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.

Surely we are passed the situation where he ends up not playing for Warwickshire but in reserve for England? Makes no sense at this stage in his career.

ExiledBrummie wrote:

Seems a little harsh to pick someone ahead of him who was not even in the original squad. My concern is he ends up neither playing for us or England much more this summer.

Re Woakes, I agree he's earned a rest week though with no 4 day game after this for a while it is a little unfortunate. I can recall last year or the year before it was said he struggled with back-to-back games of any format with his chronic knee: we've had good availability from him already. He's the ECBs employee so they decide, though I don't think he'll play against Ireland as that will be either a possible for the Ashes or a loosener for those expected to play. I do think he'll be in the wider squad though, there are lots of fast / medium bowlers near England first team with injuries and I think he will play some part in the summer.

Am amused to see Warwicks thump Hampshire in pressing circumstances with some great bowling performances and people are moaning about the batting (after scoring 400). Two things from me:

i) It's no good complaining that x or y's output is "unacceptable". The club has struggled to produce batsmen, they might just have turned the corner, but they either pay money we don't have to get a batsman in, or we throw in a teenager from seconds or academy and pray we get something out of it. The reality of it is that whatever some players produce there is no real alternative. By the situation's very nature it is totally acceptable. That is where we are, discussing changes is for the birds.

ii) This measure of just skipping the highest score to calculate an average isnt a regular statistical technique . You can strip out the outliers, that's fine, but not simply the top scores, so exclude the top score, or top two scores, along with the lowest one or two as well. I would love to see Zak Crawley put through some of these adjusted averages.

Yeah true. 23/3 was the biggest gap between the sides. Since then it's been closer. We're not being spanked, however we're still behind. Rain assisted draw would be a good result.

coolerking wrote:

From a crap start first thing this morning I think we've done pretty well to keep ourselves in it.

Those last two wickets were necessary, but even then I think this one has got away from us a bit, 70+ run lead when we only got 150 is a lot. It is perhaps a good indicator of where we are, though, and if there is some rain tomorrow and Sunday then a better bat second time around and a draw is a decent outcome. Especially if we can get those final two wickets quickly and come out on even points.

I confess I haven't read the sources, other than the headline figure that it's made a huge loss over 2 years. It should be relatively easy to work out the truth though. There is an accountant, or a CFO person, on this forum though and I reckon they would be able to answer relatively easily. Perhaps Reabank? I can't remember.

I think we all know the point of The 100 in its current form is to road test franchise or city based organisations. If it makes a loss after four or five years, then there's no way it will continue. Rugby is proving financial unsustainability at the moment and cricket will be aware if this. I think the broadcast deal is up in a few years. If it is still loss-making by then I think it's done.

GerryShedd wrote:

In 2016, the ECB predicted that The Hundred would make a profit of £27 million a year. The ECB now says that it has made a profit so far of £11.8 million.
However, a 120 page report by Worcestershire Chair Fanos Hira, a chartered accountant, says that it has actually made a loss of £9 million. And that doesn't include the additional £24.7 million paid by the ECB to the counties and MCC, part of the original deal the counties made in 2019 in return for supporting the new competition. If it did, the total losses from the first two years of the competition — including extra money paid out to venues as staging costs — would be £37.1 million

Who do you believe?

I'm not that bothered if they don't win. Lots of other teams have had results lost to rain and we have got a full haul of bonus points.

More importantly though, they looked like they had a plan, played positively and dictated the terms of the game. That should do us well for the rest of the season. Admittedly it's easier when Kent make a mistake at the toss and have bowling injuries, but doesn't affect how well we played.

Unlike recent times, it's academy products that got us there too: Yates, Mouse, Hain all contributing. Get Bethell in later this season it's looking stronger from the academy for a while.

Rain or shine, win or draw, it's good either way.

mad wrote:

Still think it'll be hard work pressing for victory even should they get on before lunch. However regardless of the result the performance backs up my thoughts last week after seeing parts of the game at Taunton that we now possess the type of attack that will be able to take on the better sides in the division - Surrey Lancs Hants Essex.

Added to the top order now peeling off centuries it represents exciting times ahead. Short of injury or call ups i was thinking yesterday about that slip cordon could be in place for years to come - Yates, Hain, Mousley with Barnard or Rhodes at gully or 4th

Rushworth's second over yesterday was amongst the best ever seen at the ground and his spell set the tone brilliantly.

I think we all know it can only be a draw from here, but unlike the Somerset game it would be good to see a plan in place about how to get a victory from here. Don't have to stick to it with 2nd innings in hand. Declair straight away? Or another 14 overs to see what wrle can get with the bonus points? Or get 400 them put them in?

Good to see Yates get some runs seeing as there's no real alternative to him right now. Score here could set him up for the season. 100 runs in a session is good, and it's been different players that have scored at tempo this year. Hopefully it's a message across the board.

I too think it was a touch harsh on Bethell, I'd have liked to see him stay as sole left arm bowler. Though I think it's a bit ridiculous to be rotating second game, made sense to switch up the bowlers especially considering some are crocked already. Happy to eat my words if five right arm briskish run over Kent twice, mind.