Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Durhamfootman wrote:50 for Eckersley

leading by example

no rain around tomorrow as far as I know

Eckersley has been an inspired signing. How come he can score consistent runs while most of the rest are either totally unreliable or reliably hopeless! Still can't understand why he wasn't playing T20. Can't be because his game doesn't suit the format because apart from Short and Steel that applies to all of the batsmen.

hopefully he'll play next year

captaincolly wrote:

Durhamfootman wrote:50 for Eckersley

leading by example

no rain around tomorrow as far as I know

Eckersley has been an inspired signing. How come he can score consistent runs while most of the rest are either totally unreliable or reliably hopeless! Still can't understand why he wasn't playing T20. Can't be because his game doesn't suit the format because apart from Short and Steel that applies to all of the batsmen.

Obviously management thought the leprechaun was Durmam's equivalent of Adam Gilchrist and the campaign was almost over before they'd admit their error. Eckersley is a very correct batsman whom I'm not sure could adapt to hit and giggle. Might damage his game trying to do so,therefore I'm not bothered that he wasn't involved.

westoelad wrote:

captaincolly wrote:

Durhamfootman wrote:50 for Eckersley

leading by example

no rain around tomorrow as far as I know

Eckersley has been an inspired signing. How come he can score consistent runs while most of the rest are either totally unreliable or reliably hopeless! Still can't understand why he wasn't playing T20. Can't be because his game doesn't suit the format because apart from Short and Steel that applies to all of the batsmen.

Obviously management thought the leprechaun was Durmam's equivalent of Adam Gilchrist and the campaign was almost over before they'd admit their error. Eckersley is a very correct batsman whom I'm not sure could adapt to hit and giggle. Might damage his game trying to do so,therefore I'm not bothered that he wasn't involved.

Yeah. I think it was Chris Rogers who didn't want to play T20 because he thought doing so might damage his batting technique. Main thing with the T20 is to get the crowds in - getting Short back next year would help!

now that he's had a good look at us, would he want to?

besides, the other counties will have looked at the MVP table and will be lining up to make him offers

Durhamfootman wrote:now that he's had a good look at us, would he want to?

I hadn't thought of that! Probably not is the answer...or definitely not!

All done and dusted. Well played Northants!

I'll play devil's advocate with Short. The stats are there for all to see but
How many times did he see us over the line?
Seldom.
How many times was he out halfway through our innings?
Invariably.
Ergo, he's not holding the innings together.

westoelad wrote:I'll play devil's advocate with Short. The stats are there for all to see but
How many times did he see us over the line?
Seldom.
How many times was he out halfway through our innings?
Invariably.
Ergo, he's not holding the innings together.

Fair comment. Once he realised how hopeless the rest of the batting was he should have realised the importance of batting through.
Although I suppose the other view is that the openers regularly set a platform to leave what should have been a fairly straightforward path to victory.

entirely possible that the T20 specialist's main role is not to get his team over the line but to look good enough for other teams to want to buy him in......... and the better he looks personally, the more they will be willing to pay him

I would be amazed if he returned in the future, because we are unlikely to make him look good

I still think Bangers would have made a huge difference to us. QF at the very least


blooming Australia

That was an annoying few days...getting dragged into a fourth morning by the dogged Eckersley /Salisbury combo was probably the best bit. Bancroft has been rather key for us, and we have just gone back to how we were without him/ before it dawned on him he would need to open. Northants were by far the better side and their bowling attack was pretty awesome using conditions that we just don't seem to be able to do. [I think it's a shame we didn't go for Hutton].
Rossington was impressive, not only in the batting in their first innings, but thinking about what to do when. Ned was batting first innings quite often out of his crease. Rossington went off and got a helmet and stood up to the stumps, and we all thought - Neds a wicket keeper he knows what's going on here,he'll do something about it.....it only took two deliveries to stump him. It didn't take Sanderson long to find a fault with Scott's batting. They brought Sanderson on specially from the other end for Scott to shatter his stumps a second time.
Robson who looked better in the second innings at Middlesex went back to looking like a walking wicket.
Matt seems expensive because he needs good fielders to the way he plays and the likes of Lightning Lees is not lightning enough [the balls seem to go roughly in the direction of placed fielders]. Brydon was expensive by being generally hit about.
Jack does not field in the slips, haven't seen him there for a few matches. Lees is at 3rd slip. Robson seems to be ok in the slips.
I rather thought we would be in contention to go up, but with the loss of a really steady player/opener and then having a new captain and 3 newish players per match, with an inexperienced side it was just too much to ask, we scraped it at Lord's but we got lucky with the combination of their batting and Brydon.
I'd bring Gareth in for the last match, he may not have been getting many runs but he is generally more sensible than several of those on the teamsheet of this match!

SixSixEight wrote:That was an annoying few days...getting dragged into a fourth morning by the dogged Eckersley /Salisbury combo was probably the best bit. Bancroft has been rather key for us, and we have just gone back to how we were without him/ before it dawned on him he would need to open. Northants were by far the better side and their bowling attack was pretty awesome using conditions that we just don't seem to be able to do. [I think it's a shame we didn't go for Hutton].
Rossington was impressive, not only in the batting in their first innings, but thinking about what to do when. Ned was batting first innings quite often out of his crease. Rossington went off and got a helmet and stood up to the stumps, and we all thought - Neds a wicket keeper he knows what's going on here,he'll do something about it.....it only took two deliveries to stump him. It didn't take Sanderson long to find a fault with Scott's batting. They brought Sanderson on specially from the other end for Scott to shatter his stumps a second time.
Robson who looked better in the second innings at Middlesex went back to looking like a walking wicket.
Matt seems expensive because he needs good fielders to the way he plays and the likes of Lightning Lees is not lightning enough [the balls seem to go roughly in the direction of placed fielders]. Brydon was expensive by being generally hit about.
Jack does not field in the slips, haven't seen him there for a few matches. Lees is at 3rd slip. Robson seems to be ok in the slips.
I rather thought we would be in contention to go up, but with the loss of a really steady player/opener and then having a new captain and 3 newish players per match, with an inexperienced side it was just too much to ask, we scraped it at Lord's but we got lucky with the combination of their batting and Brydon.
I'd bring Gareth in for the last match, he may not have been getting many runs but he is generally more sensible than several of those on the teamsheet of this match!

Thanks for that report. It'll be interesting to see the lineup for the last match. Might be a case for giving a debut to anyone who has made a decent case in the seconds. And what do they do with Robson? Crucial innings at Lord's but nothing else to speak of. I think he'd be a useful squad member but unlikely to be the answer to our top order batting worries.

SixSixEight wrote:Jack does not field in the slips

thank heavens for that

Durhamfootman wrote:

SixSixEight wrote:Jack does not field in the slips

thank heavens for that