Notts at the Oval

Poor decision.

Ignore the scribble because of Paint but it looked pretty out to me - that ball is probably clipping off stump

Alex! wrote:Ignore the scribble because of Paint but it looked pretty out to me - that ball is probably clipping off stump

For me it’s going over and missing off.

I see Mr Sibcrawl himself is 23 off 38! Is he feeling OK?

Missing off Missing leg.

Jhe10077 wrote:Missing off Missing leg.

And too high.

However Notts morning. Looks like we've still got a last match hangover. Latham is proving not to be a good signing. Geddes would've been a far better bet.

Really we need 250 to be competitive but hard to see how we get that from here.

The shot from Jacks was the worst shot of the innings abysmal .

Kent 2nd innings aside our batting has hardly been Championship winning standard this season

England ignoring Foakes the way they have done should be a war crime

Ball and Hutton off is obviously unfortunate for them, but this is where you really need to cash in

We’ve backed ourselves on sporty home wickets, to take more wickets and score more runs than the opposition generally it’s worked.

An excellent innings from Clark

Can’t believe we’re looking at 400 and 4 bonus points after being 76-4 at Lunch.

Not so sure about that

I guess we shaded the first day, and Clark's runs were certainly due.

In truth, Notts were severely handicapped by injuries to two key bowlers. It seems unfair that the rules prevent substitutions providing the player did not come into the match with an injury. Fielders are these days allowed to swan on and off the pitch for little or no valid reason: that should be stopped, but in cases of genuine injury to bowlers like-for-like subs should be permitted to bowl, and batsmen should be allowed runners as they used to be.

Terrific recovery from 70/4. What’s. Excellent player Jordan Clark is!
Always seems to make a contribution when it’s needed.

Jackers wrote:I guess we shaded the first day, and Clark's runs were certainly due.

In truth, Notts were severely handicapped by injuries to two key bowlers. It seems unfair that the rules prevent like-for-like substitutions providing the player did not come into the match with an injury. Fielders are these days allowed to swan on and off the pitch for little or no valid reason: that should be stopped, but in cases of genuine injury to bowlers replacements should be permitted, and batsmen should be allowed runners as they used to be.

Totally agree with this. We'd certainly have settled for this score at lunchtime. But I can't help but feel that given their injuries, we've missed an opportunity to bat them out of the game.

Notts stuck at it very well. Very unfortunate with their Bowling Injuries.Very much doubt we would’ve made 330 plus today.

Just to say that before today Jordan Clark had played in all 8 championship matches and:
- taken 34 wickets at an average of 19.29 runs; and
- hit 169 runs at an average 18.77.

That's very decent in my book. While the batting might not have been quite as good as hoped for, I reckon his bowling has improved - he seems to me more controlled but just as aggressive.

Batsmen are still allowed runners in county cricket.

Jackers wrote:I guess we shaded the first day, and Clark's runs were certainly due.

In truth, Notts were severely handicapped by injuries to two key bowlers. It seems unfair that the rules prevent substitutions providing the player did not come into the match with an injury. Fielders are these days allowed to swan on and off the pitch for little or no valid reason: that should be stopped, but in cases of genuine injury to bowlers like-for-like subs should be permitted to bowl, and batsmen should be allowed runners as they used to be.

I have a feeling that runners are allowed in the CC. Quite why they are not allowed in Tests I have no idea and it was painful watching Lyon, though not as painful as it was for him.

Substitutions for injury sounds like a fair solution but would it be? For a start it would favour the home team as they could more easily rustle up a like-for-like sub. A visiting team might not have brought a spare spinner (assuming they have even brought one). Then there is the question of tactical injuries - who determines whether an injury is sufficient to force a play to drop out? When football first allowed injury subs some substitutions were immediately seen as suspicious; they dropped the injury criterion pretty quickly but I wouldn't want to see tactical subs in cricket. You might sub a batsman who is poor against spin for the second innings, or a bowler who has developed the yips mid-match. Thirdly, what is like-for-like? Can a reverse swing specialist replace an out-and-out paceman?

The fake injury issue has also cropped in in rugby, particularly with prop forwards, and the Harlequins Bloodgate affair involved fake blood. Often that is about getting a subbed player back on but it has also been used as a ruse to ensure that scrums are uncontested.

I vaguely remember a 60 over match where Derbyshire (I think) were skittled and then lost two of their five bowlers. It apparently ended with an unusually short batsman bowling bouncers at Alan Oakman, who was unusually tall!

I take the point, Adelaide: the pernicious abuse of the substitute fielder rule over the past 15 years is not something I would like to see extended. The only time anyone should leave the playing field is when they are suffering genuine injury or illness, not because they have bowled a rather long spell and there is a spritely twelfth man on hand (often a renowned fielder) to give them a chance to put their feet up for half an hour before returning in good time to qualify for their next spell.

It is a question of balance: taking today as an example I hope the Surrey captain would be prepared to accept that there were genuine grounds for a medical substitution in one or possibly both cases. It would be up to Notts to ensure that they had such options available in their squad.

Jackers wrote:I take the point, Adelaide: the pernicious abuse of the substitute fielder rule over the past 15 years is not something I would like to see extended. The only time anyone should leave the playing field is when they are suffering genuine injury or illness, not because they have bowled a rather long spell and there is a spritely twelfth man on hand (often a renowned fielder) to give them a chance to put their feet up for half an hour before returning in good time to qualify for their next spell.

It is a question of balance: taking today as an example I hope the Surrey captain would be prepared to accept that there were genuine grounds for a medical substitution in one or possibly both cases. It would be up to Notts to ensure that they had such options available in their squad.

Hmm (imminent slight tease warning) - sounds a bit like relying on the Spirit of Cricket to me. Years ago, an opposing Test captain was happy to let Bob Taylor come down from hospitality to replace an injured keeper. Move on a decade or so and Essex refused Middlesex a proper sub keeper. If the rules say you don't have to accept it, then why should you, any more than you should consider withdrawing an appeal?

Ideally you would have a neutral medic in place but the game can't afford that. Many counties would find it a financial stretch to bring all possible replacement options to an away match. You could take one spinner and omit them when you see the pitch, but having to take a second spinner to cover the first if selected would be an extravagance. I know the same thing happens for late England calls but counties usually have a fair inkling that might happen.

I agree about bowlers having a rest. Two overs for a comfort break and that should be it.

Not bad from Surrey after a terrible beginning. Nevertheless, I agree Notts should have been allowed replacements for injured players. It cheats all the spectators to have matches that are less competitive because of lack of player availability.