Jump to content
IGNORED

The County Cricket Thread


Coppello

Recommended Posts

Both Lancs and Notts struggling, but, for the life of me, I can't recall who screwed us up to deprive us of our first Championship.

I seem to recall Chanderpaul not doing his job, so should I be willing on Hants (who have just bowled out Lancs) or asking Somerset to reign things in a little bit?  

Ah. I see it is now all academic as Lancs were bowled out for 273.

So, there are now two Test Ground counties (plus Durham) in the second division.

Thanks Tom.

So, all is good as Lancs are now down.

Edited by PHILINFRANCE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tomarse said:

It was all Lancs -  They bowled like absolute litter to let them get 400 off 90 overs (400/9)  - including some woeful fielding. I recall Mahmood dropping a couple of simple ones when 9 wickets down that would have meant Notts needed 6 wickets not 3.

However bad there bowling was the batting was even worse. I'd have fancied Notts to get 6 wickets inside the 15 overs anyway. 

 

A bit of a shame for Lancs this afternoon as they really have Hants on the ropes.

Just a pity about their lack of batting bonus points....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Both Lancs and Notts struggling, but, for the life of me, I can't recall who screwed us up to deprive us of our first Championship.

I seem to recall Chanderpaul not doing his job, so should I be willing on Hants (who have just bowled out Lancs) or asking Somerset to reign things in a little bit?  

Ah. I see it is now all academic as Lancs were bowled out for 273.

So, there are now two Test Ground counties (plus Durham) in the second division.

Thanks Tom.

So, all is good as Lancs are now down.

There were this season - Lord`s & Edgbaston

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a Gloucs fan so looking in from the outside- and up enviously.

However, 2nd place for you seems about right tbh- Surrey unbeaten. maybe not now in a dead rubber but batting well looking to keep their unbeaten record IMO (they're 205/1 2nd time around)- and the 2 games between the top 2, Surrey were comprehensively better- especially the first.

As for us, looks like we could well win our final game.

Next season in 2019, 3 going up gives us a chance- which means the chance in the 2020 cricket season for West Country derbies in the 4 day game! :boxing:

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tomarse said:

Surrey ones I’m fine with but elsewhere for sure some better nominations I’d say. 

I'm okay with Henry, 75 wickets makes him highest wicket taker in either division. However Denly has a couple more wickets and less runs than Abell for example so shouldn't be there and Clarke is averaging 30 and has around 40 odd wickets. Only 4 players have passed 1000 runs this season so I'd say either Bell or Hildreth should have got a nomination and Ollie Robinson on 74 wickets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Tomarse said:

Surrey have been the standout for sure. Slightly frustrating that probably in recent seasons a haul of 200 points/7 wins may have won us the title. 

Dont rule out Surrey hitting 550 and then skittling Essex out for 50!

They are going at over 4 an over so couldn't rule anything out!

Yeah, the threshold seems pretty high this year - in Div 2 as well, both Kent and Warwickshire after 13 games had 219 points and are basically playing for the title against each other last game- looks highly likely to go to Warwickshire.

Somerset appear to have become a bit of a 'nearly' team in the 4 day game last decade- I remember watching from afar (and tbh happy for them to win Championship because it's good for sport in region etc- definitely not a courtesy I apply to Bristol Rovers Swindon :laughcont: ).

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Dodgy dealings??? 

 

The England and Wales Cricket Board's £2.5m payment to Glamorgan did not "lack legitimacy", an external review has found.

The payment was received in return for Glamorgan not applying to host Tests between 2020 and 2024.

Two ECB non-executive directors stepped down in protest over the issue.

A review by the Good Governance Institute (GGI) found no evidence "the decision and the payment lacked legitimacy or legal compliance".

It also found no evidence that "the conduct of the ECB is in contravention of its Articles of Association".

Concerns over the payment led to the ECB meeting with the 18 first-class counties, which in turn led to the review being commissioned.

Surrey chairman Richard Thompson and former Somerset chairman Andy Nash quit as non-executive directors.

The GGI said: "Whilst there are a number of important issues which require reflection and action by the new board of the ECB, in the light of this review, there are no issues of breach of formal policy or procedure which require action against individuals.

"The review finds no evidence of failure to fulfil fiduciary requirements, no decisions which reflect conflicts of interest or failure to provide appropriate levels of leadership."

However, it set out 11 recommendations for the newly independent ECB board to implement.

Lord Patel of Bradford, a senior independent director on the ECB board, said: "This has been a valuable look at the way we have handled a significant matter for cricket and has given us important guidance for the way we should work within the game."

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...