Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kent - Building on promotion

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Next up we are away to Surrey. Stevens comes back in for Klaassen. Whilst I feel Klaassen has bowled ok in patches, he doesn't quite have the numbers to show for it (4 wickets @ 63.00 in 3 matches). Haggett keeps his place after an impressive performance.

    Kent
    Crawley, Renshaw, Denly, Kuhn, Bell-Drummond, Billings (c), Robinson, Stevens, Haggett, Podmore, Milnes

    Weather looks good throughout the match. We lost the toss and were asked to bowl.

    An entertaining first session saw Surrey reach lunch 121-3. A great first spell from Podmore & Stevens saw Surrey reduced to 22-2, but Pope and Elgar recovered their position. A potential pivotal moment in the match when Foakes was dropped in the slips straight after lunch. We removed Elgar for 73 and Surrey were 167-4. This was a similar position to the reverse leg, where Surrey's middle order piled on the runs to take them over 500. Could we fare better this time? Didn't look like it as the 2 Clark's once again shared a 100 partnership in quick time. Surrey were 286-5 at tea. We finally broke the partnership with Milnes having J.Clark caught behind, before also bowling R.Clarke the following over. However, the pair had done the damage, striking at nearly a run a ball. We had Surrey 339-8 but some late resistance from Curran and Mckerr saw them eventually make 395 all out. Not too bad considering the conditions, but a bit more than we were hoping at 167-4, then 339-8. Milnes was the pick of the bowlers with 4. Stevens also picked up another 3 wickets, making that 16 wickets across his last 4 innings.

    Crawley's run of awful form continued when he edged behind before the close of play, making that 8 single digit scores from his last 12 innings - not good enough. Getting really ticked off with our pathetic batting line up. In sunny conditions and a good pitch we made 86 all out?? Renshaw the only man to make double digits, he was the last man out after making 50. I'm starting the aggression bar cautiously but it doesn't seem to prevent these collapses so not sure what else I can do. I guess it just comes down to the ability of our batsmen.

    After a string of low scores Crawley found a bit of form in the 2nd innings, hitting a fine century off 144 balls. The problem was nobody was up for sticking with his. We were 160-4 when he brought up the ton. Crawley eventually fell for 161, making the score 292-8, we were still 17 runs away from making Surrey bat again. We ended 302 all out.

    Surrey - 395 all out (Clarke 96, Elgar 73, Clark 58; Milnes 4-102, Stevens 3-78)
    Kent - 86 all out (Renshaw 50; Curran 4-15, Clarke 3-28)
    Kent - 302 all out (Crawley 161; Morkel 4-40, Clarke 3-89)

    Surrey win by an innings and 7 runs
    Points: Surrey 23, Kent 3
    MOTM - Rikki Clarke


    A really poor performance from the batsmen once again. Yorkshire & Somerset both lost too which is the only saving grace - with 5 FC games to go it is looking a 3-horse race for relegation.

    Comment


    • #32
      It doesn't get much easier as we face a trip to top of the league Hampshire next. After much consideration, we stick with the same side. This is the last FC game before the T20 comp begins

      Kent
      Crawley, Renshaw, Denly, Kuhn, Bell-Drummond, Billings (c), Robinson, Stevens, Haggett, Podmore, Milnes

      We lost the toss and were asked to bowl. Was perfect batting conditions so we were potentially in for a tough day.

      We bowled well early on, and Podmore was rewarded with the wicket of Alsop for 10. Hampshire batted slow, but Rahane was in and reached 50, showing why he was averaging close to 70 for the season. We finally got rid of Soames for an extremely painful 27 off 156! Although he was missing a few Rahane did bring up 100, off just 136 balls. He just kept going and going and ended the day 172* with Hants 311-3. Roussouw - who was also averaging 50+ this season - was 61*. We got Roussouw early on Day 2, and finally got Rahane out one short of his double century - Milnes the man to finally get him. Donald came in and hit 50 off 37 (V.Agg batsmen are way way too aggressive on this game by the way). Hampshire eventually made it to 553 all out, with Adam Oakes - on debut - also hitting a 50. Our 4 front-line seamers shared the wickets.

      This would be a big test for our fragile batting line up. Crawley is the most frustrating batsman I've ever come across on this game, he literally only gets single digits or centuries. It was just the 1 run this time. 1-1. Denly's poor form continued as he got single digits for the 7th time in 8 innings. Renshaw and Bell-Drummond went for nothing too, and we were 48-4. Honestly no clue what I'm doing wrong with the bat, I've tried starting 0, 1, 2 bars of aggression but nothing seems to work. Didn't really have this issue in CC18. I'll have to keep believing it's the quality of the players, and hopefully we can make a few signings at the end of the season. A bit of a partnership between Kuhn and Billings took us past 100, but Billings fell for 41, and we ended Day 2 117-5 with Kuhn 43*. Tough conditions in the morning as it was very grey and some rain about, we lost Robinson for 26 and got to lunch at 162-6. If we could somehow get past tea in out first innings we might be in with a sniff to salvage a draw. Stevens horrific form continued as he fell for one, that's a high score of 17 in 11 innings - clearly his old age has made his batting regress massively. Haggett went without doing much. Kuhn and Podmore hung about for a bit, and Kuhn's mammoth 199 ball innings finished trapped LBW by Holland for 71. Milnes took us past 200 to get the batting point before Podmore fell 23 mins before tea with us on 203 all out. Pretty poor with just 4 batsmen making double digits.

      First task would be to survive 13 minutes to tea, and we did. We were still 347 behind, so we simply just had to survive 4 sessions. Pitch was wearing, and it was set to be cloudy most of the time so it wasn't looking promising. Crawley almost made it to double digits!! But no - 9 runs. When it looked like we would get to close 1 down Renshaw fell to part-time spinner Oakes (debut match, only down as a batsman?), poor from Cheeks. Kuhn and DBD fell to leave us 54-4 at close. We ended all out an hour before tea.

      Hampshire - 553 all out (Rahane 199, Roussouw 73, Oakes 71, Donald 67; Milnes 3-131, Podmore 3-171)
      Kent - 203 all out (Kuhn 71; Wheal 4-20, Edwards 4-88)
      Kent - 139 all out (Barker 5-75)

      Hampshire win by an innings and 211 runs
      Points: Hampshire 23, Kent 2
      MOTM - Akinkya Rahane


      We go into the T20s with most of our players out of form, although at least we gain the services of Nabi, Milne & Viljoen.

      Comment


      • #33
        I really struggle to see how we can turn this around now so we're looking pretty nailed for relegation

        Last edited by jazzyfizzle0; 07-02-2019, 12:20 AM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Our first T20 is home to Somerset. Nabi & Milne are our T20 overseas players so they come straight in, as does Viljoen who is on a T20 only contract. Blake also comes back as per usual for limited overs. Choosing the remaining seamers was difficult. After a strong season we give Milnes a go, and due to his aggressive batting and all-round ability we give Grant Stewart a go too. Renshaw, Robinson, Stevens, Podmore, Haggett make way from our last FC game. We give the batting order a re-jig too, with Denly and Bell-Drummond opening like they normally do in T20s. Crawley - playing only his 2nd T20 match - bats at 6.

          Kent
          Bell-Drummond, Denly, Kuhn, Billings (c), Nabi, Crawley, Blake, Stewart, Milne, Viljoen, Milnes

          We won the toss and chose to bat

          We really struggled to find the boundary, especially in the early overs. Even though we lost no wickets we only managed 24 from the powerplay, and 38 from the first 8 overs. We lost Bell-Drummond and Kuhn for not many runs, even though they had wasted a lot of balls. Denly eventually managed to get going once he was fully settled, and Billings added a bit of aggression, but we could only manage 130-3 from our 20 overs.

          We took the early wicket of Babar Azam but had no success afterwards, with Somerset's pair of Warner and Pettifer sharing a century stand and cruising to their target just 1 wicket down, with 4.1 overs to spare. A hammering.

          Kent - 130-3 - 20 overs (Denly 72*)
          Somerset - 136-1 - 15.5 overs (Pettifer 79*, Warner 49*)

          Somerset win by 9 wickets
          Points: Kent 0, Somerset 2
          MOTM - P Pettifer
          Last edited by jazzyfizzle0; 07-05-2019, 10:12 AM.

          Comment


          • #35
            We were away to Hampshire next. We make one change with Klaassen coming in for Milnes.

            Kent
            Bell-Drummond, Denly, Kuhn, Billings (c), Crawley, Blake, Nabi, Stewart, Milne, Klaassen, Viljoen,

            We lost the toss and was asked to bowl. We would have bowled first anyway had we won.

            A much better performance with the ball here. After James Vince took 20 off Milne's first over we were fearing the worst. However, him and Viljoen came back well picking up both openers (Vince and Roussouw). The runs really dried up after that opening over. Nabi picked up his first wicket for Kent when he bowled Oakes for 9. Some suicide batting by Hants meant 3 of the next 4 wickets were run outs, with Klaassen bowling well in limited overs once again, picking up the other wicket. Klaassen took 1-18 from his 4 overs. Hants were 90-7 from 15 and it looked like we might get them all out, but some sensible batting saw Chris Morris and Brad Taylor take them to 127-7 from their 20.

            The chase was a one man show. All of our batsmen struggled other than Bell-Drummond, who raced to 50 from 33 balls. He eventually finished 88* (66), scoring almost 70% of our total runs. Our other batsmen scored 32 from 49 balls. We were crusing, but a couple of late wickets, and slow down got us twitching a bit, before we eventually made it 4 wickets down, with 7 balls to spare.

            Hampshire - 127-7 - 20 overs (Morris 30*; Klaassen 1-18, Nabi 1-22)
            Kent - 128-4 - 18.5 overs (Bell-Drummond 88*)

            Kent win by 6 wickets
            Points: Hampshire 0, Kent 2
            MOTM - Daniel Bell-Drummond


            An incredible performance from our opener gave us a nice win against a strong side.
            Last edited by jazzyfizzle0; 07-05-2019, 10:12 AM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Next up was Essex at home. We went in unchanged, although Stevens, Robinson and Haggett are performing well for the Seconds, so await their opportunity.

              Kent
              Bell-Drummond, Denly, Kuhn, Billings (c), Crawley, Blake, Nabi, Stewart, Milne, Klaassen, Viljoen

              We won the toss and chose to bowl. An easy decision after how the first 2 games went.

              Another solid bowling performance. Milne and Viljoen took a wicket apiece in the powerplay to leave Essex 44-2. Nabi, Stewart & Klaassen were economical in the middle period and picked up wickets to leave Essex 64-4 from 10. With wickets falling around him, Chopra made a nice 50 from 42 balls before falling to the fine Stewart who picked up 3-26 from his 4. Nabi is proving a great signing considering the lack of other spinners in our squad. He picked up 2-19 on this occasion. Klaassen once again bowled well but picked up no wickets this time. Viljoen and Milne combined at the death to take the final 3 wickets - with the last falling off the final ball of the innings, to leave Essex 130 all out. Milne picked up 3 wickets & Viljoen 2. Other than Chopra, no Essex batsman passed 20.

              Our openers continued their good form, putting on another 50 partnership before both fell in quick succession to Matt Coles. After a couple of conservative innings, Kuhn played more aggressively on this occasion, along with Billings who made a quick 27 (15) before falling victim to Coles. However, Kuhn (38*) and Crawley (8*) saw us home with 3 overs to spare.

              Essex - 130 all out - 20 overs (Chopra 52; Stewart 3-26, Milne 3-32, Nabi 2-19)
              Kent - 131-3 - 17.1 overs (Kuhn 38*, Denly 30; Coles 3-20, Amir 0-8)

              Kent win by 7 wickets
              Points: Kent 2, Essex 0
              MOTM - Heino Kuhn


              Some of our bowlers can consider themselves unlucky not to take MoTM, but another win and a nice boost to our NRR.

              Comment


              • #37
                We travelled to Surrey next, and went with an unchanged team again.

                Kent
                Bell-Drummond, Denly, Kuhn, Billings (c), Crawley, Blake, Nabi, Stewart, Milne, Klaassen, Viljoen

                We won the toss and chose to bowl. An easy decision again, especially as it was also overcast, and expected to clear later.

                We bowled without any luck in the powerplay, with the ball just missing the edge of Finch and Du Plessis bats countless times, as well as a few LBW appeals turned down. They capitalised on this and made 57 from the 6 overs. Klaassen broke the partnership, getting Finch for 28 in the 8th over. Nabi got Du Plessis for 48 the next over, but the openers had set Surrey a platform. Roy carried on the onslaught hitting 40 (26) before Stewart had him bowled, leaving the score 134-3 with 5 overs left. Viljoen and Milne combined well at the death to concede just 25 from the final 4 overs, with Viljoen standing out in particular, conceding just 9 from his two. Surrey ended 168-3.

                This would be tough, as our batting line up had been making life difficult chasing small totals, however, it was a good pitch, and some of the cloud had parted. Bell-Drummond made an early statement by slamming Morkel over square-leg for 6 very first ball of the innings. His fine form had carried over to this match, as he hit 44 (23) from the powerplay and we were 53-0, with Denly very much happy to support our in-form man. DBD brought up his 50 in the 9th over off 33 balls. Denly fell for 25, but the boundaries kept flowing for DBD until he eventually fell for a very good 75 (49). The game was in the balance as we needed 56 to win with 6.5 overs and 8 wickets in hand, although 2 new batsmen were at the crease. When Billings fell 3rd ball that signaled the wheels falling off for us. None of the middle order could get going, and we kept losing wickets chasing the game, eventually falling 22 short. Crawley in particular cost us badly, managing just 12 from 16 deliveries.

                Surrey - 168-3 - 20 overs (Du Plessis 48, Roy 40, Foakes 38*)
                Kent - 146-6 - 20 overs (Bell-Drummond 75; Virdi 2-18)

                Surrey win by 22 runs
                Points: Surrey 2, Kent 0
                MOTM - Faf Du Plessis


                A shame to lose this one from the position we were in, but Surrey are one of the strongest sides, so we'll hopefully bounce back vs Middlesex next, who currently sit winless from 4 games.

                Comment


                • #38
                  We were next away to Middlesex. After Crawley's poor form in the last game we give Ollie Robinson a go who has been great for us in the other formats. Stevens has been doing phenomenally for the 2nds so he get's a run out too, in for Klaassen, who we tell to go and find form in the 2nds.

                  Kent
                  Bell-Drummond, Denly, Kuhn, Billings (c), Nabi, Robinson, Blake, Stevens, Stewart, Milne, Viljoen

                  The sun was out. We won the toss and chose to bat on a fine pitch.

                  We got off to a great start, racing to 38-0 from 4 overs. Then rookie leg-spinner Tunnicliff came on to bowl and bowled a maiden in the 5th over. Mujeeb continued to keep it tight in the 6th which forced a suicidal run, and caused Bell-Drummond to be run out for 14. After 9 dot balls in a row we finally scored a run off Tunnicliffe with Denly guiding the ball to third man for four, followed by a big six over mid-wicket 2 balls later. A carbon copy of the previous run out in the 8th over sent Kuhn back to hut for 9. We bat pretty deep today so could afford to go a bit harder in the middle overs. However, Billings fell for 6 then Denly shortly after for 44 (32) to leave us 83-4 from 10.1. Tunnicliff bowled his second maiden to give him 1-19 from 4 overs. Just when we thought the spin attack had finished Ollie Rayner came on to bowl. We continued to attack and lose wickets, and looked in trouble at 109-6, but a couple of nice cameos at the end from Blake (35 off 17) and Stewart hitting 18 off the last over to finish 21*(9) took us to a competitive 169-8. Middlesex bowled 12 overs of spin which produced 5 wickets (and 2 run outs in these overs). Maybe Denly would get a bowl alongside Nabi today.

                  After an explosive start from Malan and Stirling, Stevens trapped the former with just his 4th T20 ball in the last 2 years. However, a 94 run partnership for the 2nd wicket took the game away from us. A few late wickets couldn't stop Middlesex reaching their target with 2 overs to spare. None of our bowlers could really apply the pressure we needed.

                  Kent - 169-8 - 20 overs (Denly 44, Blake 35; Tunnicliffe 1-19)
                  Middlesex - 170-4 - 18 overs (Eskinazi 67*, Stirling 58)

                  Middlesex win by 6 wickets
                  Points: Middlesex 2, Kent 0
                  MOTM - Paul Stirling

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Sussex away was up next. We went unchanged.

                    Kent
                    Bell-Drummond, Denly, Kuhn, Billings (c), Nabi, Robinson, Blake, Stevens, Stewart, Milne, Viljoen

                    We lost the toss and were asked to bowl.

                    After 16 from the first 2 overs, Adam Milne removed Carey and Wright in consecutive balls to leave Sussex 17-2, with Evans defending the hatrick ball. After Evans hit 13 off the next over he inexplicably ran himself out in the 5th over. 22 runs from the 6th over shifted the momentum once again, before Stevens removed Salt for 12. Stevens was bowling a nice spell and finished with 1-22 from 4. However, Van Zyl was batting well and reached 50 from 32 balls. Wickets continued to fall at the other end, and Nabi picked up Brown for 8. We gave Stewart another go after a poor first over and he rewarded us with the wicket of Van Zyl for 65 to leave Sussex 122-6 from 13.5. Some poor bowling at the death, combined with a Rashid Khan cameo (24 off 15) took Sussex to 165, which would definitely be a competitive total.

                    Denly was removed first over of the match by 17 year old Paul Irwin. Similarly to Middlesex, Sussex also used spin against us in the powerplay, and we could only muster 34-1 from 6 overs. We had to up the anti but Bell-Drummond fell trying to do that for a poor 10(17). Billings came in and played aggressor to take us to 74-2 from 10, meaning we needed 92 from the final 10 overs, with plenty of batting to come. After a slow start, Kuhn had managed to up his pace too, and reached 50 off 40 balls. We reached the end of the 15th over at 116-2, needing 50 from 5 overs. Billings reached his own 50 from 32 balls, but we were all of a sudden struggling to find the boundary. After really struggling Kuhn fell for 63, but had wasted 56 balls. Blake came in and hit 3 consecutive fours before holing out on the boundary. A first ball 4 from Stevens meant we went into the final over needing 12 runs with Billings on strike against the impressive Irwin who had only gone for 15 from 3 overs so far. Billings fell first ball for 60, and took a further 2 wickets in the over, conceding only 2 runs. We fell 10 runs short.

                    Sussex - 165 all out - 20 overs (Van Zyl 65; Viljoen 3-29, Stevens 1-22)
                    Kent - 156-7 - 20 overs (Kuhn 65, Billings 60; Irwin 4-17)

                    Sussex win by 9 runs
                    Points: Sussex 2, Kent 0
                    MOTM - Paul Irwin


                    Somehow lost needing just 71 from 8 overs with 8(!!) wickets in hand. Settled batsmen struggling to find the boundary on max aggression seems somewhat unusual but oh well.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X