Lancashire v Notts Blackpool 26/8/22

[exile]

Well, well, well - victory from the jaws of defeat.  Until the last few overs, I thought we had been decidedly outplayed but the wheels came off Notts just as they had come off us.  Tremendous knock by Croft and great credit to Lamb, who more than made up for his appalling final over. 

[MickeyG]

Damn, missed the last 10 or so overs because I was working.

[exile]

Scored 63 runs off 5.3 overs.  Didn't look remotely likely with 10 overs to go.

[alanw]

Great match at fantastic venue. I thought Lancashire were behind in the game until the last couple of overs. Brilliant innings by Croft of course.

[man in the stand]

Aug 26, 2022 16:55:12 GMT Admin said:

Sussex away it is then

Will we able to field a team though?  Jones now injured so adding to Bailey and presumably Williams.

[exile]

Jones rolled his ankle during warm-up so may recover.  Bailey and Williams both have "back problems".  Williams is obviously in a worse state than Bailey as he hasn't even been in the squad recently.  Bailey was in the squad today so it may have been more of a precautionary move to omit him. 

[Dave Towers]

The Royal London final isn’t until 17th September. If we were fortunate enough to get there, with The Hundred and ODIs finished, I wonder what sort of team we would pick.

Of course some players may be jetting off around the world to play in more short-form tournaments, but if Gleeson, Wood and Parkinson were the available bowling options, would we stick with the guys who had got us there or would we drop them for the “big names”?

[chris]

Aug 26, 2022 22:58:51 GMT Dave Towers said:

The Royal London final isn’t until 17th September. If we were fortunate enough to get there, with The Hundred and ODIs finished, I wonder what sort of team we would pick.

Of course some players may be jetting off around the world to play in more short-form tournaments, but if Gleeson, Wood and Parkinson were the available bowling options, would we stick with the guys who had got us there or would we drop them for the “big names”?

Last year Glamorgan stuck with their team which qualified and won, whoever they beat added in those who had been playing franchise cricket and lost.

[denno97]

Aug 27, 2022 6:53:20 GMT chris said:

Aug 26, 2022 22:58:51 GMT Dave Towers said:

The Royal London final isn’t until 17th September. If we were fortunate enough to get there, with The Hundred and ODIs finished, I wonder what sort of team we would pick.

Of course some players may be jetting off around the world to play in more short-form tournaments, but if Gleeson, Wood and Parkinson were the available bowling options, would we stick with the guys who had got us there or would we drop them for the “big names”?

Last year Glamorgan stuck with their team which qualified and won, whoever they beat added in those who had been playing franchise cricket and lost.

No offence to Blatherwick and Morley. But surely you have to bring in Wood Parkinson for them. Blatherwick only bowled 3 overs yesterday and carded in at 10

[redandrosy]

Would be surprised if there isn't a rule that if you didn't play in the group stage you can't play in the later rounds. Maybe why Vilas played vs Kent. They have that rule in the t20 competition.

[Dave Towers]

Aug 27, 2022 7:51:39 GMT redandrosy said:

Would be surprised if there isn't a rule that if you didn't play in the group stage you can't play in the later rounds. Maybe why Vilas played vs Kent. They have that rule in the t20 competition.


I wondered about that; is it definitely a T20 rule? I know you can’t parachute overseas players in for one game, but say one of your own players had been injured throughout the group stage, surely you could bring him in for the finals?


I mentioned Gleeson above: not sure if he just has a T20 contract, or if it’s a white ball one.

[redandrosy]

Maybe it's just overseas then. This competition becomes a bit of a farce if you can bring in six players for the final.

Sussex and pujara stand in our way yet. Look a young side but pujara has scored an absolute stack of runs for them.

[exile]

I believe that Gleeson's contract is for white ball cricket, not just T20.  I don't think there is anything to stop Lancs playing their "franchise" bowlers in the final (assuming they get there) but, unless they were replacements caused by injury, it wouldn't be great for team spirit and, as Durham found last year, it wouldn't guarantee success. 

[Dave Towers]

I agree about the team spirit bit, to say “sorry lads but you’re not playing” would be harsh. But if Lancs were able to bring in Buttler, Livingstone and Salt as well and spurned the opportunity, some would say that a great chance to win a 50 over final for the first time since 1998 (?) had been thrown away. Of course but for dozy umpires we would have already had a trophy this season.

[exile]

Winning a trophy has to be meaningful.  I don't think it would mean much if the team that won the final was substantially different from the team that had played through all the previous rounds.  However, if players are unavailable through injury, I think it would be reasonable to replace them with players of equivalent seniority and experience.  E.g. if Williams doesn't recover from his back injury, I don't think it would be against the spirit of the competition to replace him with Gleeson or Wood.  Completely agree about the dozy umpires at Edgbaston.