Somerset v Surrey

Chinaman wrote:

Jackers wrote:https://twitter.com/backandacross/status/1684511320022953991?t=zK-0TqgxSoxZYPWvGyrmHg&s=19

I have no idea what this is called, Churchy really should tell us

I don't click on toxic Twitter links, so you'll have to tell me what it is. Elaine Musk, or whatever he's called in drag?

He's called Brian. As he only has one name, Churchy uses it twice as often to compensate.

Cee Gee wrote:

VicNorth wrote:

Jhe10077 wrote:It’s a pity really we don’t have a second match against Essex which would’ve been at the Oval.  Some match that would’ve been.

Indeed.

Not this again. At least we play Hampshire twice. That’s what everyone wanted last year:

Hampshie aren't the closest rivals this year.

I wonder if fixtures could be decided dynamically, before each round, using a Swiss pairing system? Teams would be paired against other teams of similar rank (with rank determined by points score) with the restriction that two teams could play each a maximum of twice - home and away. I guess one problem would be arranging travel and accommodation, both for team members and supporters, given there would be little advance notice of pairings. It think it would make the competition more interesting and arguably fairer though.

Jackers wrote:

Chinaman wrote:

Jackers wrote:https://twitter.com/backandacross/status/1684511320022953991?t=zK-0TqgxSoxZYPWvGyrmHg&s=19

I have no idea what this is called, Churchy really should tell us

I don't click on toxic Twitter links, so you'll have to tell me what it is. Elaine Musk, or whatever he's called in drag?

He's called Brian. As he only has one name, Churchy uses it twice as often to compensate.

Rather than Lock and Laker.

We should go back to two divisions of nine counties, everyone playing each other home and away, sorted and totally fair with sixteen games. Probably have to get rid of the horrid hundred to do it, but no problem there surely.

I have been wanting this ever since the CC was divided into 2 divs. That gives 16 matches, playing every county twice which is obviously much fairer and there should be promotion and relegation for 2 teams. I cannot see how anyone could argue against this.

David Waghorn wrote:I have been wanting this ever since the CC was divided into 2 divs. That gives 16 matches, playing every county twice which is obviously much fairer and there should be promotion and relegation for 2 teams. I cannot see how anyone could argue against this.

I think this would be the best format too. But a problem would be accommodating 16 matches rather than the current 14. I'd like to get rid of The 100 to give space but the contract with Sky runs until 2028.

Angus French wrote:I wonder if fixtures could be decided dynamically, before each round, using a Swiss pairing system? Teams would be paired against other teams of similar rank (with rank determined by points score) with the restriction that two teams could play each a maximum of twice - home and away. I guess one problem would be arranging travel and accommodation, both for team members and supporters, given there would be little advance notice of pairings. It think it would make the competition more interesting and arguably fairer though.

Or we could play every side twice.

guildfordbat wrote:

Chinaman wrote:Here we go! Climate change will happen despite what we do that may or perhaps may not contribute to it. Err...this summer here is old style, perhaps it'll get colder. But it's normally in the high 30s at least in Greece in July. I have a friend who is a fireman in California and has been fighting wildfires since the late 70s. But let's leave it there.

As I read recently, climate change predictions and weather forecasts are only one up from horoscopes.

If it wasn't so worrying, it would be amusing how people have so much faith in what they read somewhere (a rabbit hole on the internet or elsewhere) rather than what most scientists think is going to happen. I'd love to believe that the science, models and projections are wrong and that everything is going to be hunky dory for my grandchildren but as more and more emerges that seems increasingly like sticking my fingers in my ears.

But hey, let's look on the bright side. We might blow ourselves up first.

guildfordbat wrote:

Angus French wrote:I wonder if fixtures could be decided dynamically, before each round, using a Swiss pairing system? Teams would be paired against other teams of similar rank (with rank determined by points score) with the restriction that two teams could play each a maximum of twice - home and away. I guess one problem would be arranging travel and accommodation, both for team members and supporters, given there would be little advance notice of pairings. It think it would make the competition more interesting and arguably fairer though.

Or we could play every side twice.

That would be my preferred choice, but how do you make room for the extra two fixtures? The contract with Sky to broadcast The 100 runs until 2028 so it's presumably not possible to get rid of that to make space.

Just back from Taunton.Well played lads! Sam Curran was there, not sure why he didn't play but am i boverred?

There are too many weather "experts" around nowadays IMHO.We had three good days albeit the middle one being curtailed.Please stop telling us what the result will be in advance based on your expert weather knowledge.Hordes of weather men/women especially on the BBC ,rarely get it right.

First time i can remember two batsmen getting out on 99 in the same innings?

Angus French wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Angus French wrote:I wonder if fixtures could be decided dynamically, before each round, using a Swiss pairing system? Teams would be paired against other teams of similar rank (with rank determined by points score) with the restriction that two teams could play each a maximum of twice - home and away. I guess one problem would be arranging travel and accommodation, both for team members and supporters, given there would be little advance notice of pairings. It think it would make the competition more interesting and arguably fairer though.

Or we could play every side twice.

That would be my preferred choice, but how do you make room for the extra two fixtures? The contract with Sky to broadcast The 100 runs until 2028 so it's presumably not possible to get rid of that to make space.

As I've said many times, a contract is only as watertight as both sides want it to be. If both the ECB and Sky want to do something about the Hundred sooner than 2028, then that will happen. Rumours are that it will involve amalgamating with the T20 competition, though whether the counties or franchise teams will be playing it is the 64,000 dollar question. Even if we don't blast the Hundred out of existence in the next five years, then the ECB will be looking to shorten the window of time to create space in August for championship cricket. I believe Richard Thompson in particular is determined to achieve that.

Having Sam Curran back for the last 3 games we shouldn’t need 2 overseas players. Definitely Roach if Available would be my Choice.

Jhe10077 wrote:Having Sam Curran back for the last 3 games we shouldn’t need 2 overseas players. Definitely Roach if Available would be my Choice.

No we won't, England's white ball teams will pinch him.

If that’s the case Roach and Latham who appeared to intergrate well into the Team during he’s stay.

Let's just try and pick our teams from the 30 plus players we already have FFS.

Overseas players are an essential component of any title winning team. Essex have Harmer, and the easier run-in.We need to get at least one in.

Badges wrote:Let's just try and pick our teams from the 30 plus players we already have FFS.

Well, we can't.

Of those players, we'll be missing Jacks, Evans, Roy, Pope, Latham, SCurran, Narine, Roach, and Abbott, and probably Jordan, TCurran, and Topley.

Athers said it on commentary today - we need that many players because as we saw last year we didn't even have 11 contracted players available at times.

How can we be 'missing' Reece Topley?

Topley when he turned out for us in 4 day cricket was pretty decent - always good value in having a left armer around your squad.

Not that we'll ever see him playing much First Class cricket at all, if ever, again

RB wrote:

Badges wrote:Let's just try and pick our teams from the 30 plus players we already have FFS.

Well, we can't.

Of those players, we'll be missing Jacks, Evans, Roy, Pope, Latham, SCurran, Narine, Roach, and Abbott, and probably Jordan, TCurran, and Topley.

Athers said it on commentary today - we need that many players because as we saw last year we didn't even have 11 contracted players available at times.

Those players won't be missing from the Championship though, will they (unless they were already missing)?

Perhaps we should concede the title now. Someone’s
Glass is Half Full!

Alex! wrote:Topley when he turned out for us in 4 day cricket was pretty decent - always good value in having a left armer around your squad.

I wasn't doubting his bowling ability.

Already doing a Rain Dance.

Or Even our local noisy neighbours who hit some form at Birmingham May bail us out.