What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:11:14:17:09:25 by Grockle.

Listen to the final podcast of the season from the ECB.

It is quite long but well worth listening to.

Our own Willoughby and Hildreth are on there talking about the India tour.


You can down load it or wait for it to load. [www.ecb.co.uk]

As a little exercise for the declining grey cells this evening, I decided to revisit the final CC tables for 2009 and re-award points as for professional football - 3 for a win, 1 for a draw.

You will recall that the 1st Division counties were finally placed in the following order@

Durham
Notts
Somerset
Lancs
W'wicks
Hants
Yorks
Sussex
Worcs

My version of the table reads as:

County Won Drawn Points
Durham 8 8 32
Notts 4 10 22
Lancs 4 10 22
Somerset 3 10 19
W'wicks 3 10 19
Hants 3 10 19
Yorks 2 12 18
Sussex 2 12 18
Worcs 0 6 6

Somerset slips to 4th equal along with warwicksh9ire and Hampshire, while Lancs move ahead into third; there are no other significant changes.

In the 2nd Division the final positions were:

Kent
Essex
Northants
Glos
Glam
Derby
Surrey
Middx
Leics

The revised system renders the table thus:

County Won Drawn Points
Kent 8 5 29
Essex 6 7 25
Northants 6 6 24
Glos 6 4 22
Glam 2 12 18
Derby 2 11 17
Leics 2 11 17
Surrey 1 11 14
Middx 2 7 13

Here Leicestershire have leapfrogged from bottom to 6th=, with Surrey and Middlesex each dropping one place; there are no other changes.

I rather like the bonus point system, as it prolongs interest during long first innings. Whether it is the best way to identify the strongest and the weakest team is not proven in my opinion.

---

LoL

Sixty-one Seasons a Somerset Supporter

Yet more top-level statsmanship - thanks LoL. I agree with you, and believe this refutes the Aussie-system-led argument for "doing away with points for a draw" - ie it doesn't make much difference!

I'm really sorry that the alignment of the stats makes them so confusing to read. I copied two spreadsheet tables directly into my posting and they looked absolutely fine, but everything goes all silly as soon as one posts the message.

SP is quite right: if we awarded no points for a draw, the only change from my revised tables would be that in Div Two Surrey would be at the bottom - which is were most of us think they should have been anyway, given their poor performance.

---

LoL

Sixty-one Seasons a Somerset Supporter

I wonder how long before the county fixtures are out.

So I can start bookings for my flat.

Lovely stats those,LoL.
Very pretty and actually quite interesting.

I wondered the same,Mike.
I'm considering booking drinking partners for my park bench.
Two bumpers of white lightening and you can have the jumper.

---

Trego for England

What name's on the back of your jumper though BJ?

VtF.

McCoy.

---

Trego for England

The real?

Perhaps I'm missing something, SP, but it seems to me to be logically invalid to use LoL's table to suggest that if there had been no points for a draw the outcome of the season would have been extremely similar to what actually happened.

There can be no way of knowing that because the competition was not played with no points for a draw. I think one has to assume that altering the rules of the competition would probably affect the attitude of the teams playing in that competition.

An obviously a draw in football is more akin to a tie in cricket than a draw, in so far as each team has equal opportunity (ie 90 minutes) in which to gain an advantage.

It's not you that's missing something, AG, it's me. However, I was deliberately ignoring the possibility that teams' attitudes would be different because, frankly, that is just a hunch - probable, I agree, but unquantifiable.

In general, I don't believe that teams would SET OUT with different attitudes. I think that virtually all teams now START 4-day games aiming for a win, and that match situations lead them to change those mindsets as the game goes on - not 4-pts-for-a-draw. There are all sorts of factors: weather, threat of relegation / hope of promotion, the nature of batters and bowlers available, and so on. I would still contend that, overall, fiddling about with the points system wouldn't make a big difference.

Thanks Mike BOS for providing details of the Podcast.

It was very interesting, especially to hear two of our own players talk about their forthcoming trip to India.

Much appreciated.

Lots of benches on Gimblett's Hill, BJ. I'm thinking of moving in in early April.

---

LoL

Sixty-one Seasons a Somerset Supporter

No snoring mind you.

---

Trego for England

Loyal of Lhasa,my dear friend,have I got something wrong?
Well,one of us has.Amazingly no one in Ciderland has mentioned it,but,didn't Somerset draw 12 not 10.That would give you 21 points (still 4th)
Also Sussex only drew 8 not 12 therefore only giving them 14 points.I mention this because I would hate anyone to think us Tykes had only stayed up by the skin of our teeth Or dentures in my case
Hope this hasn't completely bugg*red up the whole thread,but I did think it was worthy of note.
Cheers.

I don't usually do that in the open air, I think.

---

LoL

Sixty-one Seasons a Somerset Supporter

Apologies to all.

You are quite right, TRU - a copying error on my part. Here's Div One again:

CC Division One

County Won Drawn Points
Durham 8 8 32
Notts 4 10 22
Lancs 4 10 22
Somerset 3 12 21
W'wicks 3 10 19
Hants 3 10 19
Yorks 2 12 18
Sussex 2 8 14
Worcs 0 6 6

SCCC is still 4th not 3rd

...and still better than Yorkshire

Oooh! (in a camp sort of tone)

Another installment in the great index of life we call 'the cricket season' comes to a close.

The Cricketing hightlight for me was peeking through the windows in the Old Pavilion to see Bobo pulling off some extraordinarily audacious shot. It was early in the season, in a 50 over game, but no idea against whom. I just remember gasping.

Other highlights: The Gimblett Hill. This is a triumph. Not quite the Stragglers, but fantastic nonetheless. I recall feeling somewhat lost last season, with no real home to go to. This is resolved now.

In fact, a lot of the new development is great - the Somerset and Banger stands are a joy to watch from, due to their elevation above the pitch. The Caddyshack is a waste of time if you ask me, but what do I know.

And of course, the Grockles community - both at the ground and here.

Heartily endorse all the above, bloke. Can't speak for the Trego shot as I wasn't there, but I did quite enjoy Banger's wide-4-4-wide-4 start last Sunday...then it all fell apart!

I think tells us what we know really; that our excellent batting displays covered up for indifferent, sometimes poor bowling performances.

Whether a change in the rules to encourage teams to risk more for victory what make much of a difference I'm not sure as I can't remember too many occasions we batted on to get extra bonus points as opposed to simply trying to get the biggest total possible.

It would probably place an even bigger premium on bowlers and the rapidly developing market for them, especially for counties like ourselves whose bowling is weak.

Personally I would like to see two changes; limiting the thickness of bats in the same way as the width, and extending the boundaries by 10 yards. Then we would see batsmen work for their runs and reintroduce the boundary chase.

Or you could start with a new ball one at each end that way the hardness of the new ball will last twice as long, also it will be of most use to the opening bowlers when they are most refreshed at the start of an innings.

I agree in principle with each of KT's proposed changes. However, I suspect that it is not practicable to turn the clock back as regards bat widths (in much the same way as tennis racquets will not now be de-powered). And many grounds are not sufficiently large to allow the boundaries, or at least the straight boundaries, to be extended - Taunton being a case in point.

I've had a thought for sometime now about 1 day comps and the Hong Kong sixes rules clarified it. Bowlers can only bowl 50% of what is available ( without limitation thwy could only bowl at one end) but are limited to 20%. Batsmen could theoretically face 100 % of the bowling and are not limited. Should a batsman be made to retire after facing say 30% of the available balls (72 in a 40 over game) with the ability to return if all the other wickets fell?

I'll agree all day long about the size of the bats.
Bats do not need to be so thick,it takes away the skill and craft of the batsman.
I'd love to see a modern batsman use the same size bat Bill Alley scored his 3,000 runs in a season with,I'd love to know how they handled it and how they faired against the best bowlers,if only in the nets.
The modern batsman uses a bat which comprises of virtually all "middle" or all "sweet spot".
Whilst this is obviously a big selling point it does give the batsman a distinct advantage,imagine the outcry if bowlers could use a smaller ball with a rough or picked seam.
The authorities need to clamp down on this,if only in the longer format of the game.
I don't believe pitches are killing cricket but I do think batsmen are given far too much of an advantage with the equipment they are allowed to use.
I want to see competitive cricket and I want to see proper craftsmen,something that takes my breath away.
Anybody can throw half a tree at a ball and get a result.
It takes skill and courage to do it with a blade the size the legendary Australian did.
And don't forget.
Mr Alley and friends had to play on uncovered wickets and with only basic protection.

And they tell me the game has improved.....?

---

Trego for England

I've gone through your batty post with a fine toothcomb, BJ, and I can find nothing with which to disagree.

Very disappointing.

Jim are you saying have a maximum weight for the bats?

Depth,rather than weight.
The edges on a modern bat are about three times the size of the middle of the "Alley"bat.
Ridiculous.

---

Trego for England

I love the science involved in developing performance.

But BJ has identified something where science has given one side of the game perhaps an unbalanced advantage. I've got a couple of Bradbury's and they are HUGE but weigh very little - everyone wants to borrow one!

This might be why Allan Donald (and others) have mentioned allowing the bowlers to fiddle with the ball to a greater extent than is currently allowed.

There's a skill (in the same way that 'metal bashing' is a skill of hand) involved in that too. Those who know how to do it correctly and have the necessary attributes will be able to carry out the job anyway.

Not necessarily the same as the crowd in Barbados taking razor blades to the ball. Not the same at all.

Unless it's just a fielder getting 'bored ...'

Cheers,

VtF.

As one of the crowd in Barbados, this is the first I am hearing about razor blades! In the days when the WIndies had the bowlers to take advantage of such a practice, the ball was very rarely hit into the crowd by their opponents so I can't see that this was likely.

I don't think Messrs. Roberts, Holding, Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh etc. etc. etc. needed this kind of assistance.

"Or you could start with a new ball one at each end that way the hardness of the new ball will last twice as long, also it will be of most use to the opening bowlers when they are most refreshed at the start of an innings."

I like Mike's idea a lot. I would be staunchly opposed to any kind of 'legitimised,' ball tampering, however.

Two new balls - one at each end and, perhaps, a slightly bigger seam would seem sensible changes to re-balance the game, to me. Perhaps such changes could even buy Mr Frost a few moment's peace!?

... and there are two small changes I have wittered on about for ages that would make life a little tougher for the batting side:

a) abolish the utterly illogical practice of batsmen being allowed to change ends when a catch is held. The incoming batsman should go to the end where his predecessor faced his last ball.

b) complete an over regardless of whether an interval is due or not (and whether it irritates the TV slavemasters or not)

---

LoL

Sixty-one Seasons a Somerset Supporter

Two new balls would discourage spinners considerably and we'd go back to dull, pace-overemphasised, slow-over-rate cricket.

I'd do away with the toss, save maybe for the first match of a series (after which they alternate), and in the CC (for example) always give choice to the away side.

But if the pitches are just bland, then giving the away team the choice of being able to insert or not does not make much difference?

The idea of 'awarding,' the toss to the away side is a good way of preventing teams from doctoring pitches to suit their attacks, but when teams are just producing flat and bland tracks?

And once a game has started there should only be a limited amount of work allowed on the pitch.
Back in a minute to explain.

---

Trego for England

I rather like the idea of auctioning choice of first dig.

It's been a long minute, BJ.

---

LoL

Sixty-one Seasons a Somerset Supporter

Things have gone pear shaped.
I need a few mintes to try and explain,though I'm sure most get the drift.
Medical problems have no respect for cricket.

---

Trego for England

Longer than a minute watching the England soccer team under Steve McLaren.

We'll still be here when you're ready, BJ, and will understand your occasional need to leave us.

---

LoL

Sixty-one Seasons a Somerset Supporter

I had a thought. There seems to be a consensus for the desire to re-balance the game in favour of the bowlers. How about by reducing the number of overs in which bonus points can be gained ? Say to 100 or even 90. That would encourage a side to take more risks if they want those fourth and fifth batting points. Consequently more chances for the bowlers and generally hurry the game up just a bit.

I think they were reduced from 130 to 120 at the beginning of the most recent season, but don't know how objectively one can measure the impact that that change made.

---

LoL

Sixty-one Seasons a Somerset Supporter

End of season thought.


Please x 3 would somebody at Somerset Cricket Club sort out both score boards before the start of next season and the speaker system.

Thank you.

Maybe Archer and the Country set should complain.
They'd sort it out pretty sharpish then.

---

Trego for England

This quote from the BBC's County Championship XI 2009 says what we already know, we need another strike bowler.

Charl Willoughby (Somerset) - The South African seamer managed to take 54 Championship wickets despite playing half of his games on the batsmen-friendly pitches at Taunton. Had one of his colleagues matched his efforts, then Somerset may have made more of a fist of challenging Durham for the title. [www.bbc.co.uk]

David Stiff took 31 in ten games. That's 49.6 pro-rata, and many of the games he missed were in the more supposedly seam-friendkly part of the season.
Fortune favours the brave, I say!!!!!

We've got a big Stiffy.
Let's use it properly.

He will win us the CC.

---

Trego for England

You are correct FE in pointing that out, who knows if we get a full season from Stiff he could be up there along side Willoughby.

The video does raise one question for me, Grockle.

Just how old is the "Contact us" photo?

The one on here? 2005 I think FE - it was done for the stories in the programmes - not sure what year that was.

---

It was the Black Eyes that threw many of us.

Black eyes? Not red eyes?

---