• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

CC :: Durham v Derbyshire

Interesting point about selection that @smoker makes. Must admit I was intrigued when I saw Poynter and Eckersley in the team, for me it should be one or the other and with Bancroft joining soon, that's potentially 3 wicket keepers in the starting 11.... Is that really necessary? Has Paul Coughlin warranted a selection? He didn't take a wicket in the 2nd XI game but did hit 50 odd in the first innings.... Jones and Clark scored runs but again doubts remain over their ability to carry that form into 1st xi cricket though I believe Clark still has a lot to offer in the limited overs game. Dickson has proven to be a poor signing and I'm none the wiser why we signed Thomson. Trev and Potts will be keeping a close eye on things and possibly look to move on if they aren't given opportunities like some get. Obviously Bancroft replaces Smith. I think the selections of Poynter and Coughlin at present remain the eye openers.
 

GordonMuchallNo1Fan said:
Interesting point about selection that @smoker makes. Must admit I was intrigued when I saw Poynter and Eckersley in the team, for me it should be one or the other and with Bancroft joining soon, that's potentially 3 wicket keepers in the starting 11.... Is that really necessary? Has Paul Coughlin warranted a selection? He didn't take a wicket in the 2nd XI game but did hit 50 odd in the first innings.... Jones and Clark scored runs but again doubts remain over their ability to carry that form into 1st xi cricket though I believe Clark still has a lot to offer in the limited overs game. Dickson has proven to be a poor signing and I'm none the wiser why we signed Thomson. Trev and Potts will be keeping a close eye on things and possibly look to move on if they aren't given opportunities like some get. Obviously Bancroft replaces Smith. I think the selections of Poynter and Coughlin at present remain the eye openers.
Click to expand...
? Smith .Do you mean Will Young 🤔
 
score-board said:
You must be logged on to see media items
Click to expand...
Ha’way the lads. Nice and overcast this morning :)
-
To @smoker and @GordonMuchallNo1Fan - I’m minded to believe that the club (Franklin/Borthwick) have got the selection right at present.....? I certainly don’t think there’s any controversy there.

Eckersley has been relieved of the gloves and it’s paid dividends for his batting, they clearly think that he’s the best option for number 6 in a team which historically has been short of runs. Poynter hasn’t pulled up any trees yet this season batting wise but his glove work has been decent.

I think in a comparison or a fight for selection with any other member of the squad, Eckersley and Poynter in this example have more pedigree based on their body of work than the likes of Clark, Jones, Dickson, etc. The club feel those two are the best bet for numbers 6 and 7 and up to now, I can’t see how anyone can really criticise that?

As for Trevaskis, as much as I’d love to see him come in and flourish, he’s got no real pedigree in red ball cricket with either bat or ball to suggest he’s worthy of slotting in above 8. Durham clearly like the dynamic of having bowlers who can bat, it’s long since been the strategy for producing young players, it’s why we have produced a ridiculous (in a good way) amount of bowlers who can hold a bat and contribute runs. It’s probably a product of having years of pitches where the average first innings score is sub-200 and therefore needing lads down the order to score runs but I’m digressing here.

Unfortunately for us, we don’t have a ‘premier’ finger spinner, it’s been mentioned time and time again throughout our history in fact as an area of real stress and difficulty in both the bowling of spin and the playing of it. You can count on one hand the number of truly great spin bowlers we’ve had since 1993.

Unfortunately that doesn’t look like sorting itself anytime soon. Irony is, Ryan Pringle would probably be a decent option to come in 7/8 and give Eckersley the gloves back :o, but he’s long gone.
 
Last edited:
GERRIN!!

Madsen c Burnham b Coughlin 76.

Tenth ball of the morning, one that bounced sharply and surprised the batsman who could only fend it into the air and it loops to point.

Derbyshire 148-6.
 
Coggers gets Madsen with the 10th ball of the day with one that bounced which is a decent effort on this pitch.
brandon said:
GERRIN!!

Madsen c Burnham b Coughlin 76.

Tenth ball of the morning, one that bounced sharply and surprised the batsman who could only fend it into the air and it loops to point.

Derbyshire 148-6.
Click to expand...
By your quick with them fingers again this morning
 
Coughlin is looking a bit quicker than I remember him, in this match. Has he been asked to crank it up in Carse's absence?

Nice shout out on the feed Norman
 
brandon said:
Ha’way the lads. Nice and overcast this morning :)
-
To @smoker and @GordonMuchallNo1Fan - I’m minded to believe that the club (Franklin/Borthwick) have got the selection right at present.....? I certainly don’t think there’s any controversy there.

Eckersley has been relieved of the gloves and it’s paid dividends for his batting, they clearly think that he’s the best option for number 6 in a team which historically has been short of runs. Poynter hasn’t pulled up any trees yet this season batting wise but his glove work has been decent.

I think in a comparison or a fight for selection with any other member of the squad, Eckersley and Poynter in this example have more pedigree based on their body of work than the likes of Clark, Jones, Dickson, etc. The club feel those two are the best bet for numbers 6 and 7 and up to now, I can’t see how anyone can really criticise that?

As for Trevaskis, as much as I’d love to see him come in and flourish, he’s got no real pedigree in red ball cricket with either bat or ball to suggest he’s worthy of slotting in above 8. Durham clearly like the dynamic of having bowlers who can bat, it’s long since been the strategy for producing young players, it’s why we have produced a ridiculous (in a good way) amount of bowlers who can hold a bat and contribute runs. It’s probably a product of having years of pitches where the average first innings score is sub-200 and therefore needing lads down the order to score runs but I’m digressing here.

Unfortunately for us, we don’t have a ‘premier’ finger spinner, it’s been mentioned time and time again throughout our history in fact as an area of real stress and difficulty in both the bowling of spin and the playing of it. You can count on one hand the number of truly great spin bowlers we’ve had since 1993.

Unfortunately that doesn’t look like sorting itself anytime soon. Irony is, Ryan Pringle would probably be a decent option to come in 7/8 and give Eckersley the gloves back :o, but he’s long gone.
Click to expand...

Trevaskis is no mug with the bat. He's got two first class fifties and has three fifties for the seconds this season. Having so many bowlers who can hold a bat, the emergence of Bedingham and impending arrival of Bancroft, along with bone dry wickets as previously mentioned, means we don't need the additional depth of batting Poynter supposedly provides.

Being unable to remove Notts and Essex in the third innings has cost us two wins. We need more variety and depth in that attack, especially away from home. Trevaskis is the most obvious choice, failing that Borthwick needs more time in the nets. Imo this will be a summer of spinners.
Paddy O'Dors said:
Wee the f*ck's Norman Robinson like?
Click to expand...
I'm guessing its poolynorm you foul mouthed ****
brandon said:
Poynter hasn’t pulled up any trees yet this season batting wise but his glove work has been decent.
Click to expand...
Some poor keeping in that last over.
 
Last edited:
WishyWashy said:
Was that a drop by Poynter?
Click to expand...

Didn't hit it but yes he dropped it. He also let an edge along the ground d through him for four in the same over. Let a few through yesterday too.
.
How's matty potts playing for Shotley in five minutes if he's 12th man?
 
Last edited:
smoker said:
Didn't hit it but yes he dropped it. He also let an edge along the ground d through him for four in the same over. Let a few through yesterday too.
.
How's matty potts playing for Shotley in five minutes if he's 12th man?
Click to expand...
Means nowt being 12th man they can swap as they please etc iirc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top