The_Lickey_Banker wrote:

Andy wrote:

Not happy with the 2's then?...

How do you come to that conclusion ?!!

But yes, you are right. As one who probably follows the Seconds more than the First team (simply because I can see more cricket, at more grounds) over the last few years, I have seen the team go from boom to bust and back again (repeatedly !). I'd say this COULD be start of a bust again. It's such a shame, because there is talent there. I just think too much has been put on certain players before they're ready (the Brookes brothers particularly), there are square pegs in round holes (Ed Pollock in the red ball game), we've stuck with some players too long (George Garrett and Ryan Sidebottom stand out) and not given chances to others who deserve it (George Furrer and Jacob Bethell come to mind). I just hope Westwood and Farbs realise this before it's too late and make the necessary changes / introductions soon.

They do seem to have realised there's a need for changes and introduced some 'new blood' (along the lines I've suggested !):-

Jacob Bethell and George Furrer are in the 13 man squad, along with van Vollenhoven and Shaikh. Dan Lincoln is still there (and again listed as Keeper - so he must now be taking on that role) and Amir Khan is given another chance. No sign of George Garrett (?!) and Ben Wells is also missing - I hope he hasn't been let go, he looked promising. Other than that, pretty much the same people as the Notts game.

No start at 11.00 - as expected, its raining - and the forecast indictaes we probably won't get any play today.

Andy wrote:

Not happy with the 2's then?...

How do you come to that conclusion ?!!

But yes, you are right. As one who probably follows the Seconds more than the First team (simply because I can see more cricket, at more grounds) over the last few years, I have seen the team go from boom to bust and back again (repeatedly !). I'd say this COULD be start of a bust again. It's such a shame, because there is talent there. I just think too much has been put on certain players before they're ready (the Brookes brothers particularly), there are square pegs in round holes (Ed Pollock in the red ball game), we've stuck with some players too long (George Garrett and Ryan Sidebottom stand out) and not given chances to others who deserve it (George Furrer and Jacob Bethell come to mind). I just hope Westwood and Farbs realise this before it's too late and make the necessary changes / introductions soon.

See the full post below !

11.00 start at Derby tomorrow for the 4 day 2nd's Championship game.

Lots of questionmarks after a humiliating defeat by Notts last week:-
Will they persevere with (Captain) Pollock opening - though he did get 62 in our 2nd innings (his first double figures this season !) ?
Will Mousley continue to open ?
Will Lincoln and Wells be given more chances - Wells did look a decent batsman in our 2nd innings (with an unbeaten 47) ?
Who will keep wicket ? Play Cricket did list the keeper as Lincoln, but as far as I can see, he has never kept wicket in his career before (though as a goalkeeper he has some useful skills in that department). Kelley is a decent keeper, but a poor bat. Wells was a regular keeper for Somerset Seconds (and I did think the Lincoln listing was a typo - and it actually was Wells, but the scorer got the newbies mixed up !)
What an earth are they going to do with a demoralised (from last week) bowling lineup ? NOBODY came out with any glory - and some were blown away. Garrett and Sidebottom are struggling to justify contract extensions. Henry Brookes is a shadow of the promising (red ball) opening bowler he once seemed to be - and nowhere near justifying 1st team selection. His brother now seems to be a batsman who bowls a bit, not the all rounder he once was. Johal and Ali are still only early on in their development. And Dan Mousley, who seemed to be a promising off spinner, was tanked by the Notts batsman at 7 an over off 18 overs.

All very interesting. Rain will probably stop much play tomorrow - though at least we might get a start and find out the team.

The_Lickey_Banker wrote:

Highveld wrote:

Lost by Innings & 93 runs.

Poor batting on our part - with the honourable exceptions of Mousley, Hose & Ethan Brookes in the 1st innings and to a lesser extent, Pollock & Wells in the 2nd - and poor Bears bowling all round. Notts were a class above in both departments - 4 centurions and notable bowling displays - particularly 6 wickets in the match for Harrison (26-8-48-6) & 5 wickets for Hayes in the 2nd innings (12-7-20-5) !

Westwood has got a lot to do, to sort the Seconds out. Particularly, the bowling, there was no one at Portland Road who is anywhere near First team standard at the moment (and that includes Henry Brookes) - and some who seriously must be giving rise to doubts a contract extension (I'm especially thinking of George Garrett & Ryan Sidebottom). Some of the batsmen also need attention - mostly with regard to concentration - but also technically (I'm particularly thinking of Ed Pollock, who still can't seem to get the hang of red ball cricket - despite Robinson telling him, he starts with a clean sheet in that regard !). Trotty has work to do with the WHOLE squad I think !

Highveld wrote:

Lost by Innings & 93 runs.

Poor batting on our part - with the honourable exceptions of Mousley, Hose & Ethan Brookes in the 1st innings and to a lesser extent, Pollock & Wells in the 2nd - and poor Bears bowling all round. Notts were a class above in both departments - 4 centurions and notable bowling displays - particularly 6 wickets in the match for Harrison (26-8-48-6) & 5 wickets for Hayes in the 2nd innings (12-7-20-5) !

22 for 4 ! Yates, Vihari, Rhodes and Lamb all out. Winning the toss seems to have given Durham all the momentum ?

135 for 6 after 36 overs. Khan, (E) Brookes, Lincoln and Kelley all out. So, other than seeing how Ben Wells gets on, it looks like all we can look forward to, is a quickish defeat.

Highveld wrote:

50 for Ed Pollock.
Amir Khan is replacing Dan Mousley.

We're now on 108 for 2 after 26 overs. Pollock finished on 62, Mousley obviously Retired NO on 24, Hose was bowled for 6. Amir Khan and Ethan B are both 5 NO. Should be an interesting days play - will we get to the 300 target, capitulate, or hang on in for the draw ?!

Update: Ah, off for rain - and I guess that could be coming and going all day ! The weather might help us bat out for a draw, but any lengthy play is likely to help their (better - see above) bowlers get the win ?

white-lightning wrote:

What's happened to Henry Brookes? Such an exciting prospect getting knocked out of the park by Notts seconds! I hope this is only a temporary blip?

Well to be fair, Henry wasn't the worst Bears bowler at Portland Road the last couple of days, but his figures of 14 overs, 1 for 53 are hardly the stuff of someone on the fringe of the First Team - especially when the likes of Stone, Norwell, OHD and even Miles are taking wickets regularly (and cheaply). This is his third game for the Seconds this season - and he has only taken 5 wickets in 4 innings (and that as one of the Opening bowlers) !

The_Lickey_Banker wrote:

mad wrote:

Notts 660-8 declared (300 lead)

A whopping 660 for 8 dec ! 4 century makers - 3 with over 140 ! Equally we had 2 'century makers' (bowlers !) and 3 more who conceded over 80 runs. George Garrett (taking 2 wickets at 48 apiece) & Manraj Johal (1 wicket for 86 runs), were both hit for 5 an over; Ethan B (1 wicket for 131), was hit at 6 an over and Dan Mousley (1 wicket for 127), hit at 7 an over !

By contrast, none of the Notts bowlers went for more than 4 an over and 2 had very impressive figures. Old Man Trego got 3 for 60 off 22 overs and (CG) Harrison got 4 for 39 off 20 overs ! I think we've been completely outplayed - by bat and ball.

Pollock is in to DOUBLE figures at the close (!) - 28 NO, Mousley 24 NO. We're 56 without loss.

Andy wrote:

Is this at Portland Road? If the first team ever play one day matches there we'll see 500 plays 500 I reckon. Absolute postage stamp ground.

I agree, but our batters made the 'postage stamp' look so big, that Stanley Gibbons would have been drooling and Notts made it look, well, simply ''stamp size' ! And so many in our batting line up (with the 3 exceptions named above), never took advantage of those dimensions, by hitting the ball directly to fielders !

mad wrote:

Notts 660-8 declared (300 lead)

A whopping 660 for 8 dec ! 4 century makers - 3 with over 140 ! Equally we had 2 'century makers' (bowlers !) and 3 more who conceded over 80 runs. The worst figures were George Garrett (taking 2 wickets at 48 apiece) & Manraj Johal (1 wicket for 86 runs), but both hit for 5 an over, Ethan B (1 wicket for 131 !), hit at 6 an over and Dan Mousley (1 wicket for 127), hit at 7 an over !

Although we're chasing 300 - I guess with such a benign wicket, it will peter out for a draw sometime tomorrow afternoon - but you never know ! The main interest will be if Ed Pollock gets into double figures this season, whether Ethan Brookes continues with his run of good batting form this season, whether Adam Hose can carry on where he left off in the First Innings and whether 'someone else' (notably the 2 guys on trial - Dan Lincoln and Ben Wells) can score ?!

Getting tanked by Notts on the morning of the 3rd day (of 4). They are 473 for 4 (off 83 overs) - a lead of 113 already. Awful bowling figures for us:-

Sidebottom - 18 overs, 1 for 60
Henry B - 14, 1 for 53
Johal - 7, 0 for 60
Garrett - 12, 1 for 74
Ethan B - 16, 0 for 107
Mousley - 15, 1 for 99
Ali - 2, 0 for 5

We obviously did well with the bat (360) - with Mousley (100) and Hose (139) getting tons and Ethan Brookes, 55, but only Kelley and Henry B also got into double figures.

We won the toss and elected to bat. 105 for 1 at Lunch (off 28 overs). Pollock out (again - single figures !) for 4, Mousley (opening), on 42 NO from 79 balls, Hose, 54 NO from 75 balls.

The_Lickey_Banker wrote:

Highveld wrote:

A good 50 from Ethan Brookes

He is looking a better bat, year on year, but I think his bowling has gone correspondingly downhill. He reminds me of Aaron Thomason's progress - I see Sussex only employ him as a batsman in red ball and an occasional bowler in white ball, now.

Ethans's 112 NO and bowling figures of 4 overs for 21 runs and no wickets against Cardiff UCCE yesterday, only goes to reinforce my view that he is becoming the 'next Aaron Thomason' ! A promising batsman, but only a 'back up' bowler. His bowling record for the Seconds over the past 2 seasons has only been modest, but he is developing into decent batter.

Solbear wrote:

Thanks LB, that makes sense. I see that Dan Lincoln is keeping wicket in the current game - Playfair doesn't mention any wicket keeping abilities but it does say he was a goalkeeper for Reading and Arsenal junior teams so probably picked up some transferrable skills!

I noticed Play Live had Lincoln down as Keeper. I wonder if that is a typo - they either got the wrong 'newbie' (and it should be Wells), or (the usual) Kelley? Lincoln has never been listed as a (cricket) keeper - though, as you say Sol, goalies do have 'transferable skills'!

Solbear wrote:

Anyone know what's happened to Jake Lintott so far this year? I haven't seen his name mentioned in any squads or on any scorecards and wonder if he's got an injury.

I think part of the contract deal with Jake, was that he would be released for teaching duties at Queens College until the start of the T20 season in June. He'd then be available for that, the remaining 1st Round Championship games, the RLC and the Divisional Championship games.

The_Lickey_Banker wrote:

Dan Lincoln, a Batsman who has had a few T20 appearances for Middlesex and Ben Wells who has a great record batting for Somerset 2nd's, are both in our Seconds team playing today.

Interestingly, Ben Wells is also a wicket keeper. He's been a regular 2nd XI keeper at Somerset for 3 years, but it looks like they have just released him. Given Vikai Kelley's batting deficiences (he is a great keeper though), I wonder whether Wells might be seen as another reserve wicket keeper. The plan with Malan, was to also use him as a back up keeper to Burgess, though obviously that's now on hold.

We're on 245 for 3, with Ethan Brookes, 74 NO and Dan Lincoln, 52 NO.