UrsaMinor wrote:

white-lightning wrote:

... why couldn't England release Bethell last night to play for us as he's not selected for England at Lords today? He hasn't played for about two weeks now - isn't there a danger of him being a bit rusty if called upon? The ECB prevent our players from playing for the Bears too much!

Yes, this bothers me. Since coming back from injury, Bethell has spent a lot of time not playing for RCB, not playing for England and not playing for Warwickshire. He's lost half a year's development which could be very damaging. England should be desperate to find him a game somewhere.

Same issue with Woakes being repeated

Would help If we promoted the county championship even a little bit..

When they cut the July four day games games out of the schedule they will use all these draws as a reason...

Yeah unfortunately I can't see myself renewing next season.

Reabank wrote:

Hello all

I'd echo Gerry's sentiment that the only way to prevent a 12 game county season with no four day cricket in July and August is to call a SGM. For that we need 250 members to sign up. I'm happy to collect names from this forum. As to what the SGM would be about I'd say, a proposal to change the club rules to prohibit the board from voting for any ECB plan to either reduce the number of days of first class cricket in a season or reduce the number of days played in June, July. If you would like to sign then I think you can message me directly from this forum by clicking on the blue "message" underneath "Reabank." I think I need names and membership number only.

Sent my details over

Highveld wrote:

I asked a legitimate question, based on the multiple times senior members of the team let themselves and the team down with irresponsible dismissals.

Surely it should & would be expected for the captain of a side to set a good example to the rest of the team?

Or do some here think having differing standards for some players is acceptable?

Nope you're being fair, Davies has to set thr standards and he's played some irresponsible innings.

SC_Bear wrote:

What I find interesting is that all of the counties seem to think it ends here. I suspect that the global partners that are buying up the 100 franchises will soon want to see an expansion of the competition to maximise ROI. I doubt many of them will be satisfied with 5 home games per season. I suspect this process will be repeated again within a few years to accommodate an earlier July start and an expanded set of franchises.

Players who aren't involved in the Hundred regularly need to be very careful, they should be looking to maintain the existing structure rather than a reduction which will strengthen franchise cricket and weaken County cricket

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

All about opening up a big summer slot for the t20 blast and the hundred.

Nothing to do with player welfare or reducing injuries

We played pretty well, Smith at 8 seems bit of a waste

Still feel like we rely too much on Hain to finish games off for us.

Less and less first class cricket clearly shows a trend towards t20/hundred from June to end of August and first class cricket squeezed into April, May and September likely being 10 games.

Quite possibly my last season as a member for a good while unless things change for the better

Mikkyk wrote:

GerryShedd wrote:

Ian Westwood, looking a bit downbeat, reflects on the losses and, and one point, says:
"We need to find our formula", which is quite a revealing comment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lui6iZkXpPQ

I would say it's fair enough to say we need to find our formula. Multiple players he expected to have, he doesn't, so he could have had the best laid plans but they're useless now without the players. I'm sure the plan wasn't to have Barnard opening the bowling...

There is a better formula/selection out there with what we've currently got but not sure even that gets us to knockouts.

Did he seriously expect to have the likes of Webster, Bethall, Ali, Woakes? Fair enough with Mousley and Gleeson but the others were likely/Very likely to miss out the campaign.

whitelightning wrote:

I commented on the weakness of the T20 squad back on Friday. They have "performed" at a level in even worse than that could have been expected. The management really needs to take the flak for this, inept is not even close. Really hope the marketing team are on good form, they are going to do well to push tickets to watch that dross.

Agreed, for a county that has prioritised the T20 team for 2-3 seasons it's shocking how we have managed to start the campaign with miles, Sylvester and an overseas red ball specialist.

sdobbs wrote:

ajones1328 wrote:

That was utterly abysmal...please don't tell me Sylvester is going to bowl the lost over...
Nope. Che and Taz in tomorrow. Yates to 2, Lytham to 3, Kai to keep

That still doesn't fill me with any confidence

That was utterly abysmal...please don't tell me Sylvester is going to bowl the lost over...

Geez we need reinforcements or could be painful this season

Really hope I'm wrong

meashambear wrote:

Where on earth have we got this tub of lard from?

It is bad enough seeing Miles line up to bowl & then Garton has just lost the plot but we must have better players than this Sylvester guy.

Recruitment once again disgraceful.

For his own benefit, he should not play tomorrow. Clearly not of the level required..

ExiledBrummie wrote:

ajones1328 wrote:

We cant play anymore games with this bowling attack

Hopefully Bamber plays tomorrow but worrying signs

Agreed but when you think of all the bowlers missing it's no great surprise.

Ahh yes but that's our own fault. Ali was unlikely to join up and Webster was always going to be unavailable. Woakes was never going to be free.

We cant play anymore games with this bowling attack

Hopefully Bamber plays tomorrow but worrying signs

Good opportunity for Barnard this season to cement a place