A forum for Glamorgan CCC fans
By Nick_Glam
#23746
glamman wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 4:13 pm
Nick_Glam wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 3:40 pm
notgoingoutreprise wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 3:25 pm
Salter proving to be his usual wicketless self,how he keeps his place is beyond me
I think the two reasons for that are pretty clear.

He is an all rounder and topped the batting averages last year.

We haven't had any other spinning options who would have taken wickets.

They may obviously look to Bull now, but there are problems with the balance of the team no matter what they do.
The balance of the team is weighted towards including as many of the available batsmen as possible. Cooke as keeper coming in at 6 means that if the batsmen are scoring runs there should be enough of them. Three seamers at 9, 10 and 11 just leaves the 7 and 8 slots. Personally I would have Smith or Meschede in one of them. However it seems likely that they will just stick with Lloyd providing the 4th seam option. Including Bull would not unbalance the side as you would still have Lloyd or Salter coming in at 7. You could include both of them as batsmen and leave out Donald. You should not be selecting bowlers because of the runs they score - a false economy. The top 6 batsmen have the responsibility to score the bulk of the runs. If they don't then you won't win many games.
The question is whether the pitches will be any more helpful for Bull than the ones we have seen so far and whether he would be any more effective than Salter. Seam rules in Championship cricket given the timings of games in the calendar.
No, but all-rounders are obviously selected partly on the runs that they score. For example, Steve James admitted that he would pick Darren Thomas over Owen Parkin because of the runs that he would score and his all round game. It happens all the time.

And you are right that the question is whether Bull would contribute any more with the ball. This game obviously wasn't won or lost due to the spinners and I can imagine that the management would be very wary of weakening the batting line up, and lengthening the tail, when we have just failed miserably with the bat. And we would still have the 4th seamer problem.

I agree that Smith or Wagg (Meschede will be missing for weeks now I guess) should be considered and, unless it looks like the pitch will turn, Salter could bat at 7 with Smith and 3 seamers below him.
By notgoingoutreprise
#23747
Nick_Glam wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 4:51 pm
glamman wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 4:13 pm
Nick_Glam wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 3:40 pm


I think the two reasons for that are pretty clear.

He is an all rounder and topped the batting averages last year.

We haven't had any other spinning options who would have taken wickets.

They may obviously look to Bull now, but there are problems with the balance of the team no matter what they do.
The balance of the team is weighted towards including as many of the available batsmen as possible. Cooke as keeper coming in at 6 means that if the batsmen are scoring runs there should be enough of them. Three seamers at 9, 10 and 11 just leaves the 7 and 8 slots. Personally I would have Smith or Meschede in one of them. However it seems likely that they will just stick with Lloyd providing the 4th seam option. Including Bull would not unbalance the side as you would still have Lloyd or Salter coming in at 7. You could include both of them as batsmen and leave out Donald. You should not be selecting bowlers because of the runs they score - a false economy. The top 6 batsmen have the responsibility to score the bulk of the runs. If they don't then you won't win many games.
The question is whether the pitches will be any more helpful for Bull than the ones we have seen so far and whether he would be any more effective than Salter. Seam rules in Championship cricket given the timings of games in the calendar.
No, but all-rounders are obviously selected partly on the runs that they score. For example, Steve James admitted that he would pick Darren Thomas over Owen Parkin because of the runs that he would score and his all round game. It happens all the time.

And you are right that the question is whether Bull would contribute any more with the ball. This game obviously wasn't won or lost due to the spinners and I can imagine that the management would be very wary of weakening the batting line up, and lengthening the tail, when we have just failed miserably with the bat. And we would still have the 4th seamer problem.

I agree that Smith or Wagg (Meschede will be missing for weeks now I guess) should be considered and, unless it looks like the pitch will turn, Salter could bat at 7 with Smith and 3 seamers below him.
James may have picked Thomas over Parkin on the ability to get runs but Thomas took 504 wkts at av 31,Parkin 108 wkts at 27,Salter lagging well behind with 66 wkts at 51,no comparison really(Salter wickets have come in 47 games)
By Nick_Glam
#23748
notgoingoutreprise wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 5:13 pm

James may have picked Thomas over Parkin on the ability to get runs but Thomas took 504 wkts at av 31,Parkin 108 wkts at 27,Salter lagging well behind with 66 wkts at 51,no comparison really(Salter wickets have come in 47 games)
I wasn't exactly suggesting that Salter is being picked ahead of Thomas or Parkin now. :lol

As I said, I would understand if they gave Bull a go if they think a pitch will turn. But I don't understand people completely ignoring Salter's record with the bat as if it's not relevant. It obviously is. He's an all-rounder.

Bull is not, to my knowledge, anything special with the bat so any captain or coach would be very wary of picking a long tail at this time of the season when teams are struggling to score runs all over the country.
By notgoingoutreprise
#23749
Nick_Glam wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 5:22 pm
notgoingoutreprise wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 5:13 pm

James may have picked Thomas over Parkin on the ability to get runs but Thomas took 504 wkts at av 31,Parkin 108 wkts at 27,Salter lagging well behind with 66 wkts at 51,no comparison really(Salter wickets have come in 47 games)
I wasn't exactly suggesting that Salter is being picked ahead of Thomas or Parkin now. :lol

As I said, I would understand if they gave Bull a go if they think a pitch will turn. But I don't understand people completely ignoring Salter's record with the bat as if it's not relevant. It obviously is. He's an all-rounder.

Bull is not, to my knowledge, anything special with the bat so any captain or coach would be very wary of picking a long tail at this time of the season when teams are struggling to score runs all over the country.
Thomas or Parkin would probably get more wickets than Salter even now
User avatar
By Vetchetarian
#23750
The match was effectively lost early pm on the first day when the 1st innings collapsed from 57/0 to 94/10.
Difficult to recover from such a debacle, but it can be done, as proven by the mighty Yorkshire who have just beaten Essex after having been dismissed in their 1st innings for 50. I don't think Glam have the collective ability to achieve that kind of amazing result, however.
Murphy tops the Glam batting averages. Well done him.
exileKT8 liked this
By glamman
#23752
My rule about all rounders is that they have to be good enough to be worth a place in the side with one of their skills on its own and then the other one is a bonus. You should not select them because they can bat and bowl a bit. Great all rounders are worth a place in the side for both skills eg Sobers or Kallis.

Lloyd is good enough with the ball to bowl a few overs and try and break a partnership but is not going to do too much other than when the ball is hooping around.
If Salter is not worth his place as a bowler then he has to be selectable on his batting alone. That may be the case given our lack of depth in batting. Personally I don't think he has done much wrong with the ball when asked to perform - it's just that the pitches are not helpful in May.

What lost us this game was the batting yesterday. Kent having first bowl was a big advantage and it was always going to be tough. However the batting conditions were good yesterday and we should have posted a more challenging target.
User avatar
By Vetchetarian
#23753
glamman wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 5:59 pm
My rule about all rounders is that they have to be good enough to be worth a place in the side with one of their skills on its own and then the other one is a bonus. You should not select them because they can bat and bowl a bit. Great all rounders are worth a place in the side for both skills eg Sobers or Kallis.

Lloyd is good enough with the ball to bowl a few overs and try and break a partnership but is not going to do too much other than when the ball is hooping around.
If Salter is not worth his place as a bowler then he has to be selectable on his batting alone. That may be the case given our lack of depth in batting. Personally I don't think he has done much wrong with the ball when asked to perform - it's just that the pitches are not helpful in May.

What lost us this game was the batting yesterday. Kent having first bowl was a big advantage and it was always going to be tough. However the batting conditions were good yesterday and we should have posted a more challenging target.
Kent failed to take a single wicket in the first morning session. Did conditions change so much immediately after lunch to create such havoc ?
By glamman
#23754
Vetchetarian wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 6:21 pm
glamman wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 5:59 pm
My rule about all rounders is that they have to be good enough to be worth a place in the side with one of their skills on its own and then the other one is a bonus. You should not select them because they can bat and bowl a bit. Great all rounders are worth a place in the side for both skills eg Sobers or Kallis.

Lloyd is good enough with the ball to bowl a few overs and try and break a partnership but is not going to do too much other than when the ball is hooping around.
If Salter is not worth his place as a bowler then he has to be selectable on his batting alone. That may be the case given our lack of depth in batting. Personally I don't think he has done much wrong with the ball when asked to perform - it's just that the pitches are not helpful in May.

What lost us this game was the batting yesterday. Kent having first bowl was a big advantage and it was always going to be tough. However the batting conditions were good yesterday and we should have posted a more challenging target.
Kent failed to take a single wicket in the first morning session. Did conditions change so much immediately after lunch to create such havoc ?
If you watched that opening session I’m surprised that that the ground has not gained holy status given that it was a miracle we did not lose any wickets.
User avatar
By Vetchetarian
#23755
glamman wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 6:46 pm
Vetchetarian wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 6:21 pm
glamman wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 5:59 pm
My rule about all rounders is that they have to be good enough to be worth a place in the side with one of their skills on its own and then the other one is a bonus. You should not select them because they can bat and bowl a bit. Great all rounders are worth a place in the side for both skills eg Sobers or Kallis.

Lloyd is good enough with the ball to bowl a few overs and try and break a partnership but is not going to do too much other than when the ball is hooping around.
If Salter is not worth his place as a bowler then he has to be selectable on his batting alone. That may be the case given our lack of depth in batting. Personally I don't think he has done much wrong with the ball when asked to perform - it's just that the pitches are not helpful in May.

What lost us this game was the batting yesterday. Kent having first bowl was a big advantage and it was always going to be tough. However the batting conditions were good yesterday and we should have posted a more challenging target.
Kent failed to take a single wicket in the first morning session. Did conditions change so much immediately after lunch to create such havoc ?
If you watched that opening session I’m surprised that that the ground has not gained holy status given that it was a miracle we did not lose any wickets.
I watched the live feed for a few minutes, but didn't like the camera angle. It was impossible to tell what the ball was doing, and whether the batsmen were being outfoxed, or just playing for lunch.
By hujon64
#23757
Disappointing for first home game but the youngster Murphy did well. Very concerned, however, about Donald. Has been the one to be lauded as a batsman since a young age and seems to be featured a lot in interviews, posters, promotions, etc but is being overtaken by other youngsters now. Is this going to be another case of unfulfilled promise? As others have said, a stint in the seconds and more work with Maynard may be required.
By glamman
#23759
hujon64 wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 9:44 pm
Disappointing for first home game but the youngster Murphy did well. Very concerned, however, about Donald. Has been the one to be lauded as a batsman since a young age and seems to be featured a lot in interviews, posters, promotions, etc but is being overtaken by other youngsters now. Is this going to be another case of unfulfilled promise? As others have said, a stint in the seconds and more work with Maynard may be required.
Hopefully he will reemerge in the white ball formats for which his technique is better suited.
By Welwyn
#23760
Vetchetarian wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 5:52 pm
The match was effectively lost early pm on the first day when the 1st innings collapsed from 57/0 to 94/10.
Difficult to recover from such a debacle, but it can be done, as proven by the mighty Yorkshire who have just beaten Essex after having been dismissed in their 1st innings for 50. I don't think Glam have the collective ability to achieve that kind of amazing result, however.
Murphy tops the Glam batting averages. Well done him.
Yeah, also think the run out was a killer. Think Murphy & Marsh would still be batting now if it wasn't for that!
By glamman
#23762
Welwyn wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 8:31 am
Vetchetarian wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 5:52 pm
The match was effectively lost early pm on the first day when the 1st innings collapsed from 57/0 to 94/10.
Difficult to recover from such a debacle, but it can be done, as proven by the mighty Yorkshire who have just beaten Essex after having been dismissed in their 1st innings for 50. I don't think Glam have the collective ability to achieve that kind of amazing result, however.
Murphy tops the Glam batting averages. Well done him.
Yeah, also think the run out was a killer. Think Murphy & Marsh would still be batting now if it wasn't for that!
The batsmen who followed them should have accumulated more runs in good conditions.
By notgoingoutreprise
#23765
Virdi of Surrey has his first 5 wkt haul.He also had 2 other 4 wkt hauls. Salter has yet to achieve 4 in an innings, time for a change
By glamman
#23766
notgoingoutreprise wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 12:07 pm
Virdi of Surrey has his first 5 wkt haul.He also had 2 other 4 wkt hauls. Salter has yet to achieve 4 in an innings, time for a change
The Oval on day 3/4 with your side having posted 430 is a bit different from Sophia Gardens on Day 3 when the opposition need less than 200.
I might pick Bull over Salter as a bowler but Salter is being selected as a batsman more than as a bowler. Again I don't agree with that but that is the defensive line that Croft has said he will be taking this season with the young batting line up.
The only possible ommissions I am expecting for Friday are one of the seamers as part of the rotation policy and maybe Donald has used up one too many lives.
I'd like to know if Connor Brown has been scoring any runs. He only got 4 for Ynysygerwn on Saturday.
Therefore:
Selman
Murphy
Marsh
Carlson
Donald (for lack of other options / ?Lawlor)
Cooke
Lloyd
Salter
TvdG
Carey
Hogan

Now that he's fit, is there an argument to play Me[…]

Sussex v Glamorgan

Nice trip then to the south east cost for game thi[…]

2nd XI

2nd XI getting in a strong position in their frien[…]

T20 Steelbacks

Ok, we're out of the RL Cup and it will need a mir[…]