Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Kent Cricket 2022
Comments
-
-
Ben is doing very well. The hospital consultants have established the cause and he is going to be having an operation in Australia to prevent it from happening again and there is no reason why he cannot be back playing sport. By all accounts, the Perth hospital has been fantastic and Ben has had the best possible care and outcome given the circumstances of what happened and the speed with which it was dealt with. The DLCA have agreed to defer his place 'til next year but, in the meantime, it will be great to see Ben back on the cricket pitch here next summer.Addick Addict said:Some more information about Ben Aldred.
As I've said already, Ben was out walking on Sunday in Perth with his Australian family. Ben collapsed and went into cardiac arrest. One of the family performed CPR and extremely fortunately for Ben there was an ambulance and GP in the vicinity which almost certainly saved his life. Ben was put in an induced coma (which is usual in the circumstances) and ongoing tests are being undertaken to establish what caused this. Ben's Dad, was actually on business in Singapore and flew immediately from there to be by his bedside. I now understand that he has been brought out of the coma but have no further information beyond that.
It's very sad to reflect that just a couple of weeks ago Ben produced a big innings in Bexley CC's National Championship win at Lord's. He was also regularly played of Kent 2s this season and was really looking forward to taking his game forward at the DLCA and in Grade Cricket in Adelaide.
This is an extremely worrying time and we are all thinking about what Ben and his family are going through. Hopefully, when I am able to post any further information it will be with some positive news.
Edit - he is awake and smiling. Great news.13 -
Cheers AA.1
-
The High Performance review states that the change to three divisions would "ensure that the best play the best". If it were to commence next year then only six of the 17 players that played Test cricket this year would be able to play in the top division and three of the six teams in that division wouldn't have a single Test player.
The best versus the best!0 -
Nonsense when Test players play bugger all domestic cricket anyway.Addick Addict said:The High Performance review states that the change to three divisions would "ensure that the best play the best". If it were to commence next year then only six of the 17 players that played Test cricket this year would be able to play in the top division and three of the six teams in that division wouldn't have a single Test player.
The best versus the best!
And being in Div 2 hasn't stopped England calling up the likes of Potts and Robinson anyway4 -
https://www.kentcricket.co.uk/news/compton-scrivens-win-big-at-spitfire-kent-cricket-awards/
Ben Compton win the POTY and Players' POTY awards3 -
Below in green is a table that summarises how unfair the current CC is - the column on the left is the total of the position of those teams that a county has had to play twice i.e. Kent have played the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th placed teams twice and have the lowest total of 16.
Then look at the total of the top three teams - they've only had to play each other once and Surrey and Hants haven't had to play any of the teams in the top four twice.
So a table that showed the strength of opposition played this season would look like this (team with hardest fixtures top)
1 Kent
2 Warwickshire
3 Yorkshire
4 Somerset
5 Gloucs
6 Northants
7 Essex
8 Surrey
9 Lancs
10 Hants
0 -
Except surrey did much better against the teams at the top than those lower.Addick Addict said:Below in green is a table that summarises how unfair the current CC is - the column on the left is the total of the position of those teams that a county has had to play twice i.e. Kent have played the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th placed teams twice and have the lowest total of 16.
Then look at the total of the top three teams - they've only had to play each other once and Surrey and Hants haven't had to play any of the teams in the top four twice.
So a table that showed the strength of opposition played this season would look like this (team with hardest fixtures top)
1 Kent
2 Warwickshire
3 Yorkshire
4 Somerset
5 Gloucs
6 Northants
7 Essex
8 Surrey
9 Lancs
10 Hants
I'd much rather we played Hampshire again (we battered them) than play the likes of Kent Northants Gloucs and Somerset who all produced absolute roads purely to negate us with no hope of a result even if the game had gone on for 3 weeks. Of course playing a proper spinner in thatbsituation might have made a difference...2 -
I thought Jack Wills is the next England spinner? He can bat a bit so pretty much a foregone conclusion? Or will Dom Bess' heroic innings in relegation defeat push him ahead?? Exciting times for English batting spinners!!1
-
It's a bit much complaining about roads when you play at the Oval.cantersaddick said:
Except surrey did much better against the teams at the top than those lower.Addick Addict said:Below in green is a table that summarises how unfair the current CC is - the column on the left is the total of the position of those teams that a county has had to play twice i.e. Kent have played the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th placed teams twice and have the lowest total of 16.
Then look at the total of the top three teams - they've only had to play each other once and Surrey and Hants haven't had to play any of the teams in the top four twice.
So a table that showed the strength of opposition played this season would look like this (team with hardest fixtures top)
1 Kent
2 Warwickshire
3 Yorkshire
4 Somerset
5 Gloucs
6 Northants
7 Essex
8 Surrey
9 Lancs
10 Hants
I'd much rather we played Hampshire again (we battered them) than play the likes of Kent Northants Gloucs and Somerset who all produced absolute roads purely to negate us with no hope of a result even if the game had gone on for 3 weeks. Of course playing a proper spinner in thatbsituation might have made a difference...4 - Sponsored links:
-
We’ll I’m sure the thinking is that the best ( those with a central contract) only get assigned to the top 6. Franchise cricket.Addick Addict said:The High Performance review states that the change to three divisions would "ensure that the best play the best". If it were to commence next year then only six of the 17 players that played Test cricket this year would be able to play in the top division and three of the six teams in that division wouldn't have a single Test player.
The best versus the best!It really does need smaller divisions, maybe with NFL type scheduling for out off division games, leading to a 4 team playoff.4 divisions of 4
Home and away against teams in your division - 6 games
Home against another division - 4 games
Away against another division - 4 games
Everyone in a division has the same opponents. Out of division opponents rotate on a fixed schedule, so you play every out of division team twice over six years.0 -
I mentioned something similar earlier in the thread and totally agree with you.SomervilleAddick said:
We’ll I’m sure the thinking is that the best ( those with a central contract) only get assigned to the top 6. Franchise cricket.Addick Addict said:The High Performance review states that the change to three divisions would "ensure that the best play the best". If it were to commence next year then only six of the 17 players that played Test cricket this year would be able to play in the top division and three of the six teams in that division wouldn't have a single Test player.
The best versus the best!It really does need smaller divisions, maybe with NFL type scheduling for out off division games, leading to a 4 team playoff.4 divisions of 4
Home and away against teams in your division - 6 games
Home against another division - 4 games
Away against another division - 4 games
Everyone in a division has the same opponents. Out of division opponents rotate on a fixed schedule, so you play every out of division team twice over six years.
Good players develop through competitive games not by shoehorning the best players into fewer teams with a lot of dead games.
Give every team the chance to win the title each season. Ramp it up into a year end knockout comp.1 -
It really is the way to go. Gives everyone a bit of hope, at least for the first few games. Given the way elite players disappear for weeks, there’s no reason to believe that any team in the current second division couldn’t beat any team in the first.johnny73 said:
I mentioned something similar earlier in the thread and totally agree with you.SomervilleAddick said:
We’ll I’m sure the thinking is that the best ( those with a central contract) only get assigned to the top 6. Franchise cricket.Addick Addict said:The High Performance review states that the change to three divisions would "ensure that the best play the best". If it were to commence next year then only six of the 17 players that played Test cricket this year would be able to play in the top division and three of the six teams in that division wouldn't have a single Test player.
The best versus the best!It really does need smaller divisions, maybe with NFL type scheduling for out off division games, leading to a 4 team playoff.4 divisions of 4
Home and away against teams in your division - 6 games
Home against another division - 4 games
Away against another division - 4 games
Everyone in a division has the same opponents. Out of division opponents rotate on a fixed schedule, so you play every out of division team twice over six years.
Good players develop through competitive games not by shoehorning the best players into fewer teams with a lot of dead games.
Give every team the chance to win the title each season. Ramp it up into a year end knockout comp.There’s just not enough teams to beak it down in a meaningful way in terms of quality, but just too many to have everyone play everyone1 -
However funny it is to see Yorkshire relegated, it's a bit farcical when you consider how strong they would be if their England players played.
Even next season, with their best players away with England or franchise cricket, they won't find it that easy in Div 20 -
Hasn't been the case for a couple of years. Been proper wickets with enough in them for bat and ball at the Oval. Just compared to how county pitches were before this season they looked comparatively good. More results at home than away this year.bolloxbolder said:
It's a bit much complaining about roads when you play at the Oval.cantersaddick said:
Except surrey did much better against the teams at the top than those lower.Addick Addict said:Below in green is a table that summarises how unfair the current CC is - the column on the left is the total of the position of those teams that a county has had to play twice i.e. Kent have played the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th placed teams twice and have the lowest total of 16.
Then look at the total of the top three teams - they've only had to play each other once and Surrey and Hants haven't had to play any of the teams in the top four twice.
So a table that showed the strength of opposition played this season would look like this (team with hardest fixtures top)
1 Kent
2 Warwickshire
3 Yorkshire
4 Somerset
5 Gloucs
6 Northants
7 Essex
8 Surrey
9 Lancs
10 Hants
I'd much rather we played Hampshire again (we battered them) than play the likes of Kent Northants Gloucs and Somerset who all produced absolute roads purely to negate us with no hope of a result even if the game had gone on for 3 weeks. Of course playing a proper spinner in thatbsituation might have made a difference...0 -
Oh OK, so Kent did better than I thought in holding on for the draw there this year. I went to the first day and was astonished we put you guys in. Certainly made for painful viewing.cantersaddick said:
Hasn't been the case for a couple of years. Been proper wickets with enough in them for bat and ball at the Oval. Just compared to how county pitches were before this season they looked comparatively good. More results at home than away this year.bolloxbolder said:
It's a bit much complaining about roads when you play at the Oval.cantersaddick said:
Except surrey did much better against the teams at the top than those lower.Addick Addict said:Below in green is a table that summarises how unfair the current CC is - the column on the left is the total of the position of those teams that a county has had to play twice i.e. Kent have played the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th placed teams twice and have the lowest total of 16.
Then look at the total of the top three teams - they've only had to play each other once and Surrey and Hants haven't had to play any of the teams in the top four twice.
So a table that showed the strength of opposition played this season would look like this (team with hardest fixtures top)
1 Kent
2 Warwickshire
3 Yorkshire
4 Somerset
5 Gloucs
6 Northants
7 Essex
8 Surrey
9 Lancs
10 Hants
I'd much rather we played Hampshire again (we battered them) than play the likes of Kent Northants Gloucs and Somerset who all produced absolute roads purely to negate us with no hope of a result even if the game had gone on for 3 weeks. Of course playing a proper spinner in thatbsituation might have made a difference...0 -
3 -
Harry Finch has signed a pro contract with Kent. Fills a gap and by all accounts keeps wicket (which he will do in the Royal London when Billings and Cox disappear) but I'm really not sure that it's a first discipline so far as he's concerned. In fact, he bowled far more for Sussex than he ever kept as far as I can see.
One person who will be really pleased is Seb who says that he is a top bloke and was particularly helpful when they got the one opportunity to bat with each other. Ironically, Seb is out in Australia, playing and sharing a place with a lad who was with him at the DLCA last year and who plays with Finch in the Sussex Cricket League for East Grinstead.
1 -
On another note and by way of a final update, Ben Aldred has had defibs fitted out in Australia to prevent a similar incident from happening. He is well on the way to recovery and he is staying out there for a few weeks for monitoring purposes by the hospital. I understand that Ben was even able to play golf the other day with his brother which, after all he and his family have been through, really is good news and it will be great to see him back on the cricket field next season.7
-
Thanks for that positive update, AA.Addick Addict said:On another note and by way of a final update, Ben Aldred has had defibs fitted out in Australia to prevent a similar incident from happening. He is well on the way to recovery and he is staying out there for a few weeks for monitoring purposes by the hospital. I understand that Ben was even able to play golf the other day with his brother which, after all he and his family have been through, really is good news and it will be great to see him back on the cricket field next season.
Onwards & upwards, young Ben.
1 - Sponsored links:
-
Just read 41 year old Michael hogan is signing in the next couple of weeks, whilst Harry podmore is leaving to join Glamorgan. Not sure what to make of that signing!Anyone have any news if Ollie Robinson (bowler) will be joining up too?0
-
Swapped a 41 year old for a 46 year old. The latter is a much better batsman but, perhaps, Hogan will be given out LBW during the course of his career after all.000__Jaaaaay__000 said:Just read 41 year old Michael hogan is signing in the next couple of weeks, whilst Harry podmore is leaving to join Glamorgan. Not sure what to make of that signing!Anyone have any news if Ollie Robinson (bowler) will be joining up too?
Not sure that getting Robinson will be that much of a plus even if he were to join us as he's unlikely to play many games given that he is centrally contracted and has a history of injury. More likely that we will get at least one overseas quick.1 -
Can’t work out whether that’s good or not for us.0
-
A weird signing, but Hogan is certainly still good enough to continue.
Podmore is a nice bloke, but since his injuries seems to have lost some pace?0 -
Seems almost like a straight swap. Hogan for Podmore.
Surprises me to be honest but what do I know?0 -
1
-
Strange move. Assume they have a decent overseas lined up0
-
I think that Podmore probably felt that, in the last couple of seasons, even when fit that he no longer in the top three or four seamers in the CC and has had very limited opportunities in white ball especially in the Blast. These are the number of overs he's bowled in each of the last five seasons for Ken (CC/Blast/Royal London = Total):DubaiCAFC said:Strange move. Assume they have a decent overseas lined up
2018 - 354/2/29 = 385
2019 - 500/0/71 = 571
2020 - 118/0/0 = 118
2021 - 114/7/15 = 136
2022 - 86/0/30 = 116
Given the above, the chances are that he only had one year left on his contract and that Kent have indicated that they wouldn't, at this stage anyway, be willing to extend it whereas Glamorgan have given him a two year contract. Podmore also has had two loan spells at Glamorgan so he is familiar with the set up there. From a financial perspective, Podmore leaving frees up a place for someone that Kent might be willing to offer a longer contracted to.
2 -
So, from the perspective of seamers, we've lost Milnes, Stevens and Podmore but gained Evison and there is that rumour about Hogan though I haven't seen any confirmation of his signing. I suspect that we will sign three more quicks with one of those possibly being Hogan and another being an overseas as the cupboard is relatively bare:
Quinn
Gilchrist
Stewart
Evison
Singh
Klaassen (white ball)
DBD (occasional)0 -
Did he have an injury around 2020, as there's a massive drop off in his numbers since then? I recall the keeper standing up to him in the 50 over cup, which suggests his pace isn't very rapid these days...Addick Addict said:
I think that Podmore probably felt that, in the last couple of seasons, even when fit that he no longer in the top three or four seamers in the CC and has had very limited opportunities in white ball especially in the Blast. These are the number of overs he's bowled in each of the last five seasons for Ken (CC/Blast/Royal London = Total):DubaiCAFC said:Strange move. Assume they have a decent overseas lined up
2018 - 354/2/29 = 385
2019 - 500/0/71 = 571
2020 - 118/0/0 = 118
2021 - 114/7/15 = 136
2022 - 86/0/30 = 116
Given the above, the chances are that he only had one year left on his contract and that Kent have indicated that they wouldn't, at this stage anyway, be willing to extend it whereas Glamorgan have given him a two year contract. Podmore also has had two loan spells at Glamorgan so he is familiar with the set up there. From a financial perspective, Podmore leaving frees up a place for someone that Kent might be willing to offer a longer contracted to.0
