Lots of people on the live YouTube feed were typing that Rushworth and Woakes needed to get back on before lunch. I can never understand why fielders meander to their positions and you can understand how people who watched cricket just after the 2nd WW get frustrated about the lack of movement in teams who appear to not be bothered about trying to just get a few more overs in. Do teams never have discussions in the changing rooms and say things like, "I know we only need to get a certain number of overs in but why not just move it along quicker so as not to get caught out later in the day". I agree with you LE, a bit more of a positive look ahead to try see that the opposition where never likely to chase more than 270.

Don't agree about the batting on Saturday, it was a bowling day and most attacking shots caused problems and it was the best way to play in the circumstances, go into the 3rd day with 1 wicket down and a 99 lead, attacking could have seen us 4-5 down and a lead of 80.

They're off. We did say last night that we would definitely lose time and if the rain comes we could regret not declaring. Every captain should look at the weather, regardless of if it actually happens 100% like predicted, you still have to keep it in the back of your mind.

Just noticed, 2 ex-Worcestershire players umpiring. Never think that is a good idea, not because I think they would be biased but any slightly 'Iffy' decisions could lead to a bit of unease if it costs one side the game.

7 down but keep the wicket takers on, mustn't let up.

Oh look, 4 down.

"Unlikely", "Marginal", yes if you are a Pears commentator.

The official Met Office site - Not saying it will be correct but, Rain in Worcester 60% chance from 1200-1400, 70% chance from 1400-1600, 60% chance from 1600-1700 and 80% chance 1700-1800.

Batted too long I think if tomorrow's forecast is right. I don't agree with the criticism of last night as the ball was doing all sorts and preserving your wicket was equally as important as runs, we could have been 50-4 easily if we had thrown the bat.

It might be one of those situations where because Monday looks bleak, it might be better to get bowled out with a 220 lead and then they could easily lose a whole hatful in the 4th innings tomorrow or even lose.

Overall they didn't lose that much play but although tomorrow looks alright, Monday looks awful. Pity, we have done really well to get ourselves ahead in this game.

Good to see Yates and Latham digging in and trying to 'Build' a decent lead rather than smash their way to it. It doesn't matter how many we score until the close as long as we keep wickets in hand.

So we had someone in our side who is batting number 9 and has a Test century and we could only get to 229. Then with that start for the home team, we could be well behind the game if they bat all day tomorrow. Come on Bears, it's only bloody Worcestershire for heaven's sake.

Goodbye Hasan, it was good while it lasted but the controllers of Pakistan cricket have no idea what they are doing and never have. Any board who choose over 30 different opening partnerships in less than 18 months, which they did a few years ago, has no right to even organise a bunfight so we can safely say that Hasan will be a waste of time in the future, also. I did wonder if he was a good signing for another season and we now have our answer. So here we are in the same mire as usual. Test players are all well and good as long as there are no Test/ODI series going on at the same time as a UK cricket season. Years ago, there were virtually no international games being played anywhere else but the UK, so when you had your overseas player, he was here until September.

Luxury, we had to share the pips between 5 of us.

a whole slice, bloody luxury, we only got the pips.

In that case how about bringing him on when the ball is about 12-15 overs old and then again when it is less than 35 overs old. He will only get strength to bowl by bowling. As Fred Trueman said, in all the years he bowled, he barely had a single injury, bowled more than 1000 overs a season and only kept bowling because he knew he could because his body was up to it.

It doesn't make sense either way, Rankin with a hard ball was often a handful but he didn't do any better for Chopra bringing him on late so that cannot be the reason. The last thing we want is to lose a genuine fast young bowler who could be a match winner for the next 10 years because he was fed up with being given a soft ball that was 40 overs old. If he has pace, let him go and see what damage he can do when the ball is hard and shiny. His confidence should not be diminished before he has got a full season under his belt. We will never know what he can do with a new ball until he is given the chance.

Davies appears to do the same with Simmons as Chopra used to do with Rankin, keep him kicking his heels for 40 overs and then decide to give him a 'Few' overs. By that time, the ball is softer, if you have pace, surely a harder ball is better to bowl with. I would love to see Simmons given the new ball just to see what sort of pace, bounce and trouble he can cause. Why have a genuine fast bowler and keep him back. No batsmen like high pace so why hold it back.

Glad to get away from there now, always did find Hampshire very irritating but with the whooping and hollering, they are the loudest side along with Surrey, perhaps it's a Southern thing. A few debatable decisions and I thought it looked good until Hain was given out (He does appear to get some awful umpiring decisions) as Hampshire were always going to benefit from Abbott's opening spell and despite a rare outing of wickets from Fuller, they do look average without their big Springbok. We lost it in the last session of the first day and have been playing catch-up ever since and only 3 points to show from this.