Surrey vs Northants

Sir Winston Churchill wrote:If Surrey and Essex end up on the same points, then Essex will win the title due to gaining more points than us in the head to head game.
The title is far,far from won.

Chinaman wrote:

Sir Winston Churchill wrote:

Chinaman wrote:

Sir Winston Churchill wrote:If Surrey and Essex end up on the same points, then Essex will win the title due to gaining more points than us in the head to head game.
The title is far,far from won.

No we are 20 points in front of Essex. We need 5 points to win the title. Baring a absolute disaster we're almost there. Essex could actually end up 3rd looking at the table, Warwicks hot on their heals.

Oh the Essex faithful must be in a dreadful state tonight.

Excuse me, there is no “no” about my post. Fact is if we lose and Essex win against relegated Northamptonshire with maximum points we could uk easily end up level if we don’t get maximum bowling and two batting points.(Which is a 1st innings score of at least 300.), the Essex will win the title.

This is nothing like as easy or indeed unlikely as we would want it to be.
[/quote

So you think we won't get any points next week? Not a chance. And only 3 sides  this season has got a maximum 24 points. Essex are more likely to end up in 3rd place.

offdrive4 wrote:The odds are Essex will not get full batting bonus points, but they know they need every point to maximise their chances of the Championship so they  might.  They will likely to get 3 bowling points and win so we have to plan to get 5 points any way we can.

Hopefully Rory has located his lost form, but he and Sibley must keep the scoreboard ticking against Hants.   We cannot afford to restrict our batting bonus points by very slow scoring.   If Smith and Jacks are able to come in on day 2 (presumably for Patel and Steel) this might encourage us to bowl first so the returnees as better batters are more likely to get two innings.  Bowling first would also define how may batting bonus points we need so we would know the target.

The commentators on YouTube suggested the Sky cameras were likely to be at the game.

Jackers wrote:Sorry, have I got this right...is it being  suggesting our players can be thrown in half way through the game to replace those who have started it?

However much I hate the fact that T20 friendlies against Ireland take precedence where our players' availability is concerned, cricket does not lend itself to bringing on tactical subs once the game has started.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting we don't take advantage of this if we are being allowed to. But two clear wrongs certainly do not make a right, they compound and highlight the muddled thinking at the top.of our game.

RB wrote:

Jackers wrote:Sorry, have I got this right...is it being  suggesting our players can be thrown in half way through the game to replace those who have started it?

However much I hate the fact that T20 friendlies against Ireland take precedence where our players' availability is concerned, cricket does not lend itself to bringing on tactical subs once the game has started.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting we don't take advantage of this if we are being allowed to. But two clear wrongs certainly do not make a right, they compound and highlight the muddled thinking at the top.of our game.

Yes you can, it's explicitly mentioned in the playing conditions you can insert players released by England as full substitutes.

Jackers wrote:

RB wrote:

Jackers wrote:Sorry, have I got this right...is it being  suggesting our players can be thrown in half way through the game to replace those who have started it?

However much I hate the fact that T20 friendlies against Ireland take precedence where our players' availability is concerned, cricket does not lend itself to bringing on tactical subs once the game has started.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting we don't take advantage of this if we are being allowed to. But two clear wrongs certainly do not make a right, they compound and highlight the muddled thinking at the top.of our game.

Yes you can, it's explicitly mentioned in the playing conditions you can insert players released by England as full substitutes.

Thanks for clarifying. Is there anything left that the ECB can't do to make the championship more ridiculous?

Jackers wrote:

RB wrote:

Jackers wrote:Sorry, have I got this right...is it being  suggesting our players can be thrown in half way through the game to replace those who have started it?

However much I hate the fact that T20 friendlies against Ireland take precedence where our players' availability is concerned, cricket does not lend itself to bringing on tactical subs once the game has started.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting we don't take advantage of this if we are being allowed to. But two clear wrongs certainly do not make a right, they compound and highlight the muddled thinking at the top.of our game.

Yes you can, it's explicitly mentioned in the playing conditions you can insert players released by England as full substitutes.

Thanks for clarifying. Is there anything left that the ECB can't do to make the championship more ridiculous?

Badges wrote:I won't talk about it as i have no idea what it is.

Jackers wrote:I agree. By its very nature cricket does not lend itself to in-game tactical substitutions in the way that other sports like rugby and football do (although for me allowing as many as five tactical subs in a Premier League game as they now do is too many, as it becomes more of a squad than the team game it was designed to be and favours those with deepest pockets who can stack their bench with superstars).  

I do think professional cricket should go further in allowing in-game substitutions for serious injuries sustained within the game, for example Australia should have been able to replace Nathan Lyon with Todd Murphy once he was injured at Lord's. Even the less well-off counties can usually muster squads of 14/15 players. Obviously you are not always going to have an off-spinner among the subs, but the requirement should be a reasonable like-for-like injury replacement (batsman, bowler, all-rounder, wicket-keeper). The injury should be serious enough that neither captain could seriously question whether the substituted player is indeed injured (eg the Lyons example) rather than used for 'borderline' cases. To deter abuse of the "injury sub" provision, any player who is subbed in-game through injury should not be eligible to play in the next championship match, even if there is a gap of several weeks until then.