<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Stu
(Login StuartRA)
Assistant Moderator

Re: The Fab Four

May 14 2017, 8:42 PM 

Don,t go upsetting the NLOP club members!!

Anyway with no Bresnan, our "tail" would start at 7, with Hodd at 6 followed by 5 poor batsmen.



 
 
Pyrahtechnics
(Login Pyrahtechnics)

Re: The Fab Four

May 14 2017, 8:57 PM 

I'm sure the NLOP Club Members will be delighted to see their hero on drinks carrying duties and have the opportunity to indulge in a bit of brown nosing, while Coad and Sidebottom bowl Lancashire all out for 50 in the morning session.

 
 
Idle man
(Login Idle_man)

Re: The Fab Four

May 14 2017, 9:08 PM 

For the umpteenth time, will people please stop challenging views that no one had recently put forward. I was a founder member of NLOP. It came into being in the context of a choice of 4 from 5, of Bresnan, Sidebottom, Brooks, Plunkett, and Patto. A four where the flamboyant but unreliable performances of Brooks and Plunkett were both present, and the utterly dependable but less dramatic contributions of Patterson were overlooked, was considered by many of us to be highly misguided. This situation has been changed this year, firstly by a possible decline in Patto's reliability, and more significantly by the emergence of Coad. For what it's worth, though there's a slight question mark over bringing two bowlers back from injury together, for Old Trafford I would leave out Patto.

 
 
Guest
(Login sid-don)
Assistant Moderator

Re: The Fab Four

May 14 2017, 9:57 PM 

NLOaP type bowler.

Idle man sums it up perfectly. Coad plays at OT and we gamble Sidebottom and Brooks can do a hard day in the field if required. Bres obviously plays.

 
 

Dave Morton
(Login DaveMorton)

Re: The Fab Four

May 14 2017, 10:25 PM 

As usual I agree with Idle Man, and his analysis of the origins of the NLOP pressure group is accurate. Context is everything, and things change.

One of the things that has changed is the bowling of Bresnan, which has declined at almost as great a rate as his batting has improved. I would be tempted to view him as a batsman who might give you a few overs.

Patto himself seems to be going for more runs, whilst taking fewer wickets, which may signify decline, or may just be one of those short-term statistical oddities or vagaries of form.

Coad and Fisher now enter the equation; Brooks' and Sidebottom's returns will make a difference; Waite may have a part to play in red-ball cricket as well as the white; and Rashid's impending absence also alters the balance, as well as obviously weakening the attack.

Gale and Ballance have some tough decisions to make. As usual they will be judged on results, but if the selected attack fails it does not follow that a different one would have succeeded.

Personally, for the Roses championship game, I would go for Sidebottom, Brooks, Coad, Patterson or Fisher, plus Bresnan as 5th seamer/batsman plus Rafiq. That's if they're all fit, which seems unlikely. And the batting would leave some people nervous if we do that.

As I said, tough decisions, and whatever they do, some folk are going to moan. Bresnan at 5 and Hodd at 6? It's Rashid's absence, more than anyone else's, that really screws us.

 
 
Dwight_Schrute
(Login Dwight_Schrute)

Re: The Fab Four

May 15 2017, 12:51 AM 

If the founding members are jumping ship then it could be the end of NLOP fan club.

Agree with Pyrahtechnics attack.

 
 
Pyrahtechnics
(Login Pyrahtechnics)

Re: The Fab Four

May 15 2017, 1:05 AM 

Having a core batting order of Lyth, Lees, Ballance, Handscomb with Bresnan at 5, Hodd 6, Rafiq at 7 and the tail beginning at 8 with Brooks, Sidebottom, Fisher/Patterson and Coad would put a fair number of YCCC supporters in a nervous disposition.

While Rashid has been valuable against Warwickshire, Rafiq is effectively a like for like replacement. There is no logic into leaving Leaning out of the CC squad for the sake of a 6th bowler. He might not have runs under his belt but has at least played to the match situation.

Given the dry winter we have experienced and Old Trafford being conducive to spin, I would not rule out Karl Carver featuring in the CC game given he has enjoyed success in last years Roses One Day Cup.

 
 
Geoff B
(Login Coastalview)

Re: The Fab Four

May 15 2017, 8:38 AM 

Much as we abhor the situation we know from experience that Yorkshire can frequently end up with 4 down for not too many runs.

If we can keep Ballance and Handscomb fit, in form, and out of their national teams clutches, this shouldn't happen too often this season.

But just in case, I think we need an extra batter in just to acknowledge the fact that Hodd and Rafiq are not Bairstow and Rashid when it comes to middle order runs.

For OT my best team would be

Lyth
Lees
Handscomb
Ballance
Leaning
Bresnan
Hodd
Rafiq
Brooks
Sidebottom
Coad

If the worst comes to the worst and we end up in the field all day with Rafiq taking a pounding, then use Leanings bowling a bit more to hold up and end, and give the likely wicket takers a breather.




 
 

Dave Morton
(Login DaveMorton)

Re: The Fab Four

May 15 2017, 10:49 AM 

Do it that way and the bowling looks thin; do it the other way and the batting looks dodgy. That's the decision they're going to have to make. And the reason is that Rafiq is not a like-for-like replacement for Rashid because his batting is less reliable - though an innings at Scarborough last season showed capability.

If we go down the Bresnan and Rafiq plus three bowlers path, the selection of those three becomes crucial. LOP is one option, made possible by the advance of Coad, but it's a step that needs much thought before they take it. There have been so many times when Patto has been our only reliable bowler. Taunton last season comes to mind as an extreme example.

I'll just add that someone, above, mentioned five 'poor' batsmen. That might apply to Coad, but Patterson, Brooks, Fisher and Sidebottom are all hugely competent 'lower order' players, make no mistake.


    
This message has been edited by DaveMorton on May 15, 2017 10:58 AM


 
 
Dwight_Schrute
(Login Dwight_Schrute)

Re: The Fab Four

May 15 2017, 10:57 AM 

Absolutely zero chance we go into a Championship match with a 5, 6, 7 of Bresnan, Hodd, Rafiq.

 
 
Stu
(Login StuartRA)
Assistant Moderator

Re: The Fab Four

May 15 2017, 11:08 AM 

It was I, Dave who said our last 5 were "poor", and I stick to it.

I would not want to go into any match with Tim at 5, Hodd at 6, then Rafiq, Patterson, Brooks, Siddy & Coad.

This line-up coupled with Lyth`s poor current form is a recipe for a -200 total, Hanscombe and Ballance surely can not keep on getting over 1/2 of our runs every game.

Rashid out is a massive blow to the balance of the side, we are a lot stronger in every dept with him at 6 or 7.

 
 

Dave Morton
(Login DaveMorton)

Re: The Fab Four

May 15 2017, 11:17 AM 

I think, on balance, you're right, Stu. Not about the use of the word 'poor', because these guys are all arguably as good as Tattersall and Callis, etc. But I think they will take the risk with the bowling and go with Brezzy + 3, which will give Leaning (or Rhodes or Waite) a chance, which they deserve.

Bresnan at 6 and Hodd at 7 has a comforting look about it, which the other option does not. And fingers crossed for the bowling!

 
 
Kevin Owens
(Login kevinowens)

Re: The Fab Four

May 16 2017, 7:48 PM 

Forget NLOP it's now NLOR. Never Leave Out Rafa!

 
 
littleoldme.
(Login littleoldme.)

Gale's decision

May 16 2017, 11:59 PM 

It was 1 hour into the afternoon session when we "fed" Middlesex their runs. It was 120 in 8.5 overs and it still rankles. Gale explained in the after match interviews he wanted a longer chase so his batsman could get set. What? Had they not lobbed up the donkey drops their lead at tea would only have been around 190 and we could of chased that in 32 or 33 overs . There was no need for the declaration bowling because Middlesex were forced to declare at some point if they wanted to win. This decision crossed my mind when Gale got the First Team Coach job and I hope this doesn't happen again under Ballance's captaincy.
A Buchan

 
 
Dwight_Schrute
(Login Dwight_Schrute)

Re: The Fab Four

September 12 2017, 7:38 PM 

The end.

Appears Patto was indeed found out!

 
 
Kevin Owens
(Login kevinowens)

Re: The Fab Four

September 13 2017, 11:41 AM 

I have to agree Dwight. Sadly I was right.

 
 
Stu
(Login StuartRA)
Assistant Moderator

Re: The Fab Four

September 13 2017, 12:33 PM 

Basically the "fab four" are no more. Siddy is retiring the other three well past there best, some more than others. Next season we need a new "fab four".

Plunkett, Willey, Coad & Fisher the new fab four? With the limited availability of Willey & Plunkett due to England call-ups, it may be we need a "fab six".



 
 

Dave Morton
(Login DaveMorton)

Re: The Fab Four

September 13 2017, 2:48 PM 

I'm not really disagreeing that the Fab 4 are fab no more, but R Ashwin has just taken 2 for 132 (one of those a tailender) against the full might of Leicestershire, worse figures than either Brooks or Patto, though better than Rafiq, I suppose.

Stats have a place, but only a place. Good bowling often produces good stats, and vice versa, but not invariably so. And Stoneman and Sangakkara on a flat track might well have done that to anyone. In fact, Stoneman used to do it regularly against us when the Fab 4 were in their fab prime.


 
 
JollyD
(Login JollyD)

The Fab Four

September 13 2017, 5:23 PM 

Your remark about needing a 'Fab Six' is not so far-fetched, Stu. I recall some years ago Steve Oldham saying that if you wanted to guarantee having four fast bowlers, you needed eight. He was referring, of course, to the high injury rate suffered by this group of players.
In view of Ben Coad's sudden meteoric rise this season, perhaps we should include Matthew Waite, Josh Shaw and perhaps Jared Warner in our thinking.

 
 
 
< Previous Page 1 2 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