Agree with a lot happy to see Pollock score runs. He's suffered in the past being stuck with Ian Bell opening and has had to score for both of them, though with Hose going so well he had that rare luxury of being able to play himself in today. I can't remember what happened last year, but is the absence of OHD expected? In my minds eye I had him as a more reliable death bowler than Brookes - but saw little of last year.

Just watched the five overs after lunch and its moving miles. OHD in particular seems to be struggling to control it, though, and Miles looks the more threatening - two wickets after all. That lack of accuracy might explain why we keep failing to finish teams off. Really important to be accurate if the attack is pretty much exclusively right arm medium. Willing to be corrected if this is an OHD aberration.

Have to see how Derby go on it, might be one of those pitches that plays harder than it looks. I've mentioned on this forum a few times before that our batting is better than it was last year - but there's some huge holes and I think they're mainly psychological. One of Burgess or Hain could have really gone on today and there were others who got out just as they were getting in.

Yah. I don't argue with you on that. One of the many examples of the ECB not understanding fans, supporters and the grassroots. It's them I think are the real issue, ECB are Woakes' employer.

Streetly_Bear wrote:

If that’s the case then that’s the decision, but my issue is that we (fans and members) are not really being communicated that narrative. Without which only bad feelings towards all of the parties can occur.

As for the game, not the best of starts…

For a bit more info on Woakes look at George's cricinfo report from the last game. The gist of it was Woakes was going to play in ODIs this summer and therefore wouldn't play red ball domestic, at least at this part of the season. I don't really buy the narrative that Woakes is being held hostage by the ECB, he probably wants this. He's a 30xx year old with dodgy knees, if I was him I would want enough international cricket to secure franchise gigs and Warwicks only to loosen and fine tune. I also feel he loves the club and wants to pay us back - but I think that might be optimistic. Same situation with Ian Bell, desire was there just his ability had gone by the time it came to be.

My word there was some tension on that 110 over bonus point cut off! I consider our batting better than last year and unquestionably it's best days are ahead of us ... however we nearly made a total mess of that. Seemed stuck between a plan of accelerating for the third batting point while stodging to stop them getting their third bowling point. To have laid the foundation of 230/3 then lose wickets just at the time they needed to accelerate is one of the many batting strategies they need to work on.

I know what you mean, it's not necessarily ECB who are mandating any of this. I got a question answered by the Guardian's cricket correspondent Ali Martin a week or so back in that he seemed to think Woakes wasn't looking to wind down his Warwicks commitments, like Bell he senses he owes the club a bit, so it seems motivation is there. I had previously sensed Woakes didn't want to do much country cricket anymore. I think the same could be said of Jofra Archer, of which there is some conjecture he could miss the entire of this season to be ready for T20 world cup and the ashes.

Exiled Bear wrote:

Do we know for sure that it's the ECB that have prevented Woakes from playing? Given how much he's been away from home/in bubbles over the last year there's a chance that he may have chosen to spend some time with his family.

The game being rained off is better than losing it, but those lack of batting points have already cost us with this group being so tight. A few have mentioned Rhodes. It's only a few matches in so I don't think there's thoughts of him moving yet. But Yates and Malan opening (once Sibley goes to England) Lamb, Hain, Rhodes might work better. Not sure about Lamb moving up to three at this stage anyway, everyone apart from Bresnan is averaging below potential at the moment.

Brings me to my observation of the season. Were Hain and Lamb anything to do with ropey technique?

I saw 15 mins before lunch and Malan and Yates looked to be very correct against a few balls from Leach that were right in the areas to exploit dampish May conditions.

white-lightning wrote:

Poor dismissals for Malan, Hain & Lamb. I really don't know what Hain's improvised short sweep was meant to be? Absolutely no need to play that sort of shot at this stage. Rob Yates is showing good discipline....

Agree for all the points you make. I think it is largely the fault of the pandemic though and we will head back to normality eventually. It might well self-regulate in it is here to stay. The ECB set our crazy schedule for commercial reasons. If the coaches end up putting out weakened sides for every series, then you assume the schedule will eventually be pared back.

For comparison: Baseball has around 160-180 games in an eight month season. Games last as long as a T20 and there are usually six games a week in blocks of three. The pitchers rotate all the way through and there isn't a sense of being short changed. Just that squads build up a huge "bull pen" of high quality but complementary players.There is a point that there's only one pitcher per game so it is inherently different. But the acceptance that you will have, say, ten roughly equal quality bowlers in a squad isn't in cricket yet.

BristolBear wrote:

I do hate the rotation policy. I could slightly understand it with the bubbles. 12+ months living in a bubble must have been very tough.
But then some imposed it on themselves going to the IPL.
Also, with rotation now everyone loses. England lose because they don’t get their best side, counties lose because they don’t get their best players even if they’re not playing, and the players lose because they risk losing their place to someone else even if they’ve been playing well.
The test side has very little cross over with the T20 squad so I hope it stops this summer.

Glad he got out reasonably promptly. From the IPL statement it sounded like they were struggling to do that. Purely on merit I agree with you m on the test team. But they will probably rotate the whole summer which I see as Woakes, Broad and Anderson switching for each other and then the quicks Wood, Archer and Stone, doing the same. You could argue if Woakes needed this rest given he has bowled a maximum of 12 competitive over the last 8 months. BristolBear wrote:

I just saw a report that both Woakes and Billings have left India and will be back in the UK today or tomorrow to begin 10 days of quarantine. Which, assuming he's allowed to play, would mean he'd be available against Essex on May 20th.

You'd have thought it would be in the ECB's interests to let him play. The match would finish a week before the New Zealand series, if he was selected, and he'd get some red ball cricket in. As they won't be in bubbles this summer, I'm assuming players could return to their counties too unlike last year.

I do also wonder if he's slipped down the red ball pecking order for England, and Warwickshire might have him during the test series. Archer, Anderson, Broad will all start if they're fit which it seems they will be. Then Curran was preferred to Woakes over the winter, plus you've now got Robinson at Sussex who was in the squad last summer, he's getting a lot of wickets again with the England coaches watching him twice this season already, so it's tight for the 4th seamers spot.

I think the deal is the ECB have his contract, we get compensation and he is in effect loaned back to us when England need. Which means he's essentially using Warwickshire to fine-tune for internationals. Willing to be corrected as I'm not sure I've quite got it.

I can live with that so long as it is England internationals. IPL I'm suspect about though I recognise one or two stints per career gives the player something new to learn. Who wouldn't want that over a short career?

What I worry about is if our players end up missing games for us ( ie looseners for internationals) while playing something like, and no disrespect to, the Pakistan Premier League. I fear Woakes might be going in this direction if he does slip out of the England Test squad - which in this case I think isn't his fault.

white-lightning wrote:

I wonder how Chris Woakes contract with Warwickshire is set up? He never seems to play many games at all for the Bears. Even when there's been opportunities particularly towards the end of the season the ECB have rested him due to Test appearances. A frustrating situation; so many formats and the IPL doesn't benefit the Bears.

If the England Test team was picked on merit at the end of last summer, he was in it. The winter has been damaging. Aware of the oddities of the quarantine period and training. However, not sure this is the key issue really. Depends on how Woakes sees his career going from here. I'd hope he wanted to get some red ball for Warks ahead of making a case for the test side while only playing enough white ball to raise profile for the next franchise gig. So the hundred basically. Even after having such a sparse winter I can't see him competing on all fronts the rest of this season.

Has anyone else noticed just how little Woakes has played in the last eight months? And does anyone have an idea of how much he will play, in any format, team or country, in the coming months? I notice he has played three T20s in IPL plus two intra-England squad games, only, since last summers home internationals. I wonder if, given his slightly iffy knees, he is aiming at a career of franchise cricket from here. Was just speculating to myself given the postponement of IPL what he would do now. Given travel difficulties and quarantine, might well be the next games he is available for in the UK full stop are the NZ tests and then 100.

Notice the comment re Vihari. Three games is too short a time to assess anything but I'm inclined to say it was a shake of the dice that didn't come off. I wouldn't sweat the cost, hat budget would have been earmarked for player spend anyhow and there would have been a saving on not having Malan here. Also of note this game, its been horror batting after two good fourth innings. Could it be they just got a little over confident? I think not, it sounds like it was bad conditions for that first 1-2 hours and it got better. Good life lessons though...

Few points about this game, but this about Burgess I think is interesting. By way of comparison, there was some data out recently that Bairstow and Buttler in tests have got the huge majority of their test match runs in innings one of four in the match. Preaumably once they've kept in the field their concentration is then shot. Could well be the same with Burgess. Basically being a batsman keeper is really tough and especially so if your top order fold all the time and you come I at 30/4 all the time.

*BristolBear wrote:**

SC_Bear wrote:

Notwithstanding all the above I'm very concerned about Burgess. His keeping looks pretty acceptable but his contributions with bat have been dismal. Not really up to date with our other wicket keeping options but I do wonder how much longer they can perservere with Burgess in this form.

I think you're doing his keeping a disservice, as glovemen go, he's excellent. I'm not sure I've ever seen him drop a catch. He also looks like he's a popular member of the team.

Agree batting wise he's in poor form, but it's hardly like everyone else is tearing up trees currently. What I don't understand is that for the majority of his career Ambrose would always bat 7, I'm not sure why we bat Burgess at 6. Burgess played as a batsman only in 2019 and he looked good. Since he's taken over the keeping full time, he's found it more difficult. Not excusing the form, but most keepers bat at 7 for a reason. I think we need to give the likes of him, Bresnan and Lamb a proper platform for once, they're supposed to be attacking batsmen, not digging us out a hole batsmen.

Few points about this game, but this about Burgess I think is interesting. By way of comparison, there was some data out recently that Bairstow and Buttler in tests have got the huge majority of their test match runs in innings one of four in the match. Preaumably once they've kept in the field their concentration is then shot. Could well be the same with Burgess. Basically being a batsman keeper is really tough and especially so if your top order fold all the time and you come I at 30/4 all the time.

*BristolBear wrote:**

SC_Bear wrote:

Notwithstanding all the above I'm very concerned about Burgess. His keeping looks pretty acceptable but his contributions with bat have been dismal. Not really up to date with our other wicket keeping options but I do wonder how much longer they can perservere with Burgess in this form.

I think you're doing his keeping a disservice, as glovemen go, he's excellent. I'm not sure I've ever seen him drop a catch. He also looks like he's a popular member of the team.

Agree batting wise he's in poor form, but it's hardly like everyone else is tearing up trees currently. What I don't understand is that for the majority of his career Ambrose would always bat 7, I'm not sure why we bat Burgess at 6. Burgess played as a batsman only in 2019 and he looked good. Since he's taken over the keeping full time, he's found it more difficult. Not excusing the form, but most keepers bat at 7 for a reason. I think we need to give the likes of him, Bresnan and Lamb a proper platform for once, they're supposed to be attacking batsmen, not digging us out a hole batsmen.

Has anyone said officially that Stone is being rested, specifically, for England this early season period? I get Woakes being managed seeing as he has a long term injury and is actually likely to play Tests this summer - if he ever gets out of quarantine that is. Stone I can't see is anything more than third choice fast bowler to take their turn after Archer and Wood.

First paragraph is the crucial one - to engage the different communities in Birmingham. So I would argue it's done for the right reasons. Warks have always done a fine job recruiting from the wider county but a poor job with the Asian and Caribbean communities right on our doorstep. If these games are done as part of a wider marketing effort to create better pathways from the games on the concrete football pitches in Sparkbrook to Edgbaston then bring it on. Who wouldn't want a few more Moeen Ali's?

First paragraph is the crucial one - to engage the different communities in Birmingham. So I would argue it's done for the right reasons. Warks have always done a fine job recruiting from the wider county but a poor job with the Asian and Caribbean communities right on our doorstep. If these games are done as part of a wider marketing effort to create better pathways from the games on the concrete football pitches in Sparkbrook to Edgbaston then bring it on. Who wouldn't want a few more Moeen Ali's?