budgetmeansbudget wrote:Bates isn't hanging around. Any danger of when Wheater is fit again that he can play as a batsman only, and drop Gatting?

SaintPowelly wrote:Something doesn't make sense too me, hopefully someone can work it out.
Today is all about bonus points, it became very obvious we were waiting to get to 400 before bowling. It became clear that Surrey wouldn't get to 9 wickets for a 3rd bowling point, so why didn't they put on part-time dec bowlers ?? and maximise their own time at the crease ??
Am I stupid ? or would that of made more sense for both sides ?
st_brendy wrote:Smith not happy that we didn't play ball this morning, and make a game of it: http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/cricke ... h/?ref=twt
Not sure how someone can claim to be leader of a team who likes to "test themselves" but then seek to chase 300 from 65 overs. That's hardly the biggest of targets these days. And as always in these contrived run chases, the power will always lie with the batting team because the moment their chase starts to go wrong, they can just shut up shop.
Throw in the fact that we had maximum bonus points to go after, and ideally some bowling points too (ie a reason to continue the game as normal), and I really think Surrey should have put a bigger total down on the table. Maybe 350 from 65 overs?
Hampshire squad v Cardiff UCCE: McManus, Hose, Alsop, Bates, Gatting, West, Briggs, Brathwaite, Barber, Balcombe, Taylor, King.
SaintPowelly wrote:Hampshire squad v Cardiff UCCE: McManus, Hose, Alsop, Bates, Gatting, West, Briggs, Brathwaite, Barber, Balcombe, Taylor, King.
Very disappointed that Dawson isn't named
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests