smoker
Striker
Two fifties and averaged 19.77 from 18 innings. I just remember him continually getting squared up and laughing as he walked off.
-
The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
New user registrations are currently disabled.
Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.
CC : Durham v Warwickshire
- Thread starter The Red Telephone
- Start date
MustardAndOnions
Winger
They only positive….no primevil Blaydon Races team bonding song
Voice of fair play
Striker
From the position Durham were in at the third innings looking to guarantee a draw would have been the wrong way to think.
Well on top and declaring when they did,I did not see as generous ,I seen it as giving them the most opportunity to win!
Fair enough it backfired on this occasion but 90% of the time that chase would not have been made and they would have won.
And imo should not discourage them doing it again
You're totally wrong with your 90% estimate.Target of 340 in 105 overs on a flat pitch would be made the majority of times. It led to a very exciting final days cricket but are you seriously claiming that the declaration wasn't generous? Durham scored their last 20+ runs quicker than estimated which led to a miscalculation on the timing of the declaration -Campbell implied as much in his post-match interview.
I'm all for setting up run chases but they need to be balanced.
Two of our 4 bowlers were unproven at CC level. Think before setting a target.
Last edited:
The Red Telephone
Striker
I left for the bus on Sunday evening with 7 overs to go with Pottsy looking completely untroubled and Hoggy beginning to open his shoulders while the Warwickshire bowlers were simply going through the motions. I couldn't believe it when I checked on my phone to see we had declared an over later.
Voice of fair play
Striker
I think I can meet you half way there mate, in the fact that the scoring rate to get 340 in 105 overs is more than achievable and for me to say 90% of times it would not be chased was a bit over egged on my part and wrong to say.
However traditionally 340 in the final innings of a red ball game is a hard ask?
And dont think it’s fair for you to say 340 in the final innings of a red ball game would be scored the majority of times
Personally I loved the fact and would always encourage giving yourselves as much time as possible to take the 10 wickets needed.
As I have said many times the policy of ‘ risking losing to win’ is something I have always championed.
On this occasion I didn’t work and perhaps I was wrong and it was generous, but for the right reasons and while it gave Warks more opportunity to win, it certainly did as well for Durham
what it did is create an opportunity for both teams to have a good chance to win the game which is much better than safety first that is sometimes put in place.
Personally and just my opinion it turned out to be a great cricket match due to Durham’s attacking mindset.
On another day that mindset could have gave them to opportunity to get the 10 wickets they needed.
Last edited:
Obviously target set is dependant on many factors; state of pitch,bowling resources In this case a flat pitch,comparatively thin bowling resources which is my reason for claiming it was a generous declaration. It was set up for a great final day without an declaration. Think the declaration was more an error of judgement causedwith that accelerated scoring near the end of our innings. Campbell is a bit naive in his "win at all costs philosophy" imo.
Last edited:
Voice of fair play
Striker
I think tbf I can see where your point is and where you coming from.
However I would rather somebody declare too early than too late.
And would accept some losses for the more wins and the ongoing positivity the approach brings
The match reminds me of a similar declaration v Yorkshire 2013.
Set 340 over 103 overs ,Yorkies for home comfortably thanks to 180 odd from a promising 23 year old,name of Joe Root.
Went home feeling privileged to having witnessed the emergence of what was clearly a great talent.
You must be logged on to see external links
Last edited:
The Red Telephone
Striker
The only difference in that game was that it began raining after tea on the 3rd day with Benks and Colly at the crease. They would have batted for at least another 10 overs but the rain delay forced Colly's hand.
GordonMuchallNo1Fan
Striker
For what it's worth I didn't have an issue with the declaration. I'm all for exciting cricket, sometimes it might backfire but I'd much prefer that brand/intent than the boring dour James Franklin "intent".
MustardAndOnions
Winger
I was at every day of this match and I dunno why people are making so much of the declaration, we wouldn’t have scored loads more it’s not why we lost the game at all
Could they have batted a little longer? Maybe but we had them 90-5 and lost, that’s why we lost
Same but I actually don’t buy this idea that it was a massive attacking declaration, wasn’t like stokes in the ashes or out
It’s just one aspect of why we lost, But there are loads bigger reasons, nobody backing up Potts and Raine, no spinner, not finishing off their tail, batsman out of form etc.
People get caught up in declarations as it’s a nice easy to thing to pin blame on in my opinion
If Hogg didn’t get injured we’d have won, that’s my take anyway.
Last edited:
Two extremes there mind-Franklin and Campbell.
It certainly wasn't a massive attacking declaration but the limitations of our attack didn't appear to have been considered when making the decision.Any
GordonMuchallNo1Fan
Striker
Yeah and I'll always back the Campbell way.
As Borthwick said the night we won the division 2.... "the mindset change into how can we win a game" which was never the mindset under Franklin. It's a mindset/intent which has worked ever so well under this coach and I'll back it as the alternative is boring. If that means we lose some games then so be it but I'll never lay blame at trying to win games.
MustardAndOnions
Winger
Voice of fair play
Striker
Yep and that’s it and my point as well.
If some losses happen because of putting winning first that’s acceptable imo for the bigger picture
Dan..Dan..Dan..Dan
Striker
I agree to an extent but it would have been nice to have some decent points on the board before giving teams the chance to beat us. Sometimes you just have to bat the opposition out of the game and accept you may have fewer overs to get them out again.
If course you put winning as the priority and Monday's declaration was only a slight gamble. My point is though we currently have a limited attack and have to nurse the promising youngsters with an eye to managing their workload.Managing the work load should be born in mind when declaring to set targets.
The days are long gone from when we had a pool of 8 experienced seamers to rotate.
Last edited:
Voice of fair play
Striker
Fair enough mate, there will always be a number of factors to consider in any given game.
My point is more of a general one in that I would rather a captain take a risk to win a game, as too many in the past have went safety first in red ball cricket
Durham’s approach since Campbell arrived has brought both relative success and positive and entertaining cricket, long may that continue
Respect your opinion mate, I look at it differently.
Giving the opposition a chance to beat Durham also enhanced Durham’s chance to win the game, by giving them longer to get 10 wickets.
Good and positive teams back themselves to win in that situation.
Less positive teams bat the opposition out the game take a draw and hope for a win.
I much prefer the first approach as a general point but accept on certain situations and games you would be flexible and adaptable in that approach.
Last edited:
