<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Rey
(Login Rey2)

Re: Original Message Re: A touch of Controversy

March 23 2016, 10:39 PM 

No idea how anyone could end up with Rhodes batting at 3. No idea.

 
 
Stu
(Login StuartRA)
Assistant Moderator

Re: Original Message Re: A touch of Controversy

March 23 2016, 11:04 PM 

Let me explain.

I did not mean literally Rhodes at 3. Positions 3-6 for me are Rhodes, Ballance, Gale & Bairstow in any order, until Williamson arrives.

Leaning patently out of form at the moment, Rhodes clearly in form.

Rhodes did open last season and Ballance did bat regularly at 5 for us and England till he was moved, so Rhodes at 3 and Ballance at 5 is not such a stupid suggestion as posters implied, bearing in mind Ballance will be moved to five anyway once Kane arrives.




    
This message has been edited by StuartRA on Mar 23, 2016 11:06 PM


 
 
Geoff B
(Login Coastalview)

Re: Original Message Re: A touch of Controversy

March 23 2016, 11:39 PM 

I think we had better leave it to the coach to sort out.

I should think Rhodes will get more cricket in all formats this season but I'm not sure where he will slot in for CC games.

I can see us losing Ballance to England sooner rather than later and it could be that Leaning might not turn out to be the player we thought he might be.
I hope he comes through but he wouldn't be the first to flatter to deceive.

Having Rhodes as a batter who bowls, and Willey, as a bowler who bats, gives us a lot of flexibility.

 
 
Rey
(Login Rey2)

Re: Original Message Re: A touch of Controversy

March 24 2016, 10:39 AM 

Stu, if you didn't mean Rhodes at 3, then don't say "Surely it will be Rhodes at 3."

And whilst it's not exactly a stupid suggestion, it is incredibly unlikely. Rhodes opening was clearly a temporary measure whilst Lyth was gone, and wasn't really successful, so I can't see them repeating it with all of our top order options back (bar Root).

Leaning may be out of form at the minute, but there's time for him to get it back before the start of the season. I agree it will be between him and Rhodes who bats at 6, and would say it's based almost entirely on their batting. Rhodes' bowling is just an added extra in the four day game at the minute, I expect it'll play a bigger part in limited overs games this season.

 
 
Stu
(Login StuartRA)
Assistant Moderator

Re: Original Message Re: A touch of Controversy

March 24 2016, 10:51 AM 

Yes, it was the wrong choice of phrase. There are 4 places available from 3 to 6 and Rhodes, for me (on current form,) gets the edge over Leaning, or anyone else, for one of them.


    
This message has been edited by StuartRA on Mar 24, 2016 12:40 PM


 
 

Dave Morton
(Login DaveMorton)

Re: Original Message Re: A touch of Controversy

March 24 2016, 9:21 PM 

I've just got home from Abu Dhabi - well, about 4 hours ago. I've glanced at the last couple of pages of this thread, and responding to one or two of the comments, my own observations include...

1. High quality game of cricket, and taken very seriously by a strong MCC XI (which apparently was not the case last season). Interesting(ish) pitch, in that there was some seam movement with the new ball, though very little bounce. Onions, Ball, Harris and Clarke were a very testing seam combination. Tredwell is the best finger-spinner in England, in my estimation, but Patel is inferior to both Carver and Lyth on this evidence.

2. Our own seam bowling was hugely professional from the main three in the first innings. Scarcely a bad ball, and Bresnan seemed to be hitting the bat hard. Minus Brezzy, they were less impressive second time round, with Brooks spraying it and Patto a bit insipid. Carver was 'targeted' by Bell, 14 off his first over, and by other batsmen from time to time, but he stood up impressively, never resorting to negative flatness. Big plus, Karl.

3. Will Rhodes' batting was the bonus, two hugely impressive innings, full of maturity and solid technique, with a good range of attractive strokes. It will be difficult to leave him out of any XI on this showing. Lees and Ballance both played major innings, and there was a pleasing and attractive contribution from Hodd.

That's enough for now, but I'll probably touch on other aspects of the trip, including the Emirates T20 win, and a wonderful dinner with the players, of whom Ballance, Hodd, Lees and Coad had the honour to be at my table. The general remark was - not only from our table - what wonderfully mature, fine young men these Yorkshire players are.

 
 
sid
(Login sid-don)
Assistant Moderator

Re: Original Message Re: A touch of Controversy

March 24 2016, 9:21 PM 

If Plunkett is available for the Hampshire game I think we'll select him. As its Leeds Brooks will play. If Bres is fit, he'll play. I suspect they'll want Sidebottom, I think Patterson may be the one to miss out.

Leaving Leaning out would be harsh but if Rhodes gets runs in the Leeds Uni game he may be picked for the first CC game however I suspect not.

 
 
John Hatch
(Login JohnSantaClaws)

A Bit Short-Changed?

March 25 2016, 11:16 AM 

I am sorry to sound a discordant note but I feel that supporters who travelled all the way to Abu Dhabi, at presumably considerable expense, might be entitled to feel a bit short-changed.

We know that Joe Root hardly ever plays for Yorkshire nowadays, and England have also taken Rashid, Willey and Plunkett for the T20 competition.

But why was Jonny Bairstow rested for the Champions v MCC match? Did Yorkshire not take it seriously.

A similar question might be asked of Ryan Sidebottom (if not, yet, Matthew Fisher).

Tim Bresnan came off the field after bowling only two overs in MCC's second innings; and it seemed to be said that this was a precaution and that, had it been a county championship match, he would have bowled another 15 overs.

Yes, well I can see the argument but what about those who went to Abu Dhabi expecting to see a competitive cricket match in a supposedly high-profile fixture?

With Jack Brooks out of form, and Steve Patterson having no strike bowler to support, Tim Bresnan's absence may well have cost Yorkshire the game.

While I am at it, I will make another point that I have made before. I greatly admire what Tim Bresnan has done for Yorkshire over the years (and I had the privilege of watching his historic partnership with Jonny Bairstow at Durham last year). But I will repeat this. Yorkshire do NOT look like county champions with Tim Bresnan batting at number 6.

For all his effectiveness in scoring runs on occasions (batting at number 8), Tim Bresnan is not a top-class
specialist batsman. Some county sides might love to have him batting at number 6 for them; but not a thoroughbred championship side, surely.


 
 
Rey
(Login Rey2)

Re: A Bit Short-Changed?

March 25 2016, 12:27 PM 

Anyone paying to go to the UAE for this tour should know that the MCC game is little more than a glorified warm-up match. It has little to no relevance any more, and honestly is lucky to still be on the calendar at all. To expect anything else is naive. Hopefully those supporters that did go had plenty of other things to entertain them over there.

Also, some of your criticisms are a little harsh. Sidebottom and Fisher's injuries were by all accounts genuine. Yes, they have bowled in some part-time matches on tour, but that's different to a full four-day match. And we are unlikely to get much out of Jonny Bairstow if he's played into the ground. He'll be no use to Yorkshire or England burned out, so giving him a month free from cricket makes a lot of sense.

I agree that Bresnan shouldn't be batting at 6, but also don't think we'll see that happen much this season. Rhodes should have been batting ahead of him already, and should bat at 6 if he's picked for the first Championship match. Rashid usually bats ahead of Bresnan when he plays anyway, so Tim should be down back down at 8 for most of the time.

 
 
Stu
(Login StuartRA)
Assistant Moderator

Re: A Bit Short-Changed?

March 25 2016, 1:09 PM 

Agree Rey -- can not see Tim batting higher than 8 unless we get hit with a lot of injuries and England call ups simultaneously.

It will be 6 batsmen from Lees, Lyth, Williamson, Head, Root, Gale, Ballance, Bairstow, Leaning, & Rhodes (not in any particular order) with Rashid at 7, then Tim and 3 other bowlers. He may move up to 7 if Hodd is playing instead of Bairstow, but otherwise mainly 8.

 
 

Dave Morton
(Login DaveMorton)

Re: A Bit Short-Changed?

March 25 2016, 1:28 PM 

Those of us who paid to go to UAE DID see a high-quality, competitive, serious game of cricket. Several games of cricket, indeed, as the eight lads not playing in the MCC match could be seen on the adjoining pitch.

We did not see Matt Fisher play as he was injured, and spent most of the MCC match dribbling a football gently round the boundary edge, looking bored out of his brain.

I'm astonished at the criticism of Bresnan's batting. With another county - Warwicks or Notts, for example - he could easily be a regular in the top 4 or 5. If Yorkshire wanted to use him at 3 to break up the left-handers, he would be fine there. He and Rash have only batted as low as 7 and 8 because of their bowling duties, and the huge depth of talent this Yorkshire team possesses.

I anticipate more moans once the RL50 games start, because I'll bet our preferred attack will include ALL the youngsters, to augment Willey, Plunkett and Rashid (when available). Expect to see Wainman, Coad, Rhodes and Fisher doing the bulk of the white-ball bowling. Do not expect to see any of Sidebottom or Brooks, and not much of Patterson or Bresnan.

Root, by the way, is expected to play a couple of LVCC games early season.

 
 
John Hatch
(Login JohnSantaClaws)

A Bit Short-Changed?

March 25 2016, 10:14 PM 

I'm glad to hear that Dave Morton thoroughly enjoyed his trip despite our fielding a weakened team.
He may not be aware of this but he also had the bonus of missing the radio commentary on the match. Dave Callaghan, as ever, was his well-informed, self-effacing and cheerful self. I always enjoy his commentary - and especially on the occasion, last season, when he was joined by the delightful Isabelle Duncan. I do hope we hear that wonderful pairing again.
Alas, Dave's partner on this occasion was Dave Townsend, who seems rather too self-satisfied and wrapped up in himself to be a helpful cricket commentator. At times, I found that his adenoidal snorting and rambling had become so irritating that I turned off for a while. However, perhaps some people like his approach.

It is only a matter of opinion, but I cannot envisage Tim Bresnan being successful in facing fresh bowlers with a new ball while batting at 3, 4 or 5. However, if he really could find a successful top-order berth at another county (and especially one as strong as Warwickshire or Notts), I think Yorkshire should offer him an honourable release to re-launch a new career.

If Yorkshire continue being successful, I fear that Tim Bresnan will soon find himself being edged out of a regular first team place. His bowling will no longer be quite sharp enough, compared with the array of seam bowling talent that we now have. His batting, in my view, is not good enough to make him a top 6 specialist. Ironically, Tim Bresnan's future value to Yorkshire could depend upon a slump in our fortunes in which we needed a solid all-rounder to try to hold things together; perhaps even in the second division.

There are some other counties who are already in that position, for whom Tim Bresnan could become a rock for several seasons to come. He has served Yorkshire very well indeed, and I hope Yorkshire would repay his loyalty by allowing him to leave with our best wishes should that now seem to be his best career move.

 
 
Ball_Sup (Phil)
(Login ball_sup)

Re: A Bit Short-Changed?

March 25 2016, 10:55 PM 

Nope. I didn't feel shortchanged. I'm old school. 11 v 11. Best you've got at the time v best they've got. I'm easily pleased. As I've said on my Blog, the stadium is increasingly a decrepid pigsty. But the cricket is High Quality (by my measures).

Sure, these games do not always feature "him off the tele". But, that leaves space for a Rhodes or a Carver to put their hands up. Bell thinking of winning his Test place back. Ballance likewise.

I can't guarantee it. But, it doesn't feel as if anyone is coasting. It doesn't feel as if anyone is hiding.

I get the point. As others see it. Players at World T20. Players not even on the trip. Players out there but not featuring. Players pulling up lame. No Championship points at stake. I get it. And written like that it sounds odd. But, honestly. Don't feel short changed.

The money went on flight, great hotels & lovely food. Got my money's worth.

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

 
 
Geoff B
(Login Coastalview)

Re: A Bit Short-Changed?

March 25 2016, 11:18 PM 

I think Tim will be good enough for Yorkshire for a few years yet. He rarely comes out of an innings wicketless and in the absence of Bairstow and possibly Rashid his runs batting at 7 or 8 will be more valuable than ever.

He seems to really enjoy his cricket, is well liked and would never become the sort of player to just go through the motions. You know you are getting all he has to give and he is happy in a team environment.

In the event that two of Rhodes, Fisher or Willey overtake him as bowling allrounders then maybe Essex may beckon, but I for one hope not.

 
 
sid
(Login sid-don)
Assistant Moderator

Re: A Bit Short-Changed?

March 25 2016, 11:52 PM 

John H: This may sound a little blunt but do you see the team play? I find it impossible to conclude that anyone who does can conclude that TB is anything other than one of the first names on the team sheet. To suggest otherwise is, frankly, bonkers.

 
 
Seadog73
(Login Seadog73)

Re: A Bit Short-Changed?

March 25 2016, 11:56 PM 

What exactly does John Hatch have against Bresnan? He's a vital cog in the championship side with his experience and all round ability and he was one of our players of the season last year. If we released him I suspect there would be a queue of around 17 counties wanting to sign him.

 
 
Twelfth Man
(Login twelthman)

Re: A Bit Short-Changed?

March 26 2016, 12:17 AM 

I find the comments on his batting especially bizarre, as anyone who was at Chester le Street last year will agree!

 
 

Dave Morton
(Login DaveMorton)

Re: A Bit Short-Changed?

March 26 2016, 12:46 AM 

Tim is just turned 31, Mr Hatch, not 41. Admittedly, he has a lot of miles on the clock, as he started at 16, and 450 first-class wickets to show for it, including a leading part in an away Ashes win.

There are signs that his bowling has lost a bit of its snap, though he looked the sharpest of the regular trio in the first innings in Abu Dhabi. Perhaps last season marked the start of his transformation from bowling to batting all-rounder; as with many players, it's only a matter of prioritising which skill to practise more.

How can anyone watch Brezzy and not think he's seeing an absolutely top performer? Damn good fieldsman, too, especially as a slipper to spin bowling.

 
 
John Hatch
(Login JohnSantaClaws)

A Bit Short-Changed?

March 26 2016, 8:27 AM 

I think Tim Bresnan has given wonderful service to Yorkshire and I wish him all the best. He is only 31 and should have years of county cricket left in him. I agree that, if Yorkshire released him, several counties would rush to snap him up.
The problem I foresee is that, if Yorkshire remain strong, Bresnan may find it difficult to retain a regular place in the Yorkshire side. His bowling seems to have lost a crucial bit of zip, which has ended his international career. At Yorkshire, he will be competing for a place with Sidebottom, Brooks, Willey, Plunkett, Patterson and, increasingly, Fisher and perhaps Rhodes. At present, it looks as if none of these will be called away for Test match duties.
With the greatest respect to others, I fear it is mere wishful thinking to say that Bresnan can transform himself into an all-rounder. In my opinion, he is simply not good enough to be a top 6, specialist batsman in a strong Yorkshire side. And in a strong team, we shall have no place for a merely "useful" batsman and bowler lower down the order.
I was at Chester-Le-Street and I saw the historic stand between Bairstow and Bresnan. I think some forum members may not know or recall what actually happened.
At 10.30 am, Collingwood won the toss with the ground covered in angry, black clouds. He promptly put Yorkshire in to bat. By 11.15 am, there had been a startling transformation. The clouds had gone; the sky was blue; and temperature was rising until it became a VERY hot day.
It was plain to everyone that Collingwood had been cruelly tricked by the weather and made the wrong decision.
It then gradually became apparent, to a discerning spectator, that Collingwood was going to gamble on bowling out Yorkshire, in any event, no matter how much the conditions now favoured the batsmen. The key giveaway was that he was making his key strike bowler, Chris Rushworth, bowl extra overs in his spells.
The gamble nearly came off. Yorkshire were reduced to 191 for 6 on what now seemed an excellent batting wicket.
However, the sun was now beating down, the weather was very hot, Chris Rushworth's face was the colour of a lobster, and the Durham seam attack looked spent.
Enter Tim Bresnan to support Jonny Bairstow, who was having his purple patch. It was a clinical massacre. They simply blocked the good balls and whacked all the many bad balls for four. It went on and on, with the bowlers now completely exhausted.
When play resumed the next day, it immediately became apparent that the bowlers had not recovered from their mauling on the previous day and had no fight in them. The remorseless massacre continued until lunch and then even afterwards, until Yorkshire eventually declared.
Durham were by now so shattered and demoralised that they lost by an innings (and never seemed to recover during the rest of the season).
At 191-6, Yorkshire had been in trouble, so an unbeaten stand of 366 was especially valuable.
But it does not mean, I'm afraid, that Tim Bresnan has the batting skill to prosper against fresh bowlers who are using a hard new ball and moving it around.

 
 
Guest
(Login ThirdUmpire)

Re: A Bit Short-Changed?

March 26 2016, 9:43 AM 

Which is why he is not opening the batting but being touted as a solid number 6 with the bat who also offers skills with ball and in the field.

Cricket teams are about balance and options and not five bowlers all the same or six batters in the same mould


    
This message has been edited by ThirdUmpire on Mar 26, 2016 5:25 PM


 
 
 
< Previous Page 12 3 4 5 6 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