I feel sorry for Simmons, he’s young and needs a clear role, and given a proper chance to succeed. He bowled 7th in 2nd innings. He’s not a 95mph blow them away bowler, he’s a bit faster than the rest of our bowlers. Don’t try use him like a Swiss Army knife that can plug every hole, just let him bowl line and length. Not all that different to Booth, who bowls far better when he’s just bowling line and length, instead of trying to blast teams away or bounce them out.

For me it’s between Simmons and Taz, and with Hove this time of year being a good batting track taking spin later in the game, I think it’s a good chance to give Taz Ali an opportunity in conditions that suit him.

Spin options of Yates, Ali, Rocky; seam of OHD, Bamber, Barnard.

Brainless from Bethell. You hope senior players in the dressing room hold him to account.
Where’s the benefit to the team in playing that shot?
I appreciate there’s no catching the selectors eyes with batting out the draw, and going along at a strike rate around 50.
But surely just time in the middle is a positive?

Not only stupid, but selfish.

The criticism of us was very unfair. They hardly got away, they went at pretty much 4 an over. Which is decent considering they would have wanted to be going faster. The spinner bowled well. We took the expensive bowlers out the attack very quickly. Did what needed to be done.
We kept it to less than 70 overs for Somerset to bowl us out. Which you’d hope on this pitch shouldn’t be enough time, and at the moment Latham and Hain look comfortable. But it’ll all depend on how much the ball turns as it gets softer.

On Smith, I don’t think his selection is simply a case of “is his keeping good enough”. His batting needs work too.
He’s one of a number of players in CC for us who are undoubtedly talented, but lack consistency.
Davies, Yates, Bethell, Mousley, Smith, Simmons, Booth, Shaikh, all fall into that category. For some of them, it’s due to their age. But it’s hard to consistently win, if you’re not consistent in your performances.
And consistency doesn’t always mean just in stats, but in how they play, not giving their wickets away, if they’re not taking wickets then don’t go for runs.

meashambear wrote:

Current RR is 2.6 with the new ball due soon. Somerset were going at around 4.5 at the same point

Somerset have been much more disciplined. Less loose bowling. They know a draw on this pitch, with this ball is no disaster, especially as all but Surrey vs Worcestershire is looking like a draw. So they’re being disciplined, not forcing it, allow batters to make mistakes like Davies, drying up runs and getting to the new ball to try take wickets. Almost 300 behind at the new ball, means the follow on is still potentially on if they use it well.

No major mistakes from Smith. 9 byes is higher than I’d like.
Keeping is like batting, you have to adapt to conditions every match, too often people just think it’s the same no matter what. Slight tweaks in technique or positioning to be as clean as possible. And that’s easier with experience as you learn what works for you, and you practice it.

Just on the bowling from the Bears, I do think even though it was a flat one, we were still undisciplined. Most of our bowlers had economy rates between 3 and 4. Whilst Somerset currently are pretty much all below 3. Just suggests we struggle to be disciplined in line and length to build pressure when conditions are less helpful.

I know you shouldn’t judge a pitch after only 1 side has batted on it, but once again looks to be a draw surface, very flat and unlikely to be breaking up.

And I’m at the stage now where in my opinion, I don’t think this is a ground staff issue, because when requested in previous years for Warwickshire or England, the pitch has offered much more. 3-5 years ago the pitches were evolving through the game as you’d expect, look at how we won the championship. Plus you’d see what’s happened at Taunton where ground staff over compensate, going from raging turners to green seamers to flat roads, to address criticism.
I’m just wondering if the sheer amount of cricket played at edgbaston over recent years is taking its toll. Considering mens test and ODI’s, plus women’s internationals, T20 finals day, even the commonwealth games. These all get priority, in the centre of the square, and endless use does tend to slow pitches down.
I also think that after the relegation scare, the club want this. Means the pitches are great for T20, plus in the CC drawing half your matches with decent batting bonus points almost ensures safety because of the points system.
My conspiracy theory side also wonders how much the ECB want this, forcing sides to produce and pick faster, hit the pitch bowlers, over your typical English swing or seam bowler.

KingofSpain wrote:

On the Bears Podblast last week, Garton (who came across really well) said that he was available for red ball selection and hoped to get his chance at some stage.

I’d like to see that, just for values sake on the contract. I think he’d offer something different, especially with the kookaburra and hopefully he does get a chance. Fingers crossed his body holds up, as that was his issue at Sussex.
Nice to see players trying to play red ball, a trend that’s growing after Banton last year, Smeed, Roy, Archer, Salt all saying they’re available for red ball or have played red ball this season.

On the intelligence/responsibility aspect of players, I think that’s a common theme of most modern sports these days. And it’s a HUGE bugbear of mine.
Too much reliance on stats, game plans, style ideologies, managers & coaches doing the thinking for players. Captains have more and more stopped becoming tacticians on the pitch, inspirational leaders, and are just a mouthpiece for the coach. The best still change and adapt, look at David Willey with his bowling changes against us, that put the pressure on and changed the game.
Players in many sports seem to have an increasing inability to adapt in game. They blindly follow what’s been agreed beforehand. You see it in rugby, coaches running messages on when the other team is playing differently to expected, teams changing styles at half time after trying the same tactics repeatedly, rather than playing what’s in front of them. Rassie Erasmus had different coloured lights to tell the players what to do for penalties.
How often do we see “flair” players in football be replaced by those that will simply do the job the manager asks to fit their system, look at Jack Grealish having the excitement drilled out of him to suit the system.
It’s all well and good having plans, tactics, systems, but the best players have always traditionally been able to play the situation, or overcome it through talent. That’s half the reason you want senior experienced players because they’ve been there and done it in many situations in all kinds of conditions. How many times do you hear “that’s the way we play”, “we approach the game that way and sometimes it doesn’t come off”, just excuses that absolve responsibility.
I don’t think it’s a specific Bears problem, just a symptom of modern sport. A skill that’s being driven from the game.

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

As a fan, I’m sitting here thinking on the positive side, we might peak at the right time, we do have talent, and the changes regarding strategy and plans can be rectified very quickly.

The pessimist in me sees the following though:
1) Poor appointment timing of Westwood, had no time to really put his own stamp on the side regarding recruitment or captaincy.
2) A lack of preparation, as noted before Northants had clear plans and tactics, which the captain altered as necessary based on the game situation. This might partly be due to the late appointment of Westwood and that the T20 captain plays all formats so had no time either.
3) Poor captaincy, not inspirational (so far), lacks a calm head, tactically lacking.
4) Talent is underperforming or incorrectly used. Moeen turns up once every 4 or 5 matches. Davies similarly. Lintott has been very poor. Barnard is not a death bowler. Garton gets one over a match. Smith bats at 8 and doesn’t keep.
5) No depth of talent. There’s no viable replacements for underperforming players. We have a squad of only 13 basically, but that’s down to 12 because of Booths injury.
6) Bowling line up in all formats is getting old, just not good enough or underperforming consistently. Needs freshening up.
7) No replacement for Bethell, who we won’t be seeing much of anymore because of England and IPL. As a club we should have known that was coming, was pretty obvious from his performances for England at the back end of the summer and the winter.
8) We still accept what I call “Crawley-ism” far too easily. Continue with players who regularly underperform because they have the ability to produce 1 or 2 excellent performances a year. But in the blast and CC with 14 matches, that inconsistency is far more damaging than in 5 or 3 match series.

There’s the ability to turn it round this year. The talent is there, if they apply themselves. But the longer these issues persist without remedy, the harder it gets year on year.

I’ve never looked at Barnard and thought he’s a death bowler. Because of his pace, he has to be absolutely perfect in his execution. And that’s asking a hell of a lot.
Is it a lack of faith in Garton? All you’re doing at this stage is denting his confidence further by barely using him. Seems very odd.
There’s a few players offering very little at the moment, either due to their own form & performances (Lintott), or are being misused/not used (Smith, Garton).

28, in his prime. Very good T20 bowler, not seen much of him in 4 day but his stats are decent.
If he’s committed to playing all formats, it would be a really good signing.

Thought we batted well in the last 8 or so of our overs.

They batted really well at the end, but our bowling wasn’t good enough. To me, and it’s a recurring theme now, the captaincy was the ultimate difference.

We let it meander at the start of that big partnership. They weren’t really under any pressure, took singles easily and cashed in on the bad balls which were at least once an over.
Then the bowling changes, Garton got 1 over after going for 6, but you’ve got Hassan going at 12, Mousley at 11, Barnard at 11, bowling 4 each. And it wasn’t like they had 1 bad final over, they were pretty consistently expensive in all their overs from the start.
And as pointed out, 1 to win but 2 on the fence, but not 2 out with a plan, 2 out hoping for awful batting. Made to look worse by a 70mph wide full toss.

GerryShedd wrote:

I fully agree with the criticism that the Club should not have allowed him to get away from us but that's a different issue.

This has become a bit of a trend. Overly willing to sign players on trial or from elsewhere, than to persist with our own youth.
We seem to still have an attitude from 20 years ago. That players have to spend at least a couple of years playing 2’s on their first contract.
But young players these days are happy to leave to get game time. Also you look how the likes of Surrey, Sussex (slightly different reasoning), Essex, Durham and some others have gone about it, they identify high potential players, then back them young and get them in the side even if they’re not quite as good as an external player they could sign. They give them time in the team to reach that level. Then only sign “marquee” players who really improve a side or who cover a specific gap.
The talent is there, but there’s a clear gap between academy and first team at the moment.

GerryShedd wrote:

BristolBear wrote:

What a bizarre innings by Yorkshire. 32 runs short but only 5 wickets down.
They were ahead of us in the powerplay and at the halfway stage for both runs and wickets.
Malan gets out and it was like the brakes slammed on.
Thought we bowled well second half, but they made us look very good with bat and ball in the last 5 overs of both innings.
Similar performance to Northants, the difference in outcome primarily down to the quality of the opposition.

Maybe we were very good in the last five overs of both innings - just saying!

We were good. But they made us look a lot better. I wasn’t sitting there thinking this is masterful death bowling. Or that we were amazing because we were getting away repeated Yorkers.

Exiled Bear wrote:

So whenever we do well it’s just because the opposition are rubbish?

In fairness, the sides we’ve beaten are all in the bottom 3. And I’d say apart from the first game, our performances have stayed pretty consistent, we saw against Northants the difference between the top and bottom of the table.
I suspect we’ll end up somewhere from 3rd to 6th depending on form and injuries. Not the best, not the worst, in a tight battle in the middle.

What a bizarre innings by Yorkshire. 32 runs short but only 5 wickets down.
They were ahead of us in the powerplay and at the halfway stage for both runs and wickets.
Malan gets out and it was like the brakes slammed on.
Thought we bowled well second half, but they made us look very good with bat and ball in the last 5 overs of both innings.
Similar performance to Northants, the difference in outcome primarily down to the quality of the opposition.

Once again I’m thankful Yorkshire are rubbish.
Had no right to get above 200, but they bowled really poorly, after they’d gotten so many of our top order cheaply.
Great work by Barnard, Hassan and Garton.

I might have missed it. But was Moeen not supposed to be our captain in T20?
When did that change happen, did they give any reasoning behind it?

I agree that Davies is overburdened. Looking at England, we saw how much Buttler struggled.
I wonder if the lack of replacements for both keeping and captaining is the issue. The only legitimate captaincy option, in my opinion, would be Barnard. Is his place secure enough?
Kai is the obvious replacement for the gloves but he’s definitely not secure enough.

1 thing I would say, is looking back 5-10 years, T20 bowlers set their own fields, they had their plans, only younger players relied on the captain for that. And that’s about plans set off the field, bowlers knowing where they’re bowling, fielders knowing where they’re supposed to be. You can adapt in the game of course, like we saw Willey do with the bowling changes. But players weaknesses don’t change mid game, you know where you’re supposed to bowl at them.
Now everything goes through the captain.