Good to know. So realistically only three non-pitchers switched per game? I swear I saw a game when the whole side had switched at least once, but it was in Japan in 2004. Total shambles. Clear as day I can remember a pinch hitter coming on, getting a hit then being subbed for a specialist runner when on first base.

Highveld wrote:

MLB has a 162 game regular season, the active roster is 24 players, of which at least 12 are specialitist pitchers. that expands to 40 in September, to allow promising young players from the minor leagues an opportunity.

Peter Moores in the article makes the most significant point that he doesn't see it happening a lot. Have to be clear, this isn't a tactical replacement it's a decision to sacrifice a wicket so it's a lot of resources to give up.

Substitutions, which crop up around this situation, are a different matter and I think that might work. It's useful to also be aware of the situation in baseball, however. Unlimited substitutions are fine, player leaves the game when subbed off, and squads are huge for a 180 game season. If a game is dead you might see two substitutions for every position. That's bad and shortchanges spectators - it's no resemblance to what you paid to watch.

I wonder if one substitutions per team, per innings would make sense? As a neutral I actually quite like watching Mark Cosgrove bat. But his fielding isn't quite as aesthetique. Good to get the best of him without cheating.

Last two comments, mad and Gerry very pertinent. If I recall correctly it happened in the IPL recently when a stodgy batsman who was repairing a top order collapse got bogged down with a good striker to come in. Interestingly, Brathwaite was playing in that game and he said there would be more of it. He's also got an awful career record against leg spin.

Personally, I have no issue with it seeing as it had always been in the game (remember pre-season friendlies and tour games?). The batting side are penalised appropriately through losing a wicket. It might well be that this evolves into a tactical substitution of some sort allowed once in an innings. I remember the trial of substitutes about 25 years ago was deemed a failure but I'm not sure it's true to say it could never work in white ball.

Didn't need to make point 4) a comment about anything more than there was a poor announcer in my view. I don't think white men being discriminated against is really a big issue at the moment.

paulbear wrote:

1. Good knock from Benj who looks to be ideal for this form.
2. Great credit to Hose for just taking the sting out of the situation by pushing it about and not trying to rush the total and give Durham even more momentum.
3. It worries me that we make hard work of games like this that should be won fairly comfortably.
4. The announcer was terrible to the point where you had no idea who caught the ball, who bowled it and who the batsman was. Are we becoming like the BBC by making sure there isn't a white bloke doing any job anymore because boxes must be ticked.

Worth looking at as I think that team is a bowler or two away from being the first choice T20 side ...

Highveld wrote:

Link for Game 1 v N'hants May 24th

https://live.nvplay.com/ecb/#m17416b4b-6235-4dec-a038-4a77345cd2de

I've seen Bethell plays top order in 2nd team white ball, is he capable of doing up the order in four day? Funny how your perceptions change, last week I was against it, this week I think it's worth a shot. I was shooting the breeze with some Lancs fans on the Guardian back end of last year. They were of the opinion Davies shouldn't be opening in red ball. I have a bad feeling he moved here because we said he could open as much as he liked...

If it wasn't the fact I need to head to nursery to pick up my son if five mins I would be settling into this: OHD and Burgess, best partnership of the year, covering some dross by the previous nine wickets.

Should be a draw from here. This is more or less the template of the last few years. A OK score batting relatively slowly does make us tough to beat though would have preferred a few more bonus points. With regard to selection, I don't really know what would improve things from here. Surely the point is a lot of decent bowlers are missing so we're down to the next best, drop any more and it's academy picks. I get the point with Bethell but all that does is make us stronger at 6/7/8 and adds another left arm spinner.

Thanks Reabank for the link. Unfortunately, it's a broken link, but I'm not surprised we're a bit up against it. When I was a kid I used to read our financial reports as accountancy practice so always find this interesting. What's our expenditure just now? I presume ground redevelopment still and problems from the pandemic. I guess our incomes are still fairly decent.

And agree that Davies as a permanent batting signing was the priority. Now it turns to a change-up seam bowler.

Reabank wrote:

Yes I think lack of money was why we didn't join the Pakistani bowler chase. I have Warwickshire dead last in my county financial rankings (see below). Also signing Davies from Lancashire probably used up quite a bit of budget and left us rummaging through the bargain bin when it came to overseas four day players. And it's only one bad day, McAndrew may look like an inspired decision by the end of the season.

http://sideoncricket.blogspot.com/2022/04/bentley-forbes-consulting-rankings-2020.html

Yeah. It's hard to think much further than money to be honest. Weirdly, bowling is now our issue and especially if Stone and Woakes are missing. The rest of the attack is right arm and not express so a left arm quick would have been great - this was obvious from the end of last year. Shaheen Afridi was available and keen on the UK - but ot looks like we could never get near him.

BristolBear wrote:

On McAndrew I believe he arrived at Edgbaston on the second day of the Essex match. So in the country just under a week.

I thought he was supposed to be a bit quicker, bowl a heavy ball, get some bounce, a bit like Norwell. But we’ll see how he pans out.

What doesn’t change is that in terms of available players, no way do I believe that he was the best possible bowler the club could acquire for the overseas position. I listed the calibre of players in an earlier comment, so I’d love to know want Farbrace was doing when all those other bowlers were signing deals elsewhere.

Ha! I do like the John Robinson example. I come clean as a Communications and Media manager - but agree you always need to understand the business well in whatever business you are in. Easier if you love the game in this situation.

GerryShedd wrote:

I, too, can't see the political correctness angle.
But I do think it would be difficult to imagine someone doing the job with the necessary commitment and enthusiasm if they didn't have a love of cricket.
The nearest equivalent I can think of is John Robinson, who was Bishop of Woolwich in the 1960s even though he didn't believe in God.

To be honest mate, I think it's more likely they're looking for someone with communication skills and experience dealing with the media than someone who's 'politically correct'. What do you mean by that in this context anyhow?

Highveld wrote:

It is concerning that "A love of cricket and knowledge of sports media useful, but not essential."
Sadly it seems being "politically correct" is considered more important than ability to do the job.

I'd guess it's unlikely. You wouldn't want to encourage him to come back if he was actually concussed. As Gerry says, a fair deal. And how good was that wicket at the death? Wonder how Laurence will go. A yone know his status?

DOM SIBLEY SIX CLAXON!!!!

I think that makes the most sense and would be what I would go for. Will they be tempted by Benjamin over Bresnan? That's the only tweak I could consider ...

Andy wrote:

Sibley
Rhodes
Yates
Hain
Lamb
Burgess
Woakes
Bresnan
Briggs
Miles
Norwell

My interpretation of this is George can get a far more impressive portfolio while not shackled to Cricinfo. He's outgrown it basically. I know freelancers who write the match reports on there, it's not a huge amount of cash. Good luck to him, I've noticed he's very responsive on twitter so I think we won't be hearing any less from him.

Some changes to that team from the squad with some coming from outside the squad. Few covid changes perhaps?

There's no way England can say he needs to be rested!

In this case, I think Woakes needs to play, but I think more generally there is a problem with the England multi-format players. He's in a worse place but Ben Stokes has been in similar place to Woakes this year: played and hasn't played, got injured, rushed back all against a background of travel and family turmoil and he's cracked. I read a piece in the Standard on Wednesday the Stokes is nowhere near a return yet, suggests a bigger problem than first thought.

As you say though, Root vs Woakes would be a nice little test for them both at the end of the season.

Is anyone watching? Have batting conditions got easier like it was suggested it would do?

Not really any great insight from me on the game, but two wider points: did we ever have realistic goals of winning the county championship? I don't think we did. Personnel I'm happy we have snapped the poor form of 2020 and am happy there is a better set of coaches and perhaps players in place.

Secondly, and this point was mainly brought on by the test match yesterday, is we need to learn how to win some key moments. Do it when it matters. Hants have done this now, but we always seem to fold when we really need to perform. This might be a result if being a relatively new team or it might be lack if confidence. We could get this instinct.

Sibley and Rhodes both have got better since they joined us. We do get a lot of academy bats graduate, find elite cricket too much, then get released, which is just life independent of coaching. But Pollock seemed to get established and then plateau or even get worse. I think we can bring on one batsmen a year with current resources, perhaps attention is more with Benjamin and perhaps Lamb this year.

Streetly_Bear wrote:

In recent years can anyone name a batsmen who has improved consistently?

In my time as a member, around 8 years, our batting unit has always been the weak link.