It all looks a bit predictable and it seems as though if Hain cannot get runs, we cannot win. Was Brathwaite picked on reputation alone. After his heroics in the last T 20 world cup final, he barely got the ball off the square for the next 2 years. I haven't seen his figures since but he needs to get some runs under his belt or he will have been another bad signing. The most annoying thing is that just like Thursday, we gave the opposition some catching practice in the outfield, we are not learning from the mistakes of previous games.

In fairness, Brathwaite’s bowling has been pretty good but he’s only had one decent innings so far. I think the run out of Rhodes was the turning point as he was looking good.

We look a lot stronger with Lintott in the side.

With that average being the case for Brathwaite then that surely points at an imbalanced squad for him to be coming in at 6/7.

Re. Brathwaite. He's been a pretty average cricketer for a while now.

Conway, Glenn Phillips, Finn Allen etc were all available at the time when we signed him.

I maintain we haven't had a properly good overseas in T20 since Shoaib Malik in 2014.

As other posters have said, if Hain fails, we fail. We can't be such a one man batting team if were serious about success in this competition.

I would also move Hose down the order rather than drop him and have someone more steady next to Pollock - possibly Malan with Hose batting where Lamb does.

There is a case for moving Hose down the order, I'm keeping Lamb in though.

Regarding the bowling, Jake Lintott can't come back soon enough. Jacob Bethell may well be, as others have said, a great prospect. But he looked against Durham to be slightly out of his depth and that could hinder his development rather than help him.
At the risk of repeating myself, the other option should be, if possible, to recall Alex Thomson from his loan at Derbyshire. In his last three T20 spells for them, he has bowled seven overs for 46 runs - an economy rate better than any of the Bears have achieved so far.

It’s quite difficult isn’t it, we are all in agreement that something needs to change but actually dropping someone is tricky.

Nearly all of the players have made a contribution at some point but nearly all lack consistency.

For what it’s worth I would bring Malan in to open with one of the ‘big hitters’. I personally don’t rate Pollock but Hose hasn’t exactly made a case for inclusion either.

I would quite like to see Hain swap to number 3 as I am not convinced Rhodes is dynamic enough for such an important position. Lamb has played reasonably well but similar to Rhodes can get a bit bogged down, so Lamb would be in competition with Mousley at no. 5.

Burgess at 6, Woakes at 7 (I wish). We have two all rounders in Brathwaite and Bresnan who come in at 7 & 8 and if the top order has delivered then that’s fine, but if they are in at the half way point then we are in trouble.

Briggs Lintott and Death Bower co pledges the line up.

As a way of shaking it up, we could replace one the ‘B’ with Hose/Pollock coming in at 6 and Rhodes contributing 4 overs but if flexibility is needed to further rotate the bowlers we would be dependent on part time bowlers chipping in.

Just my thoughts, would be interested to see some other views.

Andy wrote:

There is a case for moving Hose down the order, I'm keeping Lamb in though.

I agree with keeping Lamb in, but I still think we'd be better dropping Hose altogether. Let him get some form back in the Seconds - for the T20 Quarters IF we get there. I'm not bothered about him getting form back for the 'dreaded Hundred' !

GerryShedd wrote:

Regarding the bowling, Jake Lintott can't come back soon enough. Jacob Bethell may well be, as others have said, a great prospect. But he looked against Durham to be slightly out of his depth and that could hinder his development rather than help him.
At the risk of repeating myself, the other option should be, if possible, to recall Alex Thomson from his loan at Derbyshire. In his last three T20 spells for them, he has bowled seven overs for 46 runs - an economy rate better than any of the Bears have achieved so far.

Jake finishes his Covid isolation on Monday, so he SHOULD be available for the Yorkshire game on Wednesday (assuming he hasn't lost any fitness with the 'lurgi' !).

Alex isn't getting any First team time at Derby now (and they have found a settled team), so there really is no point him staying. As you say Gerry, IF we can recall him, I'd do that as spin back up (for Jake or Danny). He clearly is going to be on his way this Autumn, it would be better for him if he gets a couple of run outs for our Firsts, than Derby Seconds.

Alex Thomson would be no use, it would be like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Lintott will come straight back in. However I'm not sure he's necessarily the answer on these hybrid pitches at Edgbaston. It's clear from the games against Derby and Durham that extra pace is key on that deck right now. Scrimshaw, McKerr, van Beek, Stokes, Potts are all sharp enough and it's showed up to good effect. Pace on, back of length, hurry the batsmen. Look at Hain's 2 most recent dismissals, forcing off the back foot.

Miles was our quickest the past 2 games I'd say, and he ain't as quick as any of those I've listed.

Spinners have generally bowled from the City End. If Lintott bowls from that end his stock delivery will be turning it in to the right handed batsmen, into the short boundary.

Yorks and Notts are stacked with right handers, Kohler Cadmore, Brook (in form), Root, Hales, Joe Clarke, Mullaney, Patel etc.

We've got match up problems.

We are absolutely crying out for H. Brookes here. Is he close to being available yet?

Stone and Woakes would be ideal but they'd be ideal for any team anywhere!

Everyone's talking about dropping batsmen etc but how the hell did Durham get up to 164?! Example, Miles (I don't mean to pick on him this is just an isolated example) had 3 blokes on the leg side boundary for that last ball with mid off up, Eckersly on strike. Has to be a short ball, field is set for it. Bowls a slot ball, batsman goes over long off for 6. I mean come on, we've stopped doing the basics. 20 off that last over.

We're not having any luck either. That Ben Raine catch was outrageous just as Lamb looked like he was on the move for us after hitting Stokes, and previously Raine, for 6. He won't catch one like that again.

I still think we'll qualify for the quarters.

Andy wrote:

Re. Brathwaite. He's been a pretty average cricketer for a while now.

Conway, Glenn Phillips, Finn Allen etc were all available at the time when we signed him.

I maintain we haven't had a properly good overseas in T20 since Shoaib Malik in 2014.

Didn't we have some bloke called Jeetan Patel as an overseas player, I hear he was pretty good.

OK I'll spell it out...Im referring to the overseas players we sign specifically for the T20 comp.

@Andy, I think we were unlucky against Derby with various different contributing factors. I don't think we were so unlucky against Durham.

I think it was a close game but we had crucial moments go against us due to our own action, 20 off their last over and run out spring to mind as the two big game changers, neither of which I would say were unlucky.

Either way we need a very soon.

Yeah that's fair. I think we've had moments go against us in both games, we've also created our own problems at times. I maintain that Ben Raine catch was a total 1 in a million catch though. And at a really crucial time.

It's all subjective but I think we bowled so poorly up front against Derby that realistically the game was gone before the PP was even over. We had a glimmer when we got them 5 down but it was all too brief.

Against Durham we bowled really well up front, bowled to a plan of having a man out on the hook and it worked. I liked our aggression. However at the death we were appalling, I haven't tried to defend that at all in my post further up or call it unlucky. To ship 20 runs when bowling at numbers 9 and 10 is unforgivable.