Edgbaston describe as a quick bowler with no mention of being an all rounder. Given our stock of quicks why do we need to sign another?

I'm a great believer in the maxim "if it ain't broke,why fix it". We are on a winning steak so why change things. Possible exception is Benjamin as he has made no contribution but Davies must remain captain. I do think Moeen coming in as captain last season was disruptive.

GerryShedd wrote:

Andy wrote:

GerryShedd wrote:

OK, we'll get rid of the batters, bowlers and coaching staff. Can the stewards stay or do they need to go too? And I've just had a word with the cleaning lady who's a bit worried about losing her job in the big clear out.

Little bit rude that. The poster was just giving an observation.

No, it was a lot rude and I apologise.

I gave me a chuckle,though.

Only 458 needed tomorrow - will we have enough overs?

I meant is as a rhetorical question - letting Barker go has to be one of the worst decisions the club has ever made in cricketing terms.

Why did we let Barker go?

Highveld wrote:

There is a four day sexond eleven game starting Monday, ideally Chris is allowed to keep wicket and bat wherever he wants in the order.

I'd be really pleased if he has a good performance in that game.

A telling typo in there or was your mind elsewhere? !!

To continually failing in the spotlight must be confidence shattering. It cannot be doing him any good whatsoever. He must be wondering where the next runs are going to come from. It has been said and it needs repeating - he needs a couple of weeks in the 2nds with closee assistance of a good batting coach. Surely that would give him the chance to come back and make a signicant contribution.

That has to go down as one of the greatest T20 partnerships of all time. To come together at 7-3 and create a risk free stand to get to the opposition's score was incredible.

Shame Benjamin was unable to score the winning runs!!

In this format neither strike rate nor batting average on their own or even combined are really important. I believe what is important is the actual contribution the player makes in individual games.
That could be slow steady scoring to reach a target on a bowler's paradise or someone coming in late on with the team needing 15 of the last over scoring a couple of 6s to see them over the line.
A player mentioned earlier who was a great example - Trevor Penney - always seemed capable of batting according to what was required on the day..

A comfortable win but felt we should have won in fewer overs.
I agree about the camera work - absolutely dreadful even missing the bowling of balls but as it's free we can't really complain!!
At least Benjamin was not out.

A player who only bats and does not bowl should not be batting as low down as 6 which makes his selection all the more strange. As Gerry says let's hope he proves everyone wrong today although given Derbys' score I hope he is not needed.

I did say a golden duck guaranteed selection!!

Bald_Reynard wrote:

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

Guarantees his selection, doesn't it!!!

Can anyone advise how the D/L is looking?

Missed following today's game and sorry to read the scorecard. Jamal 25 in only over and out first ball !! Hassan Ali is hardly an inspiring signing either. Bejamin failed yet again. Should the three of them be dropped for the next game ?

Simply too many singles and should have been tackled when the run rate needed exceeded 10 an over. But at least we saw Hain get a decent score.

Just need to keep it around 8 or 9 an over. Considering Lancs got to 100 in the 9th over the Bears pulled it back really well.

Some pretty poor bowling at the moment.

They should not risk L N in a second Seconds game. They should put him in the game against Lancs or Durham while they have the opportunity. Leave it a week might be too late!!