GLAMMY

[Pearcey3]

Re: GLAMMY

That is ridiculous. I wondered why Hogan,Wagg and Bragg were not involved in the friendlies. I knew Van Der Gugten was injured but this is mad.

[MacAdder]

Re: GLAMMY

That is ridiculous. I wondered why Hogan,Wagg and Bragg were not involved in the friendlies. I knew Van Der Gugten was injured but this is mad.

This is shocking, even by our standards.
Looks like cricketeters have gone the way of the modern day footballers, pampered with no balls (no pun intended)

[the other bob wilson]

Re: GLAMMY

That is ridiculous. I wondered why Hogan,Wagg and Bragg were not involved in the friendlies. I knew Van Der Gugten was injured but this is mad.

Hogan played in one of the pre season matches, so he may have got injured then. A few years back there were stories about how the Glamorgan players were now full time pros who began pre season training in something like November, is that still the case? If it is, then you have to say that it's not doing them much good!

[qccfc]

Re: GLAMMY

Hogan played in one of the pre season matches, so he may have got injured then. A few years back there were stories about how the Glamorgan players were now full time pros who began pre season training in something like November, is that still the case? If it is, then you have to say that it's not doing them much good!

The bowlers like Wagg and Hogan are getting older now, Still think an attack of DeLange, Carey, Podmore and Meschede, could work out ok.

Batting looks a little better of Rudolph, Selman, Lloyd, Ingram, Cooke, Donald, Carlson , Meschede. I'd say spinners miss out today, With Carlson bowling the overs if required, seeing as its April.

I'd like to see to see a competitive season with some progression from the youngsters. I dont expect a promotion year. Like to see some good cricket in the white ball stuff as well.

[qccfc]

Re: GLAMMY

Glamorgan win toss and bat, spinners miss out, as expected really.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: GLAMMY

Glamorgan win toss and bat, spinners miss out, as expected really.

And they've survived an over - 2 for 0.

[qccfc]

Re: GLAMMY

Selman out for a duck 3-1

[qccfc]

Re: GLAMMY

Lloyd out for a duck 9-2

[qccfc]

Re: GLAMMY

Rudolph out for 9. 9-3

This isnt looking like a good decision to bat.

[qccfc]

Re: GLAMMY

22-4. Ingram out.

[qccfc]

Re: GLAMMY

26-5 Cooke out.

[MacAdder]

Re: GLAMMY

26-5 Cooke out.

You mean Cooke bowled Buck for a duck? Fùck!

[The Bloop]

Re: GLAMMY

On the bright side at least Leicestershire are 16 points behind us (for now)

[qccfc]

Re: GLAMMY

26-6 Carlson out first ball.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: GLAMMY

Well, they managed to get to a hundred - 101 all out and Northants 17-0.

Glamorgan played seven batsmen and four of them were out for ducks, while two others failed to get into double figures - you can't jump to too many conclusions on the first day of the season, but our specialist batting hasn't been good enough for about three years now, so it's hard to see why things should change this season and yet all we ever seem to do is sign seam bowlers.