Page 18 of 69
Re: 2016 Hampshire Thread
Posted:
Thu May 26, 2016 7:05 pmby Dr Cricket
st_brendy wrote:Hampshire wrote:Apparently Sammy won't be playing tomorrow despite being here and playing for the 2nd XI today because it would mean that McLaren wouldn't be able to play the next CC game as we can only have 2 overseas registered at once
. Never heard of that one before personally.
Don't know if that means McLaren will play a lone T20 for us tomorrow then as the squad hasn't been announced yet.
It was always going to be the case. We announced when we signed Sammy that he wouldn't play the first game for us.
What hasn't been explained, and what I don't yet understand, is how we will play it when it comes to switching between the t20s and the one-dayers. Like this t20 match and the Championship match, some of those matches are very close to each other as well. Is Sammy (or Afridi) going to play one-day cricket for us? I've not heard that he is. I understand it will be McLaren. So why is it possible to make the quick switches between which players are registered then, but not now?
(By the time we get to further Championship matches falling close to t20 matches, Sammy would have left to play in the CPL, so the issue goes away because McLaren will be registered for all three formats).
yeah bit of a mess, maybe Afridi will play one day games.
Re: 2016 Hampshire Thread
Posted:
Thu May 26, 2016 7:16 pmby st_brendy
Anyway, based on the 13 named for tomorrow I would expect our XI to be: Carberry, Adams, Wheater, Ervine, Afridi, Dawson, Smith, McLaren, Andrews, Best, Crane (maybe not exactly in that batting order). So long as the batsmen turn up, then that XI is a little better that I was fearing. Still not great though, in the bowling department particular.
Re: 2016 Hampshire Thread
Posted:
Fri May 27, 2016 6:53 pmby st_brendy
I always wondered why Ervine hasn't had more of a look in when it comes to captaining us in the past. Maybe today has answered me. Giving Best four overs, but not McLaren or Andrews was very, very strange. And wrong.
But at least we kept them under 200. They were on course for 220 until Malan got out.
Re: 2016 Hampshire Thread
Posted:
Fri May 27, 2016 8:12 pmby st_brendy
Rancid result. Rancid performance. But very much as expected. There were strong signs last season that we were regressing in this format, and I think only through experience and know-how did we pull ourselves out of the group. But now, without the experience of Shah and Arafat, without the great domestic quality of Vince and Briggs (and Topley, albeit he's of course a new signing), without the wicket taking options of Fidel and Wood, we really are a mile short. No to mention other stars of recent years, like McKenzie, Abbott, Dimi, Katich, and Cork.
I honestly feel that claiming a top four spot this year would be our best group stage qualification yet, surpassing all previous seven (consecutive).
Re: 2016 Hampshire Thread
Posted:
Fri May 27, 2016 8:59 pmby budgetmeansbudget
Woeful, but as Brendy states, never expected much else.
My hopes were minimal at the start of the season, third from bottom in CC1 and not much else.
Re: 2016 Hampshire Thread
Posted:
Mon May 30, 2016 12:02 pmby st_brendy
Best has completely lost it with the ball this morning. Not a massive surprise, you do get the sense that it's part of his make-up when things aren't going for him. Middlesex could be touching 500 come lunch.
Re: 2016 Hampshire Thread
Posted:
Mon May 30, 2016 12:27 pmby st_brendy
I appreciate that the weather looks awful for tomorrow, and not great for later in the day on Wednesday either, but I'd still have batted a little bit longer if I was Middlesex. So long as the rain does comes, the only way they can possibly win this is by being able to enforce the follow on. By declaring now they've set us a target of 318 to effectively draw the game. Given our batting, I'd say it's touch and go whether we could get there - but if they'd have just smashed another quick 50 runs, then they'd have no doubt put the target out of our reach.
Re: 2016 Hampshire Thread
Posted:
Mon May 30, 2016 1:39 pmby budgetmeansbudget
Carberry fails again.
Re: 2016 Hampshire Thread
Posted:
Mon May 30, 2016 1:54 pmby st_brendy
As expected, which is why I didn't say anything. I'm just waiting for Jimmy and Smith to follow suit. (Although to be fair to Smith, to did finally manage to get a score last week).
Re: 2016 Hampshire Thread
Posted:
Mon May 30, 2016 2:21 pmby budgetmeansbudget
33/2.
Not looking good except Middx were 14/2, so a crumb of comfort.
Re: 2016 Hampshire Thread
Posted:
Mon May 30, 2016 2:24 pmby budgetmeansbudget
Probably a stupid comment because my memory is terrible, but can't remember Ervine batting as high as four too often before.
Re: 2016 Hampshire Thread
Posted:
Mon May 30, 2016 2:25 pmby st_brendy
It is strange, especially given that I've always felt he's better below 5 rather than above 5 (he's easily our best batsman with the tail). But yes, he has batted at 4 before.
I can only assume that Dawson's back-to-back LBW golden ducks has had something to do with the switch?
Re: 2016 Hampshire Thread
Posted:
Mon May 30, 2016 2:39 pmby st_brendy
Right, now the three walking wickets are out, we can start our innings.
Re: 2016 Hampshire Thread
Posted:
Mon May 30, 2016 3:33 pmby st_brendy
So, we've already lost more wickets than Middlesex did in their entire innings.
When we are bad, we are bad.
Re: 2016 Hampshire Thread
Posted:
Mon May 30, 2016 3:48 pmby budgetmeansbudget
You can say that again Brendy, looking like another performance akin to the one against Lancs.