<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Lewis
(Login Lewis_116)

Re: V MCC

March 20 2016, 8:35 PM 

I mean no offence but I cannot understand how anyone can consider dropping Patterson. He is out main consistency and a great pro to go with it.

We have now won 2 County Championships in a row with a dynamite bowling line up of Brooks, Sidebottom, Patterson and Bresnan. I would not change that for anyone.

I do see Rhodes more of a batting allrounder though I would use him as a number 7 in both One Day and T20 with some County matches should we lose a player to England.


    
This message has been edited by Lewis_116 on Mar 20, 2016 8:36 PM


 
 
Ball_Sup (Phil)
(Login ball_sup)

Re: V MCC

March 21 2016, 7:38 AM 

It's a slightly odd looking track. There still looks a good bit of green in it at the start of Day 2. One of those shaved at the end affairs. Brown on a full length. Much greener short of a length.

Brooks getting his in ducker to work well on it.

Phil
Twitter @ball_sup
Blog Address
http://www.ball-sup.blogspot.co.uk

 
 
Rey
(Login Rey2)

Re: V MCC

March 21 2016, 10:57 AM 

Dizzy says that Siddy and Fisher both have injuries. Fisher with a tight hamstring, I didn't catch Ryan's injury, but I did hear that he got it playing in the Masters tournament.

 
 
Ball_Sup (Phil)
(Login ball_sup)

Re: V MCC

March 21 2016, 12:42 PM 

An eye witness writes....

Ryan bowled Monday in the make up game on a separate Oval. Fisher didn't. Although he was Boxing (kid you not) during Tuesday's warm up.

There is another make up game today, Tuesday. Neither Ryan nor Fisher are involved (so far).

Phil

 
 
Guest
(Login EastYorkshireTyke)

Re: V MCC

March 21 2016, 12:45 PM 

"I have never been a "Patto" fan and certainly never been a member of the NLOP club, but Rhodes looks a far better bet than Patto for the "holding, line and length" role at one end whilst the strike bowlers get the wickets at the other end."

How is anyone even comparing the two players, they're totally different.

As for saying Patto is a holding bowler who allows the strike bowlers to get wickets at the other end, well, only Brooks took more wickets than Patto last season, it's hardly like he blocks an end with no wicket taking menace.

 
 
Stu
(Login StuartRA)
Assistant Moderator

Re: V MCC

March 21 2016, 12:56 PM 

I will keep my head down under the parapet, then I will not get shot at. Whatever I think and it is just my personal choice, Patto is a racing certainty to be selected as he is held in very high regard and quite rightly so by JG and the rest of the team, but I know who I would prefer at nr8, of Rhodes and Patto, if it was a straight choice. Patto is an excellent bowler, but we have 4 better seamers, IMO!!

When everyone available can you really leave Rhodes, Plunkett, & Willey out and go with Bresnan, Patto, Siddy & Brooks at 8 to 11.

My preferred X1 for our first match.

Lees, Lyth, Rhodes, Gale, Ballance, Bairstow, Rashid, Bresnan, Plunkett, Siddy, Brooks. Root will be unavailable, otherwise he plays at 3.


Anyway back to the cricket --- we are ok now Patto is back on, bound to break the current partnership now, which is bringing them back into the game!!


    
This message has been edited by StuartRA on Mar 21, 2016 1:10 PM


 
 
Guest
(Login EastYorkshireTyke)

Re: V MCC

March 21 2016, 1:54 PM 

"My preferred X1 for our first match.

Lees, Lyth, Rhodes, Gale, Ballance, Bairstow, Rashid, Bresnan, Plunkett, Siddy, Brooks. Root will be unavailable, otherwise he plays at 3."

Agreed that I'd be surprised to see Root available, however with a team containing Bres, Plunkett, Siddy and Brooks (or Patto for those who'd pick him ahead of others) and Rashid am not sure Rhodes all round skills will be required so I'd pick Leaning ahead of him.
I also think, whether it's right or wrong, Ballance will bat at 3.


 
 
Stu
(Login StuartRA)
Assistant Moderator

Re: V MCC

March 21 2016, 2:01 PM 

This partnership getting more than annoying now. We were in the game,but not now. Everyone seems to be getting some tap at the moment, when previously all of the bowlers (apart from Carver) were keeping it tight.

 
 
peter
(Login wakefieldtyke)

sidebottom

March 21 2016, 2:06 PM 

the big problem that yccc will find this season is that sidebottom is not fit enough to play in every county match .

 
 
Guest
(Login ThirdUmpire)

Re: sidebottom

March 21 2016, 2:33 PM 

And hence the signing of Willey to still give the left arm variety in our attack.

Good forward planning. A year alongside Siddy learning how to bowl the red ball will do Willey wonders and a left armer helps dig up the rough for Adil to exploit

 
 
Martin
(Login Martinh00)

Re: V MCC

March 21 2016, 2:47 PM 

They are 7 ahead. We are still in the game surely?

 
 
Guest
(Login Tyke1950)

Re: V MCC

March 21 2016, 2:55 PM 

A bigger problem, even, than Sidebottom's probable inability to play every Championship match is the regular unavailability of Bairstow and Rashid. We have no like for like replacements and the balance of the team will be seriously weakened in their absence.

 
 
Stu
(Login StuartRA)
Assistant Moderator

Re: V MCC

March 21 2016, 2:58 PM 

Yes Martin, if we limit their first innings lead to less than 100. They do still have 4 wickets left. 30 minutes tomorrow and 4 wickets and we are back in the game. but........


    
This message has been edited by StuartRA on Mar 21, 2016 2:58 PM


 
 
Twelfth Man
(Login twelthman)

Re: V MCC

March 21 2016, 3:05 PM 

Ah the return of the "annoying seventh wicket partnership"

 
 
Stu
(Login StuartRA)
Assistant Moderator

A touch of Controversy....

March 21 2016, 4:12 PM 

..... and a record 7th wicket partnership.

From the OS

".......Unfortunately for Yorkshire, they were on the wrong end of a reversed umpire’s decision as Surrey batsman Foakes was given out lbw on 17 before being recalled by Neil Mallender before tea.

Mallender had given Foakes out to Steve Patterson, with the score moving to 152-7 in the 57th over.

But he consulted with his square-leg colleague David Millns before changing his decision because, it is understood, he thought there was some bat involved.

It proved costly for Yorkshire as Foakes and Clarke went on to share a seventh-wicket stand of 131 inside 37 overs – a record for that wicket in all first-class cricket on this ground.

Foakes will resume tomorrow on 83 not out and Clarke 56 not out......"

 
 
Geoff B
(Login Coastalview)

Re: A touch of Controversy....

March 21 2016, 8:33 PM 

Galey seems quite happy about the re-call. It's always nice to see a CC umpire admit they got something wrong and do the right thing.

Let's see if Brooks, or anybody else for that matter, can get some joy early tomorrow to keep us in with a chance of winning.

I hope these kind of stands aren't the sign of things to come when we play without Rashid.

 
 
Guest
(Login ThirdUmpire)

Re: A touch of Controversy....

March 21 2016, 8:49 PM 

If square leg can spot some bat being involved more clearly than the umpire at he bowlers end then he is wasted in Dubai and should be at the T20 World Cup as it would make him better than all those there.

Gale was ok with the decision because he has had one suspension, been harshly penalised by the powers that be as a result and no doubt all the counselling and anger management he had to attend as a result have clearly worked.

 
 
Geoff B
(Login Coastalview)

Re: A touch of Controversy....

March 21 2016, 9:42 PM 

Rather than pull his finger down after realising his initial mistake. The chat with the square leg umpire is likely to be just to cover his embarrassment.

 
 
JG
(Login _JG_)

Re: A touch of Controversy....

March 22 2016, 12:53 AM 

Oh look, back to the remotely competitive red ball cricket and again Patterson is Yorkshire's most economical seamer, with an economy rate almost half that of Rhodes, as well as the second most dangerous if you take the wickets column as evidence. You're entitled to keep your head above the parapet and keep expressing your opinion on this Stu, but your opinion is wrong.

Seam bowling would appear to be the least of our worries anyway; we had 5 very good seamers to fit into 4 slots, with Willey we now have 6 plus the developing Fisher. I would agree with the comments above that the real issues are the periods when we are without the two all-rounders Bairstow and Rashid. Bairstow can perhaps partly be covered for by the fact that three or four of the players who can fill our five bowling slots are also good with the bat (Bresnan, Rashid, Willey, Plunkett) so may be able to make up some of Bairstow's runs, but I don't see that we have any option that can in any way cover for Rashid as a spinner. From the few occasions I've seen Carver live he hasn't looked ready for first team cricket and the evidence of the scorecards paints a similar picture, while after some good figures in the earlier warm-up matches he looks to have struggled today- only one wicket in 27 overs and the highest economy rate of any spinner to bowl in the match so far. This would be my one biggest area of concern going into the season.



 
 
Guest
(Login ThirdUmpire)

Re: A touch of Controversy....

March 22 2016, 7:19 AM 

You sometimes need to look beyond the stats though.

Rhodes had batted for a large part of the previous day and therefore this would have taken more out of him than Pattersons brief innings of four balls.

Carvers economy rate of 3.57 is hardly disastrous compared with Patels of 3.5 and Samit could only roll his arm over for 8 overs. Carver also got the wicket of the MCC senior batsman, Bell who I see was once again out trying to hit over the top. Perhaps some good bowling after all?

And the other serious spinner is Tredwell who always bowls well against us and will have bowled for a large part of the innings when we had to rebuild after a rocky start.

You might as well say you think Tredwell is the better spinner because he has nearly 400 first class wickets to Carvers 7. But which one would I prefer for the next five years? I suspect Carver will do much better.

Despite that I would still pick Patto as he provides balance to our team and can do the role others cannot do which is bowl uphill into the wind and be nagging and threatening. None of the other seamers can do this but they need a Patto to do their roles with the new ball or in short sharp fast spells.

Edit - the above was posted before play started on day 3. I now see Carver has taken three quick wickets to wrap up the MCC innings. Congratulations to the young man and well done Yorkshire for backing him after such an uneconomical spell the day before


    
This message has been edited by ThirdUmpire on Mar 22, 2016 8:02 AM


 
 
 
< Previous Page 1 2 3 4 56 Next >
  Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
 Copyright © 1999-2017 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement  
All IP addresses are recorded. We reserve the right to remove personal attacks, sexist, racist, homophobic, defamatory or abusive comments, comments likely to incite religious hatred, those disposed to wind others up, and unapproved advertising.

Email us: Whiterosecricket@hotmail.co.uk