Those are big wickets. We saw how Woakes and Booth were able to stick around to score valuable runs.
With them having to start again tomorrow morning and the new ball due soon, hopefully we can really apply the pressure and put ourselves in a strong position.
We kept at it all day and got our rewards late on.

Problem with Booth is that he is raw.
Lots of potential. Bowls some beauties, but rarely seems to be able to maintain for a whole over. Just struggles to keep that pressure up. Patience as a bowler is a skill in itself, being able to bowl multiple maidens, bowling to a plan. Something he’ll hopefully develop because all the ability is there.
Doesn’t help that Woakes at the other end isn’t exactly his usual disciplined self.

Devon_Bear wrote:

What a magnificent innings by Michael Burgess to score 147 batting at number 8. Credit to Woakes and Booth too for backing him up and taking the score past 400.

Problem is he’s not a number 8. I’d love to see him back at 6, I’m pretty sure that’s where he batted when we won championship, or 7.
Too often he gets stranded with 10 & 11, and hits out to try get quick runs at the end, seen it happen a few times over the years.

Devon_Bear wrote:

It's obvious that Burgess is a far better (championship) batter than Mousley or Bethell, he should be coming in at 6.

Think it’s obvious to everyone other than Robinson.
Somehow this week after a great innings he actually went down a place in the order.

It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest, Robinson basically avoiding having to make a difficult decision later.
We know he prefers not to drop players, he waits for any non-performance based excuse he can find.
Being afraid isn’t a great quality in a coach.

meashambear wrote:

Well played Sam Hain, assisted by Burgess

Backs against the wall, a bit of bastard and fight needed, those 2 would be my pick to battle it out every time.
They’re the 2 that seem to have the bottle for the fight.
Fantastic innings by Hain, similarly for Burgess, even better when you consider he had to spend 2 hot days keeping as well.

I thought Davies looked out of his depth tactically.
As Gerry writes, within the first hour I think it was, Organ edged one through second slip and there wasn’t one. They were about 100-2, in the morning session and you’re already defending. At that stage the match was by no means a forgone conclusion of them declaring. But we had fields that suggested otherwise.

Mousley held out the attack far too long. Miles used as a bouncer machine multiple times, a plan that only had 1 moment of potential which was when he hit Dawson in the helmet. No attempt to use the spinners in an attacking sense at all. More to take up overs, or limit the boundary count. Again this was being done very early on. Briggs was running in knowing he was almost guaranteed to give up a single every ball no matter what he did.
Can’t fault the effort, they kept running in, kept chasing in the field, but tactically looked devoid of ideas and the limited threat of the bowlers made that all the more obvious.

Some of the variable bounce Bethell and Briggs were starting to get, plus some grip, I could see Dawson doing a number on us again.

Woakes and OHD have been very wayward with the new ball.
Think OHD bowled one over where every ball was on leg stump or further down.
It’s clearly flattened out, no doubt they’ve had the best of the batting conditions in this match.
The issue now will be after a day in the dirt in this heat, we all know the negative effect this has on batters concentration levels and decision making skills. Going to have to be a really good batting performance to get a draw.

It’s much easier to blame the batting when you’re 50 behind. But considering they won the toss and batted, it’s hardly the worst outcome.
Was definitely harder work batting today than yesterday too.
I think the big question should be how we managed to let them get to 119-1. Looks like a repeat performance in this innings too.

He’s been pretty vocal about how it was a case of the club didn’t consider him a high priority in terms of offering a contract before the negotiating window.
Hampshire came in, were very obvious on their desire to sign him.
When Warwickshire did eventually offer him a contract, he decided he wanted to go where he was most wanted.
Poor man management unfortunately.
Annoyingly it seems to haunt us every time we play against him.

Was hoping it would be warm and sunny. Instead, it’s warm, but so far overcast and humid, just making the ball do something in the air and looks like the pitch is a little bit more lively, the Barnard wicket ball was superb, swings in, seamed away just enough.
Barker is bowling beautifully, just asking questions with almost every ball.
Definitely tougher going today, makes it more annoying both openers were careless last night and got themselves out.

Miles is a bit streaky, if he does get it right he’ll bowl some unplayable balls, which is why I think he gets some cheap wickets off poor balls like the Brown wicket, a classic strangle down leg.
But he seems to just try too hard at times and that’s when he can throw it all over the place.

OHD on the other hand is a metronome.

Hoping today the pitch gets even better to bat on, we keep them out there all day in the heat. The bowlers rest up, then fingers crossed yesterdays overs return Woakes to his usual high quality and we could put a lot of pressure on in the second innings. That relies on a good batting performance though. We have a lot of batting, so we’ll see how it goes.

The issue is, and it reeks of arrogance and entitlement in well aware, we’ve been here before. Qualified comfortably from the group stages, but with some clear flaws in the team, and when it gets to the quarter finals, those flaws are highlighted and it leads to losses against the best teams.
Yesterdays match is a perfect example, lose wickets early, 2 of the best performing players get us out the hole, but what if we’d been playing a team at the top of the table; and they’d scored 30 more? Benjamin would be needed to score and fast and he just isn’t reliable in those situations.
The point I have is that, why wouldn’t you use this situation to see what Burgess can offer in that role, so you can be sure of your strongest side, thats fully tested when it comes to the matches that matter most.

Highveld wrote:

Chris Benjamin got, probably, the best ball of the innings, not many would have survived that first ball.

Yes he is struggling at the moment, but he has ability and will come right, given the opportunity.

It was a good performance in the field today, and an excellent partnership from Sam & Jacob.

A year and a half’s evidence suggests otherwise.
I don’t think it’s a surprise that after his first season and bowlers got tape on him that he’s gone off a cliff.
He averaged 16 last year at 130 SR, he’s averaging 8 this year at 97 SR. At least last year even though he wasn’t scoring runs, his strike rate wasn’t laughable, this year not only is he not scoring runs, he’s scoring them slowly.

This side is now very predictable and it’s clear how they need to play to win.
If the bowling attack performs and keeps the opposition below par, then they win.
Par or above and it’s a loss.

Bald_Reynard wrote:

A quack for Benjamin. Surely he can't last any longer?!

Any other side and any other coach he’d have already been gone. But at this stage it’s just stubbornness and ego from Robinson, because he’d have to admit he’s wrong.

It’s time we used that opportunity to get some youngsters through. Give the likes of Wylie, Ali and Simmons some consistent exposure to first XI cricket.
Get players like OHD, Barnard, Burgess and Miles around them.

Exactly. The Gleeson thing is similar to the issues of squad building we’ve seen in the championship, too many bowlers relied upon who aren’t physically up to it.
I also feel like our bowlers approach the game differently, because they know we won’t score heavily often.
We see it in our choices in matches, bowl first, go with very defensive fields, we don’t attack with bowling, we bowl to contain. Try limit the other side to par, and knowing what we’re chasing gives us a better chance.
So our bowlers don’t take the risks that sometimes get wickets, and ironically open themselves up to going for more runs because we let batsmen get in for longer.

GerryShedd wrote:

Alex Davies says: "We had a few decisions that were really questionable - we ran Bedingham out early and it wasn't given."
I missed that - and so did the umpire - but that could have made a massive difference because he played a superb attacking innings.

Just smoke and mirrors. These things happen every day in cricket.
He was also criticising the schedule and saying playing back to back wasn’t conducive to winning and that’s why they had to rest Gleeson. (Forgetting of course Durham played away at Leicestershire the evening before as well).
Maybe being aware of the schedule we sign players who are able to cope with it, or have adequate stand ins.