GLAMMY

[Taffy Blue in Berkshire]

Re: GLAMMY

I'm switching off!

[chrisp_1927]

Re: GLAMMY

Bugger! Poor performance, but the 10 overs is a bit of a lottery I suppose. A frustrating season, where 'we threw it away' has probably been the case a lot more times than 'we were outclassed'.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: GLAMMY

You can’t lose matches like Surrey and Gloucestershire and expect to qualify. We weren’t good enough in the T20, don’t look good enough in the four day game and probably won’t be good enough in the 50 over game - we’ve lost two very good fast medium bowlers in the last two seasons and have not replaced them, our team isn’t well balanced enough.

[chrisp_1927]

Re: GLAMMY

You can’t lose matches like Surrey and Gloucestershire and expect to qualify. We weren’t good enough in the T20, don’t look good enough in the four day game and probably won’t be good enough in the 50 over game - we’ve lost two very good fast medium bowlers in the last two seasons and have not replaced them, our team isn’t well balanced enough.

I think the lack of a good strike bowler is clear in the 4 day form . Harris has stepped up better than I thought he would, but he isn't a Hogan or a Neser.

Wouldn't be surprised to see us do well in the 50 over tournament again though.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: GLAMMY

I think the lack of a good strike bowler is clear in the 4 day form . Harris has stepped up better than I thought he would, but he isn't a Hogan or a Neser.

Wouldn't be surprised to see us do well in the 50 over tournament again though.

If the speed guns on the coverage of the four day games are correct, then I’d say that this season James Harris has been bowling at the sort of speeds which may have got him into the England side ten years ago when he was regarded as one of the best young prospects in the game. Harris was told he had to find a bit more pace when he was a regular in England Lions squads and consequently rather lost his way.

However, Ive been surprised to see how many county seam bowlers are consistently below 80 mph by the speed gun, yet Harris has often been shown as bowling in the 83/86 mph range. In the game with Sussex that we won in Cardiff this season, the commentators were very excited at how quickly the West Indian Seales was bowling, yet the speed gun showed Harris hitting similar speeds to the ones Seales was reaching.

[chrisp_1927]

Re: GLAMMY

If the speed guns on the coverage of the four day games are correct, then I’d say that this season James Harris has been bowling at the sort of speeds which may have got him into the England side ten years ago when he was regarded as one of the best young prospects in the game. Harris was told he had to find a bit more pace when he was a regular in England Lions squads and consequently rather lost his way.

However, Ive been surprised to see how many county seam bowlers are consistently below 80 mph by the speed gun, yet Harris has often been shown as bowling in the 83/86 mph range. In the game with Sussex that we won in Cardiff this season, the commentators were very excited at how quickly the West Indian Seales was bowling, yet the speed gun showed Harris hitting similar speeds to the ones Seales was reaching.

Really surprised me aswell, because his action seems so easy and smooth. Very impressive to be generating that level of pace. Bit of a shame he hasn't managed to keep the movement he used to generate I suppose.

The regular cricket this year does seem to have done him wonders aswell. Hopefully he has a bit of an Indian summer to his career over the next few years. Combined with one or 2 new pacemen to complement him and timm

[Loramski]

Re: GLAMMY

Bugger! Poor performance, but the 10 overs is a bit of a lottery I suppose. A frustrating season, where 'we threw it away' has probably been the case a lot more times than 'we were outclassed'.

Definitely. We've been competitive in most games, frustrating is the word.

Last night was odd. We successfully attacked Sussex and Essex last weekend, no reason not to do it again in a 10 over game. With fours hard to come by on a very wet outfield then the aerial route was the logical choice but we struggled to clear the ropes. Was that simply bad batting or would the conditions have had a say in that? Hard to understand how all our big hitters suddenly lost their power on the same night. Labuschagne and Kellaway tried to get cute but that didn't work either. I always think of wet conditions making it hard for bowlers and fielders but batting didn't seem that easy either. Maybe we just made it look like that.

Van der Gugten nearly got du Plooy a couple of times early on but his second over was costly. Even then the heads didn't drop, there seemed to be a belief we were still in it. The fielding was sharp and the crowd started to get behind the team as it came down to ten off seven balls and then four off four. It always felt like we needed snookers but I didn't think 88 was that far off a decent total. The nine wickets had meant nine dot balls though and that was crucial.

That's sport for you. One thing that did strike me was that having seen City get slated last season for being negative and not having a go it was a bit ironic to come on here and find Glamorgan getting slated for exactly the opposite.

[Dave Blue]

Re: GLAMMY

Definitely. We've been competitive in most games, frustrating is the word.

Last night was odd. We successfully attacked Sussex and Essex last weekend, no reason not to do it again in a 10 over game. With fours hard to come by on a very wet outfield then the aerial route was the logical choice but we struggled to clear the ropes. Was that simply bad batting or would the conditions have had a say in that? Hard to understand how all our big hitters suddenly lost their power on the same night. Labuschagne and Kellaway tried to get cute but that didn't work either. I always think of wet conditions making it hard for bowlers and fielders but batting didn't seem that easy either. Maybe we just made it look like that.

Van der Gugten nearly got du Plooy a couple of times early on but his second over was costly. Even then the heads didn't drop, there seemed to be a belief we were still in it. The fielding was sharp and the crowd started to get behind the team as it came down to ten off seven balls and then four off four. It always felt like we needed snookers but I didn't think 88 was that far off a decent total. The nine wickets had meant nine dot balls though and that was crucial.

That's sport for you. One thing that did strike me was that having seen City get slated last season for being negative and not having a go it was a bit ironic to come on here and find Glamorgan getting slated for exactly the opposite.

I’m probably one of the guilty ones you refer to. There’s being positive and there’s being stupid. The boundaries were out and clearly needed a hell of a thump to clear. We seemed to want to hit every ball out of the ground, doable or not. It was kamikaze stuff. Middlesex learned from our shambles and largely kept it on the deck.

[Loramski]

Re: GLAMMY

I’m probably one of the guilty ones you refer to. There’s being positive and there’s being stupid. The boundaries were out and clearly needed a hell of a thump to clear. We seemed to want to hit every ball out of the ground, doable or not. It was kamikaze stuff. Middlesex learned from our shambles and largely kept it on the deck.

Where Ingram was trying to hit a six was pretty ambitious but most of the others were reasonable. Carlson and certainly Cooke should've been able to hit a straight six but both fell short. Yet when Middlesex got to needing 10 off 7, Hollman comfortably cleared the ropes playing the same shot. Probably just executed it better but I wondered if the conditions had made it more difficult earlier on somehow.

Talking about the conditions, the catching was excellent considering. Most of Middlesex's were simple enough but the ones Carlson and Labuschagne took were stunning. Mind you, Marnus wouldn't have been having any more kids if he hadn't caught his one so that probably sharpened his reflexes a bit.

[Taffy Blue in Berkshire]

Re: GLAMMY

McIlroy bowling like a �� again.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: GLAMMY

Well, this is good.

[Dave Blue]

Re: GLAMMY

This sort of thing needs an inquest. The coach should walk.

[Taffy Blue in Berkshire]

Re: GLAMMY

Pathetic! A b1oody disgrace to the badge and some very sub standard cricket. Professionals ffs!

[the other bob wilson]

Re: GLAMMY

This sort of thing needs an inquest. The coach should walk.

It’s hardly the sort of thing that dispels talks about splits in the dressing room is it.

[Don Corleone]

Re: GLAMMY

Even by Glamorgans very low standards today is taking it to even deeper depths - what a pathetic effort