• From: kings esplanade hove-by- the -
  • Registered: 22-04-2008
  • Posts: 718

Topic: 2nd X1 v Middlesex

Ollie Rayner followed up his fist inn's haul of five wickets with a dashing 91 as Sussex 2nd's took full control of there match with Middlesex at Uxbridge declaring on 284-9 with Ollie hitting 13 fours and one six of 112 balls.

Then Rayner, Smith AND Jason Lewry who is back with us after his illness. all took one wicket each to reduce Middlesex to 58-3.

Opener Nash gave Sussex a cracking start hitting 75 from 80 balls with 15 fours-six of them coming in the same over from left-arm pace bowler Dan Maroske and tom Smith also scoring  58.

Middlesex with just 7 wickets left go into the final day 5 runs behind.

Not good enough
  • From: Sussex, living in Surrey
  • Registered: 05-10-2006
  • Posts: 3,627

Re: 2nd X1 v Middlesex

singapore wrote:

AND Jason Lewry who is back with us after his illness.

hallelujah !

Well batted Chris Nash, Ollie and Tom Smith as well.

  • Registered: 08-04-2007
  • Posts: 4,101

Re: 2nd X1 v Middlesex

Pleased to see Lewry back to full fitness. Ollie Rayner and Tom Smith certainly having a good all-round match. Good to see Nash in the runs too.

  • From: kings esplanade hove-by- the -
  • Registered: 22-04-2008
  • Posts: 718

Re: 2nd X1 v Middlesex

Middlesex Seconds bat for draw
15th May 2009

Middlesex Second XI resumed their second inning on 58 for 3, but were never really looking to get any competitive cricket out of the match, as they crawled to 131 for 3 at lunch.

Two wickets fell in the afternoon session to leave the hosts on 189 for 5, but Middlesex declared at 4.50pm on 210 for 6 – playing some very negative cricket.

The six wickets were shared around the Sussex bowlers.

Not good enough
  • Registered: 08-04-2007
  • Posts: 4,101

Re: 2nd X1 v Middlesex

I see Gould was AGAIN(!) out for single figures and that Machan didn't even play! How much longer are we going to persist with Gould as it is getting beyond a joke? 50 games for 2XI, no hundreds and a batting average of 20 SURELY(!) tells you all you need to know! Why did we play seven bowlers and five seamers? Isn't three left armers (Lewry, Liddle and Wood) a bit excessive? Personally, I don't think Wood will make it as he doesn't have enough pace! Why did Liddle not bowl in the second innings and Nash bowled 17 overs? Why did Rayner bat below Gould?

Here is a link to the scorecard:

http://www.cricketarchive.co.uk/Archive/Scorecards/210/210840.html

I see we have given up on Beeny. It's time to do the same with Gould and give youth a chance. Machan and Wells clearly have more potential. No Academy players in the team which is disgusting. When we won 2XI championship in 2006 we had THREE players!

On the plus side Rayner and Smith had fine all-round games and Nash scored 75 and Lewry resumed bowling and even took a wicket.

  • From: Hailsham
  • Registered: 12-05-2006
  • Posts: 5,049

Re: 2nd X1 v Middlesex

Sharkey wrote:

I see Gould was AGAIN(!) out for single figures and that Machan didn't even play! How much longer are we going to persist with Gould as it is getting beyond a joke? 50 games for 2XI, no hundreds and a batting average of 20 SURELY(!) tells you all you need to know! Why did we play seven bowlers and five seamers? Isn't three left armers (Lewry, Liddle and Wood) a bit excessive? Personally, I don't think Wood will make it as he doesn't have enough pace! Why did Liddle not bowl in the second innings and Nash bowled 17 overs? Why did Rayner bat below Gould?

Here is a link to the scorecard:

http://www.cricketarchive.co.uk/Archive/Scorecards/210/210840.html

I see we have given up on Beeny. It's time to do the same with Gould and give youth a chance. Machan and Wells clearly have more potential. No Academy players in the team which is disgusting. When we won 2XI championship in 2006 we had THREE players!

On the plus side Rayner and Smith had fine all-round games and Nash scored 75 and Lewry resumed bowling and even took a wicket.

If you took your blinkers off and read Paperboys post about Chris Liddle, you will see that he has an ankle injury which is why he didnt bowl in the second innings :shock:
I do wish you would stop questioning the selection policies of the Sussex Cricket Management every time they pick a side or dont select some of your prefared choices.
Dont you think they have a slight more knowledge and understanding than you :roll:

Who is that man talking to Schlidd ?
  • Registered: 08-04-2007
  • Posts: 4,101

Re: 2nd X1 v Middlesex

Liddle surely can't be injured AGAIN! Is he EVER fit? Liddle has been a real disappointment for Sussex as when he signed for Sussex he was seen as the long-term replacement for Lewry. I can't see this ever happening as he hasn't improved as a bowler.

Hailsham - Gould is a batsman who has yet to reach double figure this season and who averages 15.5 in his last 18 matches! What is the point in playing three left arm seamers? Wood hasn't taken a wicket in last three innings. Machan and Hatchett are better prospects.

  • Registered: 15-04-2007
  • Posts: 1,260

Re: 2nd X1 v Middlesex

But I daresy you've been asking why Gould hasn't got a contract in the not too distant past.

  • Registered: 08-04-2007
  • Posts: 4,101

Re: 2nd X1 v Middlesex

Backward Point wrote:

But I daresy you've been asking why Gould hasn't got a contract in the not too distant past.

No I haven't. Having watched the player a number of times for 2XI it is a complete mystery to me why he still gets in 2XI! Beeny must be wondering what he has done wrong to be discarded after just 17 games when Gould has played 53 games and averaged 11 runs less!

  • Registered: 01-07-2008
  • Posts: 166

Re: 2nd X1 v Middlesex

To be fair I don’t think it is a case of what Beeny has done wrong, or that Sussex has given up on him, or that it is mismanagement by Sussex.   My understanding is that he was told by Sussex that as they have so many contracted players he would be unlikely to get much opportunity this season and would bat down the order.  They felt it was only reasonable to warn him of this as he is too good a player to spend the whole season on the bench.  To his credit he decided to look elsewhere and apparently more than one county has shown an interest.  I don’t think that this has shut the door on Sussex and who knows he could play for them again.  Personally I hope so.

  • From: Fishersgate Maritime Village
  • Registered: 04-11-2006
  • Posts: 10,441

Re: 2nd X1 v Middlesex

yes themako - we have a tendency to dramatise the reality on this board - basically we have quite a few decent young batsmen on the books and there is inevitably a pecking order - Beeny will be aware of where he sits in that order and will be exploring his options

  • Registered: 08-04-2007
  • Posts: 4,101

Re: 2nd X1 v Middlesex

If that is the case then I appluad Beeny for having the initiative to try and earn a contract elsewhere. I think there is room for two uncontracted batsmen in the team. I think it should be Machan and Wells. With 12 playing in 2XI I would expect to see five batsmen, four seamers, two spinners and a keeper. Looking at the team which played at Uxbridge we had four batsmen (Nash, Thornely, Hopkinson and Gould), keeper (Hodd), two spinners (Rayner and Smith) and five seamers (Lewry, Liddle, Aga, Sandri, Wood). For me the balance of the team wasn't right. To have Lewry, Liddle and Wood in the same team is a bit over the top!

At the start of the season I listed ten players whose individual goal would be to try and earn a contract for 2010. Having watched all ten players in action I firmly believe only two (Machan and Wells) have what it takes to make it as a professional cricketer at Sussex.

We have a large squad but it is very unbalanced with just eight batsmen out a squad of twenty four! That is why I believe there is room in the Sussex squad for Machan and Wells.

  • From: kings esplanade hove-by- the -
  • Registered: 22-04-2008
  • Posts: 718

Re: 2nd X1 v Middlesex

Sharkey wrote:

If that is the case then I appluad Beeny for having the initiative to try and earn a contract elsewhere. I think there is room for two uncontracted batsmen in the team. Personally I think it should be Machan and Wells. With 12 playing in 2XI I would expect to see five batsmen, four seamers, two spinners and a keeper. Looking at the team which played at Uxbridge we had four batsmen (Nash, Thornely, Hopkinson and Gould), keeper (Hodd), two spinners (Rayner and Smith) and five seamers (Lewry, Liddle, Aga, Sandri, Wood). For me the balance of the team wasn't right. I think to have Lewry, Liddle and Wood in the same team is a bit over the top!

At the start of the season I listed ten players whose individual goal would be to try and earn a contract for 2010. Having watched all ten players in action I firmly believe only two (Machan and Wells) have what it takes to make it as a professional cricketer at Sussex.

Perhaps the thinking was to give 3 off the seamers a good run out to access there fitness as this was jason lewry,s first game back this season :!:  :!:

Not good enough
  • Registered: 08-04-2007
  • Posts: 4,101

Re: 2nd X1 v Middlesex

But if they weren't fully fit should they have been risked? Were they to suffer a setback it may just result in them being out for longer! I think Lewry, Aga, Liddle, Sandri, Rayner and Smith would have been sufficient.

  • From: Fishersgate Maritime Village
  • Registered: 04-11-2006
  • Posts: 10,441

Re: 2nd X1 v Middlesex

but Jason needs to be assessed re his fitness -so needs to get some overs under his belt - so he should play for the seconds if he can - if the team is unbalanced as a result, then so be it - it is only a second xi game after all, where the result isnt critical

  • From: kings esplanade hove-by- the -
  • Registered: 22-04-2008
  • Posts: 718

Re: 2nd X1 v Middlesex

Sweatysock wrote:

but Jason needs to be assessed re his fitness -so needs to get some overs under his belt - so he should play for the seconds if he can - if the team is unbalanced as a result, then so be it - it is only a second xi game after all, where the result isnt critical

My views also that is what the 2nd's are for to get 1st team players in and assess there fitness with a good bowling work out or batting to get them ready for the first team. smile  smile

Not good enough
  • From: Trinidad and Tobago
  • Registered: 24-08-2004
  • Posts: 6,689

Re: 2nd X1 v Middlesex

singapore wrote:
Sweatysock wrote:

but Jason needs to be assessed re his fitness -so needs to get some overs under his belt - so he should play for the seconds if he can - if the team is unbalanced as a result, then so be it - it is only a second xi game after all, where the result isnt critical

My views also that is what the 2nd's are for to get 1st team players in and asses there fitness with a good bowling work out or batting to get them ready for the first team. smile  smile


This is so obvious that I dont think anybody could possibly disagree.The seconds is completely subservient to the needs of the first team ie to get players fit,to assess progress,to trial possibles etc

Triple Century
  • From: Pulborough
  • Registered: 03-08-2008
  • Posts: 9

Re: 2nd X1 v Middlesex

I totally agree with the last few posts but not Sharkey's concerning the number of seamers playing last week at uxbridge.

We need to get Jason fit and ready for the next batch of Championship games in June.  Between now and then, the seconds only have a one day game with Glos then a two day game at Horsham just after the bank holiday.  Hopefully Jason will get in some cricket as we could do with a fit Jason back in the Championship side.

Also second eleven cricket is basically a 12-a-side game, note Wood did not bat but did bowl.  So its an ideal opportunity to bring back someone after injury / illness knowing that he does not need to field for an entire innings.  Not sure whether this was the case with Jason, so its just easing  a player back into the game without compromising the team if he fails to last the game.

  • Registered: 08-04-2007
  • Posts: 4,101

Re: 2nd X1 v Middlesex

I didn't have a problem with Lewry playing to regain fitness however you have all completly ignored the point I was trying to make which was why Lewry, Liddle and Wood were in the same team? I don't see the point in playing three left arm seamers!

I fully expect Jason to play in 2XI friendly and one-day game against Glos.

If we are selecting on current form then surely Luke Wells, Owain Jones, Darryl Rebbetts and Liam Hatchett deserve serious consideration!