So lunch on Day 3. Hampshire only 151 behind with 5 in hand. Vince looks very good too. Problem is going to be how long we need to bat for again. Even if they only scored another 50-75 runs. We’d need to go bat for about a session to put on another 100-150 to actually have something defendable.
And that risks the weather on day 4, which is looking dodgy at best.

It may of course all be academic. Yorkshire are 36-1 at lunch, 240 would get them the tie that would keep them safe. So only 204 runs off. It could be very close.

I just fear that the pitch is too good. It doesn’t look easy to get wickets.
It’s been damp, overcast, play constantly interrupted and we only lost 4 wickets. Usually that’s a recipe for wickets and lots of them.
The reality is simple, 2 days, to take 20 wickets, for less than probably 400 runs. There won’t be time in the game to score more than about 120 extra runs in a second innings.

I wonder if Hampshire could be convinced into making a very sporting declaration.

To score more points than Yorkshire it would need to be a win and 3 bonus points. But if we only got 2 bonus points we’d stay up due to having won more games.

However, Yorkshires 3 bowling points means that a draw would be enough for them to stay up. And the weather for Leeds tomorrow is rain all day according to the BBC. Which wouldn’t be helpful, as you know their ground staff won’t be in any hurry to make it playable.

That sounds ominous. Dobell is usually right on these things. He was stating the Sibley news to Surrey at the start of the season well before anyone else had any idea.

Is the article worth a read? It’s behind a paywall, and I’m loathe to bother paying as I’m usually left pretty disappointed by anything I’ve read from there previously.

It all just smacks of awful man management to me. I think there were solutions there, and I suspect we all know what needed to be done. Why Robinson didn’t do it was either that he wasn’t strong enough to manage some of the situations, especially with big players out of form.
Or made a decision regarding selection, and was too stubborn/arrogant/foolish to change his mind upon realising his mistake.

Either way, neither are characteristics you want in a leader and head coach.

I think you can stick with one of Yates or Davies out of form, but not both. One should have been dropped after 3 matches when it was clear both were in awful form.
Then give the other another match or 2. Or you could try Rhodes opening again.
With Hain, Mousley, Lamb, Burgess, Benjamin Bethell, plus Rhodes you’ve got plenty who can bat 3-7. So I don’t think it was a lack of options. It was a definite choice. And it’s damaged the season.

That’s just it isn’t it, that every single one of these players is talented enough to score runs. It’s whether their form is good enough and also whether they turn that talent into results.

Robinson has this bizarre approach that picking on name, potential and reputation is better than actual performances.
You throw enough darts at a board and eventually you’ll hit the bullseye. Unfortunately in professional sport you can’t have that approach because you don’t have time to wait for someone to find form, because you’ll get left behind. That’s exactly what we’ve seen this season and what we saw today with Yates, he got enough chances and eventually came good. But it’s too little too late and why they’re almost certainly going to get relegated.

Nothing about selection has been logical.
You know what will happen though, Davies, Yates, Bethell maybe Rhodes will score some runs this match. We might even win. And Robinson will stand there and point to their runs, and say that’s why he persevered with those players. (assuming he actually comes out and does an interview instead of hiding like usual).
Completely ignoring the point that continuing to select out of form players is the reason that they’re going to be relegated.

I hate the thought of it. But i bet Robinson will keep his job too. Farbrace will get the blame because he’s already going and it’s more convenient.

So the maths is simple.
If we win with full bonus points, the most points we can get is 144.
Kent and Yorkshire are currently on 134 & 135.
So if they were to get 11 and 10 points respectively, we’re relegated no matter what.
So a draw and 3 bonus points would be enough for both.

As both are at home, I suspect they’ve prepared absolute roads, to ensure the draw and as many batting points as possible.

I’m certain it is personal for Lamb and Burgess. But not as in a death in the family or mental health.
It’s that Robinson doesn’t fancy them as people. Which is pretty pathetic.

Professional sport is supposed to be the ultimate meritocracy. Doesn’t matter who you are, if you perform, that’s all that counts. There’s no way that’s been the case this season with the bears.

Thought I’d pop online and see the squad for tomorrow. Still nothing at 20 past 6 the evening before.
Every other side has announced their squad for the final match, other than us. The level of communication with supporters this year has been appalling and getting ever worse.

https://twitter.com/leadingedgepod/status/1573245849920229376?s=21&t=cRNMqaGjYgPquANwt9J1jA
Interesting graphic here. We’re below the average in terms of players batting averages. And as a side have the worst batting strike rate too.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/averages/batting_bowling_by_team.html?id=14444;team=1479;type=tournament

Burgess and Lamb are the only recognised batsmen at a strike rate above 50.

Highveld wrote:

Can you honestly say that Yates, Sidebottom or Davies actually made useful contributions?

Could say 7 players, not sure Bethell has earned it either. Don’t think he’s got to double figures for the bears in red ball. And think he only did it once in T20. Didn’t take any wickets when he bowled against Northants either.

Thought Braceys decision was the worst of the match. Briggs only decided to appeal after everyone else went up. With how hard he played the shot and how much it bounced there’s no way it could have hit bat or even glove, was pretty high up the arm.
The problem is now, in every innings there’s been an early clatter of wickets and then it gets easier to bat after 20 or so overs.

I thought Yadavs was a poor decision, but he’ll get disciplined for his reaction.
Thought Yates reaction was more annoyance at himself as I couldn’t see too much wrong with it.
Davies’ was a bizarre one because it looked like he really misjudged the line and length. The way he set up to play it looked very awkward. I personally thought it hit his boot before the bat, and that’s one of those where you’re probably disappointed to get out to it; but reversed you’d be just as annoyed if it wasn’t given. So I’m not sure there can be too much moaning. We’ve had much worse ones this year, but it is clear players are becoming increasingly unhappy at the standard of umpiring.

Warwickshire will go for it. As I suspect will all the other test match county grounds other than Surrey.
They’re too desperate to stay on the ECB’s good side to keep international matches. Especially as match day revenue from the hundred was down, meaning that test matches are still the best way for a county to make money.

One question or point I do have on this review and on a lot of recent ECB appointments (Strauss, Key, potentially Knight as selector), isn’t it funny how the ECB makes almost all their money from Sky, and how so many roles are being filled by current or former Sky employees.

Mikkyk wrote:

This could all be completely academic couldn't it?

If one of us and Gloucestershire (or even both but unlikely) stay up, they will finish 7th or 8th - which would then mean not finishing in the top 6 and presumably not being in Strauss's 'elite division'

I think, if they are approved, the changes are coming in from 2024. So you’d need to finish in the top 6 of Div 1 next year to be in that top division.

Andy wrote:

I remember that, transpired he had a bost up with Dougie Brown didn't he?

My mind went to this first of all with “unavailable”. But usually, like with Clarke, things of that ilk don’t stay quiet, there’s always rumours and talk. They always get discovered by other players or local beat writers.
Whereas total radio silence on this one.

South-Coast-exile wrote:

I may have missed it, if so, I apologise, but have we been given a sensible reason for the omission of Burgess from the team? Merely unavailable just does not cut it. If it is deeply personal then say so, we will accept that and move on. If he has been dropped then say so, we might not agree but we will accept that and move on. But we deserve more than simply to say he is unavailable.

Absolutely nothing.
It just seems like they’re hiding something. They’ve clearly got no issue saying “personal issues” as they did for Siraj. Nothing disciplinary has been announced by the ECB. And they very clearly didn’t say injured. I know personally I suspect it’s like Lamb, Robinson didn’t fancy him and has dropped him for someone who’s worse with the gloves and hasn’t performed anywhere close with the bat either.
Really poor communication from the club either way. But that’s a while other issue that I know many of us have been unhappy with.

Your keeping standards of neatly seem to differ from mine….. and the commentators……. And the bowlers.