Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Kent CCC 2017

17374757678

Comments

  • http://www.kentcricket.co.uk/news/billings-appointed-kent-captain-for-2018/

    Looks like Northeast off then. Gutted for Kent, but for someone with England ambitions he needs to be playing in Div 1 so good luck to him.

    A bit like Billings.
    Not really. Billings has obviously got into the England setup, but mainly in T20. T20 in England isn't done on a divisional basis, rather by region, so Billings still faces the likes of Surrey, Hampshire etc.

    Northeast by contrast has ambitions to play for the England test side, where clearly it is harder for a top order batsman playing in Div 2 to get a look in than it is for a Div 1 player.

    As a Kent fan I'm gutted Northeast is leaving, but as a fan of the player, he deserves an opportunity to give it one last shot for England and I wish him all the best in that.

    From a young age he was touted as the next big thing, and so at 28 now he needs to get some runs for a Div 1 county so have any chance of fulfilling that dream. I imagine had Kent got promoted last year, he would be staying and aiming to score runs with Kent, but that hasn't happened and so best of luck to him.
    He's still got one year though. Get promoted this season, he could be playing Div 1 for us in 2019
  • I fear for Kent. When I go down to Canterbury I see a ramshackle ground with ancient stands and poor corporate facilities, not helped by being well away from the largest population bases in the historical county (i.e. including the parts now in SE London).
  • I fear for Kent. When I go down to Canterbury I see a ramshackle ground with ancient stands and poor corporate facilities, not helped by being well away from the largest population bases in the historical county (i.e. including the parts now in SE London).

    You have nailed that in one.
  • pettgra said:

    pettgra said:

    I do not think that two divisions are advantageous to the England setup. Players need to be facing the best bowlers and batsmen and you will not find many of those in Div2, hence the likely departure of Northeast. Has the existing setup really made County Cricket more competative and interesting. Not really in my opinion.


    Agreed. If the selectors are loathe to pick people from Div 2 (which, apart from a few exceptions it appears they are), then it effectively gives England just 8 counties to pick their players from.
    Unfortunately, for the ECB to do a uturn would be a major surprise. Boring old duffers.
    There is a new proposal to change the CC to three tiers of six. Each team would play each other twice and then three further groups would be formed, based on position, resulting in each of those teams playing each other once.
  • pettgra said:

    pettgra said:

    I do not think that two divisions are advantageous to the England setup. Players need to be facing the best bowlers and batsmen and you will not find many of those in Div2, hence the likely departure of Northeast. Has the existing setup really made County Cricket more competative and interesting. Not really in my opinion.


    Agreed. If the selectors are loathe to pick people from Div 2 (which, apart from a few exceptions it appears they are), then it effectively gives England just 8 counties to pick their players from.
    Unfortunately, for the ECB to do a uturn would be a major surprise. Boring old duffers.
    There is a new proposal to change the CC to three tiers of six. Each team would play each other twice and then three further groups would be formed, based on position, resulting in each of those teams playing each other once.
    Thats interesting. Just out of interest, do you think that would improve things Addick?
  • Would that be 3 equally ranked tiers of 6 with top 2 in each group then forming the 'top tier' and playing for the championship title ?
  • pettgra said:

    pettgra said:

    pettgra said:

    I do not think that two divisions are advantageous to the England setup. Players need to be facing the best bowlers and batsmen and you will not find many of those in Div2, hence the likely departure of Northeast. Has the existing setup really made County Cricket more competative and interesting. Not really in my opinion.


    Agreed. If the selectors are loathe to pick people from Div 2 (which, apart from a few exceptions it appears they are), then it effectively gives England just 8 counties to pick their players from.
    Unfortunately, for the ECB to do a uturn would be a major surprise. Boring old duffers.
    There is a new proposal to change the CC to three tiers of six. Each team would play each other twice and then three further groups would be formed, based on position, resulting in each of those teams playing each other once.
    Thats interesting. Just out of interest, do you think that would improve things Addick?
    I think it would but the Test holding counties will still have the lion's share of the money and therefore be able to afford the best players so no change there.
  • MrOneLung said:

    Would that be 3 equally ranked tiers of 6 with top 2 in each group then forming the 'top tier' and playing for the championship title ?

    That is the intention - as much as they can roughly rank them. The counties want prize money to go down to 15th place with £1m going to the winners - to be split between the county and the players.
  • pettgra said:

    pettgra said:

    pettgra said:

    I do not think that two divisions are advantageous to the England setup. Players need to be facing the best bowlers and batsmen and you will not find many of those in Div2, hence the likely departure of Northeast. Has the existing setup really made County Cricket more competative and interesting. Not really in my opinion.


    Agreed. If the selectors are loathe to pick people from Div 2 (which, apart from a few exceptions it appears they are), then it effectively gives England just 8 counties to pick their players from.
    Unfortunately, for the ECB to do a uturn would be a major surprise. Boring old duffers.
    There is a new proposal to change the CC to three tiers of six. Each team would play each other twice and then three further groups would be formed, based on position, resulting in each of those teams playing each other once.
    Thats interesting. Just out of interest, do you think that would improve things Addick?
    I think it would but the Test holding counties will still have the lion's share of the money and therefore be able to afford the best players so no change there.
    Cheers Addick. That is good information.
  • edited January 18


    There is a new proposal to change the CC to three tiers of six. Each team would play each other twice and then three further groups would be formed, based on position, resulting in each of those teams playing each other once.

    How about two divisions of nine playing each team twice? That would be better. The proposal sounds like a bad one to me, particularly if the three divisions of six are regionalised. That would mean the same opponents every year. I'm assuming the top two of each group would then play off while the 3rds/4ths and 5ths/6ths play off in their divisions. I can't imagine that there is any excitement in winning the 3rd/4ths division let alone the 5ths/6ths division. Or, have I misunderstood something?
  • Sponsored links:



  • There is a new proposal to change the CC to three tiers of six. Each team would play each other twice and then three further groups would be formed, based on position, resulting in each of those teams playing each other once.

    How about two divisions of nine playing each team twice? That would be better. The proposal sounds like a bad one to me, particularly if the three divisions of six are regionalised. That would mean the same opponents every year. I'm assuming the top two of each group would then play off while the 3rds/4ths and 5ths/6ths play off in their divisions. I can't imagine that there is any excitement in winning the 3rd/4ths division let alone the 5ths/6ths division. Or, have I misunderstood something?
    The biggest concern for some counties (and one could argue that we are one of them) is that there is little point funding an academy if you have only a very small chance of promotion and then see your best young players leaving. Also the fact that all players will, initially at least, face two or three top sides so runs scored and wickets taken against those will be meaningful ones.

    I'm not sure that it will be regionalised because the idea is to have the Divisions of equal strength so one would assume that the final county tables would be utilised in establishing this.

    I think that they hope the vastly increased prize money will also help - I believe that currently the Champions receive only about £40k and 3rd place is about £15K whereas £1m to the winner and money done to 15th place will be more of an incentive.

  • edited January 18


    There is a new proposal to change the CC to three tiers of six. Each team would play each other twice and then three further groups would be formed, based on position, resulting in each of those teams playing each other once.

    How about two divisions of nine playing each team twice? That would be better. The proposal sounds like a bad one to me, particularly if the three divisions of six are regionalised. That would mean the same opponents every year. I'm assuming the top two of each group would then play off while the 3rds/4ths and 5ths/6ths play off in their divisions. I can't imagine that there is any excitement in winning the 3rd/4ths division let alone the 5ths/6ths division. Or, have I misunderstood something?
    The biggest concern for some counties (and one could argue that we are one of them) is that there is little point funding an academy if you have only a very small chance of promotion and then see your best young players leaving. Also the fact that all players will, initially at least, face two or three top sides so runs scored and wickets taken against those will be meaningful ones.

    I'm not sure that it will be regionalised because the idea is to have the Divisions of equal strength so one would assume that the final county tables would be utilised in establishing this.

    I think that they hope the vastly increased prize money will also help - I believe that currently the Champions receive only about £40k and 3rd place is about £15K whereas £1m to the winner and money done to 15th place will be more of an incentive.

    The figures quoted by me were incorrect so far as existing prize money is concerned. These were the payments in 2016:

    Figures are for Players Prize Money, Employer’s National Insurance, County Performance Element

    First Division
    Winners £374,000.00 £51,612.00 £158,100.00
    Runners-up £169,000.00 £23,322.00 £52,020.00
    Third £88,000.00 £12,144.00 £15,022.00
    Fourth £27,000.00 £3,726.00 £5,121.00
    Fifth £20,000.00 £2,760.00 £4,000.00

    Second Division
    Winners £78,000.00 £10,764.00 £33,050.00
    Runners-up £43,000.00 £5,934.00 £8,052.00

    So, the county that finished 6th in Div 1 or 3rd in Div 2 got nothing

  • There is a new proposal to change the CC to three tiers of six. Each team would play each other twice and then three further groups would be formed, based on position, resulting in each of those teams playing each other once.

    How about two divisions of nine playing each team twice? That would be better. The proposal sounds like a bad one to me, particularly if the three divisions of six are regionalised. That would mean the same opponents every year. I'm assuming the top two of each group would then play off while the 3rds/4ths and 5ths/6ths play off in their divisions. I can't imagine that there is any excitement in winning the 3rd/4ths division let alone the 5ths/6ths division. Or, have I misunderstood something?
    The biggest concern for some counties (and one could argue that we are one of them) is that there is little point funding an academy if you have only a very small chance of promotion and then see your best young players leaving. Also the fact that all players will, initially at least, face two or three top sides so runs scored and wickets taken against those will be meaningful ones.

    I'm not sure that it will be regionalised because the idea is to have the Divisions of equal strength so one would assume that the final county tables would be utilised in establishing this.

    I think that they hope the vastly increased prize money will also help - I believe that currently the Champions receive only about £40k and 3rd place is about £15K whereas £1m to the winner and money done to 15th place will be more of an incentive.

    Kent always have a lot of home grown players rather than Kolpaks etc, ditto Durham who've produced a very high percentage of England's players over the last 15 years. But what incentive is there to do this if your best players can leave without any compensation?

  • There is a new proposal to change the CC to three tiers of six. Each team would play each other twice and then three further groups would be formed, based on position, resulting in each of those teams playing each other once.

    How about two divisions of nine playing each team twice? That would be better. The proposal sounds like a bad one to me, particularly if the three divisions of six are regionalised. That would mean the same opponents every year. I'm assuming the top two of each group would then play off while the 3rds/4ths and 5ths/6ths play off in their divisions. I can't imagine that there is any excitement in winning the 3rd/4ths division let alone the 5ths/6ths division. Or, have I misunderstood something?
    The biggest concern for some counties (and one could argue that we are one of them) is that there is little point funding an academy if you have only a very small chance of promotion and then see your best young players leaving. Also the fact that all players will, initially at least, face two or three top sides so runs scored and wickets taken against those will be meaningful ones.

    I'm not sure that it will be regionalised because the idea is to have the Divisions of equal strength so one would assume that the final county tables would be utilised in establishing this.

    I think that they hope the vastly increased prize money will also help - I believe that currently the Champions receive only about £40k and 3rd place is about £15K whereas £1m to the winner and money done to 15th place will be more of an incentive.

    The figures quoted by me were incorrect so far as existing prize money is concerned. These were the payments in 2016:

    Figures are for Players Prize Money, Employer’s National Insurance, County Performance Element

    First Division
    Winners £374,000.00 £51,612.00 £158,100.00
    Runners-up £169,000.00 £23,322.00 £52,020.00
    Third £88,000.00 £12,144.00 £15,022.00
    Fourth £27,000.00 £3,726.00 £5,121.00
    Fifth £20,000.00 £2,760.00 £4,000.00

    Second Division
    Winners £78,000.00 £10,764.00 £33,050.00
    Runners-up £43,000.00 £5,934.00 £8,052.00

    So, the county that finished 6th in Div 1 or 3rd in Div 2 got nothing
    The way I am reading is this that the only county that swells its coffers seriously are the winners of Division 1 with £158K. The rest of the prizes for the counties are relatively piffling amounts. Given that the bulk of the play off tournament would have to take place in September (I assume) which would surely make it a lottery where the weather could play a big part. The Third Division Cup sounds like something to really pull in the crowds. Maybe, an open top bus through the streets of Canterbury if Kent win that one!

  • There is a new proposal to change the CC to three tiers of six. Each team would play each other twice and then three further groups would be formed, based on position, resulting in each of those teams playing each other once.

    How about two divisions of nine playing each team twice? That would be better. The proposal sounds like a bad one to me, particularly if the three divisions of six are regionalised. That would mean the same opponents every year. I'm assuming the top two of each group would then play off while the 3rds/4ths and 5ths/6ths play off in their divisions. I can't imagine that there is any excitement in winning the 3rd/4ths division let alone the 5ths/6ths division. Or, have I misunderstood something?
    The biggest concern for some counties (and one could argue that we are one of them) is that there is little point funding an academy if you have only a very small chance of promotion and then see your best young players leaving. Also the fact that all players will, initially at least, face two or three top sides so runs scored and wickets taken against those will be meaningful ones.

    I'm not sure that it will be regionalised because the idea is to have the Divisions of equal strength so one would assume that the final county tables would be utilised in establishing this.

    I think that they hope the vastly increased prize money will also help - I believe that currently the Champions receive only about £40k and 3rd place is about £15K whereas £1m to the winner and money done to 15th place will be more of an incentive.

    Kent always have a lot of home grown players rather than Kolpaks etc, ditto Durham who've produced a very high percentage of England's players over the last 15 years. But what incentive is there to do this if your best players can leave without any compensation?
    The incentive will be that any team could win the Championship under the proposed changes and consequently secure decent prize money.

    Kent have produced home grown players and as suggested by some perhaps we should have a transfer system in place so that, when the likes of Coles and Northeast do leave, we do get some compensation.

    However, setting aside the perceived bias, who was the last player to make it as a Test player that we produced? I can only think of Rob Key in the last 20 years (Geraint Jones doesn't count) that have either stayed at Kent or left and subsequently played Test cricket. A few have played ODIs but none have cemented a place. Our youngest home grown player with a regular spot in our side is Daniel Bell-Drummond at 24 and apart from Zac Crawley there isn't anyone from our academy knocking on the door of our first team that we have produced - and he's only played a couple of first class games so isn't proven to be up to it yet.

    So, perhaps, that is why we feel it that much more when the likes of SNE (28) and Coles (27) leave - but we shouldn't kid ourselves that these are young up and coming superstars because they aren't. SNE is a very good county player and probably deserves a chance at playing Test cricket but he isn't proven against the best. Coles is a wasted talent. DBD (like the departed Ball) showed tremendous potential as an England U19 player but simply hasn't kicked on. Alex Blake (29) has never been a CC player but can, on occasions, destroy the opposition in one day cricket (but not often enough) and Riley (25), after a very impressive first season or so, has struggled to get his confidence back from being over coached and injury. Denly (31) and Tredwell (36) are worthy county cricketers and Denly has come back to the form that got him picked for ODIs. That leaves Billings (26), who has a chance of making the England Test team but not until he proves that he can consistently make big scores in the CC. But I'm really not sure that he would get in the side because the likes of Bairstow and Foakes are better players in the longer form of the game.

    So the question we should be asking ourselves is why aren't we producing better cricketers? Durham, as pointed out by killerandflash, have consistently done it and they probably have far more cause to complain about what has happened to them than we have.

  • There is a new proposal to change the CC to three tiers of six. Each team would play each other twice and then three further groups would be formed, based on position, resulting in each of those teams playing each other once.

    How about two divisions of nine playing each team twice? That would be better. The proposal sounds like a bad one to me, particularly if the three divisions of six are regionalised. That would mean the same opponents every year. I'm assuming the top two of each group would then play off while the 3rds/4ths and 5ths/6ths play off in their divisions. I can't imagine that there is any excitement in winning the 3rd/4ths division let alone the 5ths/6ths division. Or, have I misunderstood something?
    The biggest concern for some counties (and one could argue that we are one of them) is that there is little point funding an academy if you have only a very small chance of promotion and then see your best young players leaving. Also the fact that all players will, initially at least, face two or three top sides so runs scored and wickets taken against those will be meaningful ones.

    I'm not sure that it will be regionalised because the idea is to have the Divisions of equal strength so one would assume that the final county tables would be utilised in establishing this.

    I think that they hope the vastly increased prize money will also help - I believe that currently the Champions receive only about £40k and 3rd place is about £15K whereas £1m to the winner and money done to 15th place will be more of an incentive.

    The figures quoted by me were incorrect so far as existing prize money is concerned. These were the payments in 2016:

    Figures are for Players Prize Money, Employer’s National Insurance, County Performance Element

    First Division
    Winners £374,000.00 £51,612.00 £158,100.00
    Runners-up £169,000.00 £23,322.00 £52,020.00
    Third £88,000.00 £12,144.00 £15,022.00
    Fourth £27,000.00 £3,726.00 £5,121.00
    Fifth £20,000.00 £2,760.00 £4,000.00

    Second Division
    Winners £78,000.00 £10,764.00 £33,050.00
    Runners-up £43,000.00 £5,934.00 £8,052.00

    So, the county that finished 6th in Div 1 or 3rd in Div 2 got nothing
    The way I am reading is this that the only county that swells its coffers seriously are the winners of Division 1 with £158K. The rest of the prizes for the counties are relatively piffling amounts. Given that the bulk of the play off tournament would have to take place in September (I assume) which would surely make it a lottery where the weather could play a big part. The Third Division Cup sounds like something to really pull in the crowds. Maybe, an open top bus through the streets of Canterbury if Kent win that one!
    But under the suggested system, prize money would go down to 3rd place in Div 3. There will also be one extra game but, more importantly, the proposal is that one of the block of five games actually takes place while the T20 comp is going on.

  • There is a new proposal to change the CC to three tiers of six. Each team would play each other twice and then three further groups would be formed, based on position, resulting in each of those teams playing each other once.

    How about two divisions of nine playing each team twice? That would be better. The proposal sounds like a bad one to me, particularly if the three divisions of six are regionalised. That would mean the same opponents every year. I'm assuming the top two of each group would then play off while the 3rds/4ths and 5ths/6ths play off in their divisions. I can't imagine that there is any excitement in winning the 3rd/4ths division let alone the 5ths/6ths division. Or, have I misunderstood something?
    The biggest concern for some counties (and one could argue that we are one of them) is that there is little point funding an academy if you have only a very small chance of promotion and then see your best young players leaving. Also the fact that all players will, initially at least, face two or three top sides so runs scored and wickets taken against those will be meaningful ones.

    I'm not sure that it will be regionalised because the idea is to have the Divisions of equal strength so one would assume that the final county tables would be utilised in establishing this.

    I think that they hope the vastly increased prize money will also help - I believe that currently the Champions receive only about £40k and 3rd place is about £15K whereas £1m to the winner and money done to 15th place will be more of an incentive.

    Kent always have a lot of home grown players rather than Kolpaks etc, ditto Durham who've produced a very high percentage of England's players over the last 15 years. But what incentive is there to do this if your best players can leave without any compensation?
    The incentive will be that any team could win the Championship under the proposed changes and consequently secure decent prize money.

    Kent have produced home grown players and as suggested by some perhaps we should have a transfer system in place so that, when the likes of Coles and Northeast do leave, we do get some compensation.

    However, setting aside the perceived bias, who was the last player to make it as a Test player that we produced? I can only think of Rob Key in the last 20 years (Geraint Jones doesn't count) that have either stayed at Kent or left and subsequently played Test cricket. A few have played ODIs but none have cemented a place. Our youngest home grown player with a regular spot in our side is Daniel Bell-Drummond at 24 and apart from Zac Crawley there isn't anyone from our academy knocking on the door of our first team that we have produced - and he's only played a couple of first class games so isn't proven to be up to it yet.

    So, perhaps, that is why we feel it that much more when the likes of SNE (28) and Coles (27) leave - but we shouldn't kid ourselves that these are young up and coming superstars because they aren't. SNE is a very good county player and probably deserves a chance at playing Test cricket but he isn't proven against the best. Coles is a wasted talent. DBD (like the departed Ball) showed tremendous potential as an England U19 player but simply hasn't kicked on. Alex Blake (29) has never been a CC player but can, on occasions, destroy the opposition in one day cricket (but not often enough) and Riley (25), after a very impressive first season or so, has struggled to get his confidence back from being over coached and injury. Denly (31) and Tredwell (36) are worthy county cricketers and Denly has come back to the form that got him picked for ODIs. That leaves Billings (26), who has a chance of making the England Test team but not until he proves that he can consistently make big scores in the CC. But I'm really not sure that he would get in the side because the likes of Bairstow and Foakes are better players in the longer form of the game.

    So the question we should be asking ourselves is why aren't we producing better cricketers? Durham, as pointed out by killerandflash, have consistently done it and they probably have far more cause to complain about what has happened to them than we have.
    Yes, that's fair comment, we've produced decent players but none who've become established England players for a long time which is disappointing
  • edited January 18
    I think this views from a poster on Kentonline sums up most people's views:

    “Kent really are a shambles. First Cowdrey walked out, then Coles, now Northeast.

    “More than a year after Allan Donald was appointed we still don’t know when or even if he’s going to arrive.

    “Both the new captain and the head coach Matt Walker are opting out of the pre-season tour.

    “And if the boy Billings is so “incredibly proud and honoured to have been offered the Kent captaincy”, why is he not taking up the role until the end of May when he gets back from the IPL? By then Kent will already be bottom of the championship.”

    It's bad enough putting up with our football team for nine months of the year without being miserable too for the other three months supporting a cricket club equally under funded and under performing.

    Perhaps I should get Seb to ask Matt Walker what's going on as he is going to be coached by him on Saturday. He might not know either though.
  • Indeed - especially as the article states that Kent have the most clubs after Yorkshire.
  • Sponsored links:


  • If I've read this correctly, you could come 6th in your first group, win all your games in the weakest group and become champions. In theory, at least.
  • edited January 18

    If I've read this correctly, you could come 6th in your first group, win all your games in the weakest group and become champions. In theory, at least.

    If I've read this correctly, you could come 6th in your first group, win all your games in the weakest group and become champions. In theory, at least.

    Not the way I read it. If you finish bottom of your group you go into the bottom group so the best you can finish is 11th - so the points are carried forward but overall only count against the teams in your group.
  • If I've read this correctly, you could come 6th in your first group, win all your games in the weakest group and become champions. In theory, at least.

    If I've read this correctly, you could come 6th in your first group, win all your games in the weakest group and become champions. In theory, at least.

    Not the way I read it. If you finish bottom of your group you go into the bottom group so the best you can finish is 11th - so the points are carried forward but overall only matter against the teams in your group.
    That would make sense from a fairness point of view but it condemns 12 counties to a non-competition at the end of the season. It also raises the problem with any small leagues that teams that our out of contention in the first round of games start fielding weak teams for the last one or two games. I don't like the look of it at all except for the fact it increases the number of games from 14 to 15.
  • If I've read this correctly, you could come 6th in your first group, win all your games in the weakest group and become champions. In theory, at least.

    If I've read this correctly, you could come 6th in your first group, win all your games in the weakest group and become champions. In theory, at least.

    Not the way I read it. If you finish bottom of your group you go into the bottom group so the best you can finish is 11th - so the points are carried forward but overall only matter against the teams in your group.
    That would make sense from a fairness point of view but it condemns 12 counties to a non-competition at the end of the season. It also raises the problem with any small leagues that teams that our out of contention in the first round of games start fielding weak teams for the last one or two games. I don't like the look of it at all except for the fact it increases the number of games from 14 to 15.
    But prize money goes to 15 instead of 7 counties under the current system. In addition, as it stands, with four games to go there's as many as four counties with nothing to play for in Div 2 whereas the prize money is the incentive to finish above at least three teams.
  • If it goes to 3 Divs then the 3rd tier will go semi-pro (at best) in no time at all. How will this help develop players? The pay simply won't be good enough for good young cricketers to commit to cricket when they can earn far better doing normal jobs.
  • Downton officially confirmed. This is a joke appointment! The bloke left us as a player, then spent years out of the game working in the City and then had the most turbulent spell as a senior ECB figure until Strauss sacked him.
  • Riviera said:

    If it goes to 3 Divs then the 3rd tier will go semi-pro (at best) in no time at all. How will this help develop players? The pay simply won't be good enough for good young cricketers to commit to cricket when they can earn far better doing normal jobs.

    I don't think that the 3 Divisions will stay for the following season as they finished though because I think that they will do the whole exercise again i.e. the top 3 teams will each go into A, B & C respectively then the next three into A, B & C etc etc.
  • If I've read this correctly, you could come 6th in your first group, win all your games in the weakest group and become champions. In theory, at least.

    If I've read this correctly, you could come 6th in your first group, win all your games in the weakest group and become champions. In theory, at least.

    Not the way I read it. If you finish bottom of your group you go into the bottom group so the best you can finish is 11th - so the points are carried forward but overall only matter against the teams in your group.
    That would make sense from a fairness point of view but it condemns 12 counties to a non-competition at the end of the season. It also raises the problem with any small leagues that teams that our out of contention in the first round of games start fielding weak teams for the last one or two games. I don't like the look of it at all except for the fact it increases the number of games from 14 to 15.
    But prize money goes to 15 instead of 7 counties under the current system. In addition, as it stands, with four games to go there's as many as four counties with nothing to play for in Div 2 whereas the prize money is the incentive to finish above at least three teams.
    True, but it's pretty small sums except for the top few.
  • edited January 23
    Well done Joe Denly - Jason Roy's replacement in the BB for the Sixers once again showed that they should have picked him in the first place instead of the Surrey man given that they lost all six games with Roy but won all four with Joe!

    The Stars got 189-5 off their 20 with Maxwell getting 83 off 47 but Joe had the best bowling figures for both sides with 3-0-19-1. He then scored 72 not out off 45 opening and seeing the Sixers to victory by, effectively, 4 wickets at 190-5 (Silk dislocated his shoulder fielding) with 15 balls to spare for the best chase of the BB season. Joe got MOM although, in addition to Maxwell's innings, Maddinson did hit 61 off 26 balls for the Sixers.

    Just hope Joe doesn't leave this form behind him in Australia!
  • Well done Joe Denly - Jason Roy's replacement in the BB for the Sixers, showing once again that they should have picked him in the first place instead of the Surrey man ;-)

    The Stars got 189-5 off their 20 with Maxwell getting 83 off 47 but Joe was best Sixers' bowler with figures of 3-0-19-1. He then scored 72 not out off 45 opening and and helping the Sixers to victory by, effectively, 4 wickets at 190-5 (Silk dislocated his shoulder fielding) with 15 balls to spare for the best chase of the BB season. Joe must have been MOM although, in addition to Maxwell's innings, Maddinson did hit 61 off 26 balls for the Sixers.

    Just hope Joe doesn't leave this form behind him in Australia!

    His white ball bowling is getting better and better! Last summer it still seemed like it was regarded as "emergency bowling", but he's better than that
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!