County Championship Round 18 Discussion Thread

[Shelsey93]

The crucial 18th round of Champo matches got underway yesterday. Here are the scores:

Division 1

At Liverpool, Lancashire 221-6 (Smith 86*, Croft 57, Onions 3-26) v Durham

At Taunton, Surrey 317 (Pietersen 163, Mahmood 4-62) v Somerset 42-2 (Hildreth 15*, Lewis 1-10)

At Edgbaston, Warwickshire 298-5 (Westwood 81, Ambrose 64*, Franks 3-52) v Nottinghamshire

At New Road, Worcestershire 295-8 (Mitchell 129*, Kervezee 55, Roland-Jones 4-67) v Middlesex

Division 2

At Derby, Essex 245 (Napier 42, Wainwright 4-64) v Derbyshire 28-3 (Borrington 14*, Masters 2-3)

At Swalec Stadium, Northamptonshire 241-4 (O'Brien 114, Wakely 75, Harris 2-49) v Glamorgan

At Canterbury, Kent 322-6 (Nash 108*, Key 68, Northeast 52, Jones 52, Taylor 4-77) v Leicestershire

At Scarborough, Gloucestershire 215 (Taylor 49, Patterson 3-35) v Yorkshire 61-2 (Root 24*, W. Gidman 2-12)


Scores up to date to 11.15 Wednesday. Commentary on most matches available via the BBC website.

[Guest]

the sooner, harbajhan leaves the better!!!!!!!!!

[Shelsey93]

the sooner, harbajhan leaves the better!!!!!!!!!

He really is rubbish these days, isn't he!

Today was rain ruined (which seemed a bit odd, as where I am we only had a couple of hours of precipitation). Will be interested to see if Gloucs and Yorks collude - Yorks need a win, a draw won't do. I suspect Notts will have been very frustrated not to get on the field with Warwicks obviously not going to do anything which gives them a sniff.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Roland-Jones finished with 5 - 72. Worcs gained 3 batting points, but Middlesex finished on 49 - 0 so Worcs have not gained much by being the only team to get any play.

[Shelsey93]

Another fine comeback from Derby's lower-order this afternoon. From 120-7 they recovered to 266 all out and a lead. Winning is unlikely but defeat now surely averted.

With little progress being made at Scarborough you've got to feel that Derby are inching ever closer to a return to Division One.

[Guest]

Harbajhan's left

[guildfordbat]

Unless a few run chases can be contrived tomorrow, it looks as if most of this week's round of matches are going to end in a draw.

One exception might be at Worcester. Even though the home side held a small first innings lead over Middlesex - thanks largely to four more economical wickets from the ever reliable Alan Richardson - they've already lost three wickets second time round for not a lot. Two of those to the highly promising Toby Roland-Jones.

As well as Richardson, two other wily seamers ended up amongst the wickets. Five for Essex's David Masters against Derbys and six for Durham's Graham Onions against Lancs.

[Shelsey93]

Harbajhan's left

You really have had some problems with overseas players in recent years - we know what Kaneria was up to, Tsotsobe flopped badly and Siddle didn't even turn up.

I'd suggest that Essex need a real re-think of where they're going. Things have been going backwards over the last couple of years.

Maybe its time for Paul Grayson to go (don't know that much about him; would be interested to hear what you think CF). The younger players in the squad look promising (Westley, Wheater, Mickleburgh, Mills, Topley, Foakes) but the senior players don't seem to be pulling their weight. I think you need a season-long overseas player, preferably who won't be going off to play internationally, in the Rogers mould. It might also be time to let a couple of the older players go - my impression, perhaps not backed up by the stats, is that Shah and RTD don't quite live up to their billings in Championship cricket.

[Shelsey93]

Collusion at Scarborough!

Yorks have declared on their overnight 61-2, and then opened the bowling with Lyth and Gale, who have been deposited round the park at 15.6 runs per over by the Gloucs openers. Lyth has the interesting figures of 3.4-0-60-0. I suggest Gloucs will declare shortly, leaving Yorks about 300 to win in the day.

Looks like similar goings on at Kent-Leics too! Thakor and Thornely opening the bowling but no great runscoring yet. Kent's lead is 188 currently.

[wadey101]

Gloucs now declared with a lead of 314, should be a very interesting run chase. Lyth with figures of 5-0-88-0, crazy!

[JDizzle]

Gloucs now declared with a lead of 314, should be a very interesting run chase. Lyth with figures of 5-0-88-0, crazy!

Ha, I bet Andrew Gale is really pleased with his figures of 5-0-71-0 then!

[guildfordbat]

Unless a few run chases can be contrived tomorrow, it looks as if most of this week's round of matches are going to end in a draw.

One exception might be at Worcester. Even though the home side held a small first innings lead over Middlesex - thanks largely to four more economical wickets from the ever reliable Alan Richardson - they've already lost three wickets second time round for not a lot. Two of those to the highly promising Toby Roland-Jones.

Very interesting position now at Worcester. Middlesex need a second innings score of 204 to win. Earlier Roland-Jones took his second fivefer of the match.

Surrey and Lancs are relegation contenders along with Worcs. For once, Surrey will be hoping for a Middlesex win ....

[Guest]

Shelsey- in reference to your earlier post...

I feel we would benefit from not having an overseas player, if we do have one it needs to be a spinner...but one who can actually spin a ball! Im happy for Grayson to stay but i would like to see a chance of captain...I would give Masters the captaincy. RTD and Shah have to stay, the issue with them is, they missed a big chunk of the 4 day stuff due to IPL, and when tendo came back he had no match pratice due to hardly playing in the IPL.

Westley- Is very good with the bat and in the field, he also bowls some useful off spin

Wheater- Is apparently nearly as good as Foster with the gloves, and IMO a better batsman...( something to think about )

Mickelburgh- overrated hopefully he will leave in the summer.

Mills and Topley- Both class young bowlers, Mills bowls 90pmh+ with ease, only issue with Mills is, he seems obsessed by bowling round the wicket..Topley made a big impact last year but has faded away this year..the pair of them are rotated at least one of them plays in most games.

Foakes- wicket-keeper, and vice captain of england u-19's, aside from that i dont know much about him.

[Liam]

Stewie Walters, what a month its been. Following from that massive hundred a few weeks back, he's 10 short of another century vs Northants. Nice knock of 57 from North and now Allenby (Back in form with the bat) is 37*.

[guildfordbat]

Middlesex 97 - 1 off 28 overs. At the age of 57 years, 117 days Alan Richardson has bowled 14 overs on the reel.

[ok, I added 20 years for effect but you get the point. ]

[guildfordbat]

Shelsey- in reference to your earlier post...

I feel we would benefit from not having an overseas player, if we do have one it needs to be a spinner...but one who can actually spin a ball! Im happy for Grayson to stay but i would like to see a chance of captain...I would give Masters the captaincy. RTD and Shah have to stay, the issue with them is, they missed a big chunk of the 4 day stuff due to IPL, and when tendo came back he had no match pratice due to hardly playing in the IPL.

Westley- Is very good with the bat and in the field, he also bowls some useful off spin

Wheater- Is apparently nearly as good as Foster with the gloves, and IMO a better batsman...( something to think about )

Mickelburgh- overrated hopefully he will leave in the summer.

Mills and Topley- Both class young bowlers, Mills bowls 90pmh+ with ease, only issue with Mills is, he seems obsessed by bowling round the wicket..Topley made a big impact last year but has faded away this year..the pair of them are rotated at least one of them plays in most games.

Foakes- wicket-keeper, and vice captain of england u-19's, aside from that i dont know much about him.

CF - excellent post.

[Liam]

NOOOOOOOOOO!

Knew I spoke to soon, jinxed him! Stewie Walters out for 98, bowled by Hall. Sickner

[liverbnz]

Kent beat Leics easily. Not really sure why Leics agreed to such a stiff total when they were probably ahead in the game.

[guildfordbat]

[quote="Liam"]NOOOOOOOOOO!

Knew I spoke to soon, jinxed him! Stewie Walters out for 98, bowled by Hall. Sickner [/quote

Obviously disappointing to miss out on a ton but still a good score from a very decent bloke. I believe he's on a two year contract with Glammy that's up at the end of this season. Hopefully, today's knock will help with a renewal.

[Liam]

[quote="guildfordbat"]

NOOOOOOOOOO!

Knew I spoke to soon, jinxed him! Stewie Walters out for 98, bowled by Hall. Sickner [/quote

Obviously disappointing to miss out on a ton but still a good score from a very decent bloke. I believe he's on a two year contract with Glammy that's up at the end of this season. Hopefully, today's knock will help with a renewal.

Excellent knock no doubt. I'll be amazed if he doesn't get a contract extension, even if its just for 1 year, he deserves. it. No one really knocking on the door enough to warrant taking his place, unless Glammy's financial trouble warrants giving a cheaper contract to a youngster.

[Guest]

cheers guildford

[LondonTiger]

Kent beat Leics easily. Not really sure why Leics agreed to such a stiff total when they were probably ahead in the game.

Hoggy is still peeved with yorkshire board

Yorkshire also won in a very unsatisfactory way. Decent run chase though, and go second. second win we have had in this way - about only way we can overcome the rain.

[Shelsey93]

I guess Leics have nothing to play for and so wanted to take any chance of a win.

I reiterate my point from earlier this season on contrived results - both teams doing all they can to win is fine, but it becomes farcical when in effect the first three days of the game (or the play that was possible) are made meaningless.

In this case you could easily say that was the case.

[Mike Selig]

Middlesex's win over Worcestershire (no declarations required, just some fine bowling by Roland-Jones in particular and a well-timed run chase) means that they'll be playing first division cricket next year.

Mathematically Durham could get 0 points and be overhauled by Lancashire (with two maximum point wins) and Surrey (one win, one loss against Lancashire picking up 13 BPs along the way) but frankly the chances are so remote that I think we can safely say that they'll stay up as well.

That leaves Worcestershire, Lancashire and Surrey battling out for one place. Surrey have the upper hand, but a 14-point or even an 11-point (i.e. a win for one of the others whilst Surrey draw) turn-around makes things uncomfortably close.

Tough matches for all 3 next week: Lancashire travel to Lords and Middlesex have found some form again recently, and will want to finish the season on a high and also I suspect show their solidarity with Strauss; Surrey face Nottinghamshire and Worcestershire Warwickshire.

I can't personally see Worcestershire winning either of their last two matches, so it seems likely that things will come down to whether Lancashire can beat Surrey in the final round. A draw should see Surrey stay up, a win for Lancashire and...?

Things at the top of the table seem clear enough - Warwickshire surely can't lose from here. I expect them to beat Worcestershire to secure the title (or all but) with a game to spare.

Division 2: Derbyshire still odds-on. Behind is a 3-prong chasing pack of Yorkshire, Kent and Hampshire, all within 6 points. Yorkshire have a slight advantage, but it is very slight. Hampshire and Kent both play Derbyshire, so if they both win that, Derbyshire may just be pipped at the finish as well.

Plenty of interest then in the last 2 rounds.

[Shelsey93]

Middlesex's win over Worcestershire (no declarations required, just some fine bowling by Roland-Jones in particular and a well-timed run chase) means that they'll be playing first division cricket next year.

Mathematically Durham could get 0 points and be overhauled by Lancashire (with two maximum point wins) and Surrey (one win, one loss against Lancashire picking up 13 BPs along the way) but frankly the chances are so remote that I think we can safely say that they'll stay up as well.

That leaves Worcestershire, Lancashire and Surrey battling out for one place. Surrey have the upper hand, but a 14-point or even an 11-point (i.e. a win for one of the others whilst Surrey draw) turn-around makes things uncomfortably close.

Tough matches for all 3 next week: Lancashire travel to Lords and Middlesex have found some form again recently, and will want to finish the season on a high and also I suspect show their solidarity with Strauss; Surrey face Nottinghamshire and Worcestershire Warwickshire.

I can't personally see Worcestershire winning either of their last two matches, so it seems likely that things will come down to whether Lancashire can beat Surrey in the final round. A draw should see Surrey stay up, a win for Lancashire and...?

Things at the top of the table seem clear enough - Warwickshire surely can't lose from here. I expect them to beat Worcestershire to secure the title (or all but) with a game to spare.

Division 2: Derbyshire still odds-on. Behind is a 3-prong chasing pack of Yorkshire, Kent and Hampshire, all within 6 points. Yorkshire have a slight advantage, but it is very slight. Hampshire and Kent both play Derbyshire, so if they both win that, Derbyshire may just be pipped at the finish as well.

Plenty of interest then in the last 2 rounds.

Very good summary Mike Doing the maths that I couldn't be bothered with!

[Corporalhumblebucket]

I recall before the start of the season backing Yorks and Hants to get promotion from Div 2. Have been surprised by how well Derby have done.

Surrey v Lancs looks to be a crucial match. Could find ourselves in a situation where it is in Surrey's interest to declare in order to deny Lancs full bowling points.... If so, I am confident we will do what is in the best interests of the spirit of cricket....

[guildfordbat]

Surrey v Lancs looks to be a crucial match. Could find ourselves in a situation where it is in Surrey's interest to declare in order to deny Lancs full bowling points.... If so, I am confident we will do what is in the best interests of the spirit of cricket....

Interesting scenario, Corporal. I hadn't considered that possibility but have wondered before on a general basis if the bowling side should get full bowling points in such a situation.

Thoughts, anyone?

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Thoughts, anyone?

Look out for the placards following Surrey round the country next season: "It's Nora Batty I do declare".

[guildfordbat]

Thoughts, anyone?

Look out for the placards following Surrey round the country next season: "It's Nora Batty I do declare".

At least one Somerset supporter has suggested on their version (Grockles) of the wallpaper site that they should throw their final game against Worcs to increase the chances of us being relegated!!

[Mike Selig]

Not really. For a start their is the practicality: how do you know a declaration was done to deny bowling points rather than a positive move to get the game moving. A few years back when Middlesex stayed in Div 1 ahead of Surrey by a point they declared on 414/8 in their final match against Surrey - you could say it was to deny Surrey an extra bowling point, or you could say they'd declared half an hour before the end of play to have a crack before the close (they did manage one of the 3 wickets needed to make sure they'd stay up that evening, so in that respect you could say there were justified).

On a moral basis, Lancashire have had 15 other games in which to get the points they needed, so can have no cause for complaints. Tough luck but you needed to do better earlier.

[guildfordbat]

Not really. For a start their is the practicality: how do you know a declaration was done to deny bowling points rather than a positive move to get the game moving. A few years back when Middlesex stayed in Div 1 ahead of Surrey by a point they declared on 414/8 in their final match against Surrey - you could say it was to deny Surrey an extra bowling point, or you could say they'd declared half an hour before the end of play to have a crack before the close (they did manage one of the 3 wickets needed to make sure they'd stay up that evening, so in that respect you could say there were justified).

On a moral basis, Lancashire have had 15 other games in which to get the points they needed, so can have no cause for complaints. Tough luck but you needed to do better earlier.

Mike - I accept the practicality and cricket arguments you set out.

As regards the moral base (like most moral bases), I think there's another side to consider. Yes, in our example, Lancs have already had 15 other games so they should look to all their own earlier failings rather than any shenanigans by Surrey.

However, consider this scenario. Surrey go into the final game against Lancs leading them (Lancs) by 22 points and bat first. Surrey lose 2 wickets in the first over and immediately declare so as to ensure that Lancs can get no more than 21 points from the match. I think all would agree that would be shameful and unacceptable regardless of Lancs' standing in the table.

To be fair, I very much doubt that Surrey (or any other county) would act in such a way but it should be noted that the laws allow it. I'm just questioning whether they should.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Guildford - the scenario you paint would be roughly akin to the infamous Somerset declaration.

A slightly more teasing scenario would be if Surrey only needed to deny Lancs one bowling point to be sure of staying up. If Surrey batted first and declared on the fall of the eight wicket at 260 - 8 on the first day, with only the Viscount and Dernbach to come (ie fairly unlikely to score many), that would no doubt cause eyebrows to be raised. Surrey might (implausibly!) claim it was an attacking gesture to make sure the match ended in a result.....

[guildfordbat]

Evening, Corporal.

Yes, my scenario is extreme and I understand your comparison to the infamous Somerset declaration all those years ago. Hopefully, no one would ever do a similar thing today if the opportunity arose. Or is that wishful thinking?

I consider your 260-8 scenario to be massively different and so view it with understanding and acceptance. However, I accept some would say it's only a question of degree. I'm pretty sure Adams would make an implausible claim as you suggest. I would actually rather he say something upfront along these lines: ''The Viscount and Dernbach can't bat for toffee as everyone knows. We were hardly going to get any more runs by sending them out to the middle and would have gifted Lancs a bowling point had we done so. We therefore chose to declare. If Lancs don't like that, they should look at why they didn't get more bonus points in the previous fifteen games rather than just today.'' [Shades of Mike Selig.] That for me would be professional, honest and within the spirit of the game (by how much, I'm not sure .)

[Corporalhumblebucket]

There's many a permutation including side declaring on the fall of the 5th wicket to restrict the opposition to a maximum of 1 bowling point. I guess it all depends on the state of the match as to how artificial such a declaration would look.

I could see matters degenerating fairly rapidly were this sort of thing to happen. Eg there could be outbreaks of movement behind the bowlers arm by disgruntled Lancs supporters in order to try and slow the over rate and get Surrey to lose points that way! But in this situation the bowling side hold the aces if they put slow bowlers on to rattle through the overs and it would be glaringly obvious what was going on if they were repeatedly prevented from bowling...

[guildfordbat]

I could see matters degenerating fairly rapidly were this sort of thing to happen. Eg there could be outbreaks of movement behind the bowlers arm by disgruntled Lancs supporters in order to try and slow the over rate and get Surrey to lose points that way! ....

Corporal - I take your point although there probably would be no need for the Lancs' supporters to resort to this particular tactic given Lewis' no balls normally have us behind the over rate from the off!

[Corporalhumblebucket]

I could see matters degenerating fairly rapidly were this sort of thing to happen. Eg there could be outbreaks of movement behind the bowlers arm by disgruntled Lancs supporters in order to try and slow the over rate and get Surrey to lose points that way! ....

Corporal - I take your point although there probably would be no need for the Lancs' supporters to resort to this particular tactic given Lewis' no balls normally have us behind the over rate from the off!

[Sponsored content]