This will probably draw the wrath of Tyke 1950, with whom I rarely disagree, but I can't personally see why Kruis played in the match against Surrey today. This was a "dead rubber" (unless Gloucs. or Sussex fielded an ineligible player) and an ideal situation to give one of the younger bowlers some useful experience. In the recent second eleven encounters with Warwickshire, Lee and Hannon-Dalby bowled Barker and Piolet off the park (they were also at least as effective as Pyrah in those games). Yet Barker and Piolet played against Kent today in a "live" game and our youngsters couldn't even get to play in a "dead" one. This is not the way to develop a team.

There is a related, though slightly different, problem with Sayers. I can appreciate that it may be useful for Sayers's game to have him play in a number of 50-over matches, but it is leaning over too far in his favour to have him play in all of them. Even his greatest fan doesn't believe this is really his style of cricket. I think it would have made more sense to play Bairstow today. He, like Lyth, is a naturally talented batsman with an exceptional eye and the makings of a fine technique. It's time for a bit of fast-tracking.

The usual counter-argument in these circumstances is that it would have been unfair to short-change the supporters who turn up to watch the best available team. Personally, I would have been just as happy to see a Yorkshire side with eight or nine of the usual first choices and a Ballance or a Lee or an Azeem Rafiq in it. After all, it isn't the youngsters who've underperformed in recent days or months.

Dews, your post should be sent to Regan/Moxon/McGrath ASAP. We won a meaningless match (we sually do), and lost a great opportunity to blood some of the youngsters. Sad, really!

The other point worth making is that Deon is no longer a youngster. He's having a great season thus far and trying his very hardest in every game - but in the same way Ferguson rotates Scholes and Giggs - it would surely have made sense to give Deon a few days off.
I really hope I'm wrong - but I suspect the simple truth is that the players who were on the bus to go to Monday's game were simply transported across to the Oval - and no-one could be bothered to re-shuffle the squad and bring down reinforcements once it was clear that this was a dead game..

The talk of 'dead' games is dangerous, I think. Had we lost today's game we would have been at the bottom of our group and would have lost 5 of our last 6 one day games. This would certainly have been a blow to the supporters' confidence and morale; it would also have had a corrosive and demoralising effect on the team - just as they are about to embark on the 20/20 programme. If we do as badly in that as many seem to suggest, then the run of defeats would bode ill for the crucial championship games which follow.
I agree that it is important to rest senior players from time to time - e.g.Kruis in the 20/20 - and I also support every effort to integrate youngsters into the side. It's a question of fine judgement though and thorough understanding of the individual players in the squad. As outsiders we can look on and comment; in the end Moxon and McGrath have to make the judgements they think most appropriate at the time.
If, at the end of the season, the judgements of management lead the team to failure, relative to potential, then we can and should hold them to account.
The youngsters will get their chances over the course of the season, as a result of injuries and representative call ups. The hungrier they are for first team experience, the better they are likely to perform.

I agree with your point about the importance of getting the winning habit. It occurred to me after I'd written my own piece that that was probably the best objection to it.
On the other hand, what is the team most likely to achieve that winning habit? What is our best team? Why, for example, in the Second Eleven Trophy matches does Pyrah not shine out as the outstanding bowler? Is he not trying as hard or are the other second XI bowlers actually rather better than we realize? And why do some players who always seem to perform well in one-day cricket invariably have to wait in the wings for injuries or international calls (Wainwright is the obvious example)? More generally, if Andrew Gale isn't going to play in one-day matches, what games is he going to play? (I could go further here and ask precisely what the club has planned for Chris Taylor, who rarely disappoints at the lower level). Martyn Moxon said at the beginning of the season that he was going to spend less time with the first team and more time looking at some of the other players in the club. If he does, I think he may get a few pleasant surprises. There was some sporadic promotion of various younger players last season for the odd game (Sanderson at Durham, Hannon-Dalby at the Oval, Ballance against Kent). With a number of players on the downslope of their careers, I think something a bit more systematic is required.

One of the advantages of impending retirement will be my opprtunity to see more of the second team. I've appreciated your feedbacks on the reserves all season so far. I can only say you know a lot more than me about them and you may well be right about our need to give them more opportunity. It's a rare colt however, who can come straight into the side and contribute significantly. Lyth is an exception - but then he seems to me to be an exceptional talent. Are there many more Lyths out there ready, right now, to make an impact?

As someone who spends most of his time defending Deaon I have to say that I'm in total agreement with Dews on this one. Wednesday was the prefect day to try a couple of 'young uns' out. And yes Kruis was the prefect man to 'rest'. I did agree with Adil playing as he's not been quite 'right' so another day in the middle would to him good.

There are two or three "Lyths" in the second team - and perhaps more. I won't name them, as they may just read this, but they are potential international players. Above all, I don't believe the current Yorkshire seconds contains anything like as many no-hopers as it has over most of the last twenty years.

To cite a bit of hard evidence, Warwickshire's Piolet made little impression on Yorkshire's top order in the Second XI Trophy match, but ripped out the Kent middle order (including Van Jaarsfeld) in the tied game at Edgbaston this week. Gareth Andrew had figures of 30 overs 1 for 77 against Yorkshire II at Kidderminster and 8 overs 1 for 35 against Lancashire I at Worcester (the victims were Lyth in the one match and Du Plessis in the other). There is a difference in class between first and second teams, but I don't think it's the yawning gulf that it has been at times in Yorkshire's history.

is it too simple to suggest that we have 3 batsmen fighting for 2 places (Gale, Sayers and Lyth) and therefore we need to decide which 2 to play?

In the 4 day games Sayers seems to be doing OK this season and at least wants to open so its a toss up (don't give Mags the coin though) between Lyth and Gale for number 5 slot. I would back Lyth as he is the longer term better prospect, a better fielder and also seems to have started this season better now he has had his chance.

In the 1 day and T20 then Gale comes into the equation instead of Sayers - the experiment of playing Joe in the one dayers is not working - part of me thinks this is an attempt to make him both a one day and four day player so he can succeed Mags as skipper in a year or so. Gale does not have to open in the one dayers as we can send in a pinch-hitter like Brophy or Rana if need be. Lyth should be retained in the one dayers and his fielding strength is an added bonus which along with Pyrah should save us 20 or so runs a game.

I too would have left Kruis out of the Surrey game but am happy to concede I would have been wrong when we post-rationalise.