Looking at the team it screams an OK four day team at best.

The batting is so weak.

I'd go for

Pollock
Hose
Hain
Rhodes (push down if top 3 do well)
Braithwaite
Burgess
Woakes (Lamb when Woakes not available)
Norwell
Lintott
Briggs
OHD (Brookes or Stone when available)

Very frustrating surely Woakes would want to play

Very difficult to get any form going or case for test selection this summer if not playing

Whilst Woakes has done more travelling,Broad would have played more this winter

What is the objective by not playing him ?

If stokes is injured for India tests he is probably the best alternative so we're not helping ourselves

As a front bowler he is also struggling to get into the side, how is this going to help him?

Exiled Bear wrote:

I don’t think any of us can say if Vihari has been a worthwhile investment. We don’t know how much he’s cost us. We also don’t know how much he’s added in terms of passing on knowledge to our players, particularly in terms of playing spin (he looked completely untroubled by Harmer in the Essex match, especially in the first innings). His performance in the second innings against Essex was also very important. To be honest, it seems as though some people wouldn’t be happy even if he scored a century every time he batted!

Yes there has certainly been a strange over the top reaction to his performances/signing

Highveld wrote:

Over the three games, how can anyone say Vahari has provided good value for the many thousands the club has spent on him? Not just salary, but flights, visa and work permits,, acomodation for him and his wife/partner. Id be very surprised if there was any change from £15,000.

For the development of the team, and our players, it would have been more effective to have played either Moulsey or Hose. It's unlikely either would have scored less runs over the three games.

Yes its difficult to say its good value for money however, we should be looking to keep him on for a few more weeks as we can have 2 overseas players.

High quality players are not just judged on field but their impact off the field can be just as great, although not sure that can occur in just 3 weeks.

My initial feeling still stands, for a 3 week period in April I would have looked at a fast bowler.

Abysmal day

Whilst I'm not sure we're going to get anything out of this game we just have to hope some of our poor performing batsman have a better second innings

This type of day was always likely, generally our bowlers have carried our batsman.

Highveld wrote:

I thought the comentary from Clive Eakin and Don Toppley was very good at time, with lots of interesting anecdotes to help fill the day, great to have as a background while working.
It would be interesting to know the budget, and resources, each county have allocated to their video streaming offering. We do need to remember that the BBC comentary which accompanies the pictures is designed for the online listening audience, not the video stream, and radio comentary is a very different skill.

I'm very appreciative of the fact we can now both watch and listen to the full days play from every game, at no cost.

A serious question, for the long term development of the side, would we have been better off playing Dan Mousley or Adam Hose in the lat two games instead of Vihari?

Yep do like the audio commentary, as you say it is based on the radio audience however still works perfectly fine.

Hindsight is a great thing but I'm not picking Hose over an Indian Test match batsman. Still think there's a very good innings in him

coolerking wrote:

BristolBear wrote:

ajones1328 wrote:

Was looking forward to watch but the stream provided by the club is abysmal compared to Notts, it seems worse than against Derbyshire.

I only watched the first hour did it improve I.e did the camera show the ball once it left the bat ?

No it was fairly poor all day. At times it simply froze, the sound quality was not good, replays didn’t actually show what happened.
It has definitely taken a backwards step since Derbyshire. Against Derbyshire, it wasn’t as good as Notts’, but it was more than passable. Not sure why it’s worse.

I feel like a traitor saying this but the picture, sound and, in particular, the dreadful commentary have been so bad that I'm watching the Middlesex v Surrey game instead. The picture's first class and the commentary is infinitely better.

I've just gone through the different streams and ours is one of the worst for sure. The Middlesex stream is brilliant ! Tbh I was happy with the Notts one last week. Think there's real opportunities to have something similar to that standard.

There's no real excuse because Leicestershire coverage is better than ours

Anyways, interesting day ahead tomorrow

Was looking forward to watch but the stream provided by the club is abysmal compared to Notts, it seems worse than against Derbyshire.

I only watched the first hour did it improve I.e did the camera show the ball once it left the bat ?

Must admit, i'm pretty surprised with that selection

That looks a very good bowling attack with Siddle and Harmer

fingers crossed for a good day, going to miss the Notts coverage !

Rhodes, Yates, Vihari, Hain, lamb, mousley, Burgess, Bresnan, Stones, Briggs, OHD

I do think Bresnan could play at 7 but only if you have a strong top six which we obviously don't have at this stage.

I'd like to go for Brookes over Mousley but don't think we can at the moment.

What a game !!

Massive credit to Notts and Broad in particular.

Having Broad playing and showing his desire and class can only be a good thing for the youngsters in both sides.

BristolBear wrote:

On the Vihari matter, I do feel that he’s in an impossible situation regarding succeeding for the team. He was never going to do well this match. He’s not going to determine the long term success of the side. Overall whatever he does it’ll only be 3 games.
From a personal and Indian standpoint however, this is a great success no matter what. He’s going to get 6 innings, obviously he’d prefer to score runs, but it’s more about getting used to English conditions. Facing Broad is a bonus so he has some exposure in English conditions.
Do I blame him, not at all, but I get the feeling the club were so desperate they’ve allowed themselves to be used.

If the Indian cricket board have similar contract with their players, do you reckon we're even paying him to play?

Would make sense for India cricket board to cover the costs to allow one of their contracted players to play in England and get uses to the conditions.

Andy wrote:

Rhodes got a shocker at the end there.

Yes he seemed fair bit outside the line to me

The umpires have been very quick to raise their arm in the game..bit of time to process the ball might help

Highveld wrote:

Yet another poor dismissal from Vihari,
Can we cancel his contract and get a refund of all the moeny we have spent on him? He seems to be faulty goods and not "fit for purpose"
Hopefully Malan is available next week, he has a visa and can use the same 5 day quarenteen process we used on Vihari.

I'm sorry but this is really odd...every player has a poor game in them. If you don't agree with the signing fair enough but calling him faulty goods seems like you have an agenda

Fingers crossed for much better day

Interesting that Rhodes is opening the bowling. It does make me question whether Bresnan is worth his place as the 3rd seamer.

Think the only way he justifies his spot is batting at 7 and the 4th seamer however, we don't have enough quality in the batting attack to allow that luxury

Highveld wrote:

How much have we wasted bringing in a short term import, and based on his comments his wife/partner?
With flights for two people, presumably not in economy, acomodation, work permit and Covid testing to allow him to exit quarenteen after five days we've already invested/wasted about £10,000 before salary.
Hve we got value for that investment?

How can we answer that after 2 days? Although signing a batsman for 3 games in early April is setting them up to fail !

He can only be judged once his contract is over. With such a short term contact in April, I would have looked at a possible fast bowler to utilise early season conditions.

BristolBear wrote:

Streetly_Bear wrote:

When I first became a member we had Tim Ambrose, Rikki Clarke, Jeets, Keith Barker and Chris Wright. All of those could (and did) contribute to runs. We miss that so much.

But I think those roles did contribute today. Briggs, Burgess and Bresnan scored almost 90 runs combined, not enormous but when you think the top 5 batsmen combined scored 100. That’s a decent contribution.
I think we’re looking at this wrong. It can’t be acceptable for the top 5 to score 100 runs, but also the bowlers can’t allow a side to escape from 119-6 to 273.
Same as last year, the top 5 need to put big scores on the board and the bowlers need to finish teams off.
Could Burgess and Bresnan have got more, sure, but Bresnan got a good ball and I think Burgess got a poor decision. Either way we’re back in the same place we were last year. Wondering why the keeper and all rounder can’t save us, yet we’re chasing 75 more than we should and the batsmen only get a decent score once every 5 or 6 games, enough to keep their place but not enough to help us win.

This is spot on...the batting needs to change/improve but who would you take out? Lamb was decent last game..Hain this one. Yates will open now Sibley is injured.

I actually think in the long run I'd look at Rhodes down at number 6 if he's contributing with the ball. Think we should have really signed another batsman considering we know Sibley is likely to be away with England and they're paying his wages

Our salary across the team must have dropped a fair bit this season with retirements and Stone and Sibley on England contracts