|
|
Post by Dave Towers on Sept 5, 2022 17:19:35 GMT
Edit: 300 would be VERY useful now.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Sept 5, 2022 18:30:06 GMT
No Wood, no Lamb, no Salt. Jones also..... still injured? Hurt and Hartley to miss out.
Pakistan tour not till next week, are they forced to rest those going on that tour, when Brook and Duckett in test squad and tour. One will play. Dawson available for Hampshire as is Cox for Kent. I can understand England not wanting white ball specialists to go from The Hundred, into one red ball game, then onto a t20 tour. Their preparation for the World Cup effectively starts now. Yorks missing Malan and Willey for the same reason. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 5, 2022 19:21:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by man in the stand on Sept 5, 2022 19:35:03 GMT
Definitely a game of two halves; Lancs batting without a care, courtesy of two dropped catches then comes the 74th over it all goes pear shaped as Hill starts to get the ball to move from the Anderson end. Lancs still in a good position though but the weather forecast for tomorrow is not good and sadly Wed and Thurs is not much better.
Puzzled as to why Hartley playing...if you need spin then you have Parky, Wells and Croft. Another batsman would have been better..
|
|
|
|
Post by man in the stand on Sept 5, 2022 19:59:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Towers on Sept 5, 2022 20:11:08 GMT
What does Hill bowl, briskish medium? Just wondering if Balderson might do a similar job?
|
|
|
|
Post by John W on Sept 5, 2022 20:47:37 GMT
Lancashire were 231/1 after 74 overs then Yorkshire asked the umpires for the ball to be changed, the umpires obliged, as soon as the ball had been changed wickets began to tumble, the Lancs batsman couldn't get the ball off the square, Crofty for one hung around for over an hour with only 3 scoring shots. I was in C upper, 2 Yorkshire players (Revis and Thompson) were on the boundary, one said to the other that plans had changed and they weren't taking the new ball after 80 overs as planned because the changed ball was only 25 overs old and was doing things so they kept with the effective medium pace of Hill and Patterson who just dropped it on a line and waited for things to happen. They only took the new ball after around 90 overs when they had broken the back of the batting then the quicker pace of Coad accounted for Hartley and Bailey (Hartley possibly unlucky, might have been a touch low). A very strange final session, at tea I expected the Lancs batsman to kick on and finish the day around 330/4 taking into account losing a couple of wickets to the new ball, instead we saw a collapse.
|
|
|
|
Post by richard on Sept 6, 2022 7:39:37 GMT
Lancashire were 231/1 after 74 overs then Yorkshire asked the umpires for the ball to be changed, the umpires obliged, as soon as the ball had been changed wickets began to tumble, the Lancs batsman couldn't get the ball off the square, Crofty for one hung around for over an hour with only 3 scoring shots. I was in C upper, 2 Yorkshire players (Revis and Thompson) were on the boundary, one said to the other that plans had changed and they weren't taking the new ball after 80 overs as planned because the changed ball was only 25 overs old and was doing things so they kept with the effective medium pace of Hill and Patterson who just dropped it on a line and waited for things to happen. They only took the new ball after around 90 overs when they had broken the back of the batting then the quicker pace of Coad accounted for Hartley and Bailey (Hartley possibly unlucky, might have been a touch low). A very strange final session, at tea I expected the Lancs batsman to kick on and finish the day around 330/4 taking into account losing a couple of wickets to the new ball, instead we saw a collapse. Aren’t they supposed to use a ball of similar age ? |
|
|
|
Post by man in the stand on Sept 6, 2022 8:24:48 GMT
Lancashire were 231/1 after 74 overs then Yorkshire asked the umpires for the ball to be changed, the umpires obliged, as soon as the ball had been changed wickets began to tumble, the Lancs batsman couldn't get the ball off the square, Crofty for one hung around for over an hour with only 3 scoring shots. I was in C upper, 2 Yorkshire players (Revis and Thompson) were on the boundary, one said to the other that plans had changed and they weren't taking the new ball after 80 overs as planned because the changed ball was only 25 overs old and was doing things so they kept with the effective medium pace of Hill and Patterson who just dropped it on a line and waited for things to happen. They only took the new ball after around 90 overs when they had broken the back of the batting then the quicker pace of Coad accounted for Hartley and Bailey (Hartley possibly unlucky, might have been a touch low). A very strange final session, at tea I expected the Lancs batsman to kick on and finish the day around 330/4 taking into account losing a couple of wickets to the new ball, instead we saw a collapse. Aren’t they supposed to use a ball of similar age ? |
|
|
|
Post by exile on Sept 6, 2022 9:52:15 GMT
Yorkshire got the ball changed because by sheer fluke it had landed in a puddle and got soaked. The ball the umpires selected was the oldest in the box but it wasn't very old at all so, in effect, Yorkshire got the new ball a bit early. However, the first sign that the pitch was going to start misbehaving for bowlers from the Anderson end - where all 8 wickets fell - was the dismissal of Wells. Ironically, this was one of very few poor balls bowled by Hill - a rank half-tracker that Wells intended to hit for 6. Unfortunately for Wells, the ball stuck in the pitch and he was through too soon with the shot. The same thing happened to Bohannon, off a much better ball, and he scooped the ball to mid-off. The combination of a newish ball and a deteriorating pitch at one end started to make life very difficult for the batters. Balderson, for example, was caught off a lifter after the previous ball, pitched on more or less the same spot, had been a daisy cutter. The Yorkshire fans near me thought that, apart from Hill, Yorkshire had bowled much too short and that Lancs should have got nowhere near their teatime score.
|
|
|
|
Post by MickeyG on Sept 6, 2022 10:19:42 GMT
Paul Allott on commentary was complaining about the ball being changed just because it got wet. They would have changed it anyways I guess a few overs later.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Sept 6, 2022 10:37:56 GMT
Aren’t they supposed to use a ball of similar age ? The stats were amazing. 17 overs 36/5 with that ball (I've just watched them back on you tube, Allott called it immediately, of course the Yorkshire commentator never mentioned the ball change) but even when the new ball taken it was 5.4 overs 13/2. All that on the back of 223/1 when the ball was changed. 5 deliveries it took to take a wicket, the first four went for 8 runs against spin to finish off Bess who had been hit for four with the ball ending up in a puddle created by the covers. The umpires apparently were presented with a box of balls which were all reasonably new and chose the one which was the oldest. Jennings was happy to be quoted about the ball change. That said it was all played out under lights and dark skies. Yorkshire, got lucky, very lucky but still had to put the ball in the right place. Doubt the game is going anywhere, with the weather around. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 6, 2022 10:59:11 GMT
12.15 inspection
|
|
|
|
Post by man in the stand on Sept 6, 2022 12:14:40 GMT
Resumed at 12.55 and now all out...276
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Sept 6, 2022 12:24:42 GMT
Resumed at 12.55 and now all out...276 |
|
