With all the possible variations, the follow on discussions, will it turn enough, no specialist spinner, if this goes wrong, I still think the most costly thing will be how slow the outfield was on the first day.
During the big partnership we must have missed out on at least 50 runs, with so many shots stopping before the boundary or allowing fielders to get round. So many shots that would have been 4’s became 2’s or 3’s. Summed up a bit by the fact Burgess only had 8 boundaries, from a player who is known for hitting plenty. Barnard was only able to up his count on day 2 when it had sped up.

Looked at the replays over and over and I am confinced Critchley was out

Yep, don't know what the umpire was playing at there, the moment he went to confer with the square leg umpire the batter knew he could get away with it.

These two look as though they could bat forever and the lack of a front line spinner is looking like a poor decision although it doesn't mean we would have been in a winning position anyway. The 94 all out 2nd innings does look really bad in the context of the pitch not looking anything like being difficult.

We need a bit of luck here.

Our second innings was truly awful

LeicesterExile wrote:

Looked at the replays over and over and I am confinced Critchley was out

Agreed. Think they shot themselves in the foot with how they celebrated. Benjamin went straight up. But Burgess and Barnard thought it didn’t carry. So then Benjamin looked confused and stopped celebrating when no one was going up with him. The whole thing was very muted and the batsman used that.
Thought the Simmons LBW was a great shout too.

Quite a few leading edges didn't go to hand either. Ultimately we're 70 short.

Need a 'bang bang' with the new ball.

Probably need to remove one of these before the new ball.

And yes, Simmons on Critchley looked out.

Lack of specialist spinner last up is a grave error. Spinners took 7 wickets in Warwick’s second innings. Management appear to play things safe using bethell and mousley as batting spinners but a) they get very few significant runs (certainly mousley) and their bowling isn’t cutting it.

Lack of specialist spinner last up is a grave error. Spinners took 7 wickets in Warwick’s second innings. Management appear to play things safe using bethell and mousley as batting spinners but a) they get very few significant runs (certainly mousley) and their bowling isn’t cutting it.

To be fair lots of people on here were saying that we should drop Briggs and just play Yates, Bethell and Mousley as spinners…

I'm not sure what difference Danny Briggs would have made here to be honest.

Perhaps the comments should be ‘the lack of an in form front line spinner’?

Robinson does seem to prefer batters who offer something else.
You could argue Hain is the only one who doesn’t have some other skill, Barnard, Rhodes, Yates, Bethell and Mousley all bowl, Davies and Burgess keep wicket.
The problem being for Mousley for sure, the batting isn’t up to snuff at the moment. And if he’s batting 5 or 6 that can’t be the case.
As has been the way with this team over the past 2 or 3 years, our top and middle order can score when the going is good, but when the going gets tough, the only ones I have any faith in to score or be resilient are usually Hain, Barnard and Burgess.

It could be argued that Sam is a specialist short leg fielder, but after this injury, you have to wonder if he still wants to field there.

Andy wrote:

I'm not sure what difference Danny Briggs would have made here to be honest.

I agree. I think Danny's 'red ball days' with us are numbered (though still offers something in limited over games). Although, many on here disagree with me, I do think Jake Lintott deserves a go in CC cricket. I've seen him a lot in Seconds Championship games and he rarely lets the Club down - always getting wickets (in all sorts of conditions and against some good batsmen) and is a valuable lower order bat (and an astute Captain). Last season he turned out in one CC match and took 3 for 68 and got a 78, but in his 3 seasons with us, he's only been given 2 games.

I wonder what would have happened if we'd enforced the follow on and bamboozled a few Essex guys with Jake's wrist spin on that turning wicket (especially the lower order batsmen).

Well we seem to be starting with six overs of gentle throw downs to get their eyes in before the new ball.

We have had real issues taking 20 wickets for 3 seasons now. Injuries don't help (or bloody misfields) but getting out for 90 odd in the 2nd innings was criminal. Once Essex see off the new ball this game will be done..........no decent side should be losing from the position we were in, even taking into account the injuries.

meashambear wrote:

We have had real issues taking 20 wickets for 3 seasons now. Injuries don't help (or bloody misfields) but getting out for 90 odd in the 2nd innings was criminal. Once Essex see off the new ball this game will be done..........no decent side should be losing from the position we were in, even taking into account the injuries.

Yes if we lose this as seems likely, I'd say it will be one of our worst defeats of the Robinson era. Big changes for the next game will be needed.