Also, apologies for my awful typing. I’m on mobile and this is hard. Have got the run chase in my ear though as 5xtra have it.
Don’t particularly like the idea of guaranteeing a spot to anyone (maybe make an exception to an international player, especially a pre-touring player who’s only going to be around a month or two), but tbh warks are in a pretty desperate spot atm, and if it’s the only way they can attract young talent from other big counties, then it’s understandable. It’d be a particularly strident bears fan who complained about that as we slip into div 2 for the first time in a decade.
I do love (IIRC) that every county has spent some time in Div II at some point, even in its relatively short existence.
Trying to take personal prefs out of things, what would the order of appeal for the county teams be? Also not taking competence of the team into account.
Middlesex - get to play at Lords; London’s a pretty great place to live for a year or two
Worcestershire - lovely ground, lovely surroundings, lovely time
Somerset - great ground, Taunton is lovely, good base for exploring West Country, cider, get to eat sausages with Trescothik
Sussex - yeah Brighton’s pretty nice, nice ground. Careful not to piss on the bouncers though
Yorkshire - lots of fans, get to go all over yorkshire, Leeds is great, too many honest opinions
Kent - similar to worcs, just not as good
Derbyshire- Derby’s a bit crap, but the surrounding area is really lovely
Glamorgan - be quite nice being the outsider team, get to effectively represent a country
Nottinghamshire - cracking ground, right by the football grounds, Nottingham’s alright
Gloucestershire - lovely surroundings, lots of similar market towns though
Surrey - great stadium, good amount of fans, but you represent SURREY
Durham - lovely surroundings, pretty cold, miles from all the other teams means loads of travel
Warwickshire - Birmingham’s pretty decent, but it’s bit of a neither here nor there. Would you really want to relocate from India or Australia to live in Birmingham or Manchester?
Lancashire - same as Warwickshire tbh, just with more rain
Essex - new money or posh chaps, nice countryside though
Leicestershire - same as Hants, but at least the stadium’s somewhere reachable
Hampshire - pretty dull, the stadium’s a million miles from anywhere, and that anywhere is Southampton
Northamptonshire - struggling. Cheap shoe repairs?
Ooof, Toblerone Jones confirmed with a stress fracture to this back
I take your point about recruitment, and honestly I think I’m more critical of the player than the club. I think he’s a prospect but going for a certain batting spot could leave him very exposed. Still, I guess he has to back his talent.
As to the clubs, I think your lists is decent. The only defence I’d make of Surrey is the delightful class mix of the fans, because whilst we are ‘Surrey’ and the pavillion gets pretty brexit at times, we’re also South London and there is some genuinely working class attitude about as well. It’s certainly a lot less precious than Lord’s where the ‘home of cricket’ spirit is balanced against everyone being very, very proud of their MCC yellow and orange blazer.
Worcestershire is lovely - just a shame it’s under water so often.
Sussex is great and Arundel is the best outground I’ve been too.
Durham has the appeal of being the newest club, and so successful with it. I’ve nmever been but I feel protective.
Worcester is also close enough to Birmingham, without actually having to be in Birmingham…
This is a good list.
I reckon where the international players are coming might shuffle things around a bit though…
Indian Subcontinent players traditionally have liked going to Leics/ Birmingham and even Derby because of the strong indian/ Pakistani/ Bangladeshi communities…
(I do like Birmingham, but worcs has best of both worlds)
that’s probably true. Although maybe they’d want the cliched English experience, country pubs and … other pubs.
Not good. They’re going to pick Finn now aren’t they?
Also, how on earth did Essex win their latest match? Follow on should never be enforced unless you’re 300+ runs in front or running out of time.
er no I heard it from the official experts of cricket on sky that you should always enforce a follow on, and not to do so shows COWARDICE
It’s a weird one. I remember in the 80s and 90s the follow on was nearly always enforced. So much so that when Mark Taylor declined to do so in the 1994/95 ashes it was a wtf moment. I’d like to say it fell out of fashion big time after the Aussies lost that match against India after enforcing the follow on but I have nothing to back that up.
I’ll defend the follow on here. Hampshire really could have done with a win, a draw isn’t that much help. There was a lot of rain about in the forecast, and Essex were clearly hungover and very unlikely to score 362, followed by bowling Hants out for 76. I mean, they did, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t VERY unlikely at the time. Would be easy to judge the decision based on the result, the decision process was fine in my book.
Yeah, that’s a fair point about the weather. It would have been difficult to judge the declaration. And the Essex batsmen seemed keen to play around straight ones from Abbot so it was fair enough expecting that to continue. With Essex’s bowling attack this season though any sort of 4th innings chase was going to be dodgy so it was a case of weighing those two things up.
To be clear, my incredulity was with Essex managing to win after being bowled out for 76 not with Hampshire enforcing the follow on.
I love how both teams scored a 76. Like that season that all of Warwickshire’s scores vs Essex were the same every innings (I think the second innings of the second match was like 4 runs higher).
Depends on a match by match basis I guess. If you bowl someone out in 35 overs and you’re miles ahead, you should really be good to go again, and I dunno if the ball was playing around a lot. If you’ve scraped being able to enforce the follow on, and it’s taken you 70+ overs… maybe give your bowlers a rest and just take the runs advantage. Unless the pitch is looking spicy.
I dunno. I am, however, a big proponent of decision processes, not results based hindsight, so I fully support whatever it was you said.
I’ve just looked that up. Warwickshire scored 155 in all four innings that season…and won both matches.
Oh it’s better than that it was 155 all out in the first innings and 155/3 in the second in both matches. Why did I not remember this?
Enjoyed this excellently vague agreement. My wife could learn a thing or two from you.
Oh that’s it! They were all out in 2 and just 3 wickets down in the others. We chatted about it at Victoria park
Although I didn’t remember them winning both. Says a lot about the state of mind in my fandom
(Windies chucking it in there for big Mo to continuously golf swing it leg side helped a lot)