Superb today but slightly surprised we didn’t make them follow on give the short period left tonight.
Anyway let’s hope we can now bat them out of the game!
Superb today but slightly surprised we didn’t make them follow on give the short period left tonight.
Anyway let’s hope we can now bat them out of the game!
Why do we so rarely enforce a follow on?! Given the state of the wicket, I would have thought a FO was a no brainer (emphasised by Davies going so early).
'The only good banker, is the Lickey Banker!'
I’m normally a great advocate of the follow on but in this case I think it was a fair call. Still over two days left in the game, and I can see the logic in not wanting to potentially face Harmer batting last on a deteriorating pitch
Yeah bit surprised, particularly with a 230 lead. Guess they didn't want to leave any risk of Essex going in and making 400 and have Harmer spin us out on day 4, Chelmsford can break up a bit sometimes.
Suspect we didn't fancy the risk of chasing a target on a wearing pitch against Harmer so not surprised we didn't enforce the follow-on.
Great effort today - like the look of both Simmons (what a debut!) and Rae, who seems to have a good attitude as much as anything else.
This is going well (I feel I’ve said this before in this match….)
The_Lickey_Banker wrote:
Why do we so rarely enforce a follow on?! Given the state of the wicket, I would have thought a FO was a no brainer (emphasised by Davies going so early).
3 gone now. Despite what many on here say, I do think no FO was a mistake.
'The only good banker, is the Lickey Banker!'
Mousley, talented lad though he is, has some really soft dismissals.
We got this one wrong given the short period there was tonight. Should have enforced the follow on.
Just got to hope we can get another 50 or so now.
Assume Hain will bat tomorrow in which case think we will be OK?
BosworthBear wrote:
We got this one wrong given the short period there was tonight. Should have enforced the follow on.
Just got to hope we can get another 50 or so now.
Yep. I'm not a 'told you so' guy, but ...... !
'The only good banker, is the Lickey Banker!'
Was there any reason as to why Hain didn’t come out to bat as normal?
If he bats, I see no reason with Bethell & Burgess to come, that we don’t go add another 75 and have them chasing 350 odd.
I don’t mind the lack of follow on. I think it’s entirely 50:50 in terms of pro’s and cons in this scenario, because 235 lead is an awkward figure when you expect the pitch to be getting flatter.
But you remove the risk of facing Harmer batting last, and you get to give your bowlers at least a couple of sessions rest, plus overnight. Our spinners get to bowl last on a track that seems to be turning.
Getting bowled out cheaply, does raise their spirits, and we risk the pitch not being so seam friendly later tomorrow. Time will tell.
Is Hain okay? Hopefully he bats tomorrow...
The_Lickey_Banker wrote:
BosworthBear wrote:
We got this one wrong given the short period there was tonight. Should have enforced the follow on.
Just got to hope we can get another 50 or so now.
Yep. I'm not a 'told you so' guy, but ...... !
Yep I posted it before you!
He got hit on the head and spent time off the field.
Chris Benjamin is a concussion replacement for Sam Hain.
Feel for Sam, a very tough start to the season for various reason!
Let’s hope Benjamin can improve on his average!
Another injury, this time to a batsman Hain. 88/9. Lead 323. Can't help but think we've let them back into his game.
Interesting how many wickets the spinners have taken in Warwickshire second innings. Should have played a specialist spinner at Chelmsford. Gonna be an interesting finish but the wicket ain’t going to be seam friendly last up.
Can't complain at 2 early wickets. Keep going lads.