No word on the Yorkshire team, yet.

Here is the Somerset squad: Somerset (from) M.Trescothick, J.Langer (capt), C.Kieswetter (wkt), J.Hildreth, Z.de Bruyn, A.Suppiah, P.Trego, A.Thomas, M.Waller, B.Phillips, C.Willoughby, A.Caddick, M.Turner, O.Banks.

Looks like a powerhouse batting lineup...

If we get Trescothick for less than 150 it will be a bonus

Yorkshire seem very late these days in announcing teams for individual matches. No indications yet of who is playing in today's match. Any rumours?

No doubt the same old bunch of losers

It's important for the Tykes to get back on the winning track going into the next County Championship match.

This looks a pretty good side, although McGrath will be missed. I doubt Lyth will be able to replace McGarth's runs.

We'll need AT LEAST 250 runs against what is the best batting county lineup in England (including the England Test team)

Yorkshire have completely lost the plot: 14 runs in the last 6 over!!!!! Come on lads...hit it!

Yorkshire 208; Rudolph out in the last over for 95.
It's a curious fact that out of 238 balls, Rudolph faced only 85 (less than 36%). I can understand the concept of anchoring the innings when the specialist batting is fragile but this seems to be overdoing it a bit!!
I suspect we're 20 or 30 runs too light. Let's hope for a superb bowling performance that makes me look silly when I say (as I said against Hampshire) that any number of runs we scored would be 20 or so too few.

Well short against such a dangerous batting lineup. They can dawdle along at 5 an over and easily win it.

Someone will have to come up with a truly inspired bowling performance. A strange batting performance...never looked to be scoring fast enough. Oh well.

Bressy is getting hammered: 49 runs in 6 overs, yet he is still bowling.

All too easy for Somerset.

Again, players you might expect to show some leadership, choked.

Bresnan: 8 and 0-41 (8 overs)
Rashid: 6 and 0 for 57 (6.5 overs), including 21 in one over!

PS For the first time in my life I bet against Yorkshire. I won £22

Great to see Rudolph getting back into form. That certainly augers well for the CC, and avoiding demotion. Too bad he had so little support.

We have won 1 match out of our last 15 in all competitions. Will we, or do we change anything to get out of the rut, of course not. Just select the same players every week so they can put in one crap performance followed by another week in, week out. With the exception of Rudolph and Gale the other 9 1 day players should be changed. In the CC, there are a few more shoe-ins as you can add Sayers, Hoggard and Bairstow to the above two but the other 6 are not worth their place.
I appreciate that others on the forum are against change but how long do you keep on saying - "leave the players in they are bound to come good eventually". Will it do any harm to the non-performing players to have a spell in the seconds. It might just focus their minds and get them playing well to get their first team places back.
Rashid and Bresnan for England, you must be joking!!. On their CURRENT form they would struggle in our second team.

Why was Hoggard not playing after his recent form in one day matches? and why does pyrah continue to play when he contributes litle?

Can I also remind people that Lyth got exactly 1. We keep being told to put in more young'uns. Adam hopefully has a great future, but this season has mainly been a disapointment when he's batted

A view from the boundary yesterday.
It is the tactics and team selections that are wrong. The apparent decision to have Rudolph as an anchor effectively nullifies his chances of playing a definitively match winning innings. He was scoring at less than 2 runs per over until he cut loose at the end with 16 from 3 balls - and he was 'caught' from the first of these deliveries. At no time did his look like a match winning knock and all the home supporters around me were disappointed that Yorkshire seemed unwilling to make a match of it. Having only 4 specialist batsmen places far too much pressure on Lyth and Bairstow. Brophy is no number 5, Pyrah looks out of his depth, Bresnan is out of form and Rashid is batted lower by us than by England Lions. All of this points to the entire batting effort relying on how long Andy Gale can maintain his blitzkrieg. A ridiculous risk.
The bowling of Kruis and Wainwright was adequate - without them heaven knows how easily Somerset would have won.

Sorry Martyn, I accept that you were at the match and I was not, but your analysis of Rudolph's innings does not add up. He scored 95 in 85 balls. If you remove the 16 in 3 balls that you refer to, he still scored the remaining 79 runs in 82 balls. That's 5.78 rpo, not 2. If the other batsmen had scored at the same rate (Gale did) then we would have won the match.

I don't want to denigrate Rudolph's innings - if he hadn't scored 95 we'd have been beaten more heavily; probably embarrassingly - however, I was struck by the low proportion of balls he faced (under 36%) considering he batted throughout the innings. It's a case, it seems to me, of over-egging the pudding. We certainly needed a batsman to build the innings around; but that batsman should also be prepared to take rather more of the strike than Rudolph. Had he faced 50% of the balls bowled he might have scored 20 more runs which could have made a lot of difference.

On re-reading this, it sounds rather a carping criticism of a very fine batsman; however, the best should be expected to deliver the best.

Young Clogger and Tyke 1950, you are both correct re Rudolph. In fact if you add the last 3 posts up I think you get a good representation of Rudolph's role in our one day cricket. I just observed that Rudolph seemed to get more and more frustrated as the innings went on. I seem to recall looking at the scoreboard after 35 overs and he had scored less than 70. Irrespective of his percentage of strike, and he didn't look eager for the strike until the end, he was being restricted - be it by himself or team orders - to less than 2 rpo and we will not win many matches with this strategy