GLAMMY

[chrisp_1927]

Re: GLAMMY

Some good posts here. It's funny FJB should bring Northeast up, I was wondering about whether he should have played too. As soon as Smale was out I thought 'what would Chrisp have said if Northeast had taken 10 overs to get 26'. I dread to think.

It was a painful watch and we got out thought, as others have said. Those lower run chases can be tricky though. It's a bit like being up against 10 men at football, you feel it should be straightforward but you can easily get in a muddle as to how to go about it. I take Pearcey's point about Kellaway but the no risk strategy wasn't exactly a great success either and left us too much to do in the final overs.

Let's hope the rain holds off on Friday. I'll be looking out for you if Northeast plays, I assume you'll be giving him a standing ovation when he comes out to bat.

I must have got a bit too predictable there! I gave him a standing ovation at Lords last year when he brought us home mind 😂.

I'm very much a believer in being aggressive in T20, especially with a long batting order and I've always thought it quite telling that quite often a team that wins a tournament will have one or 2 of the lowest scores all year or how often one of the top teams from one year can't buy a win the next ( SRH in the IPL for example). The aggressiveness required to win needs to be on the edge of potentially making yourself look very stupid.

If we'd have been shot out for 70 I think I could probably accept that better than being throttled in a small chase

[Lord Worcester]

Re: GLAMMY

Last night was a big disappointment. At half time I thought we’d win. Interesting reading the thread that no one has mentioned Ingram. I agreed with the choice of not picking Ingram and SN, on the basis that we don’t need the experience of both and if one was to miss it should be SN. Part of the problem with the 2 innings thus far has been that Ingram has simply not turned up. Do we really need them both?

[Pearcey3]

Re: GLAMMY

Last night was a big disappointment. At half time I thought we’d win. Interesting reading the thread that no one has mentioned Ingram. I agreed with the choice of not picking Ingram and SN, on the basis that we don’t need the experience of both and if one was to miss it should be SN. Part of the problem with the 2 innings thus far has been that Ingram has simply not turned up. Do we really need them both?

Both Cooke and Ingram are big players for us and both have been scratchy to date. I don't like the batting order at all. Too much pressure on Kellaway. I would go with the following.

Tribe
Smale
Carlson
Ingram
Cooke
Kellaway

[chrisp_1927]

Re: GLAMMY

Both Cooke and Ingram are big players for us and both have been scratchy to date. I don't like the batting order at all. Too much pressure on Kellaway. I would go with the following.

Tribe
Smale
Carlson
Ingram
Cooke
Kellaway

I'm surprised Tribe isn't opening for us. Opens in the championship and gets his runs quickly, so it seems such an obvious decision to put him up there. Then again, Surrey have decided to put their best, most explosive and most in form batter in Jason Roy down at 4 tonight. So we're not alone in strange choices

[Loramski]

Re: GLAMMY

No Northeast in the squad tomorrow so it looks like the same team apart from Leonard or McIlroy in for Kerr.

[MacAdder]

Re: GLAMMY

Good chance of a "Welsh double" tonight.

It's a bit rubbish holding this fixture in Cardiff at the same time as the Wales football game though

[Stanmore Bluebird]

Re: GLAMMY

There is also the Diamond League in Rome this evening which may reduce the attendance at both the cricket and football.

[MacAdder]

Re: GLAMMY

There is also the Diamond League in Rome this evening which may reduce the attendance at both the cricket and football.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: GLAMMY

Pretty comfortable win for Glamorgan- six wickets with an over to spare. Carlson and Smale with a good opening partnership with the former falling just short of a century.

[JamesWales]

Re: GLAMMY

Great win after Tuesday's disapointment

[chrisp_1927]

Re: GLAMMY

Good win. Carlson and Smale were fantastic. Can't remember a time where we chase 180 odd so easily

[Lord Worcester]

Re: GLAMMY

Agree - really positive and well managed chase. Such a good bounce back after Surrey. And that’s the frustration - as good as last nights chase was what a chance wasted on wed as that chase was equally bad. Onwards and upwards. Big game coming up v a good Sussex side next.

[Loramski]

Re: GLAMMY

Agree - really positive and well managed chase. Such a good bounce back after Surrey. And that's the frustration - as good as last nights chase was what a chance wasted on wed as that chase was equally bad. Onwards and upwards. Big game coming up v a good Sussex side next.

A very good chase after messing up in the week, yes. It probably helped that rain was forecast, they had to be positive from the start to keep ahead on Duckworth-Lewis and they kept that momentum going for the whole innings.

I thought we'd done well to restrict them to 183 too. It looked like the game was slipping away from us a few times when they batted but we kept at it, came up with wickets at key times and fielded well again. By contrast, Essex were ragged under pressure (although the catches that got Kellaway and Carlson out were superb).

Entertaining game and a good win. There wasn't a big crowd there but it's always a nice buzz walking out of a stadium after a win. I can still remember that feeling from City games although I'm probably showing my age a bit there.

[Taffy Blue in Berkshire]

Re: GLAMMY

well that was a pretty poor bowling display v Sussex. hopefully the batting is better!

[chrisp_1927]

Re: GLAMMY

I thought we did well to pull them back , but then bringing Douthwaite back on just gave them all their momentum back. Going along ok so far in the chase, think Carlson owes us some quick runs !