Cricket Thread

[cleavers]

The Sheffield Shield has a bonus points system but the big difference is that winning a game is worth 6 times more than drawing a game. Not double like it is in the CC.

Which sounds better, but I do agree with batting and bowling bonus points to a degree.

Like you I'm not sure we have it quite correct, why does batting get more than bowling (It didn't used too), but I think that only in the first innings, it's designed to make teams get on with it, which makes sense to get results.

Obviously some counties are more greatly affected by weather, I don't this has been the case for Lancs this season, but it has certainly stopped us winning the championship in past seasons, and there's nothing that they can do about that obviously.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

Which sounds better, but I do agree with batting and bowling bonus points to a degree.

Like you I'm not sure we have it quite correct, why does batting get more than bowling (It didn't used too), but I think that only in the first innings, it's designed to make teams get on with it, which makes sense to get results.

Obviously some counties are more greatly affected by weather, I don't this has been the case for Lancs this season, but it has certainly stopped us winning the championship in past seasons, and there's nothing that they can do about that obviously.

When bonus points were brought in CC games were only 3 days not 4, I can see the relevance of getting teams to get a move on in a 3 day game but less so in a 4 day game.

All games are played on different pitches, so it's not a level playing field. If bonus points have to be awarded then award them for a first innings lead, which is a fairer system.

I still go back to my main point, if a team potentially wins 4 games and gets relegated, yet another team wins 1 game yet stays in the division, then there's something wrong about the way points are allocated.

 

[cleavers]

All games are played on different pitches, so it's not a level playing field. If bonus points have to be awarded then award them for a first innings lead, which is a fairer system.

I've no problem with a change like that.

I still go back to my main point, if a team potentially wins 4 games and gets relegated, yet another team wins 1 game yet stays in the division, then there's something wrong about the way points are allocated.

You also need to look at games "lost" and "drawn", I don't closely follow the results of the other teams, but Warwichsire have drawn 8 games. That means they could have been unlucky to draw, lucky to draw, unlucky with the weather, or lucky with the weather. I'm not going to look into it in that depth, as Lancs have for a great part of the season been simply shite, and that's why they're getting relegated (baring a miracle), no point sugar coating it for me. Under the current rules, Warwickshire have the 2nd highest batting points, and joint best bowling points, and that tells a pretty clear story, no matter how many games they've actually won, they are a far better outfit than Lancs, in both departments.

Somebody at the sharp end at Lancs needs to have a long review, they need to decide whether cricket is more important than revenue, and I think we already know the answer, the (county) cricket makes very little money, compared to concerts, tests, the stupid "hundred" which is nothing to do with Lancs, just the stadium and it's revenue.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

I've no problem with a change like that.

You also need to look at games "lost" and "drawn", I don't closely follow the results of the other teams, but Warwichsire have drawn 8 games. That means they could have been unlucky to draw, lucky to draw, unlucky with the weather, or lucky with the weather. I'm not going to look into it in that depth, as Lancs have for a great part of the season been simply shite, and that's why they're getting relegated (baring a miracle), no point sugar coating it for me. Under the current rules, Warwickshire have the 2nd highest batting points, and joint best bowling points, and that tells a pretty clear story, no matter how many games they've actually won, they are a far better outfit than Lancs, in both departments.

Somebody at the sharp end at Lancs needs to have a long review, they need to decide whether cricket is more important than revenue, and I think we already know the answer, the (county) cricket makes very little money, compared to concerts, tests, the stupid "hundred" which is nothing to do with Lancs, just the stadium and it's revenue.

I don't care if Warwickshire have the 2nd highest batting points and the joint highest bowling points, they've won one game all season. That's how ludicrous the points system in CC is. Let's reward teams that don't win games but draw a lot. And I'd be saying this whatever County might get relegated