Yorkshire 225 & 152/2 (44.0 ov) RR 3.45
Sussex 217
Yorkshire lead by 160 runs with 8 wickets remaining
BBC Radio: Link Headingley Carnegie ground guide:Link Weather:Link Yorkshire CC form guide (Most recent last) D D D D D
League table: Link Yorkshire averages: Link Sussex averages: link Sussex website: Link Yorkshire's all-time CC record vs Sussex: P 165 W 66 T 0 L 29 D 70
Stats & Trivia: The highest individual score against Sussex is JT Brown's 311 at Bramall Lane in 1897
Next Match : June 11-14 | CC: Yorkshire vs. Somerset (Headingley)
Looking at our batting order we should adopt the T20 approach with Gale, Rana, Bresnan and Brophy the next 4 due in (all capable of slogging if needed whilst Rudolph serenely bats at the other end around them and scores his first second innings century for us for ages).
Try and get quick runs as fast as we can and lets at least go for a victory. Their bowling attack is hardly fearsome.
With a varied bowling attack bowling last on a 4 day wicket then we do at least have options available to Mags.
However, I do fear all our hypothesising may be wasted as the lovely Keeley on Look North weather this morning seemed to suggest Leeds would be hit by rain for most of the day. Typical...
I'd hope for a declaration setting about 280 in 60 overs; this is based on the hope of a couple of early wickets and some turn late on. So far this season, our pace attack has been efficient but not penetrative; the spinners may not be good enough at this stage in their careers. I fear a defensive draw but hope for an attacking day despite the risk of defeat. After his first innings failure, Goodwin will probably be central to the day's events.
Today could be a season's turning point - one way or the other.
Looking at the cricinfo scoreboard i am assuming we are losing wickets due to us chasing quick runs or throwing the bat.
Either that or Yardy has just become the best English spinner by taking 3 wickets in 9 balls - perhaps the wicket is turning square which bodes well for our spin twins later on as we chase victory?
Delighted to be proved wrong,as Mags sets them 281 in 71 overs.
Most enterprising and very gettable.Lets hope he dosn't come in for any stick if it goes horribly wrong.
Game on ,as they say.
Well, we need a breakthrough fairly quickly. If Sussex land on Tea at 150 or so for only 2 or 3 down, then they'll be odds on to give it a go, and I'd rate them as favorites. In fact we may have to bring the spinners on very soon.
However, I do fear all our hypothesising may be wasted as the lovely Keeley on Look North weather this morning seemed to suggest Leeds would be hit by rain for most of the day. Typical...
TC, as lovely as Keeley may be, she is as useless as the rest of them. Sunshine in Leeds as I type.
Whatever happens in this game, it is obvious that we will need to make some changes next season if we are to win in the CC. A genuine opening bowler I.e. someone who can make an early break through, exploit a winning position and/or mop up the tail) is essential. Right now we have a plethora of second string or first change bowlers, who wouldn't be opening for many (if any) other counties. When did one of our seam bowlers last have a "five for"?
With Hoggard likely playing elsewhere, Kruis retiring, Naved released, and Bressy off on England duties, we will be very thin in the fast/seam bowling department.
I don't see anyone in the Second XI or the Academy who can move up and establish themselves in the first team.
This match is rapidly slipping away. We have to take 2 or 3 more wickets to put them under pressure; otherwise they'll EASILY win this match with overs to spare. Bring on the spinners!
we don't see anyone stepping up next season because we have not really given them much of a chance this season.
Lee seems to get plenty of wickets in the seconds, Shahzad is the quickest if he stays fit but Hannon-Dalby seems to have disappeared.
As for the bowling in this game we seem to be back to Mags fag packet again.
Bres and Kruis bowl 7 overs each and then Mags and rana bowl 4 overs each. No doubt rafiq and Wainwright will then come on together.
If our spinners were going to win us the game they should have been on before now and we need to mix it up a bit rather than following the bowling order Moxon has given Mags (like our under 11 coach gives the captain at the start of the innings)
We even encourage our under 11 captain to show more "savvy". Now both spinners are on (and we have Joyce out) we must go for it, not doubting our capability!
He gets two overs in the first innings and three in the second. That can't do a lot for his confidence..... I was always told that spinners need long spells to build up their rythymn (sp?)...
You have to think if we don't shift Yardy and Goodwin SOON ---- we'll be set for our first loss of the season and our 14th in a row without a win. The next 4 overs up until the tea interval will be crucial.
Oh dear,the knives are out already for our enterprising skipper.
If fortune truly favours the brave,Mags will be rewarded,but with the inefective Wainwright quickly and properly removed from the attack and only slow turn for Rafiq,we'll be soon hoping those dark clouds appear over Carnegie to save us.
Whatever the outcome Mc Grath was prepared to make agame of it,and due credit for him for that.
If things continue to go pear-shaped,he'll not deserve the critiscism that hindsight will bring,but will we hear words of support from Moxon if four points is all Yorkshire clean from this one?
cally seems to think the draw is favourite. if i was in the sussex camp i would be very upset if i did not win from here. only 4.2 an over with 8 wickets in hand.
Mags declaration was enterprising but his use of the bowlers available to him has been predictable.
Can we now hope that rain saves the day? Well as Sussex won their T20 due to their own floodlight failures causing problems last week I think it would be poetic justice if they were denied a win from here
Call me contraire, but I think we've still got a chance. It's been a game where wickets have fallen steadilly. A couple of wickets now and we're still in with a chance. Pressure makes batting much more difficult..
Interesting racial make up of our spin attack. Only a couple of years ago our great hopes were Rashid and Lawson. Now we have Rafiq and Wainwright.
Sadly Lawson has fallen by the way side but Rashid has gone on to great things. Rafiq is emerging as a suitable successor yet in this game, while his Asian counterpart is taking wickets, our caucasian spinner seems somewhat off the boil (not even in the attack right now).
Lawson is now at Derbyshire and seems to be making a good fist of things. His (almost) namesake Dawson is at Gloucestershire (I think?).
I can't help but feel that Wainwright hasn't been given much of a chance in this game. Perhaps mags has no faith in him - but he should have had more than five overs in the match.
Does anyone know how many overs left?
Well, according to earlier message there are now only 11 overs left and since Wainwright made belated appearance he has taken two wickets - nuff said!?
On the 'racial make up of our spin attack' subject, it just struck me that we have a mirror image of our spin attack of two years ago.
With Wainwright having a small blip in this game (before he was brought back on) it made me think of Rashid and Lawson.
Maybe some of us are getting a little touchy with the BNP winning their first Euro seat in our fine county.
On a related subject, it just shows how much can change in cricket. We thought we were set up for years to come with Rashid and Lawson and now neither are in the side. That's why its important to have depth at all positions and a productive academy.
This message has been edited by tcuc3e on Jun 9, 2009 5:55 PM
Hard luck Steve! 35 overs of Bresnan, Kruis and McGrath for no wickets and the spinners not working in tandem with a sustained spell ..... However, we did not lose and despite the lethargic play at the start of the match, there were some good signs which, hopefully, will be turned into wins in coming weeks. If our coach and captain can improve tactically, then the players should be capable.
Graet to read an up to the minute account on the website - almost before play had finished. That's excellent James - well done sir. (And my team is slowly catching yours in the Telegraph fantasy league...)
Excellent day's cricket,which help's restore one's faith in championship cricket as a spectacle.
Both captains showed an iniative and deterrmination to look for a positive result and we very nearly got one.
A generous dec,from Mags,and Sussex taking advantage to put themselves in poll position at Tea,but some indescision and a bit of panic after saw Yorkshire back in the game.
But credit the bowlers,and the selection of two spinners proved justified.
Prior's run -out at a crucial time when Rayner seemed transfixed instead of setting off straight away ensured honours would finish even.
Time lost on the first day,probably most important in preventing a win for either,but plenty of positives still for Yorkshire to take from the match.
The report on the County website indicates that a few dropped catches may have made all the difference to the result. A pity, if so. Nevertheless, this was a good match and Yorkshire can take several positives from it.
Firstly, we almost beat a talented and experienced side. Secondly, we almost lost to the same side - this is positive because it suggests that McGrath was aiming to force a result!
Rudolph scored some runs - I was beginning to worry about his form after several ordinary one day performances.
Vaughan played a relaxed and positive innings. I feel sure he will score lots of runs once he puts the pressure of performing for the selectors out of his head. (Did anyone spot James Whittaker? Earlier in the season he seemed an ever present; constantly on his mobile phone and prowling round the Long Room.)
Despite lacking Hoggard and Rashid we took 18 wickets in a shortened game. To restrict Sussex in the first innings was a notable effort and persistance almost paid off this afternoon.
Rafiq had a really encouraging debut. I want to see more of this lad - perhaps I will against Sussex and Worcester. (when I can finally get to a bit more cricket) Wainwright appeared to be underbowled but, nevertheless, took wickets and also showed his promise again with the bat.
Brophy was vital in the first innings. He's a key player for Yorkshire.
Does anyone think there should be a change of personnel for the Somerset game? My inclination would be to rest Kruis if Hoggard is fit and otherwise let well alone.
There will be changes as MV is injured and will miss the Somerset game. I assume it will by Lyth in for him. The only other change will be Hoggy to return for Kruis and we stick with two spinners as both bowled well today.
I suppose that you may call me a cynic, but I delayed the decision about whether to go to Headingley today until lunchtime. Consequently, garden, ironing and tonight's dinner all benefitted from my attention.
Discovering that after purposeful batting, Mags had declared just before lunch giving Sussex 280 to win in 71 overs, I concluded that my long hoped for resurgence of Yorkshire cricket had finally arrived. With visions of Rafeeq and Wainwright bowling Sussex to defeat, I turned my back on the ironing basket and crossed Leeds in certain hope of a momentous afternoon.
Imagine my despair when we were then treated to further "fag packet" tactics! First, Kruis and Bresnan, then Naved and Mags in predictable and monotous succession. Finally, with Yardy well played-in and on 52 not out, Wainwright was brought into the attack, to be promptly joined by Rafeeq at the Rugby Stand end in the next over and one wag described the bowling changes as being "captaincy by numbers". A colleague responded with comment that if we could find two spinners called Lambert and Butler or better still Benson and Hedges, their presence on the "fag packet" might get them on to ball.
Both Rafeeq and Wainwright bowled well, but in his third over Wainwright conceded a boundary and Mags immediately signalled to the dressing room for a drinks break. Consequently, at the end of the over we were treated to the spectacle of our Director of Cricket jogging onto the field as a simulated drinks waiter carrying two bottle carries, each holding 6 drinks.
Much discussion ensued, but only one drink bottle was taken from the rack, whilst similtaneously Vaughan who had slightly earlier pulled up short when following an ultimate four around the deep-point boundary, left the field never to return. Whilst trusting that his absence was serious, one hopes that it will not be so serious as to delay his rehabiliation.
The "drinks break" over, Moxon jogged two-thirds of the way back to the boundary edge, but had forgotten to pick up the one bottle that had been removed earlier and was, consequently, chased by one of the Yorkshire fielders intent upon replacing the said bottle and maintaining the fiction.
Play resumed, but low-and-behold, Wainwright, after three good overs, had been removed from the attack, to be replaced by Bresnan, followed by Naved and Kruis, taking us to tea and beyond. All the while, Rafeeq wheeled away demonstrating that the pitch was taking some spin.
Six overs after tea, with Sussex needing only 80 runs from 18 overs, Bresnan was brought back into the "attack", he reduced the scoring rate but "four an over" with Yardy on 102 not out and Prior well set and batting deligerantly this was not defendable.
I concluded that there was more to be gained by reducing the level of the ironing basket and came home.
After I had left, with all prospect of our two spinners bowling us to victory consigned to the dustbin, (along, one hopes with the "fag packet"), Wainwright was brought back on and promptly took two wickets, Naved chipped in with another and Prior, with all the awareness one would expect from a member of our national team ran himself out.
Suddenly, the victory for which the declaration had been so finely tuned was back in the reckoning, but unfortunately, our tactics had been far too wasteful of time and overs and the last two wickets remained beyond us.
There are two views about four day games. One is that you pick your team, go through the motions and, provided there are no interruptions the stronger team will win. It worked at Taunton last year and, during the winter, was seriously proferred as the best approach to CC cricket by a very senior member of the YCCC cricket management team. Another view, is that if you want to win the CC, you are more likely to be successful if you think more tactically. However, this latter, requires both thought and tactics!
It is not that YCCC have spent the last four days without thought or tactics. There have been both, but neither has yet reached level one. In the meantime, real progress has been made on the G Boycott obelisks, but unfortunately, two highly talented young spin bowlers (and one in particular) must have come away from the game with the growing awareness that neither their captain nor their coach believe that they are capable of doing the job!
The re-emergence of YCCC as a significant force in English cricket will have to wait for another day. It will be very interesting to see what has been learned by Yorkshire's management of slow learners when we take on Somerset on Thursday.
Forget T20, this was an entralling and exciting afternoon of cricket. Actually, Sussex should have walked it, and at tea it looked all but over. After the break, Yardy and Goodwin let the rate needed increase from 4 to about 5.5, but it was later brought under control by Matt 'World's Most Irritating Cricketer' Prior. At the start of the 67th over, Sussex needed 29 runs off 30 balls, and Prior was scoring freely. The field was mostly back at this point to save the boundaries. But then Prior played a gentle forward defensive and called Rayner for a run. Rana, the bowler, just kept running, picked the ball up and knocked the bails off. It was hilarious. Prior just stood in disbelief looking at the broken wicket. He cost his side the victory and 10 points.
With Collymore and Rayner in, Kirtley (12th man) came out with the drinks, with instructions from Yardy, and the batsmen began blocking out everything. With two slips, two silly points and a short leg, Wainwright bowled a tense penultimate over, during which he had Rayner absolutely plumb LBW, but umpire Jesty was not interested. A full-blooded effort from Rana in the last over (as the whole of his spell has been) unfortunately couldn't make the winning breakthroughs needed.
We can debate the tactics, but what a fantastic game!
An exciting finish .... but it shouldn't have been. TIn the morning session we started brightly .. not exactly going for runs but not dropping anchor. Then we suddently 'launched' losing a number of wickets in a hail of runs. When Yorks walked off at 11:40 leaving Sussex to score 281 from 81 overs the whole ground (including the Sussex team) were shocked. The overs before lunch didn't get the hoped for wicket. The interval was punctuated by members giving views on what was going to happen. My view was that the declaration was too generous & that we'd lose the match.
After lunch Bresnan bowled well .... but was let down twice by Rafiq (who dropped Yardy on 10) & Brophy. After a set time (fag packet rules) Rana & Mags were brought on ... Naved going for 6 an over. The spinners were then introduced ... Rafiq was initially expensive but settled down, Wainwright went for 6 an over so to us was rightfully taken off. Bresnan & Rafiq got some control. Sussex though were still progressing at just under 4 an over ... At tea some of us thought Sussex would win at a canter .. requiring 144 off 34 overs with 8 wickets remaining which became 85 off 18 with only 3 down.
The big change came with the reintroduction of Naved & Wainwright in what was effectively a limited over game. Sussex kept the rate to just under 6 an over but our best 2 1 day bowlers started taking wickets thankfully starting with Yardy. btw Its probably true that Naved is effectively a 1 day bowler so is most likelt to take wickets if batsmen try to get after him ... the best wicket was Naved's run out of Prior to make it 252-8. This halted the run chase & it was then Yorks who were going for the win .... but it wasn't to be.
As has been said there were some 'odd' field placings ... with Sussex requiring less than 6 an over there was no 3rd man (thankfully this was amended) & no one saving the single ... having Finch as 12th man didn't help ... most teams have a whippet coming on ... Finch normally fields at slip ... & is something of a cart horse. Dont know why Vaughan disappeared or why Shahzad wasn't on .... but both have become 'injury' prone
I also thought, at the time, the declaration was 10 mins to early as a declaration at 12.50 instead of 12.40 would have meant no overs deduction for the mid-innings break and an early lunch. Another 20 runs would have been scored and Yorkshire would have had exactly the same number of overs to bowl at them. However it worked out fine in the end.
I passed a comment to my son at tea-time that "Sussex are going to have to play very badly not to win this" - and they did.
Still it was a very exciting final day and even in those final three overs there was a couple of lbw appeals and a few edges.
Draws can provide exciting tense cricket, a great days play.
I wondered the same thing as well Stuart about declaring at lunch in order to avoid 2 breaks - but assumed Mags and Moxon thought having 2 gos at them may just buy us a wicket in the first 3 overs we had before lunch.
As with all close finishes like this you look back and find a whole host of 'if only' and 'what ifs' that may have made the difference.
In this game the obvious ones that spring to mind are
1. the weather - if only we could have squeezed a few more overs of play in the first day
2. Sayer slow scoring - if only he had gone a bit quicker then he would have scored more runs to allow us to declare sooner or he would have been out to let the more aggressive batsmen in sooner
3. Bowling changes - if only we had the confidence to put on the young uncapped spinners ahead of the older capped seamers - it does seem as if there is still a 'pecking order' sometimes
4. Catches - if only we had held on to one or two more
5. Positivity - if nly we had shown the same positivity as we did on the last day earlier in the match
6. Letting them off the hook (again) in first innings - we do this so often now when we get the opposition 6 down only to be stifled by a 7th wicket stand we cannot break until we bring on a new bowler we have all been crying out for
Still - a great game and some pluses to take into the next match
That's all most illuminating, although I fear that several of you underestimated the importance of me going for a walk (twice) which successfully snared a couple of wickets on each occasion.
I'm also concerned about the state of Tony's ironing basket - how many "Moxon Must Go!" T shirts can one man need?
Joking aside, this was proof (if it were needed) that four or five day cricket can muster all the excitement of 20/20 when it's played by two teams who are prepared to risk losing in order to try and win. In addition to the sheer excitement however, the game also has a level of tactical complexity which the shorter game will never emulate.
I wouldn't be over critical of Sayer - or of mags' captaincy. i thought we let the game drift briefly on Monday afternoon when we should have wrapped up their tail quicker than we did - other than that i think our team deserves nothing but our praise.
I hope the builders enjoyed it.
Stuart & TC both make some very relevant points. The 14:40 declaration was to try & get a wicket ... but I'd have prefered the extra 15-20 runs.
As I've said Joe Sayers is causing much debate. Yes Joe is doing an excelent job seeing off the shine ... but he isn't even getting anywhere near 1 run an over which increases the pressure on the batsman at the other end. The discusssion is complicated by virtually everyone expecting another batting collapse rather than a 'speed up' once Sayers is out. The most often rebutal was along the lines of would you rather see Yorks at 30-0 or 60-5. My worry is that our slow starts mean we're having difficulty in making 5 batting points, last year that's what kept us up. Before someone asks, yes I think we are in a relegation scrap with Worcs, Somerset, Sussex & possibly Warwick.
it was a good team performance, that includes the strategists, moxon and mcgrath who timed the declaration just about right. sayers who grafted away, if he had got out early we might have been all out for a very low score in the first innings. the young spinners who took vital wickets, and our overseas pro who showed a big heart and kept trying and ran prior out at a crucial time. well done everyone.
On extra point ... Tony wont need to find the money for his 2010 membership as the profit from the 'Moxon Must Go' tee shirts will sufrice .... after a very slow start the campaign is starting to blossom.
Well,as I,ve already said,I thought it was a great day's cricket,and all credit to Mags for a brave declaration that almost produced an unlikely win.
Sussex were certainly looking winners at tea,but indescision and panic set in,together with some astute handling of the bowlers saw the game turn around.
I saw the Prior run-out a bit differently from others.
With the field pushed back,it should have been obvious to Rayner that a single or a two should be taken,instead he remained transfixed in his crease when he should alredy had shifted his Six foot five swiftly down the other end.
Prior was not at fault and made his feelings clear ''That's another fine mess you've got us in Olly''was what I think he said,and that proved to be the turning point.
The Sayers debate is an interesting one,obviously out of touch and short on confidence,he did at least hang around,but as has been said the pressure on the others does increase.
A similar showing against Somerset will see his position under review,with possibly the option of him going away and scoring big runs elsewhere the best option.
This message has been edited by Cleasby on Jun 10, 2009 1:45 PM
The field was pushed back, but the slight problem of the bowler being able to field once he has bowled the ball. The fact that Prior wasn't able to run three yards back into his crease proved that Rayner would have been unable to run twenty two!
Disagree Clogger.
Prior played the ball back down the pitch and set off straight away ,as Rayner should have done.
About six yards down when Prior saw Rayner wasn,t coming he stopped turned,at which point Rana managed to get between Prior and the stumps,preventing him regaining his ground and running him out.
If Rayner had been ready to go and backing up properly,I,m sure they's have completed the single as Rayner's long legs would have got him past the bowler before he had the chance to pick up and throw.
All around me in the Football stand seemed to see it that way too.
Oh dear,here we go again.
I was not watching through my binoculars,nor did I suggest Rana obstructed Prior,but that Prior had actually advanced a lot further down the pitch than the three yards Clogger claims,so giving Rana the opportunity to get between him and the stumps.
Well at least I was there,and hopefully entitled to give an opinion,rather than those who were not.
Can we call a halt now?
