I expect no changes in the side.

Murmurs in the Press about dressing room discontent...*checks calendar*...yes, it's July and thus the time of the year for that old canard to re-appear.

To put this match into perspective, we went in with a very inexperienced team and only a top performance by Kabby got us all excited about a result against the league leaders. So I'm not upset by this result.

Concern (from Worcs news) The defeat left Worcestershire more firmly marooned at the foot of the table and they gave only two overs this morning to Kabir Ali because of various niggles following his six for 68 in the first innings.

Steve Rhodes : "In both innings there were some loose shots. It's tough on some of the bowlers who worked very hard for their wickets and they see some of our guys giving away their wicket and that can be soul destroying. We've just got to do better."

I see Knapett batted at nine. Sorry, but a F/C keeper has to be able to hold his own with the willow at no lower than 8 in the modern game otherwise he is taking up a bowler's place.

Steve has suggested that Knappett be given the gloves with Davies playing as a specialist batsman. Sorry, have to disagree with that - nothing will make Davo head for the M40 quicker than taking the gloves off him! As a keeper/batsman - he's one of a select few in with a realistic chance of higher honours. Sans keepers gloves, he's only one of a number of potential batting replacements for the England side.

[quote="Henry Crun"]I see Knapett batted at nine. Sorry, but a F/C keeper has to be able to hold his own with the willow at no lower than 8 in the modern game otherwise he is taking up a bowler's place.

Surely you can't say that when Noffke's batting at 6 and Kabir at 8 - all the bowlers have their places!

I hope Kervezee keeps his place- but back in the real world...

Playing Knappett at 9 was a mistake, I feel- how can a batsman/keeper prove himself at that position. More of this and he will be off to Worcs.-In-Exile at Wantage Road [props. Geez, Hall and Wiggers].

Knappets second first class game, or thereabouts ? Why would you expect him to perform at a higher position ? Why put that pressure on him ? The other guys have more experience. I agree that long-term he must bat higher but I have no probs with this match.

I have led the calls for Batty and Smith to be dropped all year, so I am delighted to read that others share my view.
Drop Batty - play an extra batsman and let Moeen / Solanki have a bowl - they could hardly do any worse than 5 LVCC wickets by July 4th ?
Drop Smith - play Kervezee
Drop Batty and Smith - play Kervezee and Wheeldon - could they do worse ?
It was a tough game to go into but as for Knappett at 9 - if the coach rates him as a worse batsman than Batty and Kabir, then it just demonstrates how vital it is Davies stays.

Rhodes has run out of excuses and others to blame.

Hotel, you have, I would agree, been one of the posters who has suggested that a change in the line up would be a good thing, as have most of the people who have posted here to a greater or lesser extent.
There are several ways this could be done, some more likely than others.

The last sentance, I am sorry to suggest, is a non-sequetor. Whether you agree or not with how he has done it, Rhodes has been doing his job to the best of his ability for some time now. He has tried to bring in new blood within the budget that he has, sometimes it has paid off, sometimes it has not, sometimes the jury is still out. I have not seen him try and blame ayone else particularly and as far as excuses go, I have heard him defend his players as best he can in the circumstances as one would expect a coach to do.

Methinks that even GH was listed at No.10 on the scorecard in his debut game at the Oval in September 1984! He didn`t get a knock in the first innings but announced his arrival with 82 not out in the second after coming in at 194 for 7. Incidently,`the promising Zimbabwean prospect also bowled six overs in the game but failed to take a wicket`.He should have been sacked on the spot!

Good point, rupert...I am sure that Hotels will blame Bumpy for the fact that he wasn't!