Division Two, Round 7

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 2022:06:02:21:03:12 by BarmierKev.

Until 12.45 on Sunday a draw looked favourite until Toby's quick two wicket burst changed the game.

Building great momentum. Is the general view we are fighting it out for second behind Notts now they can focus on cricket not football playoffs?

Yet another excellent summaration(is that a word?)
I hope/fear Rojo b called up by England,so hopefully Helm will return soonish?
Or maybe get a spare kiwi in for when CC returns?
Not sure what structure will be in 2023,just gotta try finish as high as possible.
Trent Bridge in June could b a cracker.

An interesting one. Should we get promoted to Div 1. Will the hierarchy vote for conferences again? Any advantage?

A great summary of the overall picture!! The impression for a slightly one sided view is that we - to be where we are - we have loads of people stepping up, supporting the overall effort and contributing to get us over the line, e.g. to name the fist few off the bat - Ethan, Luke, Max and Martin, as opposed to the isolated stars of Sussex.

Derby look to have the potential to come up on the outside rail, based on performances to date, but were Shan Masood to get injured, .....

If, we had a conference system, (along NFL lines) of 6 locally placed teams, each playing the other home and away, to assist travel for both team and players, then each team played the other 4 teams most closely seeded to them, how would that appeal?

The South East conference picks itself : Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Essex, Middlesex, and Hampshire. However, would it be fair to lump Somerset in with a sort of Midlands group, where supporters might have to go as far away as Leicester? Mind you, quite a few came down from Derby, but that may have been so as to be at Lord's, and the manifest attractions of Radlett may have to be sold more extensively to such folk.

The other thought is what if the conference team also turned out to be the ones seeded most closely to each other ? I guess that could be managed or manipulated so this didn't happen, but could lead to some less keenly contested matches.

I would prefer 9+9,16 games.
But aint gna happen coz ECB want less CC fixtures.
Problem with conferences pitches weaker teams v top teams.
Do players learn getting beat every game?
Or improve if not having to play at best?
If gotta go down 10 game road,i'd prefer 3 divs of 6.
Chance to hone skills v teams of similar ability.
Plus all divs interesting until end of season?
I know CC supposed to be a breeding ground for England test players but i love it as a stand alone competition,as well.

I'm fascinated by the total runs scored this seasons so far - we have scored the fewest! Even Leicestershire has scored more runs than we have:

1 - Durham 3832
2 - Sussex 3406
3 - Derbyshire 3399
4 - Nottinghamshire 3324
5 - Worcestershire 3312
6 - Leicester 3218
7 - Glamorgan 3042
8 - Middlesex 3014

However, if I re-order this by average runs per innings, it gives a slightly different look:

1 - Derbyshire 378
2 - Sussex 341
3 - Worcestershire 331
4 - Nottinghamshire 302
5 - Durham 295
6 - Middlesex 274
7 - Glamorgan 254
8 - Leicester 230

We are still fairly low down the table, which I presume demonstrates that our bowling is what has seen us climb to the top of the table.

What is telling, and I'm not going to list every team's comparison, is that Leicestershire are the only Div Two team who have scored more runs in their second innings than their first inning. So far this season, we have scored 69% of our runs in the first innings, a total that is bettered only by Derbyshire (75%) and Nottinghamshire (71%). Only Leics (47%) have a first innings split lower than 63%. That is a major reason why their batting points is so low compared to others.

I seem to recall that this was Middlesex' downfall a couple of season ago (I can't remember exactly which season it was): we kept missing out on batting points and then scoring more runs in the second innings.

Here ends this morning's stats chat...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022:05:30:11:32:36 by New Boy 2.

The top three in the first table have won two matches between them. We have won twice as many on our own (despite Durham having the leading wicket taker). The other factor is how many matches each team has played on "500 vs 500" pitches?

A question on "runs per innings". Does that include our second innings against Notts and Durham?


Adelaide

(Edited to get rid of orphaned text!)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022:05:30:12:28:59 by adelaide.

Quote:

adelaide
The other factor is
The top three in the first table have won two matches between them. We have won twice as many on our own (despite Durham having the leading wicket taker). How many matches each team has played on "500 vs 500" pitches?

A question on "runs per innings". Does that include our second innings against Notts and Durham?

Yes, every run scored, split between innings.

And that brings us to the lies, damned lies and statistics pat of this. For example, how does 119 for 4 compare to 295 for 5 declared? Well, it doesn't; it's just a snapshot that demonstrates that it doesn't take lots of runs to win lots of games to top the table...

I thought it was interesting that we had scored fewest runs of the division, yet were top of the table.

I suppose the truism of this is that you can score however many runs that you want from - 150 to 450, but you would normally always have to take 20 wickets to get a win, unless there were a few weird Brearley left field type declarations thrown in.

I would agree that the conference system would place quite a heavy burden on the whipping boys of each geographical area, especially as our CC system is not (quite rightly) supported by a Draft. Imagine having to cede Luke or Ethan to some other place that can't grow their own players (a'hem, 'hem, 'hem, clears throat really loudly...........that county with Bristol within its jurisdiction), but if that's the way, that's the way, and the individual counties would have to learn, adapt and game the system, or just reconcile that they were going to get thrashed, and try to work out what their members would do.

Leicestershire last had a title in the last century, but they appear to be moving forwards. Kent are having a shocker this season, but were the last county to beat us, which is strange, as they appeared to have the financial underpinning in place to guarantee them some security. Every county is in a sort of permanent cycle of attempted regeneration and revival until they get to the top again, and, as we discovered, that is possibly the hardest time to manage.

I tentatively suggest that our model is at last starting to put various things - the flow of talent, the ability to nurture it - Alan Coleman had his eye on Luke from a very young age - the putting in place of a professional management board, with the cricket board reporting to it on a regular basis, and saying "He isn't doing it, we want him gone" e.g. (so the finances aren't burned on a waster) is starting to join up with the people who put the contracts in place and give the players their k.p.i.'s - all in one possibly joined up creation.

The last golden era was an almost happy coincidence of Don Bennett being a great talent spotter, feeding a team captained by a psychologist who liked playing cricket and acting out his theories on field, who got "the last man standing" poisoned chalice of the captaincy, and being sufficiently left field that he didn't even notice the old lags sniping at him. So, Emburey, Gatting, Gould, Tomlins, Hughes, Butcher, Williams, Slack, Cowans fed into the winning system without k.p.i's ............ but would you leave it that much to chance again?

I dread to think which piece of this Adelaide is going to quote at me and and query, but ...hey ho. I think we are in a good place, and are extremely lucky to have some of the people on our staff who are stating to make a real difference.

Maybe wait until next season, before putting a bet on that we win the CC, the 50 and the T20 all in one go? Let's get Div 2 nailed down first.

PH

I was wondering halfway through your post how you were going to work me in, then, shazam, you provided it!

As you have invoked my name, a few comments (not queries, not really disagreements) for your delectation.

I think Brearley was well aware of what was going on (even if the old lags weren't aware that he was aware) and part of the attraction for him was getting performances out of them despite that. A few packed up a little earlier than they might have done, though.

I'm a bit of a cynic about KPIs and targets, which tend to fall in and out of fashion. Tell surgeries that they will lose money unless they give all patients an appointment within 14 days and all of a sudden nobody gets an appointment in less than 14 days. Somewhere the underlying purpose gets lost. There's a place for them but they shouldn't be dictating the whole show.


Adelaide

Russell and Parfitt retired never having won anything, when they and other talented teammates, the best all rounder in England, Titmus, a good pace bowler - Price, and an excellent wicket keeper, J T Murray, should have got it together for at least one season. Maybe the sage of Chalk Farm did manage to motivate Titmus enough to squeeze that first CC win contribution out of him.

Certainly, JMB knew he faced some opposition in the dressing room to his "thinking" about cricket. Perhaps indicative that by 1976, all the "old guard" except Titmus had departed.

Like all things, kpi's can be gamed. Edmonds spoke about one old pro who kept an eye on his average throughout the season, and despite really not liking pace bowling "up him", would steel himself to get in line when his average needed a boost to guarantee his next contract. (Radley?)

However, if the kpi is set intelligently and monitored, with the agreement of all concerned, then everyone knows where they stand. I'm sure they employ other measurement tools as well. Whatever these are, they seem to be moving the team in the right direction.

So, Adelaide, - care to commit yourself? - Two divisions, or a "conference plus seeded teams" season? Which do you favour, or is there a third alternative?

Quote:

Primrose Hillbilly
If, we had a conference system, (along NFL lines) of 6 locally placed teams, each playing the other home and away, to assist travel for both team and players, then each team played the other 4 teams most closely seeded to them, how would that appeal?
The South East conference picks itself : Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Essex, Middlesex, and Hampshire. However, would it be fair to lump Somerset in with a sort of Midlands group, where supporters might have to go as far away as Leicester? Mind you, quite a few came down from Derby, but that may have been so as to be at Lord's, and the manifest attractions of Radlett may have to be sold more extensively to such folk.

My personal issue with any regional "conference" style split is that for those who are not located in the South East, travel north to south is often easier. Therefore a West/East split is my preference. Your South East conference works, and I would suggest that Somerset would be happier playing Worcester, Warwickshire and the like then having to get around the M25.

Despite the M4 whizzing one from Bristol to London, driving from Taunton to, say, Leicester is as easy Taunton to Lord's. Once you add in crawling around the M25 to get to Essex, or Kent then I would rather travel up the M5/M6 to anywhere in the Midlands or further.

I wonder if our old friend Grockle would like to comment on his journey's from Somerset to the rest of the country?

Ok, New Boy 2, so your three (?) divisions stack up as....? I'm interested.

Quote:

Primrose Hillbilly
Ok, New Boy 2, so your three (?) divisions stack up as....? I'm interested.

No, no - I haven't got solutions, I just offer problems!

Good question, though. I'll give it some thought....

Quote:

Primrose Hillbilly
So, Adelaide, - care to commit yourself? - Two divisions, or a "conference plus seeded teams" season? Which do you favour, or is there a third alternative?

The two division setup has been great, with live matches for most of the counties until late in the season. In 2016 Somerset looked like relegation favourites with a few weeks to go but ended up just being pipped. I'm still hoping that the counties can resist a reduction to 10 matches though.

If I've understood it correctly the "conference plus seeded teams" has some similarities to the Covid system but instead of playing the last few games against teams with similar performance levels the seedings would be determined before the season starts and the extra matches would thus be capable of being spread across the season (I didn't realise that this is how the NFL does it, so there's the new thing I've learnt today). What I haven't yet worked out is how you would avoid the situation in the old one division CC, where nothing rested on many matches in the second half of the season, because there was no relegation and only one champion county.

For that reason I would still prefer two divisions (of 9), even with 10 matches. Of course that means you play just two teams twice. Either randomise it, as has been the case with 14 matches, or establish "preferred pairings" in advance. For example, Yorks and Lancs would always want to play each other twice, and I think that would be the case even if the pairing didn't look like a good deal for one county in terms of gathering points, not least because attendances would be higher.

BTW I think you were a little bit unfair to Glos in one of your previous postings. They have actually had quite a decent reputation for developing their own players but most of the bowlers have subsequently been snapped up by counties such as Warwickshire. I think we just feel annoyed that a county that traditionally loses its players to stronger counties has taken three players from us in just a few years, as it makes us feel on a par with, say, Leicestershire, forever losing players they have developed.


Adelaide

Can anyone recall the last time we entered June undefeated - last time I can recall was I think 1980 when we had the great Vincent van der Bijl for a season

Quote:

Bring back the Crusaders
Can anyone recall the last time we entered June undefeated - last time I can recall was I think 1980 when we had the great Vincent van der Bijl for a season

Alan Coleman had an answer to that on the live stream. 2020.

OK, we hadn't played. let alone lost but its an accurate answer to the question as posed.


Adelaide

Adelaide: "If I've understood it correctly the "conference plus seeded teams" has some similarities to the Covid system but instead of playing the last few games against teams with similar performance levels the seedings would be determined before the season starts and the extra matches would thus be capable of being spread across the season (I didn't realise that this is how the NFL does it, so there's the new thing I've learnt today). What I haven't yet worked out is how you would avoid the situation in the old one division CC, where nothing rested on many matches in the second half of the season, because there was no relegation and only one champion county."

I suggest judicious scheduling with ref to whom the seeders, etc reckon would be in with a shout at the end of the season might add meaning to some end of term games, so the seeded teams would play each other throughout the season too, but all this would still depend upon a pliant ECB, allowing life to be breathed back into county cricket. It also assumes the season was adjusted to allow the divisional leaders to then battle it out for a place in a final.

It happened once before, and we do have the First Class Counties thinking about the possibility of considering something to be tentatively pencilled in for discussion about a sort of "fightback" against the iron might of the ECB, , with M o'F being the nominated Chair of this happy group, but right now, it's a concept only.

Why what independent entities do with their own staff, with the international red and white ball players kept away from all this, lest they get injured, really has to do with the ECB becomes less and less obvious and understandable to me.


"Unfair to Glos" - is there any other way?

The conference lark would end festivals. Take Glos. 3 at Bristol 2 at Cheltenham. What is the point of the main ground. Sell it off?. The Key/Beeching Report announced today repeats what Sky/Atherton said at Ashes close. The five games look like the exit door for county cricket appropriately by a bloke named Key. I doubt our twin hats have the nous or cojones to resist. Not much sympathy for smaller counties is the gist. You can hear the laughter from Brisbane on this rejig. Somehow unexplained it will improve England. Yeah right. Will Kent sell Beckenham or Canterbury and who picks up the dosh. Brailsford and co will rubber stamp the Key Notes. So a waste of money.

Haven't read this latest from the brains trust, but if............. a lad aged 7 is inspired to bowl leg spin by seeing Shane Warne on free to view, and is then developed by the local club that he goes to, what is the step up that he then makes from his base in norrff London to elite development as a potential Test prospect, under this new proposal ?

Quote:

Primrose Hillbilly
"Unfair to Glos" - is there any other way?

Nah. Reserve it for Surrey...


Adelaide

We might need the Mexicans in due course, as a "walkaway" threat, if negotiations don't go as we would all like.

We can still despise them, though, I agree.

Quote:

Primrose Hillbilly
We might need the Mexicans in due course, as a "walkaway" threat, if negotiations don't go as we would all like.
We can still despise them, though, I agree.

It's not football so I don't despise any team! But if you are going to be unfair to anybody, it might as well be them.

Quote:

Primrose Hillbilly
Ok, New Boy 2, so your three (?) divisions stack up as....? I'm interested.

There isn't a suitable solution simply because the Midlands counties are too close together and need to be split up. Looking at them on a map I would suggest:

West: Glamorgan, Gloucestershire, Somerset, Hampshire, Worcestershire, Warwickshire.
East: Middlesex, Surrey, Sussex, Kent, Essex, Northamptonshire.
North: Durham, Yorkshire, Lancashire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire.

It's not that great on Hants, and it's strange that Warwickshire, Northants and Leicestershire are all in different divisions.

But that's regionalisation for you, I would suggest!

I like it.

Better this than the tired old "home counties" all lumped together division.

Quote:

New Boy 2

Quote:

Primrose Hillbilly
Ok, New Boy 2, so your three (?) divisions stack up as....? I'm interested.

There isn't a suitable solution simply because the Midlands counties are too close together and need to be split up. Looking at them on a map I would suggest:

West: Glamorgan, Gloucestershire, Somerset, Hampshire, Worcestershire, Warwickshire.
East: Middlesex, Surrey, Sussex, Kent, Essex, Northamptonshire.
North: Durham, Yorkshire, Lancashire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire.

It's not that great on Hants, and it's strange that Warwickshire, Northants and Leicestershire are all in different divisions.

But that's regionalisation for you, I would suggest!

Why can't Northants been in the West division? Hampshire in the east division? Sussex would see their rivals as Essex, Hampshire, Kent, Middlesex and Surrey (same as the old T20 regional groups).

Quote:

Mart

Quote:

New Boy 2
West: Glamorgan, Gloucestershire, Somerset, Hampshire, Worcestershire, Warwickshire.
East: Middlesex, Surrey, Sussex, Kent, Essex, Northamptonshire.
North: Durham, Yorkshire, Lancashire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire.

Why can't Northants been in the West division? Hampshire in the east division? Sussex would see their rivals as Essex, Hampshire, Kent, Middlesex and Surrey (same as the old T20 regional groups).

No reason why not. However, I felt that it would be easier for Northants (and fans) to travel down the M1 to the South East, than to trek across the country (either M1/M25/M4 or M1/M6/M5) to the West.

By train? Fuggedaboudit!

Certainly Hants would probably find it easy to get up the M23 to London, and along the coast to Sussex/Kent.