Farrell does appear to have a good reading of the game, seems to know about the players she's commentating on and I do think she is a genuine lover of county cricket.

They do appear to be very over-the-top with praise and when anything major happens.

Not sure I like the Essex commentary, with becomes 'Wiv', through becomes 'Frew' and third becomes 'Fird'.

As long as the conditions are the same when we bowl, we might get early wickets but as we know, it is sometimes harder to get numbers 7-11 out.

It looks like I did the right thing by not going, bad weather or not.

The weather looks a bit mixed for day 1 with rain maybe before lunch and after, not sure if I will go. Whoever wins the toss might decide to have a bowl if it looks dodgy overhead.

A waste of talent and you would think that if England are looking at him being 3-4 in the batting this Summer, he needs to get a few CC games before the Tests start but there might not be any by the time he gets back. He has spent a lot of time sitting around during his career.

He was called up by Pakistan a few times a season as they appear to change their team every 5 minutes and when he was here, he often was injured and the club were blamed even though they hadn't played him for weeks. We don't need these disruptions so glad he's elsewhere.

Might they try Barker, at least we know he can take wickets but it's just a case of fitness.

Pitches tend not to crumble anymore and maybe if a pitch is being prepared to crumble, if it all goes wrong and starts to 'Go' too early, the pitch inspector comes along for a visit. Our pitches at home are very bland' a bit like the ones in the 1970's and 80's even though they were 3-day games. Variation is needed though if only to stop opposing batsmen from getting 'In' against bowling that is virtually the same every over. I don't think Webster is going to trouble anyone with his bowling, I heard on the commentary yesterday that he is considered a proper all-rounder because his batting average is higher than his bowling average but that is nonsense as so many so-called 'All-rounders' hardly bowl but have a few cheap wickets and as Webster averages 1.77 wickets per first-class match, he is hardly up there with Woakes or a few others. Onwards and upwards, keep the faith and pray for better on Friday-Monday v Essex.

As was pointed out a few seasons ago, too many bowlers of similar pace and all right arm. We can't use Yates and Mousley (Doesn't spin it) as spin options so give Taz a go. Why is Garton not considered, I know there have been a few comments on here about him but if all he does is play T20 and keep himself nice and fresh for the other 1000 franchises he plays for, then get rid of him, his T20 economy rate is over 9 per over anyway so he is hardly a dream 'Specialist'. 6 seamers must have been wonderful for Sussex, "Here's another one, same type, different name, same result". Why did we need 6, it appeared too many v Surrey and we have made Sussex look better than they are. Time for the management to make some decisions and get some variation into the bowling which as far as I am concerned, has lost us this game. A few batsmen could do with a score but when you decide that you want to bat first, make the highest score from the first 3 innings and then watch the 4th innings with the highest total needed by 61 runs, you have to admit you blew it.

This isn't good, typical of us, 2 players making their home debut are taking this away from us and Leaning who has made 11 100's in 15 seasons at an average of 31, is really doing a job here on us.

I would also see how Woakes goes first thing but if he leaks too many runs then he has to come off. Not as many runs to play with as when the 5th wicket fell so we cannot afford the amount of '4 balls' we have given them. It does feel significant as there are better sides than Sussex and like Notts did last season, building up a head of steam and getting early points can breed confidence and momentum.

The way to take wickets hasn't changed at all in the history of the game, no point in bowling short unless a batsman is poor against the short ball but on a pitch like this, it should only be used as a way to vary things, not an attacking option. Bowling tight and maintaining a line/length consistently especially against batsmen nowadays who love to hit out at every opportunity, is till the best way and in this game, we have given too many boundaries away and released pressure very quickly.

Yes, need a wicket soon and break this partnership. Woakes hasn't bowled too well this game, too many loose balls, now is the time to strike and get himself into the game again.

I used to see about 5 Sussex supporters who used to come to Edgbaston whenever Sussex were there in CC games and we had over the last few seasons, beaten them and with a few runs being put on from batsmen 8-11 and I remember him saying to his friends, "That's the trouble when we play Warwickshire, we're never through them, you have to take 10 wickets to get them out and getting to 7 down is never always easy after that...". I wonder if that same person is saying that now, a really terrific partnership has now given us the momentum and a spring in our step. In the end, a good morning.

A 250 lead would be something to make them think but with 5 wickets left, if they don't get a good star tomorrow, the field spreads and we knock it about. I think we know how to take it from here and batting till lunch would see us well in charge and 300+ ahead. I think 270 minimum would see us bowl with confidence.

Things change quickly, Woakes hasn't got his radar.

Looking better, 220-6 and a superb partnership from 117-6. The 'Wizard' and Smith.

Just looked on their site, someone there needs to look again at our first game v Surrey as it appears whoever typed it, thinks we batted first and spent the first 4 sessions batting and then bowled out Surrey for 328.