A win for the Bears, but not by much - 5 runs.

We made 161 for 7 off our 20. Good performances, from Barnard (22 off 16 balls, with 2x6's), Rhodes (31 off 22, with 5x4's), Captain Shaikh (25 off 16 balls, with 2x6's) and a late flourish by Miles (18 with 1x6), but the stand out knock was 46 from Amir Khan (off 38 balls, with 4x4's & 1x6).

Worcester were going really well, with Pollock & Libby putting on quick runs - at one stage, 134 (for 5) off only 16 overs, needing just 28 off 4, but some great end bowling from Miles & Booth, took all the remaining wickets. That's not to say Miles & Booth weren't hammered a bit to start (both conceding over 10 an over at the beginning) - Miles finishing on 3 for 39 off his 4 and Booth, 3 for 31. The other wickets were taken by OHD (1 for 34 off his 4), Ali (1 for 28 off 3) and - wonderfully, economically, Norwell (again !), 1 for 10 off 3 overs. Barnard bowled 2 overs for 14 runs.

If I were to take anything away from this, in terms of First team needs, Barnard (or Rhodes) might well deserve a call up instead of Benjamin (of course) - and obviously either will help with some bowling if required. And 3 Seconds games in, with no pull ups, or apparent after effects, Norwell could soon easily warrant a First team place (taking 7 wickets for 63 runs, in 11 overs).

Highveld wrote:

Live stats etc https://live.nvplay.com/ecb/?tab=m_summary#mded9a351-3327-4081-8b84-7e45dc14bf27

Team:-
Barnard
Wylie
Rhodes
Shaikh (Captain)
Burgess (Keeper)
Amir Khan
Miles
Booth
Norwell
Ali
OHD

We won the toss and chose to bat.

The spinners have brought it back - good bowling from all of them.

This is going well - Woaksey and Hassan getting clouted all over the park! Just Glesson showing any finesse.

Mikkyk wrote:

Benjamin selected again!

Yep, crazy! Just Woakes in for Garton.

I think what somebody said about Benjamin having some photos of Robinson, must be true!

Given the weather forecast, it is likely we'll never know.

Inside-edge wrote:

A certain C Woakes playing.

https://live.nvplay.com/ecb/?tab=m_summary#m91bfa2ed-7588-4d23-9be5-942138e28cc8

And a certain L Norwell (again - 2 consecutive games without setbacks - I hope I don't speak too soon!)!

Woakes, Miles, Booth, Norwell & Barnard, the seam attack (and OHD, who didn't bowl). At last!

Jamal in for Gleeson - the only change.

Durham won the toss and chose to bat first.

Inside-edge wrote:

Second XI in action today, T20 v Glamorgan.

https://live.nvplay.com/ecb/?tab=m_summary#ma8d2a8ae-2e76-45b0-803a-73f22b28a7cd

Not far off our first choice team for the Blast. Obviously, we're giving everyone an extensive run out before Durham on Friday.

Hasn't started great though - Glamorgan half way through their innings, at 9 an over, for the loss of only 3 wickets.

Inside-edge wrote:

If you get the chance make sure you watch the replay of Rob Yates catch off Lintott to get Nathan Lyon, it’s extraordinary.

Was it Rob Yates ? I thought it was Rhodes. But, whoever, it was amazing - one of the best I've seen for a while, how he adjusted himself after the ricochet !

The_Lickey_Banker wrote:

Andy wrote:

The_Lickey_Banker wrote:

Andy wrote:

Have to stick with Bethell and Yates as spinners long term. If/when they become consistent threats, whilst already being good top order batters, it completely transforms our side and allows us to play an extra batter or extra seamer. There will be growing pains along the way but we have to think long term on this. This is the way to go.

This specialist spinner business is nonsense when, with all due to respect to the lad, Danny Briggs is that specialist spinner.

Whilst it's great they're giving Bethell & Yates an extensive runout (for the long term future of the club), it must be depressing for Lintott. He gets a CC chance while Briggs is injured, gets 3 overs, takes a wicket (on a pitch and in conditions made for him) - and then has no other opportunities to stake a long term red ball claim.

I just haven't seen enough of him which is why I've not mentioned him in my posts on this subject. Would be unfair.

I hope Management also feel its unfair to judge him on this one game - but I fear they've already made their minds up!

As soon as I posted (above), they brought Jake on - and he took 2 more wickets (finishing with 3 for 10 off nearly 6 overs) - great for him. And have you seen Will Rhodes' catch of Nathan Lyon - absolutely magnificent. I really hope that this is the start of long(er) career for us in red ball - we know what he CAN do with a white ball.

Andy wrote:

The_Lickey_Banker wrote:

Andy wrote:

Have to stick with Bethell and Yates as spinners long term. If/when they become consistent threats, whilst already being good top order batters, it completely transforms our side and allows us to play an extra batter or extra seamer. There will be growing pains along the way but we have to think long term on this. This is the way to go.

This specialist spinner business is nonsense when, with all due to respect to the lad, Danny Briggs is that specialist spinner.

Whilst it's great they're giving Bethell & Yates an extensive runout (for the long term future of the club), it must be depressing for Lintott. He gets a CC chance while Briggs is injured, gets 3 overs, takes a wicket (on a pitch and in conditions made for him) - and then has no other opportunities to stake a long term red ball claim.

I just haven't seen enough of him which is why I've not mentioned him in my posts on this subject. Would be unfair.

I hope Management also feel its unfair to judge him on this one game - but I fear they've already made their minds up!

Andy wrote:

Have to stick with Bethell and Yates as spinners long term. If/when they become consistent threats, whilst already being good top order batters, it completely transforms our side and allows us to play an extra batter or extra seamer. There will be growing pains along the way but we have to think long term on this. This is the way to go.

This specialist spinner business is nonsense when, with all due to respect to the lad, Danny Briggs is that specialist spinner.

Whilst it's great they're giving Bethell & Yates an extensive runout (for the long term future of the club), it must be depressing for Lintott. He gets a CC chance while Briggs is injured, gets 3 overs, takes a wicket (on a pitch and in conditions made for him) - and then has no other opportunities to stake a long term red ball claim.

FarmerPalmer wrote:

I’d bring in those three for hain mousley and possible bethell. Time robbo made some tough decisions.

I agree with you FP. I think Mousley & Bethell have had enough opportunities (for now - they will be back). Hassan is obvious, but Benjamin & Lintott deserve a (few) chance(s).

ajones1328 wrote:

The awful second innings performance has cost us this game. I think it's time to give Benjamin a go in the side over Mouseley. Worth him trying to find some from in the Blast.

I (partly) agree over Benjamin - another one who Management feel can only play Limited Over cricket. I've seen him play well (sometimes' brilliantly) in Seconds Championship games - varying his attack & defence, far better than he used to and now judging pace & width pretty well. Its just that occasional 'rush of blood to the head' which can be his downfall. However, he does deserve far more red ball opportunities than he's been given.

The same point applies even more to Lintott. As I've said above, he has been shabbily treated by Management. 2 CC games in 3 years. He Captains the Seconds Championship team so well, he has developed a formidable armoury in his 'bowling locker' and can bat well. Just because he's regarded as a T20 specialist, he gets so overlooked in other forms of the game. He deserves so much more. That case is even stronger, given the decline of Briggs in red ball cricket - and the fact that he is the only alternative (experienced) front line spinner we have.

So, yes, Benjamin and Lintott should be given more opportunities (plural!) - possibly at the expense of Mousley & Bethell - their days will surely come again.

How can you lose a game having won the toss and having a First Innings lead of 235 (and so, the Follow On option)?! We can!

I seem to recall another recent game this happened (but can't remember which one?).

You're right, Streetly, BIG questions need to be asked - mainly about team selection (no front line spinner on a well known turning wicket) and the Captain/Management decision on the F/O, but also ANOTHER batting collapse.

Andy wrote:

I'm not sure what difference Danny Briggs would have made here to be honest.

I agree. I think Danny's 'red ball days' with us are numbered (though still offers something in limited over games). Although, many on here disagree with me, I do think Jake Lintott deserves a go in CC cricket. I've seen him a lot in Seconds Championship games and he rarely lets the Club down - always getting wickets (in all sorts of conditions and against some good batsmen) and is a valuable lower order bat (and an astute Captain). Last season he turned out in one CC match and took 3 for 68 and got a 78, but in his 3 seasons with us, he's only been given 2 games.

I wonder what would have happened if we'd enforced the follow on and bamboozled a few Essex guys with Jake's wrist spin on that turning wicket (especially the lower order batsmen).

BosworthBear wrote:

We got this one wrong given the short period there was tonight. Should have enforced the follow on.

Just got to hope we can get another 50 or so now.

Yep. I'm not a 'told you so' guy, but ...... !

The_Lickey_Banker wrote:

Why do we so rarely enforce a follow on?! Given the state of the wicket, I would have thought a FO was a no brainer (emphasised by Davies going so early).

3 gone now. Despite what many on here say, I do think no FO was a mistake.

Why do we so rarely enforce a follow on?! Given the state of the wicket, I would have thought a FO was a no brainer (emphasised by Davies going so early).