A forum for Northamptonshire CCC fans
By Den Buckett
#31402
We get underway in front of the cameras v Worcs on Friday evening. Cobb, Levi, Glover and White will no doubt be involved with overseas signings Nabi and Parnell - although Nabi may not be available due to Covid protocols.
It seems strange that Captain Cobb will only appear for us in this competition and he will need to impress if he is to keep hold of the position
Chances? Getting through the group stage is possible but we don’t quite look strong enough to get much further.
By Shortlegs
#31407
Yes, It's always hard to predict T20 because so much relies on confidence and momentum in such an intensive schedule. We've got some match-winning players, but so have many other counties. I'm not totally convinced by our seam options for this competition but overall I think we have a reasonably balanced side. As Nabi is unavailable for the moment, and Procter is injured my side would be:

Levi
Curran
Cobb
Vasconcelos
Rossington
Zaib
Taylor
Parnell
G White
Glover
Buck/Sanderson/J White

I think we need Glover for his extra pace and Taylor and Parnell as seam bowling all rounders, but I think our other pace bowlers are much of a muchness in this format with maybe Buck having the edge. I also think putting all our biggest hitters up top backfired a bit last year, so would rather see Levi, Cobb and Rossington spread out a bit more among our top order with fast scoring but different types of players like Zaib and Vasco mixed in.
By Countyman
#31434
v Worcs

Oh dear, a great start to Levi's season and eccentric batting order seem to have set the tone for this game, at least!
By Den Buckett
#31435
A couple of strange decisions with Keogh bowling and Parnell coming in early.

The bowling looked good at times and hopeless at others. We have always struggled to chase larger scores & we lost too many early wickets to give ourselves a chance.

Overall a bit disappointing but there were a few promising signs.
By onemorerun
#31436
I agree, Parnell came in about two or even three places too high. Zaib has been our in-form batsman, so why leave him at number seven? His five consecutive fours were the highlight of the evening! I would also like to see him allowed to bowl, certainly in preference to Keogh.

Sanderson only bowled three overs, and took 3-21. We all know he's our best bowler. Not for the first time, I have been left wondering if Captain Cobb has miscounted the overs.

Credit to Worcs though, their fielding was first class (great catch to dismiss Vasconcelos) and they showed what proper spinners can do in t20.
By Den Buckett
#31437
onemorerun wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:17 pm I agree, Parnell came in about two or even three places too high. Zaib has been our in-form batsman, so why leave him at number seven? His five consecutive fours were the highlight of the evening! I would also like to see him allowed to bowl, certainly in preference to Keogh.

Sanderson only bowled three overs, and took 3-21. We all know he's our best bowler. Not for the first time, I have been left wondering if Captain Cobb has miscounted the overs.

Credit to Worcs though, their fielding was first class (great catch to dismiss Vasconcelos) and they showed what proper spinners can do in t20.
It can’t be miscounting the overs. He had 7 bowlers so it wasn’t a complicated situation and it is not difficult to bring Sanderson back for overs 18 & 20. It turned out that the 2 most economical bowlers only bowled 3.
By Countyman
#31438
Den Buckett wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 9:25 am
It can’t be miscounting the overs. He had 7 bowlers so it wasn’t a complicated situation and it is not difficult to bring Sanderson back for overs 18 & 20. It turned out that the 2 most economical bowlers only bowled 3.
This has always seemed a common occurrence with no rational reasoning or explanation ever forthcoming. Maybe, it could be argued, in some instances, that such economy results because the bowlers in question don't bowl their full allocation, negative as that sounds!
By Den Buckett
#31440
Countyman wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 10:35 am
Den Buckett wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 9:25 am
It can’t be miscounting the overs. He had 7 bowlers so it wasn’t a complicated situation and it is not difficult to bring Sanderson back for overs 18 & 20. It turned out that the 2 most economical bowlers only bowled 3.
This has always seemed a common occurrence with no rational reasoning or explanation ever forthcoming. Maybe, it could be argued, in some instances, that such economy results because the bowlers in question don't bowl their full allocation, negative as that sounds!
You may be right although Sanderson bowled 2 overs in the power play and the last over of the innings, both difficult times to bowl - so there is no reason to think he could not have bowled a fourth good over.
By onemorerun
#31441
I think the fundamental point is that your best bowler(s) should get a full set of overs, unless of course, they're bowling badly on the day.

For some time, it has almost seemed that we have too many (similar) bowling options. The other night we used seven bowlers, and there was also Zaib.

No-one has mentioned Glover. I know he was a bit wayward in his one over on Friday, but surely if they think he's good enough to be picked in the first place, he should not have been restricted to just the single over.
By Countyman
#31446
onemorerun wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 1:36 pm No-one has mentioned Glover. I know he was a bit wayward in his one over on Friday, but surely if they think he's good enough to be picked in the first place, he should not have been restricted to just the single over.
Given a thorough hammering by Clarke today, at least he had his chance to try and make an impression this time and proved the most expensive in the process.

Not surprisingly, Keogh wasn't used (can't see Zaib ever being trusted, really) so Cobb' s single over got the treatment instead. Looking at the figures, presumably Sanderson or Glover completed an over!

Levi seems past his sell-by date now.
By Countyman
#31449
Come up short again! Had one of the well set Cobb or Keogh (preferably both) stayed there, we would have won quite comfortably, but the pressure on following bats to maintain the momentum proved too great.
By onemorerun
#31450
Yes, Glover was taken off for high deliveries so Sanderson completed the over.

What the figures don't show is that Clarke was dropped by Cobb off Glover when he had got 29, then he got another 107. I think I've got that right.

The Northants bowling changes were manic. Only White (once) and Parnell (once) got to bowl two consecutive overs. Everyone else just got one over spells. If it was an attempt at clever captaincy, it clearly didn't work.

I agree, Levi might have reached the end. I like Vasconcelos, but when he goes in in the power play, he's hitting out and getting caught. I'd rather see him going in after the power play and playing proper shots. Zaib should be higher. I've see nothing from Parnell to suggest he should be in above Zaib.

Cobb finished with a runner, so he might miss Tuesday's game, I suspect.
By Den Buckett
#31479
Oh dear my optimism of getting through the group stage has gone. We have got some slightly weaker sides still to play but at the moment it is difficult to see a win coming.
By Countyman
#31481
Oh well, at least we didn't put them in! At this rate, though, we'll be out of it before we even started, with any form of home advantage, such as it is, totally non-existent. Maybe that is the problem.

It is said that T20 is a mug's game for bowlers, which is certainly proving the case with us, Graeme White the only bowler able to offer any kind of consistency at present. If only for another accurate spinner, which could well make the difference. I assume Kerrigan doesn't do T20?
By onemorerun
#31482
Where do we start?

Last night, only once (Parnell, overs 17 and 19) did anyone bowl two consecutive overs. Otherwise, everyone just got a one-over spell. If it's meant to unsettle the batsmen, it's not working. Instead, its unsettling the bowlers. Both Cobb and Rossington as captains have adopted this "headless chicken" approach to bowling changes, so I get the impression it was a 'clever idea' dreamt up pre-tournament on a flip chart. It doesn't work. In contrast, Warwickshire had six instances of bowlers bowling consecutive overs, including two spells of three consecutive overs. Lintott was bowling well, so they kept him on. White's first over of the match was 1-1 then we took him off, undoubtedly according to a prearranged plan, and brought him back 9 overs later when they were 85-2 and we had lost the initiative.

Parnell 19 off 17 balls. I said in a previous match he was two or three places too high at number five, then Cobb gets injured and Parnell comes in at four. He's not a number four by any stretch of the imagination. He's not in the same league as Kleinveldt, and we never thought he was a number four.

Vasconcelos showed his class and was bowled by a good ball. A class player is a class player in any format. I'm not convinced by this idea of specialist t20 players who dont need to play in the championship - Levi has scored 11 in three innings, Cobb injured in second game, and Glover could barely get the ball near the wicket. White may be the exception, but he's not creating problems the way opposition spinners are. In answer to Countyman, yes I would try to play Kerrigan.

Hopefully the other overseas player will appear soon. We are not out of the competition yet, but certainly could be by Sunday!

As I'm sure many cricket supporters know, there ar[…]

Royal London

A new competition and hopefully better fortune. We[…]

If you are new to the forum why not announce your […]

Sonny Baker

Anyone else watched Sonny Baker, who is just 18, […]