• 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.

Durham v Derbyshire 11th-14th July


Parkside said:
We certainly require some variation in the attack but whether Sowter would enhance it is questionable-30 year old with a career 20 wickets@50 suggests not. It was crying out for the 2nd overseas appointment to be a quality spinner -there must be a handful over here with India,some of whom would surely be available. Instead we appoint an underwhelming Aussie batsman who in his recent interview disclosed that he's a mate of North. Pardon my cynicism if I suspect nepotism once again blocking an opportunity for a youngster.
No prizes for guessing who'll make for Maddinson on Monday
Click to expand...

Just reading this again and in fairness if we'd signed an overseas spinner then wouldn't he have took trevaskis' spot in the cc side? At the end of the day you can't sign a player without blocking some youngster from the team
 
Rip Van Fish said:
Has been brilliant considering where they were last September.
Anuj Dal playing out of his skin and this Scrimshaw a real find that MA has developed no end.
Will only be feeding the bigger counties mind but it is what it is
Click to expand...
Sounds very similar to Leicestershire. Be interesting to keep an eye on a couple of Derbyshire players tomorrow. 12 man squad announced
Pettman signed on loan
 
Parkside said:
Or we'd play 2 spinners and 3 seamers.
Click to expand...

We've struggled to bowl sides out often this year, obviously we've no idea how much a spinner would have changed that for the better or worse

I think it probably is obvious we should've have brought in a bowler but that's with the beauty of hindsight - plus the fact that Petersen ended up unsuccessful. If Jones + Dickson had batted on previous form and we'd picked up a bowler we'd probably be calling that decision anarl
 
chopsfc007 said:
Bedingham
Click to expand...
Surely if Mackintosh has been selected to keep wicket.More so if Ned's not in the squad 🤔
SuperSub said:
Interesting stat Mackintosh was born in Madrid, wonder if he will be the first Spanish born cricketer to play for Durham :lol:
Click to expand...
Think Gibson and young Stanley will miss out . Bushnell at 6, Trev 7,Raine 8, Coggs 9, Macka 10, Rushy at 11. Three seamers, two spinners and whatever Maddo bowls
 
Last edited:
Twisted said:
We've struggled to bowl sides out often this year, obviously we've no idea how much a spinner would have changed that for the better or worse

I think it probably is obvious we should've have brought in a bowler but that's with the beauty of hindsight - plus the fact that Petersen ended up unsuccessful. If Jones + Dickson had batted on previous form and we'd picked up a bowler we'd probably be calling that decision anarl
Click to expand...
Bostock said at the end of season forum that they leave the overseas appointment as late as possible because of the ever changing international calendar and Petersen at the time of his appointment appeared to be a shrewd signing. However after the early season series of CC matches it appeared obvious that the bowling department was the priority weakness given Potts international call up and Rushy loss of form. Both appear to be long term issues. No hindsight involved recognising that need for the final rounds of these matches. Even allowing for Lees absence batting looks sound enough with Jones, Bushnell, and Trevaskis all showing promise alongside Dickson, Bedingham and Borthwick. Can't understand Maddinson appointment.
Poolynorm said:
Surely if Mackintosh has been selected to keep wicket.More so if Ned's not in the squad 🤔
Click to expand...
Franklin states such in his match preview.
 
Parkside said:
Bostock said at the end of season forum that they leave the overseas appointment as late as possible because of the ever changing international calendar and Petersen at the time of his appointment appeared to be a shrewd signing. However after the early season series of CC matches it appeared obvious that the bowling department was the priority weakness given Potts international call up and Rushy loss of form. Both appear to be long term issues. No hindsight involved recognising that need for the final rounds of these matches. Even allowing for Lees absence batting looks sound enough with Jones, Bushnell, and Trevaskis all showing promise alongside Dickson, Bedingham and Borthwick. Can't understand Maddinson appointment.

Franklin states such in his match preview.
Click to expand...

Certainly a fair point for KP's replacement I totally agree with you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top