GLAMMY

[qccfc]

That's moneybags Surrey, the team we bowled out for 93 and 110 in this season's 20/20, you're talking about there is it - perennial under achievers given their resources.

On the Glamorgan front, what an effort by Carlson and Morgan - without these great moments from our youngsters and a decent first campaign for van der Gugten to cling on to, this season would be a disaster.

Its all about how you look at the team.

Last night Steve James tweeted that this is the most promising season for Glamorgan for many a year, with young players making stand out performances, but with experienced players not performing the results have been bad.

I personally cannot remember a year where so many of the younger players have put in performances of such a level, we have the youngest Glamorgan Centurion yesterday, and Donald equaled Maynard's record for youngest to 100 runs. That all bodes well for the future.

With regards to the coaching issue, its difficult to call for a specialist batting coach because i don't know how the current system works, there are coaches and those coaches will take batting sessions, there will be batting drills in the nets. I remember earlier in the year Croft being quoted as saying that he wants the players to play with a care free attitude and to express themselves. In my opinion that attitude has gone too far, and needs to be reigned back in.

[the other bob wilson]

Its all about how you look at the team.

Last night Steve James tweeted that this is the most promising season for Glamorgan for many a year, with young players making stand out performances, but with experienced players not performing the results have been bad.

I personally cannot remember a year where so many of the younger players have put in performances of such a level, we have the youngest Glamorgan Centurion yesterday, and Donald equaled Maynard's record for youngest to 100 runs. That all bodes well for the future.

With regards to the coaching issue, its difficult to call for a specialist batting coach because i don't know how the current system works, there are coaches and those coaches will take batting sessions, there will be batting drills in the nets. I remember earlier in the year Croft being quoted as saying that he wants the players to play with a care free attitude and to express themselves. In my opinion that attitude has gone too far, and needs to be reigned back in.

Agree completely - it's my age I suppose, but the modern philosophy seems to be that building an innings gradually is uncool somehow, better to go out and "express yourself" and then get your stumps knocked out after scoring a flashy 20 off fifteen balls.

The longer forms of cricket had been played a certain way for well over one hundred years, but lately the thinking that this has been based on has been overtaken by the theory that sides "move the game forward quickly" or try to hit their way out of trouble when they are under pressure.

It's the usual thing that there is a middle way between the two extremes (in this case, a typical Geoff Boycott innings and the sort of absolutely mad shot Mark Wallace played to get out yesterday) which is the right way to go, but Glamorgan have got themselves into a rut whereby they score at something like four an over, yet struggle to bat more than fifty overs.

The batsmen who were at the crease before Carson and Morgan got together yesterday should be feeling embarrassed this morning after seeing two youngsters with about ten first class matches between them battle to retrieve the mess they had created, but, they never play as if the lessons of previous failures have been learned, so I doubt it if they will - they'll no doubt go out and "express themselves" again in the second innings when we'll be something like 80-6 off about twenty overs.

[qccfc]

Agree completely - it's my age I suppose, but the modern philosophy seems to be that building an innings gradually is uncool somehow, better to go out and "express yourself" and then get your stumps knocked out after scoring a flashy 20 off fifteen balls.

The longer forms of cricket had been played a certain way for well over one hundred years, but lately the thinking that this has been based on has been overtaken by the theory that sides "move the game forward quickly" or try to hit their way out of trouble when they are under pressure.

It's the usual thing that there is a middle way between the two extremes (in this case, a typical Geoff Boycott innings and the sort of absolutely mad shot Mark Wallace played to get out to yesterday) which is the right way to go, but Glamorgan have got themselves into a rut whereby they score at something like four an over, yet struggle to bat more than fifty overs.

The batsmen who were at the crease before Carson and Morgan got together yesterday should be feeling embarrassed after seeing two youngsters with about ten first class matches between them battle retrieve the mess they had created, but, they never play as if the lessons of previous failures have been learned, so I doubt it if they will - they'll no doubt go out and "express themselves" again in the second innings when we'll be something like 80-6 off about twenty overs.

Yes i would agree that there needs to be an attitude change within the coaching. If you are being coached to play freely and encouraged to play your shots then that attitude will creep out onto the pitch and see the the bad performances you are seeing.

I think we may have a case where our side is littered with 7s and not enough 1-5s. What you want from you 7 is to push the game forward when there is 300 on the board to play freely to move the game onto a point where you are in the dominant position. What we are seeing is a top order collapse and our lower order trying to score their way out of it. It may be an attitude of my best game is scoring quickly and that is the best way of us achieving a score.

When im coaching a younger player (really low level), or a younger side i work on the base with inexperienced players of them getting scores but not overly concerned about consistency. Once they get that score (and that can be 30s at my level, or 100 at county level), they know they can do it, it gives them the base blocks to repeat it. Then over the next 3 years you then work on them getting those scores on a more regular basis. On this front it looks positive with Lloyd, Selman, Donald, Carson, Morgan all being able to get scores, and are all on the path to build on that with consistency. Again when im coaching this is my primary focus, with younger players and results will then come down the line.

Talking again about my coaching experience, i was a proper number 11 batsman, and couldn't really bat, however i find it easier to coach batting, as i can understand the techniques, and pass that information on. Whereas where i'm a more natural bowler, i find that harder to coach because its just something i do. So on that basis i see no reason why Croft or Watkins cannot take batting coaching sessions.

I was a fan that wanted younger players in the Gamorgan team, a year or 2 ago i was looking at the squads and scratching my head at where these young players were. The cry was i dont care about results, i want to see some development. What we are seeing now is exactly no results but lots of development. At this point im satisfied with that, i've gotten what i've asked for. I can see this side moving forward, im a bit more positive about the future.

[the other bob wilson]

Yes i would agree that there needs to be an attitude change within the coaching. If you are being coached to play freely and encouraged to play your shots then that attitude will creep out onto the pitch and see the the bad performances you are seeing.

I think we may have a case where our side is littered with 7s and not enough 1-5s. What you want from you 7 is to push the game forward when there is 300 on the board to play freely to move the game onto a point where you are in the dominant position. What we are seeing is a top order collapse and our lower order trying to score their way out of it. It may be an attitude of my best game is scoring quickly and that is the best way of us achieving a score.

When im coaching a younger player (really low level), or a younger side i work on the base with inexperienced players of them getting scores but not overly concerned about consistency. Once they get that score (and that can be 30s at my level, or 100 at county level), they know they can do it, it gives them the base blocks to repeat it. Then over the next 3 years you then work on them getting those scores on a more regular basis. On this front it looks positive with Lloyd, Selman, Donald, Carson, Morgan all being able to get scores, and are all on the path to build on that with consistency. Again when im coaching this is my primary focus, with younger players and results will then come down the line.

Talking again about my coaching experience, i was a proper number 11 batsman, and couldn't really bat, however i find it easier to coach batting, as i can understand the techniques, and pass that information on. Whereas where i'm a more natural bowler, i find that harder to coach because its just something i do. So on that basis i see no reason why Croft or Watkins cannot take batting coaching sessions.

I was a fan that wanted younger players in the Gamorgan team, a year or 2 ago i was looking at the squads and scratching my head at where these young players were. The cry was i dont care about results, i want to see some development. What we are seeing now is exactly no results but lots of development. At this point im satisfied with that, i've gotten what i've asked for. I can see this side moving forward, im a bit more positive about the future.

It's a good point you make in your last paragraph - if you had told me that there would be five Glamorgan youngsters who would score their maiden hundreds in Championship cricket this summer, I would have thought you were mad.

I also agree with you about how a team's number seven and eights should play. By and large, I don't see the likes of Wagg, Meschede and Wallace as being the problem - over the past couple of seasons the first two named especially are well in credit as batsmen as far as I'm concerned, given the number of times they've been let down by those coming in ahead of them.

In that conversation between Messrs Topley and Webb I referred to earlier. the latter said that Croft was the go to man when it came to batting, but he also mentioned Terry Shaw, who I seem to remember was a counter attacking type batsman who Maynard often picked in front of Colin Metson because he was the better batter. Again I agree with you though - I see no reason why Croft (who I remember playing a long defensive innings for England to help save a test against South Africa) and Watkin couldn't pass on sound batting advice - in fact, as bowlers you'd like to think that they'd ram home the importance of batting long to our batsmen because it gives the bowlers the sort of rest they need before they have to go again.