GLAMMY

[Pearcey3]

Re: GLAMMY

6 down

35 off 4 overs with four wickets in hand. I knew this was going to be bloody close. We really could do with winning this. We would go top if we knicked this one.

[El Gwapo]

Re: GLAMMY

23 off 3 with 4 wkts left I shouldve shut up

[Pearcey3]

Re: GLAMMY

23 off 3 with 4 wkts left I shouldve shut up

Foster has swung this for them.

[Pearcey3]

Re: GLAMMY

Disappointing defeat. Why didn't Rudolph bowl Salter in the final stages? He was only going for five an over and would have forced the Essex batsmen to have to put some power into their shots.

[Llanedeyrnblue]

Re: GLAMMY

Disappointing defeat. Why didn't Rudolph bowl Salter in the final stages? He was only going for five an over and would have forced the Essex batsmen to have to put some power into their shots.

He's made some strange decisions regarding his use of bowlers this season hasn't he

[the other bob wilson]

Re: GLAMMY

He's made some strange decisions regarding his use of bowlers this season hasn't he

I thought the match was lost more in the first half of the Glamorgan innings. I know the game has changed in the last few years and almost anything can be possible in the last twenty overs now if you've wickets in hand, but, on what was obviously a very good pitch, taking up nearly half of your overs to get to a hundred, especially when you're not losing wickets, seems to be a bit too slow to me. Given how the match panned out, I think Glamorgan would have won if you had been able to post that they were 101 - 0 in the twentieth, rather than twenty third, over.

[Llanedeyrnblue]

Re: GLAMMY

I thought the match was lost more in the first half of the Glamorgan innings. I know the game has changed in the last few years and almost anything can be possible in the last twenty overs now if you've wickets in hand, but, on what was obviously a very good pitch, taking up nearly half of your overs to get to a hundred, especially when you're not losing wickets, seems to be a bit too slow to me. Given how the match panned out, I think Glamorgan would have won if you had been able to post that they were 101 - 0 in the twentieth, rather than twenty third, over.

Yes you're right there,we have talked about Rudolf's slowness in previous games,he puts extra pressure on the other batsmen.Last night he hit 44 off 65 balls,a strike rate of 67 that's just not good enough

[Ainsley Harriott]

Re: GLAMMY

Start delayed tonight.

Anyone know if we're starting any time soon?

[Llanedeyrnblue]

Re: GLAMMY

Start delayed tonight.

Anyone know if we're starting any time soon?

You beat me to it

[Llanedeyrnblue]

Re: GLAMMY

Just checked the weather forecast on the Beeb for Hove and it says cloudy for the rest of the evening.So depending on how much rain they've had we should get some action tonight

[Ainsley Harriott]

Re: GLAMMY

The sun's out in London now...hopefully the weather's similar at Hove & we're on in the next half hour.

[Pearcey3]

Re: GLAMMY

Start delayed tonight.

Anyone know if we're starting any time soon?

Light drizzle apparently. The Hove forecast suggests the rain will die out so we should get a decent game albeit with reduced overs.
A real shame that Chris Cooke is confirmed as out for the season as he has a trapped nerve and needs an op.
I hope Croft brings Bragg into the T20 team as he can score at a reasonable place and is a consistent performer.

[Pearcey3]

Re: GLAMMY

Play starting at 7:50pm. Am guessing it will be something like 15 overs aside

[Pearcey3]

Re: GLAMMY

Confirmed as 14 overs aside