I wouldn’t have disagreed at the time. I’d have been happy with either coming back, but I can’t and won’t criticise the signing of Petersen as a replacement based on the potential he has after that Test Series against India.
I suspect the club will be lining another overseas man up for the second half of the season once he’s left - I think at this stage most would agree a strike bowler might not be a bad option.
The others I would have attempted to mitigate with loan signings
We don’t really need them though
and who is available to come on loan? Sussex have just drafted in a lad who can’t get a game for Essex and a lad who can’t hold down a place for Hampshire. I don’t remember loans ever being much use to us (or anyone else for that matter) in the past. The bowling looks desperate for something different I admit that, but I don’t think anyone would’ve had any issue before the season started with a main bowling corps of Rushworth, Carse, Potts, Coughlin, Raine and Salisbury. 4 of those from 6 to take the bulk of the work, complimented by a couple of the emerging lads like Gibson, Campbell, as the season progressed.
The noises throughout March about Stokes were promising, if we could’ve had him for 3/4 of the first 7 that would’ve been a huge boost. Unfortunately I doubt we’ll even see him at all now so it’s a massive kick in the balls, but that would’ve helped immeasurably.
And where they can be predicted you need to mitigate them.
Half covered that above but just to extend on what I said - on paper, going into the season, our bowling corps was as good as any other in the league. I think even some first division sides would’ve looked enviously at what we have. It’s easy to sit here now with the benefit of hindsight and criticise, but I don’t believe anyone on this forum prior to the Glamorgan game was predicting such a catastrophic drop off in performances like the one we’ve so far seen from the bowling unit.
I am a big advocate of giving promising youngsters a chance but the kids in line in the batting department, after Jones, are like 18 and 19.
I stand by the clubs record on that score in most cases over the last few decades, but even despite the recent failings from the top order I don’t think any player can be justifiably dropped and replaced by anyone from the 2’s.
I agree with your sentiment from pre-season that perhaps Borthwick could benefit from a drop to 6. I doubt he’d agree though. On days like today (and the two against Notts) it seems we are a batsman light in the middle order - I’d rather see Eck at 7 - but to have four seamers and Trev in the side, which is pretty much a must given our situation - there’s nothing else we could do.
I appreciate it's not all the same people but theres people criticising Durham for having too many foreigners in the team, people criticising Surrey for signing an overseas player short term to cover injury and criticism for not making signings and having to play young lads who might not be ready
You can't have it both ways like.
And if the likes of bedders and rushy were performing in line with realistic expectations this conversation would probably be totally different
I’ve got absolutely no issue with the current ‘diversity’ of the side like.
Agree with your logic.
I'm at a lost with the early season results. Last year it looked like we had a good and improving team, so I had high hopes for this year. I don't know what has gone wrong. We have very good players who are not playing to their usual standard, e.g. Rushy, Borthwick and 'Ned' to pick out three. I don't know why.
Agree completely. That was pretty much my opening argument on this thread - you’ve simply managed to articulate it in far fewer words than I did
