(23-09-2022 15:19 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote: [ -> ]A dominant performance today by Somerset has ensured Division 1 cricket for them next year, with a 352 run victory over Northamptonshire.
Northamptonshire though, no bottle, no fight - Somerset went on and on and on before declaring - I didn't get that one at all !! Leicestershire - on the other hand - from a position of being down and out, got too close for comfort against Middlesex. Yes 80 runs short appears comfortable, but for long periods Middlesex didn't know where the next wicket was coming from.
Thankfully the much - anticipated rain didn't materialise!! On to the final round next week. 1 from 3 to join Gloucestershire isn't it?? Warwickshire though look doomed with Yorkshire surely a gimme versus Glos??
SKY are covering the Lancashire v Surrey match, Lancs a slim chance of a runners up spot, & maybe it was decided weeks back that this might have been a title decider. Although there's less prestige attached, the Div 2 race has more on it with any 2 from Notts, Middlesex & Glamorgan hunting down promotion.
(23-09-2022 16:50 )hornball Wrote: [ -> ][quote='Boomerangutangangbang' pid='2715691' dateline='1663942742']
On to the final round next week. 1 from 3 to join Gloucestershire isn't it?? Warwickshire though look doomed with Yorkshire surely a gimme versus Glos??
I do wonder if there's another twist, For Yorkshire, there's the "elephant in the room" an unhealthy threat hanging over the club all year. I wouldn't be surprised if we don't get another kick in the balls before next season begins, which could change the outcome of what plays out in the final round of matches.
Definitely no gimme for Yorkshire, they must surely have the worst run of form in the division, with 5 defeats in & no wins in the last 7. Gloucestershire off the back of their 1st win, are under no pressure, & can play with freedom. Yorkshire are winless after a season opening victory at Bristol, against a competitive side.
I'm concerned, just can't see Yorkshire putting up a big total to make it easy, more likely a nail biting low scoring affair. I don't envisage a draw, which might be enough to save them, needing a maximum of 10 points. Feeing so negative, that I wouldn't be confident of gaining 5 bonus points, might have to rely on the Bears dropping points. On that note, in another post, I argued the need for bonus points, so my view would be that Kent don't deserve to get dragged into this battle. They looked a poor side destined for the drop, sides were racking up big totals, against ineffective bowling. But 3 wins from 4, & they deserve to stay up, Gloucestershire, Warwickshire, & Yorkshire, can only muster up 3 wins between them, just ne each.
Better news, is the possible return of Fisher, who would play only his 2nd match since Bristol where he performed well. Fresh off the back of 6-9 against Lancs 2nd XI, yesterday captained Yorkshire as they secured the 2nd XI Championship.
(24-09-2022 14:27 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote: [ -> ] (23-09-2022 16:50 )hornball Wrote: [ -> ][quote='Boomerangutangangbang' pid='2715691' dateline='1663942742']
On to the final round next week. 1 from 3 to join Gloucestershire isn't it?? Warwickshire though look doomed with Yorkshire surely a gimme versus Glos??
I do wonder if there's another twist, For Yorkshire, there's the "elephant in the room" an unhealthy threat hanging over the club all year. I wouldn't be surprised if we don't get another kick in the balls before next season begins, which could change the outcome of what plays out in the final round of matches.
Definitely no gimme for Yorkshire, they must surely have the worst run of form in the division, with 5 defeats in & no wins in the last 7. Gloucestershire off the back of their 1st win, are under no pressure, & can play with freedom. Yorkshire are winless after a season opening victory at Bristol, against a competitive side.
I'm concerned, just can't see Yorkshire putting up a big total to make it easy, more likely a nail biting low scoring affair. I don't envisage a draw, which might be enough to save them, needing a maximum of 10 points. Feeing so negative, that I wouldn't be confident of gaining 5 bonus points, might have to rely on the Bears dropping points. On that note, in another post, I argued the need for bonus points, so my view would be that Kent don't deserve to get dragged into this battle. They looked a poor side destined for the drop, sides were racking up big totals, against ineffective bowling. But 3 wins from 4, & they deserve to stay up, Gloucestershire, Warwickshire, & Yorkshire, can only muster up 3 wins between them, just ne each.
Better news, is the possible return of Fisher, who would play only his 2nd match since Bristol where he performed well. Fresh off the back of 6-9 against Lancs 2nd XI, yesterday captained Yorkshire as they secured the 2nd XI Championship.
Very fair point Booms! I still think though that after the completely shocking season Gloucestershire have had - I don't buy this word 'momentum' - Yorkshire should have enough!
I like the idea of bonus points as I suggested earlier - with the caveat that the imbalance between batting/bowling needs to be addressed. I believe that at this time of the season, they reflect how each team has performed in the key moments throughout! On the SKY issue, I go some way to acknowledging the point you make about them having planned in advance, but their decisions are always based on the championship winners battle (there isn't one and slap it up em in my view), and although that wasn't settled until the last group of matches, the likelihood was that the real scrap would be at the other end of the standings.
I admit to not knowing if the current situation is as it used to be (I think) namely that when SKY come along once a year, it precludes the clubs involved from streaming the match they have deemed worthy of broadcast?? I am glad that the go to matches are those involving teams looking to avoid the drop, so there will be no issue with them streaming.
NB Just a quick word on Div 2 and Derbyshire. they were in the hunt for promotion not long ago, and I saw an online interview with Mickey Arthur in which he was - at the time - optimistic. Shame they fell away, but what a job Arthur has done. (can't have come cheap either I would have imagined)
(24-09-2022 15:27 )hornball Wrote: [ -> ] (24-09-2022 14:27 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote: [ -> ] (23-09-2022 16:50 )hornball Wrote: [ -> ][quote='Boomerangutangangbang' pid='2715691' dateline='1663942742'
NB Just a quick word on Div 2 and Derbyshire. they were in the hunt for promotion not long ago, and I saw an online interview with Mickey Arthur in which he was - at the time - optimistic. Shame they fell away, but what a job Arthur has done. (can't have come cheap either I would have imagined)
Arthur is a great, & maybe his style is more suited to the County game, not that he didn't do a bad job at the International level.
Signed a top overseas player, in Shan Masood, who batted well in the T20 loss against England. Now that he's signed for Yorkshire next season, I expect that he will be away on International duty a lot. This usually happens with our signings.
Interesting start to the final four days of the county season. Lancashire (position to play for) are off to a solid start (better than solid) against Surrey (celebration hangover) at 414 for 5. Keaton Jennings has been sending the leather to all parts with an unbeaten 190. The siren calls have started once again about a recall to the England team. I would be cautious, as he has had quite a few run outs on the back of stardust county performances, and fell over at the highest level - another reason why determining call ups on innings played on relatively flat tracks at county level, may not be the best marker IMHO.
Elsewhere in relgation land, Kent are one wicket away from securing 3 valuable points against Somerset. Warwickshire have made a steady start on 138 for 2 against Hampshire, but still have a lot of work to do, and then seek help from elsewhere, while Yorkshire - having secured al their bowling bonus points, now find themselves in strife!
I make it (as it stands - excluding Glos already gone) Warwickshire still on 120 Kent 137 Yorkshire 138 Somerset still 145
(26-09-2022 19:10 )hornball Wrote: [ -> ]Yorkshire - having secured al their bowling bonus points, now find themselves in strife!
Yorkshire had worked themselves into a solid position at 80-2, so only 110 in arrears with 8 wickets remaining. Then Lyth gets out, & in the time it took Tattersall to reach the middle the light that had been under discussion for some time, was suddenly too bad. He didn't even ace one ball, off they all went, farce.
Time & again umpires wait until a wicket falls before taking them off. They are getting it wrong.
Consider their relegation rivals at Birmingham, didn't start on time, & when Warwickshire finally batted, the openers had good light conditions & put on 129. Tell me how that is fair. Different rules are being applied when it comes to starting in bad light, & batting in fading light. The same applies to not starting play in light rain, yet keeping players out on the field in light rain. it's the same rain.
Absolutely not consistency.
(26-09-2022 19:50 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote: [ -> ] (26-09-2022 19:10 )hornball Wrote: [ -> ]Yorkshire - having secured al their bowling bonus points, now find themselves in strife!
Yorkshire had worked themselves into a solid position at 80-2, so only 110 in arrears with 8 wickets remaining. Then Lyth gets out, & in the time it took Tattersall to reach the middle the light that had been under discussion for some time, was suddenly too bad. He didn't even ace one ball, off they all went, farce.
Time & again umpires wait until a wicket falls before taking them off. They are getting it wrong.
Consider their relegation rivals at Birmingham, didn't start on time, & when Warwickshire finally batted, the openers had good light conditions & put on 129. Tell me how that is fair. Different rules are being applied when it comes to starting in bad light, & batting in fading light. The same applies to not starting play in light rain, yet keeping players out on the field in light rain. it's the same rain.
Absolutely not consistency.
Nothing to disagree with here at all Booms! I am not sure what the solution is (bar the danger threshold which is rarely the one used)
So one from two now for the drop - between Warickshire and Yorkshire after Kent did enough. Hard to see a way out for the bears, who are in a dire situation, although they are doing everything they can do in their match by declaring when they did! They aren't helping themselves by spilling the first chance that came their way early doors in Hampshire's first Inns though - I suspect an achiles heel they have had all season together with not posting high enough first inns totals to apply the pressure - and gain important bonus points - the value of which become clear in a scenario such as we are seeing play out now. All their eggs are in the one basket, and even with Yorkshire facing a decent target to chase down, which may see them fall short, it won't be enough I believe.
It is in these circumstances, that the administrators have - simply have - to keep the show on the road, and - if necessary - alter the rain/bad light law. Umpires have discretion, I wish they had common sense too more often!!
I wonder what kind of finish to the season we might have if the current structure wasn't in such 'bad shape' and in 'need of an overhaul' ........(spot the sarcasm if you can)
Can't see Yorkshire chasing anything beyond 200. We are slightly hampered without Root, Malan, Brook, & Bairstow.
The Bears made an interesting call, they had the option of scoring heavy, 500+ with the hope of making Hampshire follow-on. Maybe forced into trying to make some inroads into the Hampshire batting after losing so much time on days 1 & 2. Hampshire need 4 more points to secure runner-up place, assuming Lancashire can beat Surrey, so plenty to play or them.
(27-09-2022 19:16 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote: [ -> ]Can't see Yorkshire chasing anything beyond 200. We are slightly hampered without Root, Malan, Brook, & Bairstow.
The Bears made an interesting call, they had the option of scoring heavy, 500+ with the hope of making Hampshire follow-on. Maybe forced into trying to make some inroads into the Hampshire batting after losing so much time on days 1 & 2. Hampshire need 4 more points to secure runner-up place, assuming Lancashire can beat Surrey, so plenty to play or them.
The first line caught my attention there Booms. I can understand (although there is a legitimate debate) why Root Malan and Bairstow in particular are sitting this one out. They would no doubt say that they would all relish the chance to play if allowed?? The wider point though is the inconsistency, in such instances, of the England team decision makers. There sometimes appears to be no logic to the decisions as to which players they give the green light to play for their clubs, and those they do not! In a sense, they are determining which clubs have an advantage/disadvantage - however 'inadvertent' that may be!