Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Cricket] Sussex CCC - 2024 edition
- Thread starter DJ NOBO
- Start date
Shaktarman
Well-known member
- Sep 19, 2022
- 237
Didn’t notice the overs sorry.
and 15 off the next!
Fifth ton of the CC season for Simpson 
Pevenseagull
meh
- Jul 20, 2003
- 20,427
Behind the current clump of gloom the cloud is a few shades lighter. Could be noticeably brighter in about 10minutes.
Catching up to 400 with a handful of overs to go, has happened on at least 4 occasions this season from memory. Accumulating the runs to win the game being the first priority isn’t a horrible idea (and it’s worked)…
But I don’t agree with the execution again. Doesn’t seem to be adjusted for the context of the game and conditions. With 2 (sunnier) days and 5 wickets in hand, today’s scramble for a 4th batting point should’ve happened at 90 overs, not 100. Reduce the risk by upping the run rate to a comfortable 5 a for slightly longer period, instead of 8’s in a short period of time. The ultimate goal is winning the game, helped by an innings lead, which is now 200, but at higher risk of now losing a wicket (and reducing the innings lead).
It’s not so much the point that’s worth chasing, but upping the momentum with wickets in hand will also strengthen Sussex’s position to win the game. The ultimate goal here should be x runs ahead on a first innings lead
But I don’t agree with the execution again. Doesn’t seem to be adjusted for the context of the game and conditions. With 2 (sunnier) days and 5 wickets in hand, today’s scramble for a 4th batting point should’ve happened at 90 overs, not 100. Reduce the risk by upping the run rate to a comfortable 5 a for slightly longer period, instead of 8’s in a short period of time. The ultimate goal is winning the game, helped by an innings lead, which is now 200, but at higher risk of now losing a wicket (and reducing the innings lead).
It’s not so much the point that’s worth chasing, but upping the momentum with wickets in hand will also strengthen Sussex’s position to win the game. The ultimate goal here should be x runs ahead on a first innings lead
Pevenseagull
meh
- Jul 20, 2003
- 20,427
Man of Harveys
Well-known member
Tremendous effort this.
Of course they have just made the 400 now, and more often than not they have this season.
But with the light fading and potentially losing time before bat friendly conditions, I don’t agree with the increased risk the last 7 batting overs had. Much more comfortable upping the rate and momentum earlier, to ultimately active the same target. We’re lucky the light just about held for that.
But with the light fading and potentially losing time before bat friendly conditions, I don’t agree with the increased risk the last 7 batting overs had. Much more comfortable upping the rate and momentum earlier, to ultimately active the same target. We’re lucky the light just about held for that.
fly high
Well-known member
True but they did it, well done lads.
Tough crowd
Pevenseagull
meh
- Jul 20, 2003
- 20,427
Bugger.
It's going to be a bit brighter in a bit (for a bit).
anyway ... well done chaps.
It's going to be a bit brighter in a bit (for a bit).
anyway ... well done chaps.
Very relevant point though.
You’re less likely to come off for bad light when the ball is being milked 1’s and 2’s more often compared to 7 overs of a ball being smacked at a fielders face in dusk.
There’s endless approaches to winning a game of cricket. In the context of this game and the fairly obvious conditions, I assume Farbrace wants a 350 lead and the best park of 5 sessions left to bowl out Glamorgan again.
Why increase the risk of NOT achieving that by forcing yourself to catch up to a single bonus point? When you can achieve the same thing by managing the innings better?
With all due respect, I think you'd struggle to be more wrong on this.
When Simpson came to the crease, Sussex had just lost 4 wickets for 25 runs, and at just 27 runs ahead and five down, in danger of completely wasting the great platform the openers and Crocombe had established.
THAT is the 'context of the game'. It was absolutely critical that in the next ten overs or so, no further damage was done. Runs scored were very much secondary at that point. To have taken that 213/5 on to 400/5, in 47 overs, at 4 an over, is absolute textbook stuff.
I never mentioned upping the scoring when Simpson first came to the crease. That’s obviously ludicrous. You’ve either not read the whole post or forgot what happened today.
I’m critical of potentially throwing away a chance to get a better lead, by forcing an acceleration from the 103rd over today. I specifically mentioned 90 overs as an example to start scoring only slightly faster, when Simpson and Clark were well set (for about 30 overs).
It’s like choosing to sit on a bus for 2 hours before a 15 minute blast on a tube to cross London. At 90 overs as an example, a nice smooth taxi could’ve done the whole journey.
We saw a collapse of 4 wickets today for 25 runs. On the 103rd over Sussex had a lead of 170. By choosing to suddenly up the rate puts another collapse at greater risk, for the carrot of another batting point. If the plan was to always go for said point, why leave it so tight? If the plan was to protect the chance of only batting once, why risk that?
Alas, it was clearly timed to perfection and achieved an over before going off for bad light.
- Oct 17, 2008
- 12,898
What a signing Simpson has been
phoenix
Well-known member
- May 18, 2009
- 2,860
That comment is so last year
