Remember Derbyshire offering us the use of their ground in that infamous B&H Cup quarter final in 1994. Kent said no, we had a 'Bowl-Out' in the indoor school, Kent lost and them complained to the ECB (Or whomever was 'Running' the game back then) and then for the rest of the season. What made it worse for Kent was that we beat them every time that season when we played them in other competitions.

We will always be Warwickshire as far as I am concerned and when we won the T20 in 2014, a lot of the commentators still referred to us with our proper name and also the scorecards in the papers the next day had us as Warwickshire.

Did well to get 3 wickets but the pitch looks good but having seen the forecast for Monday, it might be just alright for us to get maximum bowling points and take those.

Wouldn't say Durham bowled badly at all but with a very short boundary on one side, it was easy to get 4's (And a few 6's) and a boundary on the other side that seemed twice as long, 2's could be turned into 3's and 1's into 2's. Both openers did what you should do in that situation, cash in and go big. Haven't seen us score that many in a day in ages. Could be a 700 job and with wickets in hand and fast scoring, that could be achieved halfway through tomorrow. Boland going off didn't help them, I have lost count of the amount of overseas players I have seen go off the pitch when runs are being scored by the opposition and yet it's different when wickets are falling, funny that.

The forecast was different this morning and all this was supposed to blow over in the morning until late afternoon. Probably better for us that we now have more rain but that still leaves me wondering why Worcestershire have batted on. Even if their skipper thought this would happen, surely you would declare once the game started and an hour had been lost anyway. After yesterday, we would settle for this.

Wish the forecast had proved right. Met office had it raining from 2pm and maybe keeping the players inside for a few hours but with the way Worcestershire have scored here, we might have to bat for longer than we would like. No doubt our batsmen will need to do some 'Getting In' as BristolBear keeps saying, even more so now. Getting in helps but Burgess leaving a big gap between bat and pad, no amount of being in for ages can stop you getting bowled like that.

Not excusing him at all, Rhodes would only have tried that shot whilst set instead of coming in and trying it early on. Once you are set, you feel confident that you can expand your innings a bit more, just so happens that it didn't come off. As for Burgess, it was poor shot, too expansive to a new ball no matter who is bowling. The ball moved back into him, that is why he got out and should have looked to be a bit more defensive at that stage.

Bethell was run out so sloppy as opposed to a bad shot, Rhodes had played so well and times the ball nicely so I suppose he tried something when well set as batsmen do but Burgess played a poor shot to a new ball, never decided to have a look first, still poor though as this Worcestershire attack is not that good.

We have lost 7 for 85 since Barnard got out. Pretty awful really.

Entertaining day, glad to not let our neighbours get to 400 but Barnard played beautifully and never looked hurried but got a shocker, watched it a few times and Worcestershire were not that convinced either, that along with 'Dozy' (You are so right GerryShedd) Bethell spoilt it a bit but hopefully some sort of lead would be nice even though the new ball is 1 over away. Impressed with Mousely, composed and didn't get carried away with things and try to score at breakneck speed. Very windy though, a bigger and warmer coat tomorrow I think.

81-5 (19) after they were 235-2, I think we would say it was a good fightback, just a pity to leak so many runs at 5 an over at the start.

Nottinghamshire and Middlesex did the same thing, "Cloud cover, early season, put 'em in and see the wickets fall". A few regretful captains around.

A lot of cricket watchers do seem to have a problem when a game is drawn due to high scoring by both sides. But the bigger picture is future England bowlers being made to work for their wickets so that maybe in years to come, we see England bowlers having success in Australia and India on flat pitches when the ball is doing nothing but the bowlers are managing to get batsmen out due to knowing how to bowl on all surfaces. We saw Bess/Leach on Taunton wickets years ago that turned from ball one but struggling on flat Test wickets that didn't give them help.

No Norwell, am I missing something.

Greetings, weather looks awful all morning but better later in the day. Only problem with that is that there could be puddles of water everywhere even if there is no rain falling and we have blue sky. I remember when we used to think that a game in early May was too early and here we are only about 10 days after I scraped ice off a bin at the college where I work.

Rhodes was a captain who managed to be a big part of the team but got the 'One of the Boys/Captain', mix, right and it never came across that anyone didn't get on with him. Not sure that Davies is a good choice, surely you have to be an integral part of the team to actually be in charge on the field and I really have no idea just what sort of relationship he has with the rest of the side. As for wicketkeeping, Burgess is the best of the 2 and it would be ridiculous to not give him the gloves.

I hate the way the press have just turned around and got stuck into the England team. We virtually accept these things from our press but instead of getting stuck into the team, how about just coming to the conclusion that some things have to come to an end at some point and this is 'That point'. From 2016 we have been very fortunate to enjoy the way this team has played and were as good as any team have ever been, on their day and held both one-day world cups at the same time which no one else has done.

One thing that does annoy me is when an Asian team is playing, is the use/mis-use of first names and last names in certain teams. There is no consistency in any of it. For instance in the past why was Waqar and Wasim used on scorecards instead of Akram and Younis. Today I have noticed on the Bangladesh card, Tanzid Hasan's full name used, his opening partner being named as just Das, Mehidy Hasan is called Mehidy, Mushfiqur Rahim is just Mushfiqur and so it goes on. I cannot understand why we have this confusion with what are full names, first names, last names and why there is no explanation unless someone on here is wise to this whole subject,

It seems to have escaped many but I get the feeling once we get to the crucial stages to see who gets to the semi-finals, it will gain more interest especially if England get to the last 4. Still think India will win it.

Despite Liam Dawson being top, still do not rate his bowling, I wouldn't expect him to run through sides like other spinners do/have done over the last few years. He does not send fear through counties unlike Patel/Harmer who over the last 10 years were 2 spinners who no one liked facing during any game situation. I would not expect Dawson to bowl a side out in a Test if he does get picked to go to India.