Durham Match Thread 2024

[Durhamfootman]

It means we have someone with a recent century batting at 10

[Durhamfootman]

and we probably do need a lot of batting because there have been many dogs produced at Blackpool in recent years. Lancs won the title for the first time in a thousand years by cutting OT out of the equation and playing lottery cricket instead

[captaincolly]

and we probably do need a lot of batting because there have been many dogs produced at Blackpool in recent years. Lancs won the title for the first time in a thousand years by cutting OT out of the equation and playing lottery cricket instead

I remember that season. Terrible pitches. Agree about Siddle, if he's not injured it seems odd to leave him out. Apparently overcast conditions so bowling first sounds like a good idea- famous last words!

[Durhamfootman]

except that batting second this season has rather tended to put us on the back foot

but this is Blackpool, so all bets are off

[Durhamfootman]

big hundred for the old boy?

it happens a lot

[Durhamfootman]

we may have dodged a bullet last week as both our Hanty arch nemeses turn out against Notts

[captaincolly]

Another poor start with the ball and don't think we can blame conditions this time- Lancs commentator says they're ideal for seam bowling.

[Durhamfootman]

and by choosing to bowl and then not bowling well, we are handing all the initiative to Lancs as we did against Warks

[Durhamfootman]

and Pottsy makes the breakthrough. Not the old boy

[captaincolly]

and Pottsy makes the breakthrough. Not the old boy

He's on course for that big hundred!
I still don't understand the thinking behind leaving a bowler out, aside from the fact that Stokes is bound to be rusty, I thought the advantage of an all-rounder was in having an extra bowling option without weakening the batting. Should have been in for Clark imo.

[captaincolly]

we may have dodged a bullet last week as both our Hanty arch nemeses turn out against Notts

I think you're right - Notts 67/6 at lunch!

[Durhamfootman]

if you choose to bowl, I always think the bare minimum to justify the decision is 3 wickets........ bare minimum, so, wrong call... again

I can also see Stokesy's influence already because we are 4 overs shy at lunch.

We need something better in the next session

[captaincolly]

if you choose to bowl, I always think the bare minimum to justify the decision is 3 wickets........ bare minimum, so, wrong call... again

I can also see Stokesy's influence already because we are 4 overs shy at lunch.

We need something better in the next session

Yep and the Lancs commentators think it might spin as the game progresses so if they make a good first innings score another rear guard action will be required - and at some stage we'll fail at it. The only thing is that they thought bowling first was handy - but that was assuming we'd put Lancs on the back foot with earjy wickets.

[captaincolly]

I'm sure it's just coincidence and some roads to bowl on, but our much vaunted attack seem to have forgotten to take wickets since the new bowling coach took over!

[Durhamfootman]

Having negotiated the first session relatively unscathed, Lancs are now on the charge. 15 runs off the first 2 overs this afternoon