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.

As a county, we've got a fine history off it this breathing tick. As a 14 year old in 1993 Jack Bannister nearly put me off my early love for the game by doing the exact same thing. I watched one ball at lunch and it was Sanderson getting Mousley. I knew he would get out that ball once he tripped over the boundary rope walking in to bat. I issue a full apology on my "good deal" comment earlier though I did slightly hedge it. I will be making no further comments.

KingofSpain wrote:

Mikkyk wrote:

They aren't rally tucking into it - played themselves in. Burgess was probably slightly better than expected. Rhode was keeping to Burgess, suffice to say he won't be taking up the gloves again anytime soon.

I know it's been mentioned before but Clive Eakin's breath intakes are infuriating. It's bad enough when the game is exciting, when it's dead like this at the moment... i'm turning off because of it.

I had to turn off. I cannot stand Eakin's sharp intakes of breath. Time for the BBC to give the listeners a break and put him out of his misery.

Seems to be the case. So 176 or around 57 overs, which isn't much more than three runs an over. Is the pitch so bad that this will be too difficult? Or was it the case that Northants really feared an slow over rate penalty?? Seems unlikely on the latter point.

ajones1328 wrote:

We've got a good deal out of this.

OK think I worked it out, I think they have pulled out of engineering a result now.

The Warwickshire twitter has it that we batted on this morning to get their bowling rate back up to speed in exchange for, I believe, a chance at setting up a result. But they've gone cold on that now. There's only 60 odd overs left in the game which I guess is the minimum they need to get the wickets and there's nowhere near enough runs to prevent us winning if they bowl.

I don't know if radio comms have deduced anything more??

ajones1328 wrote:

Tayls79 wrote:

Anyone watching this live... Are they not tucking into the buffet? Or is the bowling of Burgess, Yates and seam-up Mousley just a bit too incisive? Guess we have to know what target they have in mind. More importantly, who was keeping to Burgess?

Rhodes keeping wicket. Very bizarre from Northants. I thought they would be looking to go 5+ an over minimum. Not much intent so far

Anyone watching this live... Are they not tucking into the buffet? Or is the bowling of Burgess, Yates and seam-up Mousley just a bit too incisive? Guess we have to know what target they have in mind. More importantly, who was keeping to Burgess?

Yeah I saw this on Twitter but didn't realise it was you. A fine write up!

Yeah I saw this on Twitter but didn't realise it was you. A fine write up!

Right,

You picked out the same players I was thinking and put data on it, which was what I was expecting it to be. But I didn't see the point that they all transferred in. Burgess and Barnard to me get an exception. The former is a number 7 and the latter was bedding in for the first half of the season. As you say, they both contribute in other areas and formats, so all good with me. Davies, yes, we've all talked about, won't add any more. Rhodes I think is interesting. I remember a season where he got 4 tons in the first half of the season. He also bowls less now. When you combine it with our leadership and choking problems, I wonder if it adds up to the leadership canibalising his batting ability? Should he give up the captaincy to help his batting? And if he does that who takes on the leadership?

Your bottom line I agree with though. Recruitment is difficult and probably wont deliver quick solutions.

Andy wrote:

Looking at our batters averages for this seasons county championship, Hain, Yates and Mousley are our top 3 guys all 50, 40 and 35 then we have Burgess, Rhodes, Davies and Barnard all averaging mid 20's.

It's worth pointing out that our better performing batters are all homegrown and 2 of those 3 are still young and improving whilst they all offer in all 3 formats. The other 4 are recruits from other counties, all senior players and all falling short with the bat. I do acknowledge the quality of Burgess keeping and Barnards bowling.

Recruitment ain't necessarily the answer people are making it out to be though.

I don't think much has changed from before the Surrey game to after it other than another big piece of evidence in the pile that we choke in big games. We could well have lost this game if we'd played perfectly, but they shouldn't have folded with the bat quite so badly as that.

I see a few comments about Frost again. I mentioned it long ago that his role or efficacy should be questioned, not by us but by his bosses, but this was so long ago that I'm kind of used to nothing changing now. In any case, can we say we are better with the bat than three years ago? I think we're slightly better by the fact Yates and Mousley have come through and are still improving. We have some U19s who will break through properly in a few years too. Against all that, there is always a bigger stack of batsmen with long-term slumps and it doesn't seem there is the ability to improve all of them. Rhodes, Davies and Benjamin are all in this camp.

Dissapointing to be thrashed so badly and we'll have taken a hit in the table but I don't think anything has changed from before the match. We knew we were a long way behind Surrey and we knew we have a mental, temperament problem in big games.

I like mad's point about Essex and Hampshire being Surrey's main challengers and the fact we beat them. It could be a great ding dong between Warks and those two sides and they're our true benchmarks. Not Surrey. If we've slipped against them (white ball too!!!) then I think it's clear we've deteriorated as the season has gone on. Robinson spoke about KPIs, comparison against Essex and Hampshire could be one.

Disappointing. But I'm not totally pessimistic. I'm not surprised we're going to lose, Surrey are definitely stronger, but the extent of it is pretty bad. So many batters out twice today with a pair of poor scores just suggests that same mindset problem we've discussed here before. Not performing in the big games.

Having said that. I don't think it will be terrible in the future. For me Rob Yates has been OK this season. Averging 40, tailed a bit going into the white ball season but had a good one day so hopefully back into form. Mousley also OK today, he's improved his career average on the 2nd innings. Away from the Oval, Hamza and Theo Wylie both got 50s to help England youth beat Australia.

It's evidently true that Rhodes and Davies are now in multi-year slumps. Seems the challenge is for them to find a bridge to the younger players coming in and providing the core of the team for 2026 or so.

Won't be disappointed not to play Surrey again this season. Depressing how strong the outfit is and how far away they are from all the other sides - surprised theyvarent further ahead in the league. Its a good fight for second spot.

Apart from this whinge, the toss I can see what they were thinking. The only cloud in London for this game was the first hour of this match and the pitch was green. Just got that wrong. From the little I saw of the feed the difference between Hasan Ali and Henry B is massive. Latter was erratic both sides of the wicket when I saw him, like others I'm not too sure where he goes from here but I think it can be redeemed.

Similar case with the batting. We lose two batsmen we look a lot weaker. Get Yates back things look more optimistic. Basically let's hope for a high scoring draw here and see what the next game brings.

Finally - is it possible to have two overseas players now? If only re getting a seamer back...

I was wondering if it is actually great news. We're coming from the same place. I really want him to stay. He's our best keeper for sure and underrated with the bat. Reason I say bad news is its only a one year extension and he has the option on extending. I can see a situation where he doesn't keep in T20 and he ends up leaving the end of 2024...

Highveld wrote:

Has signed acontract extention to the end of 2024, with a player option to extend further.

This is good news, and hopefully a sign that he will be used as the first choice keeper in all forms of the game next season.

I was wondering if it is actually great news. We're coming from the same place. I really want him to stay. He's our best keeper for sure and underrated with the bat. Reason I say bad news is its only a one year extension and he has the option on extending. I can see a situation where he doesn't keep in T20 and he ends up leaving the end of 2024...

Highveld wrote:

Has signed acontract extention to the end of 2024, with a player option to extend further.

This is good news, and hopefully a sign that he will be used as the first choice keeper in all forms of the game next season.

I'm not sure, apart from Kolpaks, that Brexit has changed much as there aren't that many EU cricketing nations. From a while back a third-country work permit criteria was that you had to prove that the permit holder had skills no-one domestically (or presumably under contract at the club, in a sporting context). So very easy to circumnavigate. I think there are examples of football and cricket failing this test but can't remember a name.

BristolBear wrote:

I think football changed how it all works, especially post-Brexit. It used to always be the rule that you had to be an international.
But now they bring in teens from Portugal, Spain. Brazil etc, they have to show they’d be playing or had played at an elite level.
So now with all these franchise tournaments in cricket counting as elite, anyone that’s played in one can basically qualify.

I was one of the stronger backers of Robinson on the semi-final thread though in all reality I'm 50-50 on whether he should go at the end of the season. Why he should go has been covered by others so won't repeat that. My two cents on a case for him staying:

The rumours about his man-management and popularity were also the case when he was England women's coach. As I recall him dropping Charlotte Edwards was particularly controversial. We don't have access to these conversations and it's only rumour so I don't think we can draw too much from this, lets just say he isn't afraid to shuffle his team or management. This is an inherent part of being a coach so this is either a matter of style or something none of us know about to speculate on. Either way, it's not job-terminating on it's own.

He was appointed women's coach in 2015 and England won their world cup in 2017 so there is some evidence there that it takes him, or a coach in general, two years to get to where he wants to be. Eddie Jones, ex England rugby coach said something similar in that the third year was the time for the coach to take total responsibility without blaming predecessors. We're in that period right now. Of course, on this basis, the CC win of 2021 was Jim Troughton's achievement. The poor 2022 (only T20 was good and that ended in embarassment) is on track for this theory.

So I think what we're left with is a problem with choking on big games, three knock-out games lost out of three in two years plus a few champo games when we could have significantly improved our position by playing better. I don't think there's one good reason why you become a better player in these situations but you have to keep playing in them. I also think it's not all on the coach. The players need to play a part seeing as all the key moments happened without a coach within 150 yards.

Put all this together and the logical course of action is a performance review in which he is asked for a plan of how to win clutch games and asked about personnel changes and how he approaches them (includes recruitment). He then needs to work on it with the players who need to actually do the stuff, and then re-assess in one year. I think he can have an extra year as he definitely improved 2023 on 2022 with 2021 being nothing to do with him in terms of performance (Eddie Jones doctrine) and some grace to account for him joining at the end of the pandemic. Lots of people were afforded this bit of privilege so not unreasonable he has the same.

A final, final point. I'm not really sure if we can get better from here, I fear this is the peak and we kind of blew it. However, rationally this can't be proven at this point and sacking people is just a bit too soon.

Genuine question, I haven't seen any of today. But was this one of those quasi-autumnal games where the toss loser gets put in and they got shot out, chasing team win at a canter? I see Dawson got a load of wickets, but had the seamers put us on the backfoot already and he cleared up?

"Clutch" games are definitely a key issue. As well as the knock out white ball games we lost crucial CC games too where a win or a good draw would have seen us in a stronger position. I'm not sure it's totally a coaching issue, there's limited impact when the players are on the field. Without knowing if this was an autumn result we don't know for sure its a choke or not. Not sure if they're getting better at it or not.

While we're on Robinson, I can remember rumours saying he ruffled a few feathers with England women. But England women were much stronger at the end of his reign. This will be his third season completed so he can't blame predecessors. If we get, say, third in the CC, fourth in the one day then 8th in the Blast, is that removal territory?

He's got a degenerative knee condition so it does make sense that rests are build into his schedule. But he did play three back-to-back tests as you say so clear they can manage a lot out of him if required. Whether they build rest into the ODIs or not is a good point but the semi final would be something I think he could manage and be of benefit to him.

mad wrote:

They seem to be very protective of Woakes and it flukily paid dividends for England in the summer. I guess their initial plan was for him to deputise if needed for Jimmy but he comes in fresh for those last three tests and is player of the series. They might hold him back again for a few ODI's and then the world cup whereas previously they might have encouraged him play this week