• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

CC :: Worcestershire v Durham

POTTS HAS 6!!

Cox c Eckersley b Potts 21.

Short and wide, Cox couldn’t resist a flail and edges behind. Possibly that extra pace from Potts again the difference between a slashed four and the nick behind.

204-7 - deficit is 376.
 
Last edited:

50 partnership up for the 8th wicket. Been a frustrating morning, bowling has been erratic at best and the pitch looks flat.

257-7 - deficit is 323.
 
Aidan11 said:
I'm worried about Rushworth.

He's just not taking wickets so far this season.
Click to expand...
There's a discussion on the reduced seam thread. It feels like the new ball this season is kookaburra like and responds to being banged in fast at an angle which is disadvantaging skiddy medium fast bowlers like Raine, Rushworth and Salisbury. His accuracy has also been worse than in previous years imo, straying down leg more often.
 
Leach goes to 50 and on the subject of the 50 partnership, it’s the second in a row.

GERRIN!!!!

Baker c Bedingham b Salisbury 27.

An excellent low catch by Bedders at first slip, on the dive down to his right. A sharp chance.

266-8. Deficit still 314.

Interestingly (or not :lol:), Surrey have enforced the follow on at home to Northants with just a 207 run deficit.
-
Should add too that Salisbury looks pretty nippy today, has troubled both batsmen with sharp, short balls.
 
Last edited:
Lunch:

Worcestershire 280-8 (80 overs). Deficit is 300.

Nice symmetry about it all. Not the greatest morning for Durham but still progressing the way we need it to.

12 wickets to take in 5 sessions and like @mosi says, new ball due directly after Lunch.

What are people’s thoughts on enforcing the follow on? Definitely have to in my view, but I could understand the logic of batting again if only for one session to let the bowlers have a blow.

The way Badger has rotated the bowlers this morning, has given me the impression that he’s planning to enforce it anyway.
-
GERRIN RUSHY!!

Leach c Borthwick b Rushworth 62.

280-9, second ball after lunch, gentle edge to second slip.
 
Last edited:
brandon said:
Lunch:

Worcestershire 280-8 (80 overs). Deficit is 300.

Nice symmetry about it all. Not the greatest morning for Durham but still progressing the way we need it to.

12 wickets to take in 5 sessions and like @mosi says, new ball due directly after Lunch.

What are people’s thoughts on enforcing the follow on? Definitely have to in my view, but I could understand the logic of batting again if only for one session to let the bowlers have a blow.

The way Badger has rotated the bowlers this morning, has given me the impression that he’s planning to enforce it anyway.
-
GERRIN RUSHY!!

Leach c Borthwick b Rushworth 62.

280-9, second ball after lunch, gentle edge to second slip.
Click to expand...
Will definitely enforce the follow on, heard Stokes interview last night and he alluded to only wanting to bat once, not that he’ll have any say in it like 😉
 
FINALLY!!

Gibbon b Rushworth 9.

309 all out. Deficit 271.

19.3 overs it took to take that last wicket. Follow on not enforced!! :eek:
 
Last edited:
Dont really agree with decision, yes bowlers are tired but weve proven twuce that a full day doesnt get us near taking 10 second innings wickets. We have a massive lead.
Even another three wickets today would have given us a good chance of winning, Hope Im wrong and Scotty is correct but draw maybe favourite mow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top