T20 v Glamorgan 31st May 2023

[Paul W]

We've named the same 14 man squad that has lost the first three games (I mean- Why wouldn't you?)

https://www.middlesexccc.com/news/2023/05/squad-preview-middlesex-v-glamorgan-vitality-blast-2

[John Fitzgerald]

Explain who else there is. We are broke

[Paul W]

Well, I suppose we could just stick with the same squad of 14, from which we pick the same 11 players for all 14 matches.

I wouldn't put it past us.

[MIDDLE EXILE]

Well, I suppose we could just stick with the same squad of 14, from which we pick the same 11 players for all 14 matches.

I wouldn't put it past us.

More facetious remarks, without any constructive comment, Our performance yesterday showed a marked improvement with impressive contributions from youngsters, Cracknell, Cullen, and Hollman in particular. We are moving in the right direction and with no obvious alternatives available we are more than justified to stick with the same formula.

[Paul W]

Well, you're perfectly right.

We did get close yesterday, and it's unfortunate our best player this season, and our most consistent player over the last ten years had a brain fade (Eski's words- not mine). The one time some of the others produce a performance, and then it's the two who normally do produce a performance who muck it up at the end- so difficult to be critical of the two who have been producing when others haven't.

You clearly don't get my gallows humour- as in you have to laugh, or you'll cry.

I've actually put us down for a win in the prediction game tomorrow.

Our luck has to change sometime.

[Jonathan Winsky]

Before Middlesex’s match v Gloucestershire at Merchant Taylors’ School yesterday, I wrote that I couldn’t see us making many changes to our side across our Twenty20 campaign no matter how poor our results are, and I still think that. However, Jack Davies must have a good chance of playing (although I am not sure who he would replace), as I think he has been in our squad for every match so far, and he scored 87* off 47 against a Sussex 2nd XI side with 1st XI experience at Horsham today (https://www.middlesexccc.com/fixtures/results/2023/05/30/sussex-2nd-xi-v-middlesex-second-xi?id=1595). We will have to see whether Toby Roland-Jones and/or Thilan Walallawita return to our T20 side in this match.

Team selection as well as the amount of overs of spin likely to be bowled in this match could be dependent on whether this match is played on a fresh pitch or the same one as yesterday. As is visible in the footage of yesterday, there is another pitch prepared two away from that used yesterday, so it could well be that this match will be played on a fresh pitch, which I would have thought would decrease the likelihood of us allowing two of our spinners to bowl their full allocation or maybe even selecting three spinners.

Glamorgan’s campaign so far has seen them narrowly beat Gloucestershire at Bristol and lose heavily v Somerset at Taunton, so maybe we will win this match. Or maybe not.

[Paul W]

And the big news is John Simpson is rested, and Jack Davies keeps wicket.

[Paul W]

The 150 came up off the last ball of the 16th over.

So that means the last four overs went for 88 runs.

Helm went for 69 off 4 and Higgins 62.

[MIDDLE EXILE]

Formidable hitting from Cooke and Ingram, but not an insurmountable target.An opportunity to prove we are capable. Go well lads, all is possible:eek::eek::eek:

[Paul W]

For the first twelve overs we were up with the rate.

A brave effort,

but,

the usual result.

[Jonathan Winsky]

When I left work not long after Glamorgan lost their third wicket having scored 51 in 6.5 overs at a run rate of little more than seven an over, I didn’t expect to come home to find that the wickets column had not advanced, with the opposite certainly being true of the runs column! It was boundary after boundary in the period of the Glamorgan innings that I watched on the stream upon coming home. Had Colin Ingram (or Carl, as his first name is incorrectly given in Middlesex’s preview of this match) followed Chris Cooke in scoring a century, there would have been a sixth entry to the list of instances of a team posting two centuries in a Twenty20 innings (https://www.espncricinfo.com/records/most-hundreds-in-an-innings-305313) and a second in county cricket, and Middlesex would have been on the receiving end of both of the instances in county cricket.

Glamorgan’s total makes Blake Cullen’s figures of 2-23 look remarkable, although I have spoilt my joy (and probably the joy of anyone with just a scorecard view) by looking at the scorecard to see that he did all his bowling in the first nine overs, before the carnage started.

We could have done with starting our innings with it being boundary after boundary and with hope that two players could reach centuries. Thankfully, Stevie Eskinazi and Joe Cracknell achieved the first of those objectives, although neither could get into three figures. Eski’s innings wasn’t actually the greatest of surprises, as Peter Hatzoglou is a team-mate at Perth Scorchers, while my parents and I once saw Eski with Harry Podmore at Waterloo station. Oh, and Eski and Podmore used to play cricket together at Middlesex.

Actually, we needed more than just hope that Eski and Crackers could both score centuries. We needed them to both score centuries, as there proceeded to be a continuation of the theme of us slowing down once wickets started falling. Then again, my expectation when we began our pursuit of 239 was that we would get nowhere near, as opposed to it being the case that we began our chase up with the rate, but could not keep it up. If only we had fewer runs to chase.

I am glad to see that Jack Davies was given a chance. When I wrote “I am not sure who he would replace”, I felt that the chances of John Simpson making way would have been as great as any of our batters, as I couldn’t think of a batter who could make way. Still, it is a surprise that Simmo has lost his place, as he has been one of our most reliable players with the bat in recent Twenty20 campaigns (and in the County Championship too). Simmo will surely be disappointed to have (at least temporarily) lost his place in our T20 side, as he has not been retained in The Hundred by Northern Superchargers, so would have certainly been hopeful of a good T20 Blast campaign to have given himself a chance of being signed in The Hundred as a wildcard. I am not sure how much of a prerequisite it is in order to be signed as a wildcard is to do well in the Blast.

It looks like the pitch on which this match took place was the same as Monday’s match v Gloucestershire, something which I would have assumed would have made it harder to score runs, and would have made the pitch more conducive to spinners. However, the pitch appears not to have played like that.

[Paul W]

JW-

I'm not trying to start rumours or anything, but it's the 1st June tomorrow, and Simmo is in the final year of his current contract.

In my opinion good enough for another three year deal, but just how short of dosh are we?

Will we have to start shedding senior players to save a few bob?

On the other hand, we don't expect bowlers to play every match of the season, so why not rest Simmo for a few games.

Davies' contract also up for renewal at the end of the season (as well as a few others) so at least he gets a chance to make a case for himself- and I hope the others do too.

[Paul W]

David Hopps' report on proceedings-

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/vitality-blast-2023-1347399/middlesex-vs-glamorgan-south-group-1347597/match-report

It seems our deal with MCC is that we pay them 16k for each T20 game staged at Lord's, and get to take 30% of proceeds that remain.

Although not in Hopps' report, at the game v Surrey, I'm sure it was stated MCC needed a crowd of 16,000 to break even, and crowd was a little below that- so could we really be out of pocket for the Surrey game, or do we get 30% of the gate money (although many will be members not needing to buy a ticket for the match), in which case it would be MCC (rather than us) who take the hit for such a poorly attended London Derby?

Another good line in report-'The Blast is never more rural than the week or so when Middlesex temporarily abandon Lord's for the delights of Merchant Taylor's and Radlett. It feels as if the tenants of a stately home have suddenly upped sticks and gone on a camping holiday, exchanging the silver service and an attentive butler for a soggy beefburger on a plastic plate'.

[John Fitzgerald]

I'm not sure the finance point is correct. As far as I know we are paid a set seasonal fee for all the matches we play at Lord's and MCC take all the risk and keep all the proceeds. They also set the ticket prices. We get nothing from food and drink sales. It is difficult to see how we can build our reserves up.

The figures re the reserves are correct.

[Peter H]

So that means the last four overs went for 88 runs.


I was going to ask a question, but I'm too despondent to bother. No I'm not...



22 an over for four overs in a row? The bowlers appear not to have made any adjustments to the free-swinging bats. I know that past performance is no indicator of future performance, but Glammy had scored around 8 an over for their previous 2 matches. How is it that they managed to unload on us?

Can it get any worse? :(

[Paul W]

In fact it transpires that they scored 72 off the last 3 overs, so the 17th over 'only' went for 16 runs.

If memory serves that was two Helm overs and one from Higgins.

It looks like Helm is a good death bowler provided he has someone new at the crease.

But up against two batters who were well and truly in he had nothing to offer at all.