KingofSpain wrote:

The tannoy announcer was quick to tell everyone about Danny Briggs getting 300 T20 wickets last Friday but did they mention Sam Hain passing 4000 T20 runs for Warwickshire? I may have missed it.

I don’t think they did, but Briggs was the first player ever to take 300 domestic T20 wickets, so I guess that’s a more significant milestone.

Highveld wrote:

If the captain gets away with similar shots all the time, is it any wonder younger members of the side think they can get away with similarly irresponsible dismissals?

I’m impressed that you somehow managed to make this Davies’ fault as well. Very well done.

Not helped by the fact that none of the England players are ever allowed to play on any of these pitches in the county championship…

Bumped into Steve O'Shaughnessy at the ticket office outside the ground as he was getting tickets for the test match. I asked him to not give any LBW decisions against Warwickshire but I’m not sure if he listened.

ajones1328 wrote:

Exiled Bear wrote:

Could someone paste the email here?

Reimagining the domestic schedule: Is change essential for red and white ball cricket to thrive?

Hi Anthony,

As promised in last week’s newsletter, I want to update you on the ongoing discussions around the future shape of the domestic cricket season. Over the weekend, the game-wide Steering Group shared a set of proposals, which we reviewed during an in-depth Members' Committee meeting on Monday evening.

The session lasted nearly four hours and highlighted the importance - and complexity - of the issues at hand. Ahead of the wider Member consultation during the Members Forum planned for the lunch interval on Monday, I’ve tried to summarise the options and discussions. In the pursuit of brevity, I’ve had to leave out some detail but I will fill in the gaps when we meet. However, this hopefully gives you a feel for the options and how the Members' Committee viewed them.

The Case For Change
The structure of the domestic cricket season has been a long-standing topic of debate. However, the sense now is that it’s time for decisive action - to create sustainable formats and a workable schedule that can serve the game well into the future. Key challenges include:

• Player Welfare:
  The current calendar - running from early April to late September with frequent format changes and back-to-back fixtures - is impacting performance, player development and wellbeing. Fewer matches are likely to reduce injury rates.

• Member and Fan Engagement:
  Audiences are declining. Rothesay County Championship struggles to attract new supporters, with concerns about a lack of jeopardy and elite-level quality. Vitality Blast attendances have also dropped sharply over the past two years, with scheduling and format cited as key issues.

• Logistical Pressures:
  International fixtures, the growth of the women’s game, and the fixed window for The Hundred mean that it’s impossible to schedule the current volume of games in a way that addresses issues. This means that the wickets are being exhausted and Ground Staff are under unsustainable pressure to maintain pitch quality.

Members' Committee unanimously agreed that the status quo is not sustainable.

Guiding Principles
Members' Committee heard that the game-wide Steering Group evaluated proposals against three criteria:

• Player welfare and performance:
  Promoting 'best v best' to elevate quality and support England player development.

• Audience growth (attendances and broadcast):
  Through more competitive, engaging fixtures with stronger narratives and 'best v best' cricket.

• Stakeholder alignment:
  Ensuring Members’ interests and your passion for the Rothesay County Championship is central to any changes.

Once agreed, changes to the Rothesay County Championship and Vitality Blast will remain in place until at least 2031 to provide long-term clarity. Due to a number of counties wanting to review what cricket is played under The Hundred, and also the long-term future of 50-over cricket, the Metro Bank One Day Cup will stay unchanged for three years and be reviewed thereafter.

Vitality Blast: Rebuilding Momentum
The proposed reforms aim to restore the competition’s relevance and appeal:

• A continuous tournament from mid-May to July - finishing before The Hundred starts.
• Three groups of six, preserving local derbies (e.g. Bears v Pears).
• 12 matches per team: 10 within the group, 2 against teams from other groups with rotation of groups up for discussion.
• Even distribution of fixtures, focused on weekends for better attendance.
• Greater attention to travel and player recovery - aiming for 24 hour gaps between games.
• Quarter Finals and Finals Day held in July, ensuring maximum player availability.

Members' Committee broadly supported these proposals but stressed the need for serious marketing investment to reverse declining interest.

Rothesay County Championship: Five Structural Options
The Steering Group proposals reflected a majority (but not unanimous) view from the game that player welfare is an issue that needs to be addressed by a slight reduction in games, but there were different ways of doing this – and a 14 game option was included for comparison:

• Option A: 8/10 Divisions (14 Games)
  Division 1 teams play each other (home and away) but it was felt that this is really 'status quo' and doesn’t address fixture congestion, player welfare or audience engagement.

• Option B: 10/8 Divisions (12 Games)
  The reduction improves player welfare, but two games felt a bridge too far and did little to enhance competitiveness or narrative. Again, tinkering and more of the same really.

• Option C: Two-Tier Conference + Finals Series (13 Games)
  Top 12 teams split into two 'top tier' groups of 6, while bottom 6 in a 'lower tier'. Each team plays 10 group games and then the groups split: top 3 in each of the top tiers merge and play 3 games in a September 'finals series' to decide on the County Championship winner. Bottom 3 and those in lower tier involved in relegation/promotion play-offs. Creates 'high jeopardy' games throughout, especially in September. This was positively received - a strong balance of competition, welfare, and tradition. However, scheduling challenges around the final rounds in September would need to be resolved.

• Option D: Two-Tier Conference + One-Off Final (12 Games plus '13th game' Final)
  Similar to Option C, but replaces the finals series with a one-match final. Each team plays ten games in their group and two from the other conference. The top teams in the top two groups then play each other in a 'winner takes all' Final. This emulates models from other sports and global red-ball leagues. However, the weather/impact of the toss and the jeopardy of a 'winner takes all' game after a long season were concerns. It also means that the majority of counties will only play 12 games.

• Option E: 3 Groups of 6 + Playoffs (12 Games)
  All teams can win the Championship but lacks promotion/relegation and could lead to more 'dead rubbers.' There was a concern that quality players would be spread too thinly, weakening overall standards. It also removed the jeopardy of promotion/relegation and teams' desire to strive for higher standards.

Members' Committee felt that there’s no perfect solution, but consensus leaned toward Option C. It strikes a balance between innovation and tradition, encourages competitive cricket, and reduces player load modestly. If logistics prove unworkable, Option D was the preferred fallback.

Crucially, the Committee felt that this is a pivotal moment. Bold but considered changes now could secure a healthier future for the domestic game, delivering better cricket for Members and safeguarding the development of elite players.

Next Steps
I’ll walk through these proposals in greater detail at the Members Forum during the Somerset game on Monday 23 June, and have some graphics to help explain each format. It’s difficult to get everything across easily in the confines of a newsletter. I will then ask those present for their views and thoughts.

Following that, we’ll take the feedback from the forum and Members' Committee session to the Club Board. This will form the basis of our response to the ECB ahead of their July decision

Thanks! That’s interesting. I’m not sure that any of the options seem very appealing to me.

On a different note, I just realised that I never get emails from Warwickshire any more. Obviously I wouldn’t expect to get an email like this one now I’m no longer a member, but I used to get about one email a week with news updates etc. I think this is something we could definitely do better at, I get at least a couple of emails a week from Somerset for example.

Could someone paste the email here?

He joins on 1st November

https://edgbaston.com/news/thompson-signs-for-the-bears/?fbclid=IwQ0xDSwK-WsVleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHqa1VPfrxWo0B5jkM3-B_Mej0FeDp48xVY3kmeRJHsrc51MS_EON5gm22ZDm_aem_u-gWwQdSRgI09r2x4_xeuw

Awful decision to give Briggs last ball as a wide as well. He stepped right across his stumps! Cost us 7 runs.

meashambear wrote:

Lyth is plum there, hitting middle and leg without any movement but the umpire is lookng too hard at it thinking it is moving down leg side. Poor decision.

Agreed, I thought that looked good. Hassan should have been on a third hattrick in three games!

So whenever we do well it’s just because the opposition are rubbish?

Great finish.

I know we’ve made some poor signings in recent years but credit where it’s due, Barnard must be one of the best signings of any county recently.

I’d bring in Yates for Smith. I’m not sure why Smith is in the team if he’s going to come in at 8.

Good comeback. That take by Davies down the leg side for the 4th wicket was excellent.

Garton not bowling was a really strange one. He’s got to be a better bet than Sylvester to open the bowling?! We’ve got too many passengers in our team at the moment and our tail is far too long.

Can’t afford to drop catches when you’re only defending 143

Seriously, why is Sylvester in our team, let alone opening the bowling?

If we can’t defend 226 against one of the weakest teams from last season then I really fear for our chances. We HAVE to recruit a bowling all rounder pronto. Having Miles and Sylvester in the same team was never going to end well.

When is Gleeson going to be back, and what about Mousley?

Sub-par fielding by our standards as well. Several boundaries let go that should have been stopped.

At least with such a big score to defend, even though they got off to an absolute flyer they still need to score at over 10 an over.

Andy wrote:

This is the thing with him, he doesn't shape it all so on flat pitches like this he's absolute cannon fodder. Clearly struggles under pressure too.

Yep, I remember him having an over like that last season as well, think it was the last over of the innings. Can’t remember who against but as soon as the first couple of balls go for boundaries the rest seem to as well.