Surrey v Warwickshire - County Championship

Only side I see being close to us is Essex - still think Somerset were half fortunate to get away with that draw

I'm torn on which game Pope and Foakes should miss with this 5 out of 7 - I'd say both of them are brilliant at home, but Pope in particular against Hampshire has a ridiculous record

Wokoval wrote:Looking good at the moment but a long way to go. The stop start nature of the Championship this season makes forecasting difficult. Lancashire languishing at the bottom may be a surprise to many people but again early days.

This is where the automatic worrying and natural pessimism of all cricket supporters comes to the fore. We see almost two thirds of the season left for things to go wrong whilst Lancs supporters see more than one third gone to put things right.

Badges wrote:

Why do you keep posting all these facts and figures? I'm sure we all have the internet/TV/YouTube etc etc etc.............................


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/scores-fixtures

Because that link now takes you to close of play score, and the post I put was a merging of 3 stats on the BBC website a couple of key times on last day. I nearly posted a live table when we won our match (as they do in football) - that really would have sent things into meltdown!!!

Keep up the good work.

The Oval looks a fortress this season. It does appear if there is going to be a Bumpy period it will be on the Road although the Division one teams by and large are preparing flat wickets and with 8 points for draw they wouldn’t be a disastrous Result.

We have won three out of three tosses at home. It will be interesting to see what happens when we lose one. Will any of our opponents be bold enough to put us in to bat and back their seamers on a Day 1 green-top? I suspect Essex might...

The Oval looks a fortress this season. It does appear if there is going to be a Bumpy period it will be on the Road although the Division one teams by and large are preparing flat wickets and with 8 points for draw they wouldn’t be a disastrous Result.

We are looking stronger and more determined than ever to retain our title .

I think we used to be compared to Man Utd but now it’s Man City!.

I don't like the comparison much. City have an owner who will throw money at the Club. Our money, other than the ECB's contribution, is all internally-generated. And we provide a production line of England players across all three formats.

I don’t disagree Simon that’s the problem with comparisons.

VauxhallRey wrote:I don't like the comparison much.  City have an owner who will throw money at the Club. Our money, other than the ECB's contribution, is all internally-generated. And we provide a production line of England players across all three formats.

Cricket spending is constrained by a salary cap, not by "financial fair play". Football clubs are having to pay much more than lip service now to that following the point deductions and I doubt that City are going over the top now but they have a lot of charges hanging over them from past alleged circumventions of FFP. There is an argument that FFP prevents ambitious owners "investing" in order to challenge but the counterargument is that City and so on would just increase their own spending further and the investments by others would fail, leading to bankruptcy and calls for someone to do something to protect owners/clubs from themselves.

The point of comparison at the moment is the domination of the game. Given that City have generally been pushed to the wire by another team, Surrey's domination is even more marked and Essex's likely points deduction, well-deserved as it may be, is going to make it even harder to challenge this season. I don't know how closely challenged Surrey were in the 1950s but you do need close competition to retain interest amongst anyone other than your own supporters (and possibly eventually amongst them too). It would get even more marked if cricket had FFP instead of a cap.

I understand the reasons for a salary cap, to ensure that there is competition rather than a monopoly in county cricket. My problem is that the ECB as the governing body decide what that salary cap should be and are responsible for ensuring compliance with it, while at the same time do not appear to impose a similar cap on themselves for central contracts. This creates a conflict of interest.

ECB have consistently over-reached in preventing our best players playing for Surrey when there are no international matches currently taking place for which they are required. We should be able to offer a competitive Surrey contract for the services of our best players when we need them rather than when the ECB allow us to have them.