paulbear wrote:

Yet another huge blow to the side. Burgess must have really wanted out, to go at such a young age. Maybe the route he is taking seemed so much better than playing for Warwickshire but surely there must be something more to it. If I was him, I would have been furious about being left out of the T20 side whilst a lesser batsman in no form had a place in the side whilst being a much more inferior wicketkeeper as well. A decision that left so many on this site, totally baffled and in my case, just bloody annoyed. Can't help but think the way the club is operating at the moment and strange team selections, won't have had some bearing on all this but then again, I am just speculating. So Sibley, Rhodes and now Burgess, all terrific players in their prime, all gone and much work for the management to deal with. We need strong replacements, not "Oh we THINK this player has potential and we THINK he could be what is needed for the team....". Too many players at the club have had potential but you cannot keep talking about the potential a player has, 5 years later.

Indeed, and if I was Ed Barnard I would be disgruntled for the same reason. We need to build a single squad that plays across all formats, but I suppose that is an old fashioned view.

This is a huge blow, especially being so sudden. That batting line up is looking wafer thin, at the moment its Hamza in for Rhodes and Kai in for Burgess, which on the one hand is exciting, but I think will leave us vulnerable. The need to recruit of an experienced top order bat is now desperate.

BristolBear wrote:

The_Lickey_Banker wrote:

Team:-
Yates
Davies
Rhodes
Hain
Mousley
Barnard
Burgess
Briggs
Miles
Booth
OHD

As KoS said, Robinson has done his usual 'cunning plan' in packing the batting ranks. So, a lot on the shoulders of the 3 seamers (and some aspiring 'CC spinner' called Briggs !). I think Barnard & Rhodes will be called upon a fair bit.

I can’t understand why Robinson has this approach. When we won the championship, Burgess spent most of the season at 6. Bresnan at 7. Then Briggs, Miles, Norwell, OHD.
So now when our bowling is weakest, he keeps strengthening the batting. Part of it is a comment on our consistency with the bat, partly to do with low bowling reserves. But it seems counter intuitive. And I suspect a lot to do with Robinson’s preference not to drop his favourites, as typically they’ve been the ones most vulnerable.

How is Burg at 6, Bresnan at 7 followed by Briggs, Miles, Norwell, OHD, any different to Burg at 7, Barnard at 6 (or 5) followed by Briggs, Miles, Booth, OHD?

Lancs look on course for a win already!

Need to focus on getting these 3 bowling points. That will surely be enough, as there's no way lancs are getting 400+ at new road

Well done to Ed Barnard, but still not good enough for the blast apparently.

Well done to Glamorgan too. They did a good job against us after we had them on the ropes early on.

Highveld wrote:

Not sure who suggested leaving Ehodes out, he'd definately play if I was selecting the side. He has been totally professional and commited since he announced his move.

It's disapointing that he felt he needed to leave.

Had this been a dead rubber I would have put Kai in for Rhodes, he is leaving after all.

However with 5 points needed, Rhodes and Davies must play. Woakes would be good in place of Rush worth but who knows!