[Cricket] ***Sussex v Kent (4-dayer ... or more probable 3) ****

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊



Luke93

STAND OR FALL
Jun 23, 2013
5,092
Shoreham
Writing must be on the wall for the current Management, but to be fair what have they had to work with?

We have been a 2 player team for the past few years (Joyce and Magoffin) when everyone else has fielded 11. :nono:

Well, the problem started a few years ago when Goodwin was never properly replaced. Then when Prior had to retire, Sussex have been extreamly short of experienced batsman. I don't know if finance has been an issue, as the county ground has been redeveloped a lot in recent years. That may have restricted bringing in quality plays. Each year, money is spent on an overseas star for 20/20 too.

Maybe the emphasis on limited overs cricket is too great? That's where the money is, and where the sell out crowds are drawn. To be fair, Sussex have always been a competitive team in 20/20 so they've done okay there. 20/20 does appear to be prioritised over the longer formats. On the recruitment issue though, I feel this has put too much pressure on our younger players coming through. The likes of Brown, Wells and Machen continue to be very inconsistent performers. They looked very promising a few years ago. This has had a knock on effect to the newest wave of youngsters (Finch, Salt, etc) who have had little support.

This squad of players at the start of the season had: Joyce, Wright (though recovering from injury), Nash, Taylor, Jorden & Magoffin. That's a more than capable group of players, who should of won more. To only win once in the championship with Taylor in the side is a mystery really. Nash was the leading run scorer before this round of fixtures too, so the quality is there! The only redeeming factor this year has been the emergence of promising young bowlers.
 




Gwylan

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
31,830
Uffern
Shahzad out in the last over of the day ... hooking

That is truly dreadful cricket
 














Moshe Gariani

Well-known member
Mar 10, 2005
12,202
Why did we have to field such a weak experimental side with promotion still a possibility?
Fairly sure we fielded the strongest side available.

Jordan with England. Usual mix of bowlers injured or out of form left us with the reasonable, but understrength, quartet of Magoffin, Shahzad, Robinson, and Briggs for this game.

Real issue with the batting. Joyce, Wright, Machan/Finch and Jordan all being missed.
 






























Gwylan

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
31,830
Uffern
Fairly sure we fielded the strongest side available.

Jordan with England. Usual mix of bowlers injured or out of form ...

No-one was dropped for being out of form: five players injured and three others, otherwise engaged left little choice.

The question is, as I've mentioned before, is why no attempt was made to recruit a replacement for RHB, Prior and Yardy who have all retired in the last 18 months. Maybe we were too cash-strapped to replace them all, but not going for one looks foolhardy.

And getting rid of Rayner - who's on his way to winning the CC - doesn't look too clever either
 


Pavilionaire

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
31,269
The paper has peeled,
All the cracks are revealed.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top