

BristolBear wrote:

I think it might be because we were always 60 odd for 3 or 4. So Hain and Burgess inevitably had to rebuild.
Davies, Yates, Sibley and Rhodes barely scored last year. So perhaps that’s more of it.

I haven't got any data to prove this but I'm fairly certain this isn't true. I started watching after lunch today and the run rate never went below ~3.2. Got quicker in the evening session, ~3.7 at the close, and no-one was ever put under pressure to score quickly. And welcome it is too, last season we got shot out too many times when bogged down.

Enjoyed watching today. From the clips I saw of Hain in the Blast, was remarkable to see him play straight and at a composed tempo today. Mousley looked very solid until the aberration when he was out and although I only saw 21 balls of Barnard he looks quite correct too. As others have paraphrased, no dramas to get the fourth BP, then bat long to tire out Notts tomorrow would be my approach.

BristolBear wrote:

Is it me, or does our top 4 seem to bat very slowly this year compared to last?
Hain seems to have gone very anti-BazBall. Davies and Yates take a long while to get going too.

Rhodes goes at a more brisk pace, but really hasn’t scored that many this year.

Puts all the pressure on Mousley, Barnard and Burgess to up the rate.

I haven't got any data to prove this but I'm fairly certain this isn't true. I started watching after lunch today and the run rate never went below ~3.2. Got quicker in the evening session, ~3.7 at the close, and no-one was ever put under pressure to score quickly. And welcome it is too, last season we got shot out too many times when bogged down.

Enjoyed watching today. From the clips I saw of Hain in the Blast, was remarkable to see him play straight and at a composed tempo today. Mousley looked very solid until the aberration when he was out and although I only saw 21 balls of Barnard he looks quite correct too. As others have paraphrased, no dramas to get the fourth BP, then bat long to tire out Notts tomorrow would be my approach.

BristolBear wrote:

Is it me, or does our top 4 seem to bat very slowly this year compared to last?
Hain seems to have gone very anti-BazBall. Davies and Yates take a long while to get going too.

Rhodes goes at a more brisk pace, but really hasn’t scored that many this year.

Puts all the pressure on Mousley, Barnard and Burgess to up the rate.

Yeah. Momentum is all the other way now. Big fan of Mo over his career and have never criticised him, but I wonder if parachuting him in as captain from IPL while effectively still cold has destabilised everyone else? Having said that, don't think it's an individuals thing and not worth dropping him or promoting the other, just need to get heads up throughout the organisation.

Like I say, I'm relaxed about his recovery time. I think ultimately he needs to play as an experienced international but give Yates and Mousley, who I assume one of which will be replaced by Moeen, a bit more time to make a case for who stays.

Coop wrote:

CSK won of course (finished Sunday nigh / Monday morning), but Moeen didn't bat or bowl in the final, but as someone said would you bring him straight back in?

I don't follow IPL at all. But from the edges of my news radar I understand that the final took two days and finished mega late India time on Monday? So I think with the flight home and all that the earliest we'll see him is next week. While we're winning I'm relaxed about giving him recovery time.