I think we need that third place slot to prove we have had a good season. 4th seems mid table to me, 3rd you can say you're at the top and it would also demonstrate that we have started to heed that message that we can play in must-win games for them to ruminate on in the off season.

I guess Davies and Rhodes next is a key session with the ball getting older. In all the games this round the new ball has done massive damage, even if it's been later in the day, so here's to hoping. 400 for four batting points is a stretch target. That would put us ahead of Hampshire on the assumption both teams are weather-induced draws.

Seems easier to actually win the game. I remember reading somewhere that BPs don't tend to determine champo places and that would be the case here.

Incredible this game of ours that after a dramatic win, all that's really happened is we have closed by one point behind Hampshire in the table, after they had a pretty interesting win of their own. So many variables with the bonus points and the weather to keep track of. Good on the game, good on the Champo. Loads of teams have something to play for in the final round.

I'm in the city today, 3-4 miles to the east, and it is as if it is the middle of the night it's that dark.

Just musing over a Yates/Barnard OD Cup opening stand, Davies 3, Mouse 4, Burgess 5.

BosworthBear wrote:

Who can we open with to knock this off v quickly?

Bright sun shine and blue sky three miles west of Lords... Drying quickly.

True about the bonus points. We were five behind Hants start of this game so if we can chip away at a couple of those this round and we assume draws everywhere it's a big thing going into the final round.

HOWEVER - still think there's enough in this game for the win - and there's still enough time for Hampshire to lose. Middlesex aren't the strongest batting side and we still have four sessions plus a bit to bowl them out and knock off some runs. Quite a heavy shower in progress right now but it should clear up fairly soon, it's bright, and tomorrow looks good for most of the day.

BristolBear wrote:

Suspect it’s a case of just getting the batting points because unless the track completely changes overnight, a draw looks the only likely result. So get as many points as possible.

Can’t see us bowling them out currently for a total we could chase. And they won’t risk losing whilst Kent are doing poorly. So for them to get enough runs to threaten declaring they’d need to bat too long for it to be possible to bowl us out on a pitch only getting better for batting.

Yah, I'm surprised they got underway on time

Tayls79 wrote:

Weather looks OK today, maybe a shower mid afternoon, what also worth stating is it's incredibly wet here (3 miles from the ground). The heavy rain went on until about midnight and things are still soaked this AM with a heavy atmosphere. There is definitely a good case for declaring now and getting them in, but I think there's enough time to shoot for a BP or two with the bat, which maybe important, and the feel-good factor of Rhodes getting a first century for the season, maybe even Briggs too.

Weather looks OK today, maybe a shower mid afternoon, what also worth stating is it's incredibly wet here (3 miles from the ground). The heavy rain went on until about midnight and things are still soaked this AM with a heavy atmosphere. There is definitely a good case for declaring now and getting them in, but I think there's enough time to shoot for a BP or two with the bat, which maybe important, and the feel-good factor of Rhodes getting a first century for the season, maybe even Briggs too.

Yeah I get you, and indeed I think we all agree. I went out for my lunch at lunch on the game and was thinking to myself it would be great to play through this if the rest of the day is going to be rained off. And that would have really suited us.

BristolBear wrote:

Tayls79 wrote:

Raining now and that'll finish it so not sure the bad light for 15 minutes will have made much of a difference. In any case, another 72 runs would be great here. Allow Rhodes and Briggs to get centuries, two batting points and still five sessions plus to bowl Middlesex out for under 180 with the odd shower delay. It will just have to be tomorrow I guess...

No you’re right 15 minutes won’t make a big difference in the scheme of things for this match. It’s just more a wider point in general, it’s a frustration of mine, that cricket always seems to shoot itself in the foot regarding time played or not played. There’s a million laws and regulations about when not to play, yet nothing that allows common sense to prevail and increase playing time when possible.

Raining now and that'll finish it so not sure the bad light for 15 minutes will have made much of a difference. In any case, another 72 runs would be great here. Allow Rhodes and Briggs to get centuries, two batting points and still five sessions plus to bowl Middlesex out for under 180 with the odd shower delay. It will just have to be tomorrow I guess...

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.