GLAMMY

[Madassa]

Re: GLAMMY

We've already dropped 8 guaranteed points with the declaration against Northants. Here we've gambled 8 points , plus a potential 5 batting bonus points in the hope of taking 16. There is no real payoff. Just Maynard's demented vision of making the team 'prove themselves'

Have to disagree and go with Elwood on this. We're not going to catch Yorks or Lancs by settling for cautious draws. I also believe we are not going to improve as a team by being totally risk averse.

[Elwood Blues]

Re: GLAMMY

Have to disagree and go with Elwood on this. We're not going to catch Yorks or Lancs by settling for cautious draws. I also believe we are not going to improve as a team by being totally risk averse.

Indeed. There is also the point that Labushagne needs to find some form He wouldn't have got that in the pavilion

[chrisp_1927]

Re: GLAMMY

I would concede that the declaration against Northants was misjudged. Still agree with the concept though.

Edit Looking at the weather now it is all pretty academic anyway!

Weather seems to be teasing us here. Sunday looked a complete write off in all the forecasts pre game. When I checked last night it was predicting no rain until 6, but here it comes!

[chrisp_1927]

Re: GLAMMY

Have to disagree and go with Elwood on this. We're not going to catch Yorks or Lancs by settling for cautious draws. I also believe we are not going to improve as a team by being totally risk averse.

In terms of cautious draws i do agree with you. But I just don't see the payoff here, risking 8 guaranteed points, and a possible 13, to instead go for the possibility of 16 points with the potential of 0. If the first innings was done fair enough. But missing the chance of up to 5 bonus points didn't make sense to me

[Madassa]

Re: GLAMMY

In terms of cautious draws i do agree with you. But I just don't see the payoff here, risking 8 guaranteed points, and a possible 13, to instead go for the possibility of 16 points with the potential of 0. If the first innings was done fair enough. But missing the chance of up to 5 bonus points didn't make sense to me

At 64/3 I think it unlikely we'd get near 5 batting points even with the lower order heroics we've seen so far this season - a max of 3 would be more realistic. I suppose the judgement made was a max of 11pts if we batted well for a draw or the possibility of an extra 5points on top of this if we pulled off an admittedly ambitious win. As Elwood says the prospect of giving Labushagne time at the crease might also be a factor.

[Pearcey3]

Re: GLAMMY

Should have batted on for bonus points. Maynard is destroying this team again.

I dunno. Seemed the chances of getting more than a couple of batting points was remote. Yes there was the risk of losing and missing out on the 8 points for the draw but going for a 16 point win seemed fair enough. All academic now with yet another game ruined by this bloody weather.

[Madassa]

Re: GLAMMY

All done now - Match drawn

[the other bob wilson]

Re: GLAMMY

Can’t you just tell Glamorgan aren’t playing in this weeks round of fixtures- look at the weather!

Some news on our two overseas signings.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/57247692

[the other bob wilson]

Re: GLAMMY

Michael Hogan has signed a one year contract extension.

Also, Glamorgan began their defence of the Second eleven 20/20 trophy today against a Warwickshire side that they beat twice in warm up games last week. Trouble is this time Warwickshire had a certain C Brathwaite playing for them who scored 116 off fifty odd balls in a total of 202-6and then took four wickets as Glamorgan replied with 189-7. The good news is that there were runs for Nick Selman who scored 107 off sixty balls.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: GLAMMY

Fans allowed back in for today's home game with Lancashire. Glamorgan make one change with Weighell replacing Van Der Guyten who's away playing for the Netherlands - they've won the toss and put Lancashire in.

[MacAdder]

Re: GLAMMY

Great start.
Lancs 5 for 1 in 4th over.
Hogan.

[chrisp_1927]

Re: GLAMMY

Great start for glam. Mind you, Weighell has now bowled 6 overs. If he has 3 legal deliveries in that spell I would be very surprised. Not sure who is worse, him for bowling no balls or the bloody umpire for not spotting them.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: GLAMMY

Lancashire 113-6, but latter order batsmen have been a bit of a problem for us this season and the seventh wicket partnership is the highest of the innings so far.

[Pearcey3]

Re: GLAMMY

From 74/1 to 97/5 is disappointing. A lot resting on Labuschagne to try and get to us to a first innings lead

[Pearcey3]

Re: GLAMMY

Glammy subside to 144/8. In a week of dreadful officiating Umpire Baldwin is right down there. Some of his decisions have been woeful.