we need to strengthen the batting , but who

Moderator: Assistant Moderator

Joined: June 4th, 2015, 6:32 pm

September 26th, 2016, 10:27 am #41

There are plenty of possible ways of describing Gale's season which no one would challenge. Serious lengthy underachievement would do. The trouble with the worst attacks on him is precisely that - they are attacks, and their choice of language in the view of many of us, is not what he deserves. As others have said 'letting the side down' has a meaning which is so well known it has become a figure of speech, and it is taken to refer to exactly that area where Andrew has never failed us - in his attitude.

So what do we do? If this was a football club we'd throw some money at he problem, and bring in half a team. Some posters seem to favour that, but it isn't financially possible and it isn't how cricket works. A very small number of good players become available each year. We know we've been in for one of them, so we've probably tried for others. So far, no luck. What sort of overseas provision we might have is subject to the usual uncertainties.

In these circumstances I would probably keep Gale for another year. The argument against that is to be seen in his scores this year. The argument for lies in his captaincy, but also in the possibility of a return to form and above all the absence of alternatives as captain and batsman. If we had signed - say - Borthwick and Davies, it would look very different, or if there were youngsters banging on the door.

That's where I stand on it at present, but plenty of sympathy however for those who want to say thank you but it's time to move on. Not much for anything which does not reflect the thank you however.
I'd replace Gale and Hodd with Hail and God....

One when we need bad weather to save us and the other when we need the power of prayer.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: June 11th, 2014, 5:21 pm

September 26th, 2016, 1:43 pm #42

Chesney Hughes,now he's not agreed a deal with Derbyshire ????
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: February 10th, 2014, 7:23 pm

September 26th, 2016, 2:04 pm #43

As long as he's not the one and only!
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: January 21st, 2004, 7:13 pm

September 26th, 2016, 4:23 pm #44

I seam to remember a previous PA announcer at Headingley announcing him as Cheney Hawkes
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: April 28th, 2016, 12:45 pm

September 26th, 2016, 4:39 pm #45

one thing we really need is wicketkeeper - batsman and the big problem is that if j Bairstow returns from England duty he will have to tow the line and just play as a batsman because you are not going to get a good one who will stand aside when Bairstow returns as and when .
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: December 28th, 2003, 2:48 am

September 26th, 2016, 5:20 pm #46

Another extremely negative by-product of the ECB's central contract is that it turns assembling a competative team into a crap shoot, as well as punishing teams like Yorkshire who turn out the better cricketers only to see them taken away often for years at a time. A one-sided policy culminating in the fiasco Lords', whereby our two top bats were denied us, our overseas signing was press-ganged back to Australia with one match left in the Yorkshire achedule, and our top spinner cried off.


There has to be a better, fairer, more balanced system.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: April 2nd, 2014, 9:31 am

September 26th, 2016, 6:17 pm #47

What on earth does the central contract system have to do with Rashid wanting a rest and Lehmann getting recalled by his home state?
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: August 7th, 2014, 4:58 pm

September 26th, 2016, 6:49 pm #48

There might be a chance of a "fairer" system if the counties were able to stand on their own feet financially. They mostly can't, so we have the current system.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: December 28th, 2003, 2:48 am

September 26th, 2016, 10:31 pm #49

East Coast: It has EVERYTHING to do with the contract system since holding out both Root and Bairstow MAGNIFIED the losses of Lehmann (our most consistent batsman), and Rashid. The Lehmann issue alone should have resulted in the ECB being more flexible. After all, we would still have been short three first team players.

Besides the ECB's (e)mission statement notes that one of their reasons to be is to "raise standards at all levels and promote cricket as a spectator sport." I would suggest that the ECB's harsh decision to keep out Bairstow in particular, reduced the competitive aspect of the game and was not in the best interests of BOTH of the counties involved.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: October 21st, 2013, 1:37 pm

September 26th, 2016, 11:02 pm #50

in the case of lehmann being recalled, surely we could have signed a replacement overseas.
Reply
Like
Share