A forum for Glamorgan CCC fans
By Welwyn
#22734
Always been a big fan of Salts ever since the RLODC run in 2013. Would really give us options if he could get his batting average into the 30's. Think we could get away with that at number 3.
By glamman
#22737
Welwyn wrote:
Wed Dec 06, 2017 9:44 pm
Always been a big fan of Salts ever since the RLODC run in 2013. Would really give us options if he could get his batting average into the 30's. Think we could get away with that at number 3.
3 is the key spot in the batting order and I am not sure he is quite equipped to take that on.
By Ger27
#22748
Welwyn wrote:It's a case of which position we take the hit at? Opener or 3.
We shouldn't take a hit on either - can't see any option but to sign another batsman.

Having lost Rudolph, Ingram and Bragg from what was a mostly failing batting line-up in the County Championship at the best of times, we simply won't be competitive in 4-day cricket next season without more signings. In my view, signing one batsman will make us a mid-table side, whilst signing two will make us compete for promotion.

Writing off another season by not signing another batsman would be criminal in my eyes. There was enough in the Budget to fund a new contract for Wagg, so there should be enough to fund at least one more batsman (I don't for one minute believe that the club would have thought that a bowling all-rounder was more integral to the success ofhe team than a new batsman).

Where does one find another experienced batsman is another problem all together!
By Welwyn
#22749
Personally I agree that a new batsman is more important than a new contract for Wagg. Personally would have let Wagg go and sign a batsman. Hopefully there is enough for a specialist batsman as well, but not sure we will sign one.
By glamman
#22750
We have bowling all rounders coming out of our ears!
Agree that another opening batsman is v important. Finding one is the problem.
By glamman
#22753
Good to see TvdG back in action yesterday although he has had better outings with the ball. Comfortable win for The Netherlands.
By glamman
#22761
After scoring 82 off 63 balls in a T20 game last Sunday, which his team won in a super over, Selman had one of his few failures yesterday scoring just 8.
Smith had a solid performance with the ball helping restrict the Sunshine Coast's opposition to just 198/3 off 96 overs. He ended the day with 17.0-5-2-38 in a 2 day game that will finish tomorrow.
Murphy opened the batting for Hampton CC today with Lawlor coming in at 3. They scored 36 and 12 respectively in a total of 222 which they then defended with Lawlor opening the bowling, taking 1/40 off 7 and Murphy took 3/27 off 8. I still see Murphy more as an all rounder than a frontline batsman but as has been mentioned we have all rounders to spare.
Salter took 2/47 from 10 overs as his team restricted the opposition to 191/9 off 50 overs. However they were then bowled out for 159, Salts getting 21.
User avatar
By Vetchetarian
#22762
When I see the label " all rounder " I think Wilf Wooller, Peter Walker, Alan Watkins, Ravi Shastri, Jim Pressdee, who all performed that role for the County.
Throw in the likes of Sobers, Miller, Botham, Flintoff, Kallis, and a whole host of others who merited the description, and you have proper " all rounders ".
Glamorgan's so called " all rounders " are really just bit players, and not worthy of the title. Sad, but true.
Hopefully, one of them will step up to the plate, score lots of runs, take lots of wickets, hold catches galore, and prove me wrong.
By glamman
#22763
I agree. An all rounder needs to be worth his place in the side either as a batsman or a bowler. Great all rounders are worth their place for both.
My comment about Murphy refers to the fact that I do not see him as a top 3 batsman which is what he is being asked to do. When I have watched him I see someone who could be a 3rd/4th seamer and bat at 6/7.
User avatar
By Vetchetarian
#22764
glamman wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 3:31 am
I agree. An all rounder needs to be worth his place in the side either as a batsman or a bowler. Great all rounders are worth their place for both.
My comment about Murphy refers to the fact that I do not see him as a top 3 batsman which is what he is being asked to do. When I have watched him I see someone who could be a 3rd/4th seamer and bat at 6/7.
My comment wasn't aimed at Murphy in particular, but at the use of the "all rounder" label when used to describe very average players who can bat a bit, and bowl a bit.
Great all rounders are worth their weight in gold. Unfortunately, were Glam to unearth such a gem, he would soon be tempted away by the rich Counties.
By glamman
#22765
Vetchetarian wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:59 am
glamman wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 3:31 am
I agree. An all rounder needs to be worth his place in the side either as a batsman or a bowler. Great all rounders are worth their place for both.
My comment about Murphy refers to the fact that I do not see him as a top 3 batsman which is what he is being asked to do. When I have watched him I see someone who could be a 3rd/4th seamer and bat at 6/7.
My comment wasn't aimed at Murphy in particular, but at the use of the "all rounder" label when used to describe very average players who can bat a bit, and bowl a bit.
Great all rounders are worth their weight in gold. Unfortunately, were Glam to unearth such a gem, he would soon be tempted away by the rich Counties.
I think we have a couple of players who fit the bill -
Cooke is good enough to get in the team for his batting alone.
Wagg was good enough to warrant a place as a bowler although is past his best.
We have a number of players who are good enough to bay 6 or 7 and be the 4th bowler (Meschede, Salter, Morgan, Smith, Murphy) but you cannot play them all and it is unfair expecting them to become a top order batsman averaging 40+.

Checking MyCricket I note that Smith had another good day today ending with figures of 23.0-8-6-53 in his 1st Grade game.
User avatar
By Vetchetarian
#22767
glamman wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 10:59 am
Vetchetarian wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:59 am
glamman wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 3:31 am
I agree. An all rounder needs to be worth his place in the side either as a batsman or a bowler. Great all rounders are worth their place for both.
My comment about Murphy refers to the fact that I do not see him as a top 3 batsman which is what he is being asked to do. When I have watched him I see someone who could be a 3rd/4th seamer and bat at 6/7.
My comment wasn't aimed at Murphy in particular, but at the use of the "all rounder" label when used to describe very average players who can bat a bit, and bowl a bit.
Great all rounders are worth their weight in gold. Unfortunately, were Glam to unearth such a gem, he would soon be tempted away by the rich Counties.
I think we have a couple of players who fit the bill -
Cooke is good enough to get in the team for his batting alone.
Wagg was good enough to warrant a place as a bowler although is past his best.
We have a number of players who are good enough to bay 6 or 7 and be the 4th bowler (Meschede, Salter, Morgan, Smith, Murphy) but you cannot play them all and it is unfair expecting them to become a top order batsman averaging 40+.

Checking MyCricket I note that Smith had another good day today ending with figures of 23.0-8-6-53 in his 1st Grade game.
Cooke is a very useful cricketer.
Wagg as you suggest is past his best, but can still do a job. I had him as a borderline all rounder, but too inconsistent with bat, too expensive with the ball. Having said that, he can be a very useful lower order batsman. He did get a double century, after all. I like Wagg, an honest hard working pro.
Glam have too many 'nearly' players, and despite the arrival of another Aussie batsman, will probably finish in the bottom three.
By glamman
#22768
Vetchetarian wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:54 am
glamman wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 10:59 am
Vetchetarian wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:59 am


My comment wasn't aimed at Murphy in particular, but at the use of the "all rounder" label when used to describe very average players who can bat a bit, and bowl a bit.
Great all rounders are worth their weight in gold. Unfortunately, were Glam to unearth such a gem, he would soon be tempted away by the rich Counties.
I think we have a couple of players who fit the bill -
Cooke is good enough to get in the team for his batting alone.
Wagg was good enough to warrant a place as a bowler although is past his best.
We have a number of players who are good enough to bay 6 or 7 and be the 4th bowler (Meschede, Salter, Morgan, Smith, Murphy) but you cannot play them all and it is unfair expecting them to become a top order batsman averaging 40+.

Checking MyCricket I note that Smith had another good day today ending with figures of 23.0-8-6-53 in his 1st Grade game.
Cooke is a very useful cricketer.
Wagg as you suggest is past his best, but can still do a job. I had him as a borderline all rounder, but too inconsistent with bat, too expensive with the ball. Having said that, he can be a very useful lower order batsman. He did get a double century, after all. I like Wagg, an honest hard working pro.
Glam have too many 'nearly' players, and despite the arrival of another Aussie batsman, will probably finish in the bottom three.
As I have said, they are expecting the likes of Salter, Morgan and Murphy to take on a specialist batting role that they are not equipped for. Does not mean they are poor cricketers.
By glamman
#22769
Vetchetarian wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:54 am
glamman wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 10:59 am
Vetchetarian wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:59 am


My comment wasn't aimed at Murphy in particular, but at the use of the "all rounder" label when used to describe very average players who can bat a bit, and bowl a bit.
Great all rounders are worth their weight in gold. Unfortunately, were Glam to unearth such a gem, he would soon be tempted away by the rich Counties.
I think we have a couple of players who fit the bill -
Cooke is good enough to get in the team for his batting alone.
Wagg was good enough to warrant a place as a bowler although is past his best.
We have a number of players who are good enough to bay 6 or 7 and be the 4th bowler (Meschede, Salter, Morgan, Smith, Murphy) but you cannot play them all and it is unfair expecting them to become a top order batsman averaging 40+.

Checking MyCricket I note that Smith had another good day today ending with figures of 23.0-8-6-53 in his 1st Grade game.
Cooke is a very useful cricketer.
Wagg as you suggest is past his best, but can still do a job. I had him as a borderline all rounder, but too inconsistent with bat, too expensive with the ball. Having said that, he can be a very useful lower order batsman. He did get a double century, after all. I like Wagg, an honest hard working pro.
Glam have too many 'nearly' players, and despite the arrival of another Aussie batsman, will probably finish in the bottom three.
I also am always impressed by Wagg's commitment although would prefer him to get on with bowling rather than wasting time having a go at the batsmen - Glamorgan had fewer problems with over rates last season without him. However I am not sure that the money being paid to him next season could not have been better spent given the number of similar players we have on the books.
Will Bragg retires.

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/42082869 I had a snea[…]

I've seen this one on quite a few other forums and[…]

Overseas activities

I've noticed that some Glamorgan players have been[…]

Unacceptable behaviour.

Stokes. Bairstow. Duckett. Just what is going on […]