GLAMMY

[chrisp_1927]

Re: GLAMMY

I think you need to take on board the problems a Surrey side with two current test batsmen, a recognised T20 specialist in Evans and the player who put together the most destructive one day innings I've seen in ages in one day cricket in Jacks had in chasing what most thought would be an easy target for a team that should qualify from the group. It looked a decent wicket last night, but the scores suggest that it was another Cardiff pitch where batsmen struggled especially after the new ball lost a bit of its hardness. Everything we've seen this season says that a par score at Cardiff is somewhere around the 150/160 mark and so, although the Glamorgan innings had an uneven look to it, they started and ended very well, certainly better than Surrey, their score was proven to be a competitive one for Sophia Gardens - it's the usual thing, don't judge a wicket or an innings until both sides have batted.

good point about the ball after it softens. A stat that i normally find pretty meaningless in t20 games is the 10 over comparison between sides. But on this Cardiff pitch it can be very telling, it's been a far more reliable indicator of winner this season than the in play betting odds or dls par scores.

I always think Jacks is a bit similar to hampshires Darcy Short. He's going to get out for less than 10 a lot. But when he does get a start, the fielding side know they are very likely to cop an absolute pasting off him. Certainly wouldn't want to be a fielder that dropped him early. Pope looked very classy last night, until his brainfade while running. Plays some shots that are very pleasant on the eye

[chrisp_1927]

Re: GLAMMY

Hamish Rutherford is our overseas man for 50 over cricket, and our last 4 championship games.

Just a shame he's not at the top of the order for our next 2 t20s aswell

[Pearcey3]

Re: GLAMMY

I find the 20 20 form of cricket a bit of a lottery really.

There isn't a lot of time for a batsman to play himself in but as has been said, sometimes you have to look at the overall position before going gung ho.

As I said earlier, I didn't see this match but
that Sophia gardens is a bugger to bat on as the England Sri Lanka games showed last week. As such I wouldn't be too harsh on the batsmen for "steadying the ship" midway through the innings, particularly if the opposition's danger men are bowling.

Anyway, the result is all that matters and you have shirley got to give Root credit for his part in the win.

Without Root’s innings we would have lost

[Pearcey3]

Re: GLAMMY

If you look at both innings the middle overs were the lowest scoring for both teams.mainly because the spinners were on and were hard to get away.
It was far easier to score with pace on.
Root seemed to read the situation well and as you say you cant rely on 24 in the last over but it was vital to have a batsman who was set to take advantage of the situation.
If he had gone slow and then got out I would agree with you but I think he played a mature little knock to see us to victory.

Yep agreed.

[chrisp_1927]

Re: GLAMMY

Tight game brewing up in the Surrey v Hampshire match. We could do with a right Hampshire win.

Sussex also suffering due to covid, 7 players out evidently. We could be in a decent position at the end of tomorrow night, If Hampshire can beat Surrey tonight, followed by middlesex beating a depleted Sussex and us beating Essex tomorrow.

[Pearcey3]

Re: GLAMMY

104 all out. That is the final nail in the coffin. I would like to see youngsters playing in the final few games and release Ingram early as he has been dreadful. Sad to see him struggling. He was superb 3 or 4 years ago.

[Taffy Blue in Berkshire]

Re: GLAMMY

104 all out. That is the final nail in the coffin. I would like to see youngsters playing in the final few games and release Ingram early as he has been dreadful. Sad to see him struggling. He was superb 3 or 4 years ago.

the club's a joke! inept batting performance again with some very naive shots from so call experienced players.

wtf is up with Ingram?

[chrisp_1927]

Re: GLAMMY

104 all out. That is the final nail in the coffin. I would like to see youngsters playing in the final few games and release Ingram early as he has been dreadful. Sad to see him struggling. He was superb 3 or 4 years ago.

My maths still gives us a chance of qualifying with winning the next 3, although glam website seemed to think we needed to win all 4. Then again, I've probably got more chance of winning the lottery than seeing glamorgan win 3 in a row. And I don't even play the lottery

[Pearcey3]

Re: GLAMMY

the club's a joke! inept batting performance again with some very naive shots from so call experienced players.

wtf is up with Ingram?

Ingram should not have been brought back. He and the club had a similarly poor campaign in 2019. It was a very poor decision to keep playing him ahead of Neser.

[chrisp_1927]

Re: GLAMMY

At Lords for the middlesex game. Looks like they should destroy Sussex very easily. Big game for us against Sussex tomorrow

[Pearcey3]

Re: GLAMMY

At Lords for the middlesex game. Looks like they should destroy Sussex very easily. Big game for us against Sussex tomorrow

I don’t think our run rate helps. Three wins is very unlikely to be enough.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: GLAMMY

I've used the word "pathetic/" to describe Glamorgan cricket plenty of times down the years, but last night is the first time I've considered using it this season - one man has carried our batting in T20 this season and, one match apart, the decision to favour Ingram over Neser, which looked dubious at the time, has been a total flop.

My concern is that our campaign in the four day game, which I would call a success up to now, faces the prospect of being derailed because so many of our batsman have played themselves out of form in the twenty over games - I reckon us finishing third or fourth in a group featuring four First Division teams would be a really good outcome, but I presume Labuschagne and Neser won't be available for the Sussex match on Sunday?

[chrisp_1927]

Re: GLAMMY

I've used the word "pathetic/" to describe Glamorgan cricket plenty of times down the years, but last night is the first time I've considered using it this season - one man has carried our batting in T20 this season and, one match apart, the decision to favour Ingram over Neser, which looked dubious at the time, has been a total flop.

My concern is that our campaign in the four day game, which I would call a success up to now, faces the prospect of being derailed because so many of our batsman have played themselves out of form in the twenty over games - I reckon us finishing third or fourth in a group featuring four First Division teams would be a really good outcome, but I presume Labuschagne and Neser won't be available for the Sussex match on Sunday?

The glam website has been suggesting they will be back on Sunday. Sussex will still be without their covid affected players though

[chrisp_1927]

Re: GLAMMY

I don’t think our run rate helps. Three wins is very unlikely to be enough.

It does make it very tough to be fair. I think someone will qualify from the group with 14 points, but that caning does make it unlikely to be us.