Evison looks a talent, played a mature innings for a 2 year old. He deserved a century, the review the ball before his dismissal may well have caused a break in concentration, although it was a good delivery.
Notts looked to have let go of a real talent, which they seem to make a habit of, Matt Milnes, who also went to Kent would be another one. They really need to look at their recruitment policy, their batting is packed with imports, you wonder what the coaches are doing if they can't produce their own.
It costs time & money to bring players through an academy & 2nd XI system, yet they spend more on imports.
It sounds like Stevo was going t get a proper send off at Canterbury in the Championship, but after limping off in the field in the final, he may well have played his last game for Kent.
He just doesn't want t give up, but hasn't been effective as a bowler in Championship cricket this year with better pitches & less movement on offer, & I don't think he had the luxury of opening the bowling. Once you reach your late 30's you can't expect long contracts, yet he's kept putting in match winning performances. Kent player of the year in 3 of the last 5 seasons, I watched him get a double- century at Headingley which went a long way to securing another contract late in the year.
The word from Kent was that the player/coach role he was looking at, would be an issue, dealing with players he was maybe too familiar with, surely that could also be an advantage.
Maybe a return to his county of birth, Leicestershire are bottom, & winless in Div 2, so any help would be welcome.
(18-09-2022 12:09 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote: [ -> ]It sounds like Stevo was going t get a proper send off at Canterbury in the Championship, but after limping off in the field in the final, he may well have played his last game for Kent.
He just doesn't want t give up, but hasn't been effective as a bowler in Championship cricket this year with better pitches & less movement on offer, & I don't think he had the luxury of opening the bowling. Once you reach your late 30's you can't expect long contracts, yet he's kept putting in match winning performances. Kent player of the year in 3 of the last 5 seasons, I watched him get a double- century at Headingley which went a long way to securing another contract late in the year.
The word from Kent was that the player/coach role he was looking at, would be an issue, dealing with players he was maybe too familiar with, surely that could also be an advantage.
Maybe a return to his county of birth, Leicestershire are bottom, & winless in Div 2, so any help would be welcome.
Not sure I go along with that description of current playing surfaces booms. Better batting tracks yes - for the contest?? and for determining the value of scores accumulated from the blade?? - Not so sure!! Mind you, if you can produce bowling like Hurt did, then yes, it is a selling point! If he gets his front arm working for him, and adds a K or two, he may go far! Do you know what age he is Booms??
Totally agree that working with - and gaining instant respect for his own abilities/character from players he already knows, has to be a plus!!
NB just seen that Hurt is 28, so maybe a bit late for him going even higher. Mind you, others have put themselves in the frame later than that, and he has maybe 6 more years or so at his 'peak' Unlikely to do a 40 plus Anderson thing however!!
I think that championship pitches have maybe gone too far in favour of batsman, but still the better of the 2 evils. Stevo getting 50 wickets each year bowling medium pace wasn't healthy either.
I remember a year when the authorities asked for straw coloured pitches, & some very average batsmen were getting centuries. Similar to this year, lots of draws.
Yorkshire have just one win, but have been in strong positions in many of their draws. They have identified that lack of pace has been an issue, & brought in 2 potentially quicker bowlers.
(18-09-2022 18:35 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote: [ -> ]I think that championship pitches have maybe gone too far in favour of batsman, but still the better of the 2 evils. Stevo getting 50 wickets each year bowling medium pace wasn't healthy either.
I remember a year when the authorities asked for straw coloured pitches, & some very average batsmen were getting centuries. Similar to this year, lots of draws.
Yorkshire have just one win, but have been in strong positions in many of their draws. They have identified that lack of pace has been an issue, & brought in 2 potentially quicker bowlers.
Yes, and apparently draw is a dirty word now too, despite it remaining sacrosanct in the test arena - bazball and all!! Pitches shouldn't though be so benign that a draw becomes the more likely outcome, whatever the players do. It sometimes seems to me that the England heirarchy are never happy, and can never be placated no matter how many changes to pitch conditions, formats or schedules.
^^ Fighting for a draw ranks highly for me, however, the Bears won a Championship once by virtue of amassing bonus points, hardly won any games, pretty sure the second placed side gad more wins. I don't like the current bonus point system, it needs to be looked at.
(18-09-2022 20:48 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote: [ -> ]^^ Fighting for a draw ranks highly for me, however, the Bears won a Championship once by virtue of amassing bonus points, hardly won any games, pretty sure the second placed side gad more wins. I don't like the current bonus point system, it needs to be looked at.
I think that the bonus system reflects a team's ability to reach certain staging posts during a match, and all that takes in terms of the skills of the game. My only change would be to even up the points for bowling and batting, so five for each! I can see the argument for a first innings lead being rewarded in similar way, but I am not sure that would fundamentally change the way the match pans out, so maybe not a priority, but I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it in principle.
^^ Spot on regarding equal batting & bowling points, the whole game revolved around the balance between bat & ball, so it's stupid to have an imbalance of bonus points. Personally the points are not needed, we have a tie breaker system of, most wins, fewest losses, most points in matches between sides that finish level, most wickets, & most runs.
I just don't like the idea of a team finishing higher than another, purely due to bonus points. As it stands Surrey lead Div 1 by 8 points, take away the bonus points, & Hampshire would lead by 12 points. Hampshire have won 2 more games. Also the integrity of the Championship is compromised, as having 14 games & 10 teams means that Surrey have beaten Hampshire at the Oval, but Hampshire don't get a chance to play them at Southampton.
The Oval is statistically & historically one of the best wickets to bat on, therefore has provided many England batsmen. Pope is the latest, an impressive career average of 62, but closer to 100 at the Oval.
Surrey, surprise, surprise, have the most batting bonus points so far this year, 10 more than the next best. with the unequal 5/3 batting bowling bonus points system, they have a maximum of 7 home games, & a better chance than most to gain a maximum 5 points per game, that's 2 more points every game that can be achieved by bowling.
Scrap the bonus points, & the table would have a much different look, Essex would swap places will Lancs & lie 3rd. Yorkshire would drop 2 places, just above the relegation position.
(19-09-2022 19:38 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote: [ -> ]^^ Spot on regarding equal batting & bowling points, the whole game revolved around the balance between bat & ball, so it's stupid to have an imbalance of bonus points. Personally the points are not needed, we have a tie breaker system of, most wins, fewest losses, most points in matches between sides that finish level, most wickets, & most runs.
I just don't like the idea of a team finishing higher than another, purely due to bonus points. As it stands Surrey lead Div 1 by 8 points, take away the bonus points, & Hampshire would lead by 12 points. Hampshire have won 2 more games. Also the integrity of the Championship is compromised, as having 14 games & 10 teams means that Surrey have beaten Hampshire at the Oval, but Hampshire don't get a chance to play them at Southampton.
The Oval is statistically & historically one of the best wickets to bat on, therefore has provided many England batsmen. Pope is the latest, an impressive career average of 62, but closer to 100 at the Oval.
Surrey, surprise, surprise, have the most batting bonus points so far this year, 10 more than the next best. with the unequal 5/3 batting bowling bonus points system, they have a maximum of 7 home games, & a better chance than most to gain a maximum 5 points per game, that's 2 more points every game that can be achieved by bowling.
Scrap the bonus points, & the table would have a much different look, Essex would swap places will Lancs & lie 3rd. Yorkshire would drop 2 places, just above the relegation position.
Try as i might, I just can't argue against the points you make Booms re bonus points. All perfectly valid, particularly when you factor in the different tracks teams have to bat on. The uneven number of matches, home and away depending on opposition is an easy fix - will the authorities grab it, or are they happy to allow the integrity - as you suggest - of the championship, to be further eroded??
Another point would be, why only first innings points. I heard it said that the bonus points create some added early interest before the pattern of the game becomes clearer & starts to take shape in the 3rd & 4th innings. I believe in Australia's Shield cricket they just have points for a first innings lead, but there's no need. why reward a team for a 1st innings lead when they can bat & bowl poorly in the 3rd & 4th innings, & lose. The whole point is that it is a 2 innings game, it would be equally stupid to award bonus points for only the 3rd & 4th innings. If a side loses the toss, bats on a difficult pitch early on day one, gains no batting bonus points. Then the sun comes out after lunch, & the other side gains maximum batting bonus points, but then bowls poorly in the 3rd innings & loses the game on the final day as the pitch deteriorates. With no bonus points achieved, the victorious side just picks up 16 points for a win, but the losing side still gains 8 bonus points.
It's like giving the losing football team 1.5 points just because they were leading at half time.