So I suspect Hassan, Rae and OHD for Lancashire. Plus one of Briggs, Che or Lintott.
Assuming one of Bethell or Mousley is dropped.

Shame as that might have given a good indication as who’s in line to play the T20. I think there’s a couple of places up for grabs.

GerryShedd wrote:

Regarding the batting in the second innings against Essex, I reckon at least five were out to "why did he do that?" shots - Davies, Mousley, Burgess, Bethell and Simmons. Barnard was unlucky to be caught down the leg side and the rest were out to reasonable deliveries.
Harmer is in a class of his own as a spinner in UK domestic cricket but an ordinary spinner like Matt Critchley getting 4-24 is a bit of a joke.

I can’t fault Burgess for taking the sweep on. It was how he and Barnard dealt with the spinners in the first innings. County championship twitter literally posted a video about how Barnard used the sweep first innings after struggling early against Harmer.
You watch the other wickets to spinners, a lot of them were trying to play from the crease.
Right shot, but it bounced and turned more on the older pitch.
Mousley’s was identical to his first innings, was really poor. Davies was really head scratching, not sure what he was trying.

The question of the follow on is irrelevant if we bat well. The logic is sound in that sense.
Score 200-250 and we win.
But as Davies said we were 50-5 twice. That’s a joke.

On Benjamin, we’ve seen him come in off plenty of runs from the 2’s and not do well.
The issue is a lack of accountability. How can we have players in the top order who consistently don’t score runs unless it’s dead flat? Worse than that, we make arguably the worst offender for that captain. Which sets the tone.
How can you drop anyone, if that’s the standard the captain sets? Any batsman that gets dropped can rightly feel aggrieved because the rest of the top order are doing the same.
Mousley is still treated like a 17/18 year old kid fresh out the academy. He’s 23 in a couple of months and has played 25 FC matches never scoring a century and averages about 25. He’s got to be accountable for his performances.
Bethell similar though he is less experienced.
You look at that top order and it’s clear you’re missing a genuine batsman at 5, because Barnard should be number 6, Burgess 7, and if you’re picking them for their spin either Mousley or Bethell should be 8 because they aren’t batting well enough to have a place in the top order.
Ultimately it comes down to once again the squad not being strong enough, with too many resources spent on white ball.

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.

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.

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.

Was there any reason as to why Hain didn’t come out to bat as normal?
If he bats, I see no reason with Bethell & Burgess to come, that we don’t go add another 75 and have them chasing 350 odd.

I don’t mind the lack of follow on. I think it’s entirely 50:50 in terms of pro’s and cons in this scenario, because 235 lead is an awkward figure when you expect the pitch to be getting flatter.
But you remove the risk of facing Harmer batting last, and you get to give your bowlers at least a couple of sessions rest, plus overnight. Our spinners get to bowl last on a track that seems to be turning.
Getting bowled out cheaply, does raise their spirits, and we risk the pitch not being so seam friendly later tomorrow. Time will tell.

I think he’s doing ok.
I think captaincy is one of those things where it takes time to see how good they’ll be, but the bad ones are very evident early on.
He’s been pretty up against it because of the state of the bowling. He’s not done anything awful.
Maybe he needs to work on being a bit braver and less orthodox with his field, he’s gone very defensive early on a couple of times. But again, that’s probably more to do with the bowling attack.
He seems to talk to the bowlers a fair bit, plus sometimes with Barnard and Burgess. So what you’d expect, see what the bowler wants, then maybe get some insight from your vice or keeper.
Think the team seems to have dropped off in terms of their standards in the field. Some poor drops, some indisciplined bowling, so we’ll see if he can address that.

Well the last 2 sessions were much better than the first….
Superb by Barnard and Burgess, both once again showing the resilience that too many of our top order lack when the going gets tough.
Though I do worry what our severely weakened attack will be able to do on this pitch, considering how much easier we found it after lunch, even with Essex’s much vaunted attack.

He’s been a superb signing. Seems extremely level headed and since this time last year once he got settled in his new surroundings, he’s just kept improving, and really been a player that the team relies on.

I could see a world where one of Mousley or Bethell doesn’t play, especially with Briggs at 8, just to strengthen the bowling.
Otherwise you’d have OHD and either the lack of county championship experience of Rae & Simmons, or Briggs instead of one of those.
Because as well as Rhodes and Barnard can bowl sometimes, they’re very much batters first, not strike bowlers

It would be harsh, but otherwise the team is very lopsided, and you run the risk of bowling your batters into the ground, leading to them not performing too.

Highveld wrote:

A question about the recruitment of overseas players, which has been very poor for many years.
Are we recruiting from all the players available, or are we only sourcing players from one specific agent? If the later, why? especially as the players provided have in many cases not been "fit for purpose"

These are the questions. Because it’s becoming a trend now.
And Exiled, you’re right the overseas is more of an issue because the bowling is poorly made up in regards to depth. My point is sort of, you can’t do both badly. It’s a series of decisions, and we seem to have made the wrong choice at almost all of them.
Which is why the one piece of bad luck, with Hassan being selected, has a far bigger effect than it should have.
If you’re going with 1 overseas, you’ve got to have good depth, good depth means all format players, and it means being realistic about the likely fitness of your players.
Robinson isn’t a stupid person, he knows this, which is why I suspect this is much more about money and the priority being the T20. And an acknowledgment that even with the available recruitment targets last summer we couldn’t beat Surrey this year; so why not just have a squad that should keep us up, try win the T20 where we have a very good chance, and then with another season of recruitment and maybe a bigger overseas push, the squad will be ready to compete to win next year. It’s a pragmatic approach, but rather depressing.

But 1 piece of bad luck results in an understrength bowling attack?
Yeah, fair enough it’s bad luck Hassan got called up.
But it’s not bad luck that they didn’t already have a second overseas signed for the start of the season. It’s not bad luck they once again signed an overseas on short notice who’s underperforming.
It’s not bad luck that they signed 2 bowlers this off season but they both only play T20.
It’s not bad luck that they’re reliant upon a hugely injury prone player. It’s not bad luck they released a homegrown bowler who now starts for Kent.

1 piece of bad luck shouldn’t result in essentially having 3 fit first team seamers, 2 now Miles is injured.

It’s a series of decisions that the club makes. Why is it other clubs seem to see this, but we don’t?

The ever growing club of Warwickshire players who are supposedly playing for someone else but aren’t actually playing.
Woakes is of course president of this club.

Streetly, just saying it can’t be helped, and it’s difficult nowadays due to the reasons you’ve pointed out, don’t account for the fact other teams are doing it successfully. And have been for years in the same circumstances.

It’s very true, these days players so rarely stay the whole season. But teams can effectively plan around this. To me it’s a wider issue of recruitment and squad make up.
As supporters we should be asking why are other clubs building relationships? Why aren’t we thinking let’s get a guy in who might be able to come back next year or the year after? Why repeatedly do our overseas players not perform?
Are we not reaching out to the right people? Are we looking in the wrong places? Do our DoC and coach not have good enough contacts, or aren’t convincing enough? Is it about money?

Then you can ask why are we seemingly building the attack around the most injury prone player I’ve ever seen, and two guys that are both in the last couple of years of their careers? We’re signing bowlers but to only play white ball. It’s just clear that behind the scenes in terms of squad building, that it’s not being done to the same standard as other sides.
It needs to be addressed rather than just dressing it up as unlucky. There’s a phrase about luck being about preparation. It works in reverse, if you’re not as well prepared in terms of how your squad is built, you’re more likely to be unlucky too.

And the bowling needs help desperately. Surrey went from 332-7 still behind to a lead of 120. Out in the field in the heat for 110 overs, and then against a top class well rested attack.

I’ve got far more issue with an overseas who has taken 1 wicket in 3 innings so far, than a bloke celebrating a 5 wicket haul.
We seem to have developed a habit of signing poor performing overseas on short term deals.
I look at the likes of Elgar, Roach, Seales, Abbott, Pujara, Lyon (Aussies screwed Lancashire on this one), Young, Nathan Smith, Holder, and theres others too, there’s plenty of players around who are of the talent required. Think the shortest stint amongst those is the first 7 games. Which is standard now.
Why are other counties beating us to the premier talent?
Then when it seemed like Hassan was back in consideration after he was picked for the Pakistani camp, get on the phone and get a strong back up. We seem content to blame fitness, bad luck and age, rather than being proactive about it.
I bet we’re paying Garton plenty, but T20 only, not looking a good option right now. Same sort of thinking that results in us each year relying on Norwell to be fit, which he never is.

Andy wrote:

BristolBear wrote:

The completely independent stream commentators are always the worst.
The ones that just use the BBC commentators at least try to be balanced. They’re still biased but can’t be so overt.
The Lancashire and Surrey stream commentaries are horrendously one eyed.

Somerset are the worst for this, total disgrace, this Surrey stream is nowhere near that bad.

Yes! I knew I’d forgotten one, shocking one to forget, you’re right they are the worst.
That’s a county that thinks the world of themselves in general, their stream is just an accurate representation of their fans.

The completely independent stream commentators are always the worst.
The ones that just use the BBC commentators at least try to be balanced. They’re still biased but can’t be so overt.
The Lancashire and Surrey stream commentaries are horrendously one eyed.

Welcome back to the Oval Sam!
Just in time for your traditional annual triggering.

He whacked his pad so obviously, wasn’t like he flicked it as the ball went past, he thudded his pad well before the ball reached him, and then there was a huge gap between bat and ball.
It looked bad real time, it looks horrendous in replay.