This week on Triggered at Midwicket, Posh Girl Sophie and everyone's favourite teamless nomad Rob are joined once again by left-arm seamer Jack for another action-packed episode full of cricket debates, controversial opinions, questionable decisions and plenty of moments to get you Triggered!
The big news this week is the return of Kevin Pietersen to the England camp as he prepares to take up a mentoring role.
But what exactly does that mean?
When will KP actually join the England set-up? What will his role be? Is he genuinely ready to work within the England structure again, or will he eventually decide that YouTube is the better option?
And perhaps the biggest question of all…
Will England fans actually welcome Kevin Pietersen back?
With his official involvement not beginning until after the October tri-series involving England, Sri Lanka and Pakistan, Sophie, Rob and Jack ask why the delay — and whether this really is a serious cricketing appointment or simply a clever PR exercise.
Rob then turns to Jack for his thoughts on England's performances against Pakistan so far.
Have England genuinely been impressive, or has Pakistan's dramatic rebuilding process made England look better than they actually are?
With Pakistan sending home seven senior players, as well as changing their coaching set-up, was this a brave decision or a monumental mistake?
And Rob has a particular question for Jack:
Why sack the bowling coach?
Were Pakistan's bowlers really the problem when they didn't perform all that badly against England?
And if Pakistan are struggling this badly, what happens when England come up against a much stronger South African side?
Could the Proteas expose England's weaknesses when the Test series heads to South Africa?
Of course, it wouldn't be Triggered at Midwicket without another controversy!
This time, Hampshire are in the spotlight following their decision to sign fast bowler Scott Kuggeleijn.
Was Hampshire trying to pull the wool over supporters' eyes, or was this simply a rushed decision after Sonny Baker's England call-up left them needing another bowler?
Given Kuggeleijn's legal history and his acquittal, should he have been allowed to play?
Or should Hampshire never have signed him in the first place?
Were they simply desperate for reinforcements?
Honest mistake, desperate signing or completely avoidable controversy?
The trio debate both sides — and we want to know where YOU stand.
Jack then brings some of his latest TikTok opinions to the podcast as the trio start asking:
What would YOU change about cricket?
The LBW law comes under the microscope.
Why can a batter not be given LBW if the ball pitches outside leg stump, regardless of whether it's going on to hit the wickets?
If the ball pitches outside off stump and the batter plays a shot, why can't they then be dismissed LBW?
Make it make sense!
Then things get even more confusing as the trio discuss the laws surrounding the bowler's foot and stumpings.
A bowler can seemingly have their foot on the line and still deliver a legal ball, yet a batter's foot being on the crease rather than behind it can result in them being stumped.
One rule for the bowler and another for the batter?
What if the major counties and minor counties competed in a round-robin tournament?
Could a team such as Suffolk actually find themselves taking on the likes of Lancashire — potentially even facing Jimmy Anderson and the stars of the county game?
Rob immediately asks the most important question:
Has anyone got Jonty Rhodes' number?
Or perhaps someone needs to take the proposal directly to the ECB!
Could one of the minor counties pull off the ultimate upset and win a trophy against the big boys?
Or would the competition simply expose the gulf between the minor and major counties — and leave teams like Gloucestershire wondering why they ever agreed to let Oxfordshire into the competition?
Another episode, another collection of cricket debates — and this time we want YOU involved.
