I can’t tell if the balls doing more than you’d expect, or if our batsmen have just lost the plot.
Davies, Yates and Rhodes dismissals were all very poor.
At least the one that got Hain seems to have turned and bounced.
But also Hain seems to have gotten into this pattern of dropping the anchor and batting at glacial speed. It just causes more problems as the pressure just builds until the inevitable good ball, but the slips and catchers can all stay in, so just let’s the fielding team stay attacking with no risk of leaking runs.

Perhaps Hain and Rhodes are having to bat defensively to try and rebuild the innings from the abysmal start that the early dismissals of Yates and Davies cause everytime?

On for another pitiful score, here

I can't remember if I mentioned it last game but the timing is the really infuriating thing for me. 109/3 with Rhodes looking a bit more settled is not too bad - recovering nicely. But 136/5 is terrible. It's one of the differences to last year, when we needed it last year someone got something. This year the opposite.

139/6 looks even worse...

This is all going to be about whether its us or Kent who are the least bad I think.

Looking as though we will not gain any batting points, which are crucial to us for survival.

There is not much difference between our score & Kent's now, pretty poor when you compare Hampshire's attack to this woeful Gloucs team's.

It does not seem to matter how poor the opposition, we find ways of making them look very good.

Highveld wrote:

Perhaps Hain and Rhodes are having to bat defensively to try and rebuild the innings from the abysmal start that the early dismissals of Yates and Davies cause everytime?

That’s why they do it, absolutely. But there’s rebuilding and then there’s 10 off 74 balls. You can reduce the risk and still rotate the strike. The other issue is, when they do rebuild they struggle to pick the pace up again.
It’s hardly the biggest problem, compared to Davies and Yates. But it’s also not a match winning resolution.

Gloucs have a bowler called Dale-Singh

Cant say that I have seen him before but I think he is currently in some kind of competition to see how poorly you can bowl and still take a wicket!

He is dreadful: short, leg side, wide long hop and all in one over!

150/6 against this lot is a poor effort so far.

It's possible that Hain and Rhodes are pshychlogially worn down from having to rebuild the innings everytime, and have retreated into their "shell" while batting.

It's a lot easier to play attacking shots when the top 3 have put a couple of hundred runs on the board.

Remember that Matt Lamb hat the best strike rate of our middle order players, another reason why his omission is illogical.

Agree with meashambear, we make sides who appear to be worse than us, look better by lowering our selves to the level they have been playing, for most of the season. We must get more out of this game than Kent who I would expect to lose to Hampshire and we are without a full attack and whilst we are on the subject, where is Siraj. The point about Singh-Dale, Kent had a bowler at Edgbaston when we lost in July, called Saini who did exactly the same, bowled innocuous bouncers that only the keeper could get to and a load of 4 balls as well as wide deliveries but ended up with a 5-for in the first innings. We cannot afford to mess this up.

Singh-Dale looks very poor. Either very average balls or rubbish.
I thought the Saini issue was that he seem to either bowl filth or unplayable deliveries. There was no inbetween. Batsmen had no idea whether they were getting a long hop or a Jaffa.

We are, in all likelihood, going to end up with the lowest batting bonus points in the division - tells its own story

Yeah Saini looked like he could so something whereas this Dale fella looks legitimately rank.

Kent have failed to pick up any batting points. We need to move on and get to 200 or better still 250. I think Sibley will be sorely missed next season.

Worryingly I think that more of the problem will be taking 20 wickets, unless the pitch offers turn. At least we have a batting point though.

Bonus point in the bag, Kent have none and I hope they are still recovering from a good celebration on Saturday night. If we can get another point or dare I hope we get to 300, I think it will be within the 110 overs and it could make a big difference and also mean we are right in this game.

That is an absolute pie for Brookes to get out to.

Brookes was reckless, why oh why??
However, Dom Sibley has just got his ton to take it to 251/8. A second valuable batting point.
We're going to miss Dom Sibley next season.....

Not looking so good down on the south coast - Hants 41/6