GLAMMY

[Pearcey3]

Re: GLAMMY

Brain dead cricket. De Lange needlessly lost his wicket when they plenty of time to get the runs.Then Cooke in fine form was happy for Hogan to take most of that last over.

The game was lost on day one when Derbyshire got 288. I felt at the time we should have bowled them out for below 250

Derbyshire record their first Championship win in two years with a 16 year old the match winner. Says it all.
I have a feeling the T20 crowds will be thin at the SWALEC this season

[the other bob wilson]

Re: GLAMMY

In our last two games we've been comfortably beaten by two sides that had a combined record of played twelve, won none and lost eight before they played us - I think Durham are a lot better than their record shows, but sides on long runs without a win must love seeing a fixture against Glamorgan coming up on the horizon, Leicester ended their run of no wins in three seasons by walloping us last year!
Against Durham and Derby we revealed our new approach to batting whereby we have gone from the one extreme of thinking innings' in four day cricket only last fifty overs as we get bowled out for something in the region of 150 to 260 to believing we are batting in one of those old timeless tests that were supposed to go on until there was a result - so, we've been scoring the same sort of totals as we used to do, but are taking two and three times longer to do so!
Finally, what on earth possessed Glamorgan to prepare a spinning pitch for the last four days when we have what is, almost certainly, the least threatening collection of spinners in county cricket? Just how bad we are when it comes to spin bowling can be seen by the fact that there was one over of spin bowled in the ninety two overs of Derbyshire's first innings and the additional spinner we picked (Morgan) did not bowl a single over in the game, neither did Ingram whose leg spin has probably taken more wickets than any other Glamorgan spinner in all forms of the game over the past three seasons - I wouldn't be susprised if Wagg's two second innings wickets came from him bowling slow left arm either.

[MacAdder]

Re: GLAMMY

In our last two games we've been comfortably beaten by two sides that had a combined record of played twelve, won none and lost eight before they played us - I think Durham are a lot better than their record shows, but sides on long runs without a win must love seeing a fixture against Glamorgan coming up on the horizon, Leicester ended their run of no wins in three seasons by walloping us last year!
Against Durham and Derby we revealed our new approach to batting whereby we have gone from the one extreme of thinking innings' in four day cricket only last fifty overs as we get bowled out for something in the region of 150 to 260 to believing we are batting in one of those old timeless tests that were supposed to go on until there was a result - so, we've been scoring the same sort of totals as we used to do, but are taking two and three times longer to do so!
Finally, what on earth possessed Glamorgan to prepare a spinning pitch for the last four days when we have what is, almost certainly, the least threatening collection of spinners in county cricket? Just how bad we are when it comes to spin bowling can be seen by the fact that there was one over of spin bowled in the ninety two overs of Derbyshire's first innings and the additional spinner we picked (Morgan) did not bowl a single over in the game, neither did Ingram whose leg spin has probably taken more wickets than any other Glamorgan spinner in all forms of the game over the past three seasons - I wouldn't be susprised if Wagg's two second innings wickets came from him bowling slow left arm either.

Interesting facts there which are pretty damming. They would suggest we not only prepared it that way which was bad enough, we didn't think it actually WAS a spinners wicket, until their schoolboy Qadri entered the fray.
Looks a harsh lesson for our new captain Hogan.

[The Alien]

Re: GLAMMY

Derbyshire had to break their duck somewhere along the line. Why us

[qccfc]

Re: GLAMMY

In our last two games we've been comfortably beaten by two sides that had a combined record of played twelve, won none and lost eight before they played us - I think Durham are a lot better than their record shows, but sides on long runs without a win must love seeing a fixture against Glamorgan coming up on the horizon, Leicester ended their run of no wins in three seasons by walloping us last year!
Against Durham and Derby we revealed our new approach to batting whereby we have gone from the one extreme of thinking innings' in four day cricket only last fifty overs as we get bowled out for something in the region of 150 to 260 to believing we are batting in one of those old timeless tests that were supposed to go on until there was a result - so, we've been scoring the same sort of totals as we used to do, but are taking two and three times longer to do so!
Finally, what on earth possessed Glamorgan to prepare a spinning pitch for the last four days when we have what is, almost certainly, the least threatening collection of spinners in county cricket? Just how bad we are when it comes to spin bowling can be seen by the fact that there was one over of spin bowled in the ninety two overs of Derbyshire's first innings and the additional spinner we picked (Morgan) did not bowl a single over in the game, neither did Ingram whose leg spin has probably taken more wickets than any other Glamorgan spinner in all forms of the game over the past three seasons - I wouldn't be susprised if Wagg's two second innings wickets came from him bowling slow left arm either.

They wouldn't have prepared a spinning pitch, they would have had to use a used pitch, which after the T20 international and ICC champions trophy would have left them no choice but to use a used one. A used pitch then by nature takes spin.

[Alex!]

Re: GLAMMY

Quite the start then lads

[Llanedeyrnblue]

Re: GLAMMY

Can things get any worse?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/scorecard/ECKO41331

[qccfc]

Re: GLAMMY

Can things get any worse?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/scorecard/ECKO41331

Its a crazy game, firstly Glamorgan opting for the toss when they could have chosen to bowl. Then losing the toss and getting put in. There must be clearly something in the pitch.

[Llanedeyrnblue]

Re: GLAMMY

Selman was run out without a run on the scoreboard

[The Alien]

Re: GLAMMY

Its a crazy game, firstly Glamorgan opting for the toss when they could have chosen to bowl. Then losing the toss and getting put in. There must be clearly something in the pitch.

Crazy isn't it.
Pathetic effort from our lot.
Looking at the run rate it looks like we've reverting back to slogging.

[Llanedeyrnblue]

Re: GLAMMY

Gloucester don't look any better than us so far as qccfc said there must be something in the pitch they're 26-3

[qccfc]

Re: GLAMMY

Gloucester don't look any better than us so far as qccfc said there must be something in the pitch they're 26-3

looks like a bit of a minefield, surely a points deduction on the cards.

[Llanedeyrnblue]

Re: GLAMMY

looks like a bit of a minefield, surely a points deduction on the cards.

I was thinking the same thing

[qccfc]

Re: GLAMMY

I was thinking the same thing

The only reasoning i can come up with at the toss, is that its a bad pitch that is going to get worse. Not a good start to the cheltenham cricket festival.

[Llanedeyrnblue]

Re: GLAMMY

Gloucester 68-7