county cricket underated?

[Richard]

Agreed that their mentality is excellent, which I think has been a big factor in the extent of their success over the past 12 months. I also think it owes a lot to Vaughan's captaincy.

I think it owes a lot to the fact that New Zealand and West Indies were very, very weak and that they did well against a slightly under-performing South Africa.

 

[Richard]

And look at how average (at best) "superstars" like Clarke and Tait were last time around...

Clarke was far from a superstar in The Pura Cup, he's a superstar on reputation alone.
Also, of course, look at how much more expensive Kasprowicz has been in England than in Australia in the last 4 seasons.

 

[Richard]

No I dont think it is over rated OR under rated. I would like to believe that being highly successful as a batsman in the county circuit would mean a very high degree of skill.

It would.
A degree of skill almost everyone can merely dream of.

 

[wpdavid]

If you ask me let-offs are far, far more significant than any luck with attacks, pitches and selectors; they're all inquantifiable things, whereas we can say exactly and with total and absolute certainty about the average.

Yes, but it is a onesided approach unless you also try to cater for innings when batsmen were wrongly given out. Of course, it's impossible to guess how many they would have gone on to make in those innings, so most of us settle for what's in the scorebook.

 

[Swervy]

The real problem with the current Championship is that there are 5 batting bonus-points on offer to 3 bowling ones. This, inevitably, has lead to a plethora of pancake wickets and copious massive totals. Wickets at present help batsmen far too much and don't offer enough to the seamers. It's not helped by the fact that most of the seamers are far too wayward (as demonstrated by the tiny number of bowlers consistently going for near 4-an-over in the one-day game and under 3-an-over in the 4-day one, compared to a few years ago.
Some people don't like the bonus-point system at all; Wisden applied the Championship tables 2000-2003 with bonus-points deducted, and all 4 seasons the winners, promotions and relegations would have been the same. So it doesn't often affect the standings; I personally would tweak it and cut-out the 100-over-cut-off mark to try to curb the alarming number of 550-off-130-overs we've seen so often recently. I'd also have it as 4 for each: 150, 200, 250, 300; 3 wickets, 5 wickets, 7 wickets, 9 wickets, 10 wickets.
But the bonus-points in themselves can't explain all the problems.

The bonus point system has always been a sourse of debate. The 5 batting points thing was brought in to improve the standard of pitches, in that if a club could see more benefit in producing good wickets than the situation we often saw in the 80's (Green pitches on which even average bowlers could get good figures). I think in theory that is a comendable idea,as the only way to produce good bowlers is to have them bowling on pitches they need to work hard on(!!!). I think in practise it hasnt quite worked out quite right, however, I guess it could be said that the results the current crop of England bowlers have produced in the last 2 years MAY suggest it has helped.

I dont think I have that much of a problem with the 100 over cut off,if its going to produce positive play,and therefore encourage a result (which on improving pitches, in 4 days , is going to be quite tough)..its certainly a better situation than how it was in the 70's, when the first innings were limited to 100overs,at which point the innings ended. The skill of innings building was really compromised by that

To be honest I wouldnt be against the idea of a straight 10 points for a win, 3 for a draw, and maybe a bonus for a first innings lead

 

[Richard]

Yes, but it is a onesided approach unless you also try to cater for innings when batsmen were wrongly given out. Of course, it's impossible to guess how many they would have gone on to make in those innings, so most of us settle for what's in the scorebook.

Of course you cater for innings when batsmen were sawn-off - run-outs and bad decisions against them.
No, you can't know how many they'd have scored, but believe it or not 74* is actually better than 130... I think... don't know if it applies to all tallies, Mr Pickup will doubtless investigate...

 

[Richard]

The bonus point system has always been a sourse of debate. The 5 batting points thing was brought in to improve the standard of pitches, in that if a club could see more benefit in producing good wickets than the situation we often saw in the 80's (Green pitches on which even average bowlers could get good figures). I think in theory that is a comendable idea,as the only way to produce good bowlers is to have them bowling on pitches they need to work hard on(!!!). I think in practise it hasnt quite worked out quite right, however, I guess it could be said that the results the current crop of England bowlers have produced in the last 2 years MAY suggest it has helped.

I dont think I have that much of a problem with the 100 over cut off,if its going to produce positive play,and therefore encourage a result (which on improving pitches, in 4 days , is going to be quite tough)..its certainly a better situation than how it was in the 70's, when the first innings were limited to 100overs,at which point the innings ended. The skill of innings building was really compromised by that

To be honest I wouldnt be against the idea of a straight 10 points for a win, 3 for a draw, and maybe a bonus for a first innings lead

I don't like the straight-bonus-point system myself - first-innings lead is so imprecise, it doesn't involve enough spur.
I hated the 100-overs-limit thing, too (not literally - just hated the fact that it was employed), but "encouraging postive play" isn't neccesarily a good thing - no-one wants the stack of 130-over-550 totals we've seen so much of the last 4 years (well, no-one who understands the delicate nature of the balance between bat and ball and it's imperativeness to the game's fabric)
I'd be interested to see which of these fantastic bowlers we've produced in the last 2 years are... incidentally. We've not got any proven Test-class bowlers, let alone any whose performances have approached World-class.

 

[Swervy]

I don't like the straight-bonus-point system myself - first-innings lead is so imprecise, it doesn't involve enough spur.
I hated the 100-overs-limit thing, too (not literally - just hated the fact that it was employed), but "encouraging postive play" isn't neccesarily a good thing - no-one wants the stack of 130-over-550 totals we've seen so much of the last 4 years (well, no-one who understands the delicate nature of the balance between bat and ball and it's imperativeness to the game's fabric)
I'd be interested to see which of these fantastic bowlers we've produced in the last 2 years are... incidentally. We've not got any proven Test-class bowlers, let alone any whose performances have approached World-class.

note that I said the results that the current crop of England bowlers have produced in the last 2 years, you cannot deny that harmison,Hoggard,Flintoff,Jones and Giles have all contributed..I would guess that in pretty much all the tests the English have played recently, at least one of them has produced a good performance...this certainly wasnt the case before this current good spell

 

[Swervy]

I don't like the straight-bonus-point system myself - first-innings lead is so imprecise, it doesn't involve enough spur.

the spur should be the victory in my opinion

 

[Richard]

Yet victory alone isn't sufficient IMO... I prefer the idea of victory-having-scored-400-and-taken-10-wickets personally... although the chances of winning without taking 10 first-innings wickets are approximately 0.0001% anyway...

 

[Richard]

note that I said the results that the current crop of England bowlers have produced in the last 2 years, you cannot deny that harmison,Hoggard,Flintoff,Jones and Giles have all contributed..I would guess that in pretty much all the tests the English have played recently, at least one of them has produced a good performance...this certainly wasnt the case before this current good spell

It certainly was - how many of these 40 Tests went by without a single good performance... I'd say 4.
The big difference is the feelgood factor created by the fact that victories are being achieved. And the reason victories aplenty weren't achieved in this period had far more to do with the batting than the bowling.
Yes, between The Ashes 2001 and West Indies 2004 the bowling was a problem, but the number of injuries in those 3 years reached epidemic proportions several times.

 

[marc71178]

I think it owes a lot to the fact that New Zealand and West Indies were very, very weak and that they did well against a slightly under-performing South Africa.

You still say South Africa were slightly under-performing, even though they've now carried it on into a series against a significantly understrength side that you've just described as very weak when full strength.

The only side that underperformed in that series was England.

 

[marc71178]

note that I said the results that the current crop of England bowlers have produced in the last 2 years, you cannot deny that harmison,Hoggard,Flintoff,Jones and Giles have all contributed..I would guess that in pretty much all the tests the English have played recently, at least one of them has produced a good performance...this certainly wasnt the case before this current good spell

But Richard doesn't like them, so they're all automatically defined as useless.

 

[Craig]

Interesting point about the 2 divisions - IMO it's most likely because 3 up 3 down is far too many.

What would be different option to the promotion/relegation system?

One up and one down as they have it in the English Super League (rugby league)?

 

[Craig]

As Hamish is now quite clearly showing.

As Vaughan and Trescothick are now quite clearly showing...

And his twin brother is showing he has the potential to be like his brother at Test level.

 

[wpdavid]

What would be different option to the promotion/relegation system?

One up and one down as they have it in the English Super League (rugby league)?

IMHO that would be preferable to 3 up & down, and may persuade more of the better players to move to counties in D1, which would do far more to bridge the gap between county & test cricket.

 

[chaminda_00]

IMHO that would be preferable to 3 up & down, and may persuade more of the better players to move to counties in D1, which would do far more to bridge the gap between county & test cricket.

For me the best option is to have three divisons, six in each, IMO 9 teams is still too many. This would encourage more top players to play for the top 6 six sides and make the standard of county cricket higher. Also it allows the teams to play less games, 10 FC games is enough, 16 is too many and creates too many injuries for fast bowlers. You would have one team go up and one team down for each division.

 

[wpdavid]

For me the best option is to have three divisons, six in each, IMO 9 teams is still too many. This would encourage more top players to play for the top 6 six sides and make the standard of county cricket higher. Also it allows the teams to play less games, 10 FC games is enough, 16 is too many and creates too many injuries for fast bowlers. You would have one team go up and one team down for each division.

10 strikes me as not enough, especially if it's a wet summer and too many games are effectively wided out. But maybe I'm just too used to a lot more games - I guess they play about 10 in Aus.

All that being said, I'm not convinced that promotion & relegation is fair in cricket, given absences due to international callups or centrally contracted players being rested and games not being decided due to rain. Personally I'd be happier with the counties being feeders for about 6 cities/regions who would play each other twice. That would provide a consistently higher standard of cricket for our better players without penalising the counties who produce test quality cricketers. I'd keep the oneday tournaments county based though.

 

[wpdavid]

I think it (England's success under Vaughan) owes a lot to the fact that New Zealand and West Indies were very, very weak and that they did well against a slightly under-performing South Africa.

Up to a point. We'll know for sure if WI regularly lose 3-0 at home, SA regularly lose by any margin at home and if NZ regularly get whitewashed by teams that aren't Aus. I think you know that I'm not one to label us "world class" on the basis of the last 12 months, but they're entitled to a bit of credit where due.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Up to a point. We'll know for sure if WI regularly lose 3-0 at home, SA regularly lose by any margin at home and if NZ regularly get whitewashed by teams that aren't Aus. I think you know that I'm not one to label us "world class" on the basis of the last 12 months, but they're entitled to a bit of credit where due.

You won't get any change out of Motson, he's bound to say NZ and WI are very weak because Harmison did well against them - and we all know he's just a rubbish bowler who's just got lucky 111 times. You can also forget NZ or WI doing well at the moment because that doesn't count in Motson's World.