<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

Bonus points

August 8 2017 at 11:49 AM
Stu  (Login StuartRA)
Assistant Moderator

I am sure it is clear to all where our problems lie, but there is some confirmation in the bonus points gleaned to date.

After this round of matches, we are bottom in batting, and top in bowling. That suggests to me that our bowling is as good if not better than the other First division sides, including the current runaway Championship leaders. The last 5 Essex first innings have been going backwards (before yesterday) were 542-3, 541-9, 435, 383, 360. A steady increase, until they come up against our bowling attack. The bowlings fine, the battings a big problem.

This message has been edited by StuartRA on Aug 8, 2017 11:50 AM

 Respond to this message   
(Login TykeTim)

Re: Bonus points

August 8 2017, 11:53 AM 

Same problem papered over in recent years due to individual stand out performances. Obvious that we needed to strengthen the batting. Signing someone like Stoneman etc should have been a higher priority than an overseas.

(Login whiterosetom)

Re: Bonus points

August 8 2017, 12:21 PM 

Stoneman gets thrown around a lot as a name. Could we have afforded it? Would he have preferred to move his family to Leeds rather than London? He's likely to be playing test cricket soon anyway. I suppose the "like Stoneman" that was more realistic was Kohler-Cadmore.

It's a bit more complicated than pointing to players we want, we're not Paris Saint Germain.

This message has been edited by whiterosetom on Aug 8, 2017 12:22 PM

Paul D
(Login pdowgill)

Bonus points - not telloing the full story

August 8 2017, 12:49 PM 

Currently we have the highest number of bowling points as we have played the most matches: 26 from 10. Essex have 25 from 9, Lancs 21 from 8, Somerset 22 from 8 so all three can overtake us if they take full points from their matches and Middlesex would only be 1 point behind. So, as we know, the bowling has kept us in it but the attack is in decline and has struggled against good batting teams (Surrey/Middlesex) and could not bowl Hampshire out in the second inning so losing the game. Plus we have to play the best three batting counties again. So i am not convinced that the bowling is fine; of course it is better than the batting but it is now not a championship winning attack in my view.

Geoff B
(Login Coastalview)

Bowling bonus points

August 8 2017, 4:02 PM 

Not sure there is ever much of a spread between the best and the worst teams when it comes to bowling bonus points.

(Login Dwight_Schrute)

Re: Bonus points

August 8 2017, 4:14 PM 

Yep bowling points don't tell much of a story 150ao often gets you the same points as conceding 350+.

A better stat to compare bowling attacks would be to see how many batting points against them.

(Login Fozzie1973)

Re: Bonus points

August 8 2017, 4:22 PM 

5 batting bonus points from the last 6 games tells the story, admittedly one of them was the game against Surrey where we only batted a few overs, 5 points from 5 games is still pathetic though

(Login Pyrahtechnics)

Re: Bonus points

August 9 2017, 4:09 PM 

A lack of batting bonus points is not necessarily an issue. Somerset were title contenders lack last year on back of producing spin bowler friendly wickets at Taunton, likewise with Lancashire winning the 2011 title on the back of playing on sporting wickets at Aigburth. Durham won the 2013 County Championship with no batsman averaging above 39, two batsmen barely registering 1000 runs (Borthwick/Stoneman) and their seamers averaging between 15 and 26.

Yorkshire's problems are how they have approached recent matches, starting with Middlesex. Despite the well documented batting woes, the Yorkshire think-tank opted for four senior batsmen and replaced Tim Bresnan with a bowler. Had Will Rhodes played in the Middlesex game as an all-rounder/5th bowling option, his presence would have been reassuring to the top five and may scored enough runs to at least avoid the follow on. Two days for Yorkshire to save the game with out of form batting is one big ask.

Going to Scarborough, Yorkshire had Somerset on the back foot but Tim Gronewald was allowed to score 41 batting at 11 and got Somerset to 268 after being 208-9. A sub 230 1st innings total would have given Yorkshire's fragile batting (without Ballance) feeling less pressure on a seam friendly wicket. Losing Plunkett and Sidebottom was a natural game changer, but had Yorkshire got to parity with Somersets 1st innings total would they have been allowed to set a 300 plus total?

Andrew Gale talking about mentality and wanting heavy runs scored is one thing, but if the batsmen are underperforming then tactical play becomes an important feature in order to save or win a game when on the back foot. The Yorkshire coaching and captaincy just don't have that tactical awareness in order to win the battles, this is more evident in recent Twenty20 performances and white ball knockout matches. If players are expected to recover their form, then come up with a credible gameplan to give these players a chance instead of hoping a big score will come out of nowhere.

  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