Durham Match Thread 2026

[Durhamfootman]

I was just looking at the score with 109 required and thinking that that could have 81 required without the 28 wides, and the rate nearer to 5 than 6 and a half, when..... bang, bang, bang, we were all out with 98 still required and 11 overs unused. Their bowler was on a hat trick and so Emma Marlow came back out to bat again and the match continues.

No Villiers or Heath today. Will Lauren Filer actually turn out for us this year, I wonder? I was listening to Charlotte Edwards the other day and she seemed to be saying that the England girls would be playing their part in the early rounds. When it comes to Durham players, I'll believe it when I see it

[Durhamfootman]

Emma Marlow was much better in her second effort

Sophia Turner batted as well as anyone today. Not bad for a number 11

the 11th wicket partnership between her and the returning Marlow put on 78 in 9 overs after we'd scratted around all game falling further and further behind the rate. If only we could have batted like that before we were all out

Tahlia Wilson was at the ground today, having just flown in. She's hoping to bat in the top order. The way things are looking, she may have to bat in the top order, the middle order and the lower order. We seem to have 250 runs in us only if we are allowed to have 15 batters in the side

[Durhamfootman]

unchanged squad for today, which means no Will Rhodes again

Parky and Minto are the extra two from last week's team

If either was to play, it would presumably be at the expense of Ackers who looked horribly out of touch last week. Parky doesn't bat, but MInto does and we looked a bowler short last week in game that was crying out for a spinner. Odd that Rhodes isn't being considered under the circumstances, because unless Kasey Jones is the all rounder then we look unbalanced no matter who we pick and I didn't see enough from him last week to consider him anything more than a bowler who can bat.

We'll see

[Durhamfootman]

Campo has spent so much time pre season bigging up Kasey Jones, that it would be a surprise if he missed out. BR and MP were the stand out bowlers, so it doesn't feel possible that either will be rested in a game that has suddenly become a lot bigger in value

Big game for Kemar too. He didn't look on it at all v Kent

There seems to be a general assumption in the ether that we were denied a certain win by the storm last week. I'm not so sure, after we lost 5-47 in 40 mins to a modest attack with no superstar bowlers in it and on a pitch where we could only take 5 wickets in 2 sessions. I tend towards the view that we might have got away with one in that game and if promotion is the aim, we can't do that again.... and for a season and a match, it has always felt like something lurking just around the corner

[Durhamfootman]

unchanged squad for today, which means no Will Rhodes again

I say unchanged, but Will Rhodes was in that first squad, before being replaced by Ackers before the game due to illness

That Ackers is still there after a very poor first game, suggests that Rhodes might be yet to recover from whatever it was that ailed him

[Durhamfootman]

Parky for Ackers

we have been put in to bat

[captaincolly]

Rhodes was missing last week because of illness, presumably hasn't yet recovered.
I'm not convinced about Parkinson in red ball cricket, rarely seems threatening but hopefully he will prove me wrong!

[Durhamfootman]

I've been wanting to see how Ghafari goes. When did we last have a leggie? Besides a lot of those spin wickets last week went to leggies. I agree that Parky is not the most threatening of bowlers, but should at least be able to a) keep things tight enough to allow Lees to rotate the seamers and b) stop us losing points for slow over rates. Gloucs lost 2 points last week and have only bowled 34 overs by 2pm, so are at the very least 2 overs behind atm

I watched Ghafari and Parky bowling in tandem against the Uni and I think the leggie took 4 wickets in their second innings after only coming on very, very late in their first, although I might be wrong about that. Memory ain't what it used to be

[Durhamfootman]

McK brings up a run a ball hundred

commanding start to the game from us 179-0 after only 35 overs.... over 5 an over

Are Gloucs that poor, or is the pitch as flat as a fart?

[Durhamfootman]

we perhaps ought to be grateful to Gloucs for putting us in

They must have expected something to happen, but it might have been an 'overheads' decision

No live feed. Thanks Gloucs

[Durhamfootman]

Lees falls for 129, but not until after the 300 run opening stand came up

Have we had a higher stand before?

[Durhamfootman]

314

Diva and Costa 2009

[Durhamfootman]

I did wonder if we could score 500 in a day, so was a little disappointed when we were about 50 short. Then I realised that Gloucs only bowled 88 overs

well.... 88.1 overs, so I'm guessing light or rain curtailed the day

another 8 overs and we might have scored 500 in a day

We might need a lot of time to take 20 wickets... and the curse of the old boy scoring a double hundred might make it harder

[Durhamfootman]

214 not out for McK, with his SR taking a dive later on, so a bit of fatigue, perhaps.... he's still young

[captaincolly]

Could not have gone better. That decision to field first by Bancroft is the sort of blinder I'd expect from us.
They have a mediocre attack so it was asking for trouble to bowl first.