+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results

Thread: GLAMMY

  1. #5976

    Re: GLAMMY

    Quote Originally Posted by Ger27 View Post
    If Glamorgan can win tonight, and Surrey beat Somerset, it'll make things very interesting. Would be nice to have something on the final game of the Group.

    Fifith successive game without Ingram and Northeast in the same line-up. No coincidence by all accounts...

    (Hurle hasn't done much playing for the 2nd XI, but is only 19. Doubt he'll play tonight)
    That's interesting, wonder what went on there?

  2. #5977

  3. #5978

    Re: GLAMMY

    Just started to rain. Not looking good for tonight's game.

  4. #5979

    Re: GLAMMY

    The way theyve started this evening think it would have been better if it carried on raining!

  5. #5980

    Re: GLAMMY

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Corleone View Post
    The way theyve started this evening think it would have been better if it carried on raining!
    Yep. I'd take the abandonment right now.

  6. #5981

    Re: GLAMMY

    Isnt the definition of madness to keep repeating it and expecting something different? Catching practice.

  7. #5982

    Re: GLAMMY

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Blue View Post
    Isnt the definition of madness to keep repeating it and expecting something different? Catching practice.
    All the good work in the past two performances thrown away with braindead batting.
    That's t20 effectively over for another season.

  8. #5983

    Re: GLAMMY

    Waited 2 hours in the drizzle to watch that!

  9. #5984

    Re: GLAMMY

    Quote Originally Posted by Pearcey3 View Post
    All the good work in the past two performances thrown away with braindead batting.
    That's t20 effectively over for another season.
    Youve summed it up. Absolutely inept. Every wicket self inflicted.

  10. #5985

    Re: GLAMMY

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Blue View Post
    Youve summed it up. Absolutely inept. Every wicket self inflicted.
    Glammy take being shit to a new level!

  11. #5986

    Re: GLAMMY

    I'm switching off!

  12. #5987

    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'.

  13. #5988

    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.

  14. #5989

    Re: GLAMMY

    Quote Originally Posted by the other bob wilson View Post
    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.

  15. #5990

    Re: GLAMMY

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp_1927 View Post
    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.

  16. #5991

    Re: GLAMMY

    Quote Originally Posted by the other bob wilson View Post
    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

  17. #5992

    Re: GLAMMY

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp_1927 View Post
    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.

  18. #5993

    Re: GLAMMY

    Quote Originally Posted by Loramski View Post
    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.
    Im probably one of the guilty ones you refer to. Theres being positive and theres 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.
    Last edited by Dave Blue; 13-07-24 at 22:48. Reason: Typo

  19. #5994

    Re: GLAMMY

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Blue View Post
    Im probably one of the guilty ones you refer to. Theres being positive and theres 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.

  20. #5995

    Re: GLAMMY

    McIlroy bowling like a �� again.

  21. #5996

    Re: GLAMMY

    Well, this is good.

  22. #5997

    Re: GLAMMY

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

  23. #5998

    Re: GLAMMY

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

  24. #5999

    Re: GLAMMY

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Blue View Post
    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.

  25. #6000

    Re: GLAMMY

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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •