But who is the best - Is it Burgess or is it Hain?

That was my point, you cannot have a batting line-up with 7 Bairstow/Stokes blazing away as it probably wouldn't work.

From what Ben Stokes said, I think you need a balance in a Test team and I cannot see how he can equate the way you play as a means of getting into the team if you have a striking rate of 60-70 per 100 balls if your batting average is 25. The way England batted was unbelievable but their were a hell of a lot of edges, false shots that only just missed fielders and it reminded me of all the plaudits that Chris Gayle got for his 200+ v Zimbabwe in the 2015 world cup, whilst watching it, I lost count of the number of mishits that went for 6 and could have landed anywhere. It's great to watch but England must realise that they cannot bat like that on every occasion.

Just looked at the scorecard, Woakes 67 from 97 balls. Also saw the name Maddy and thought "Surely not, he's still playing and involved with the 2nds", but it was the 2nd XI keeper.

Yes and it means that the opposition can keep attacking fields without that much fear of going for loads of runs and the game getting away from them.

I have been at work all day so haven't had a chance to watch any of it so far but has there bowling been so accurate that we are struggling to score at such a rate or is it about self-preservation at the moment. No real complaints seeing as we have no wickets down.

Unless we take regular wickets, the scoring rate will get out of hand and we could be facing another big score against this lot again and that means perhaps only a draw is the best we can get. Keogh averages just over 30 and Cobb just over 28 and we are making them look like world beaters.

Just got back. The usual 'top order 3 down before Powerplay' scenario but we had runs on the board so not as bad as other times. Thought Mousley was a revelation first with bat and then ball, talk about grabbing an opportunity with both hands. Hose was just superb and his timing is so good on authentic cricket shots that you wonder why he hasn't made it in CC cricket. So pleased to get that out of the way, Pollock, Munro, Moeen and Bravo could have been a real fight had we not made 200+ yet again and especially after that showboating from Stanley when he got 2 in 2 after bowling utter tosh, as many wides as legitimate deliveries, nothing worse than a show-off bowler giving someone a send off when he has spent most of his spell trying just to hit the strip.

Not sure why they didn't get Sanderson to bowl the penultimate over when as their best bowler, he could have bowled a really tight over and put the pressure on us for the last over. I have often seen situations where the best bowler is given the last over to bowl with only 2-3 needed to win but glad Northants made their decision and it was one hell of a partnership and run chase.

Steelbacks are Hosed.

Not a fan of sarcasm from people who are wise after the event and just end up looking smug an self-satisfied.

Those 2 would make the side a lot stronger and cannot really see why Burgess isn't in anyway and Stirling's lack of runs means Lamb should be given a go.

The problem with Brathwaite is that his whole career was built on hitting Stokes for 4 6's in the T20 World Cup Final. After that, some stats man pointed out that he barely got past 20 in any format for well over a year. It might be that had he not had that 1 moment, he might be playing a bit of league cricket somewhere. Not sure what his record has been since last season or where he plays his T20 games but he doesn't strike me as being that good with either bat or ball and deciding to retire himself because of his poor record against leg-spin or coming in at 7 does not tell me that he has much confidence in himself.

I only go on what I see when it comes to teams/players and we can beat Notts who have been the yardstick to measure most T20 sides and who have so many matchwinners in their side but from what I have seen in our 2 games v Derbyshire, they have no bowlers that would get in our team and despite winning 4 out of 4, they look like the horrible nibbly medium pacers that counties kept employing in the 1980's and 1990's and that the TCCB hated because it stopped the nurturing of fast bowling talent. Scrimshaw apart, the rest looked mediocre which makes our defeat look even more insipid. Agree about Stirling but Lancashire dropped Steve Elsworthy (Their overseas pro) for both 1996 Lord's cup finals and we are now getting to the tight stage of the competition in a close group.

That was awful. I do not think Derbyshire are any good and their bowling looked very weak but as I have said so often over the years, we seem to lower our standards when playing sides we really should beat. Compared to Notts who we beat twice in this competition this season, Derbyshire look average. The Stirling plan is failing and it's interesting to see Will Rhodes carrying the drinks when he perhaps would be a better bet as he also bowls. Too many giving their wickets away early and if you lose 3 in the powerplay with barely 40 on the board, it always becomes difficult. Thought the umpires spent too long after the Brathwaite incident on deciding what to do. Not a necessary thing for our skipper to do but Derbyshire did try and 'milk it'.

The outfield looked like one of the 1976 England v West Indies Tests. And, I even forgot about the whole game until 10.30pm after I was engrossed in a film, I looked at the result and watched it on You Tube later but would like to have seen it live. 173* partnership in 11.4 overs, total madness.

Not sure how much rough there was as Briggs barely beat the bat or looked like he was going to take a wicket and this must be a worry going forward. At 93-4 you are in charge but it just drifted and with 150 to win I did wonder if we would ever get another wicket. We did, just the one. A major disappointment but I did wonder why we declared yesterday with just 4 overs to bowl and Norwell could have put another 20-25 runs together because unless you take a wicket in 4 overs, it's a bit wasted. We would still have had a 2nd new ball anyway and 350-360 in 92-96 overs might have been easier for us. A bit like the 2017 Headingley Test when all the journo's were saying about Root, "don't declare the pitch is too good, make them chase a bigger run rate and they'll have more of a chance to lose wickets.." and West Indies won easily. This pitch was a great batting strip and so Lancs didn't have to score quickly. I hate watching a game that goes the distance but losing it at the end after an entertaining first 3 days.

Not sure if Moeen would want to come back. He was dying to leave first time around and he would only play in the one-day games. In my opinion he is a lightweight who is never happy unless everything is just his way, one minute he is retiring from Tests and now we hear that he would like to be considered for section again because he suddenly likes the new set up. Well that being the case, shouldn't he be playing in the CC for Worcestershire. Sibley was getting nowhere at Surrey and we gave him a lifeline, not sure if I believe that he would want to leave already.

I loved the way Davies decided to drop anchor and bat time when wickets fell and as soon as he found someone to stick around Burgess/Briggs/Brookes (Should we employ more players who's surname starts with 'B'), he started to open up and it was a refreshing attitude which has put us in a good position. The pitch looks a bit dead but I suppose 30 wickets falling in 3 days suggests we could win, we are slight favourites and so much better to watch than the game v Northamptonshire on a lump of concrete which wouldn't have produced a result in 10 days.

Just seen an article on the BBC Cricket website 'What's wrong with this season's cricket balls', there was a lot of looking at the balls in both days of this game and it doesn't seem to make a difference if it's a low or high scoring game.