I was wondering if it is actually great news. We're coming from the same place. I really want him to stay. He's our best keeper for sure and underrated with the bat. Reason I say bad news is its only a one year extension and he has the option on extending. I can see a situation where he doesn't keep in T20 and he ends up leaving the end of 2024...

Highveld wrote:

Has signed acontract extention to the end of 2024, with a player option to extend further.

This is good news, and hopefully a sign that he will be used as the first choice keeper in all forms of the game next season.

I'm not sure, apart from Kolpaks, that Brexit has changed much as there aren't that many EU cricketing nations. From a while back a third-country work permit criteria was that you had to prove that the permit holder had skills no-one domestically (or presumably under contract at the club, in a sporting context). So very easy to circumnavigate. I think there are examples of football and cricket failing this test but can't remember a name.

BristolBear wrote:

I think football changed how it all works, especially post-Brexit. It used to always be the rule that you had to be an international.
But now they bring in teens from Portugal, Spain. Brazil etc, they have to show they’d be playing or had played at an elite level.
So now with all these franchise tournaments in cricket counting as elite, anyone that’s played in one can basically qualify.

I was one of the stronger backers of Robinson on the semi-final thread though in all reality I'm 50-50 on whether he should go at the end of the season. Why he should go has been covered by others so won't repeat that. My two cents on a case for him staying:

The rumours about his man-management and popularity were also the case when he was England women's coach. As I recall him dropping Charlotte Edwards was particularly controversial. We don't have access to these conversations and it's only rumour so I don't think we can draw too much from this, lets just say he isn't afraid to shuffle his team or management. This is an inherent part of being a coach so this is either a matter of style or something none of us know about to speculate on. Either way, it's not job-terminating on it's own.

He was appointed women's coach in 2015 and England won their world cup in 2017 so there is some evidence there that it takes him, or a coach in general, two years to get to where he wants to be. Eddie Jones, ex England rugby coach said something similar in that the third year was the time for the coach to take total responsibility without blaming predecessors. We're in that period right now. Of course, on this basis, the CC win of 2021 was Jim Troughton's achievement. The poor 2022 (only T20 was good and that ended in embarassment) is on track for this theory.

So I think what we're left with is a problem with choking on big games, three knock-out games lost out of three in two years plus a few champo games when we could have significantly improved our position by playing better. I don't think there's one good reason why you become a better player in these situations but you have to keep playing in them. I also think it's not all on the coach. The players need to play a part seeing as all the key moments happened without a coach within 150 yards.

Put all this together and the logical course of action is a performance review in which he is asked for a plan of how to win clutch games and asked about personnel changes and how he approaches them (includes recruitment). He then needs to work on it with the players who need to actually do the stuff, and then re-assess in one year. I think he can have an extra year as he definitely improved 2023 on 2022 with 2021 being nothing to do with him in terms of performance (Eddie Jones doctrine) and some grace to account for him joining at the end of the pandemic. Lots of people were afforded this bit of privilege so not unreasonable he has the same.

A final, final point. I'm not really sure if we can get better from here, I fear this is the peak and we kind of blew it. However, rationally this can't be proven at this point and sacking people is just a bit too soon.

Genuine question, I haven't seen any of today. But was this one of those quasi-autumnal games where the toss loser gets put in and they got shot out, chasing team win at a canter? I see Dawson got a load of wickets, but had the seamers put us on the backfoot already and he cleared up?

"Clutch" games are definitely a key issue. As well as the knock out white ball games we lost crucial CC games too where a win or a good draw would have seen us in a stronger position. I'm not sure it's totally a coaching issue, there's limited impact when the players are on the field. Without knowing if this was an autumn result we don't know for sure its a choke or not. Not sure if they're getting better at it or not.

While we're on Robinson, I can remember rumours saying he ruffled a few feathers with England women. But England women were much stronger at the end of his reign. This will be his third season completed so he can't blame predecessors. If we get, say, third in the CC, fourth in the one day then 8th in the Blast, is that removal territory?

He's got a degenerative knee condition so it does make sense that rests are build into his schedule. But he did play three back-to-back tests as you say so clear they can manage a lot out of him if required. Whether they build rest into the ODIs or not is a good point but the semi final would be something I think he could manage and be of benefit to him.

mad wrote:

They seem to be very protective of Woakes and it flukily paid dividends for England in the summer. I guess their initial plan was for him to deputise if needed for Jimmy but he comes in fresh for those last three tests and is player of the series. They might hold him back again for a few ODI's and then the world cup whereas previously they might have encouraged him play this week

It's a good point, and I paraphrase just slightly, that if Hampshire play their 100 players and we don't they mug us off. It isn't, however, the point I'm making. I'm saying minimal changes because being in the 100, even if not playing, is poor preparation and also disrupts the team. We've seen this effect of this already this season when Mo came back from IPL and disrupted the vibe Davies had going on as captain and top order bat.

Speaking of which, Ali almost certainly won't be back. He plays IT20 this week (I think) while Woakes isn't needed for England until ODIs later in the month. There's a good case from England's PoV in him playing the semi, bearing in mind he also missed the last 100 game, but I bet he won't be available

I can't remember and CBA to look it up but Durham and Sussex chases both followed the same pattern of 4/5 getting knocked over really quickly and Barnard and Ethan having to dig it out. In both those games Barn/Eth scored 330 or so combined, though Ed did score about 260 of those himself.

BristolBear wrote:

Mikkyk wrote:

Tayls79 wrote:

There's another aspect to the post-100 players coming back: would they improve the team? For us the opening partnership plus three can't be improved, most of the bowling can't really be improved (come back to this) even 6/7 Ethan has locked down. But our middle order could be. As it stands its Davies, Bethell and Burgess and none of them have scored too heavily. Ot must be tempting to return Hain and Mousley.

Interesting I’d have said Ethan would be the most vulnerable.
Averages less than Shaikh and Burgess I’m pretty sure.
Obviously Burgess is the keeper and has kept well, also the fact they rested him seems to suggest they intend to play him. Whereas I don’t think Brooks has bowled in this competition, so should be offering more.
He’s also leaving at the end of the season. So I’d prioritise the likes of Shaikh and Smith above him.

We know Davies isn’t going anywhere, but could see Hain back in for Bethell who’s been pretty poor in general this year.
Would love Mousley for Davies, but suspect it would more likely be for Smith.

Gloucester brought back both of their Hundred players. Lancashire brought back some of theirs too, but were far less effective.

Don't get me wrong, for moral or reasons of fairness, I still wouldn't return 100 players.

There's another aspect to the post-100 players coming back: would they improve the team? For us the opening partnership plus three can't be improved, most of the bowling can't really be improved (come back to this) even 6/7 Ethan has locked down. But our middle order could be. As it stands its Davies, Bethell and Burgess and none of them have scored too heavily. Ot must be tempting to return Hain and Mousley.

Woakes is interesting. He's in the ODI squad in September but not the IT20s next week so I can see him replacing Brookes (H) or Miles for the semi final for fine tuning purposes for England.

In all cases, I wouldn't though. Not for moral reasons but for cricketing reasons. None of the returning players are as assured as the picks that are there already. I think Hamza was a bit unlucky to be dropped but putting him straight back into to a semi final is probably a step too far.

You never quite know what's going to happen with the other teams bringing back their 100 players. I bet Hants bring back Vince and Dawson straight away... if both teams put out their strongest sides I think we as good or better than them, but they do seem to play the big games better. On the assumption Hants get past Worcester we'll see a real test of how much we've improved in this regard through the season.

Sorry about that. Though that was a neutral post! Indeed, someone is going to have to play well and stick with Barnard here. This is exactly what I meant by momentum going the other way...

LeicesterExile wrote:

Tayls79 has some explaining to do - post #25 and the wheels are coming off !!!!!!!!!!!!! Seriously this is going to need a big partnership from somewhere to pull off a win now

Started our innings well from a look of the scorecard. It's actually an important innings. Play well and win that's our momentum going into the knockouts, go badly it could be the beginning of a slide. Going tired into the eliminator game sounds grim.

It does make sense to rest one or two. I just get worried every time Burgess gets rested thinking it's a prelude to him leaving. Especially if Davies gets the gloves. Would have thought Barnard must be due a rest, he's barely stopped this competition.

That would be a good rule. I think the case in question was one team stuck with their seconds and one team brought players back. But I can't remember if it was this year or last.

Andy wrote:

Kent and Lancashire both declined to use their Hundred players when they became available for last year's final. I think?

I think anyone who hasn't played in the groups shouldn't play the knockouts.

All credit to the competition but still too close to tell what's going to happen. Worcs played out now and we really shouldn't drop our NRR as low as theirs though with this statement. and of course with Gloucs, you can't easily see what NRR means in tangible run terms. Looks like Hampshire could top the other group, which I think is good and means we should avoid them in the semis, they have a big psychological hold on us in knock outs.

The other facet now is selection with more 100 players coming back all the time. An issue is how many should come back and my tentative answer here is no more than present. Anyone who has played a part in the 100 should sit it out in my view, partially because they will destabilise a successful team but partially because of a moral 'cup-tied' sense of balance. Already think its a shame Kai Smith and Hamza have dropped out, both have made good contributions.

Could be an interesting chase this one. I guess somewhere there's a run rate calculation to meet. But I think the only way to approach this is not to throw the hands at everything and risk being bowled out for 200. Which we're seeing.

It bought some very different facets to the game but still needed good cricket skills to win there, which Warks brought. So I don't think it was totally farcical. A bowl-off, a coin toss or a game of tiddlywinks I think would have been farcical.

Anyhow. I was looking at the table last night and I think it's only run rate that is standing is standing between us and top spot. Which adds uncertainty as I'm not sure what sort of spanking we'd need to have at the hands of Sussex and Durham not to get that home semifinal.

I thought we'd need 120 but seemed to be one of those pitches that gets harder to score on. I didn't see most of our innings but the ability of our bowlers to hit that blue line on the off side at yorker length was the difference. Miles, OHD, Brooks and Barnard all did very well at that with only a few misses for wides.

I started watching on the sixth ball hence missed that Barnard six. But did they both get seduced that short boundary in the second over?

Cricinfo has 1656 start time, which means that 10 overs each way, right? I see the other games today the scoring has been at 8 runs per over so could be fun...