mad
Member
https://www.phoenixfm.com/2022/10/06/98-not-final-show-grumbler-george-dobell-mark-butcher/
Forward to 1.05 for George Dobell comments following the cricket writers dinner earlier this week
The whole radio show is good
And another
"By reducing teams or games, you reduce the pool of people who play. We need boys and girls being able to watch cricket in summer not just at the test grounds but at Worcester and Chelmsford too. We need to play cricket in as many parts of the country as possible and at the highest level we can"
Well said Anthony McGrath.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0d4w5km?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile
Afternoon reabank yes a number of us are in possession of more than 250 signatures. The figure was reached primarily during the Somerset championship game. These are in addition to those that have been posted/handed into the club already or completed online.
I do not know the answer to your second question but it's clear attempts have belatedly been made over the last three weeks or so to help make the committee more visible just a shame it's now October.
Reading around I found a nice summary appraisal of the Strauss Review today I thought worth sharing;
... so empty and lacking in explanation and detailed reasoning as to lend credence to any who might suggest that the Review committee not only concluded with its conclusions but commenced with them also. There is nowhere an attempt to recognise or balance the competing interests within the game. There is nowhere any explicit consideration of the threat to domestic scheduling and domestic player contracts from overseas leagues. There are no proposals for managing player demands to participate in overseas leagues where it would not serve the interests of English cricket for them to do so. There is no consideration of the viability of certain counties as centres of first class cricket. There is no consideration of splitting the domestic game between red ball and white ball squads, as England does, with no requirement for counties to participate in both or either forms. The 'rationale' presented for each recommendation is a 'why we are right' justification rather than an explanation of why alternatives were rejected. Fundamentally, there is a lazy and contestable assumption that player talent simply needs to be better managed within the current domestic pipeline, rather than that it needs to be more aggressively pursued in schools against other sports. Worst of all, the entire assumption behind it takes no account of the very diversity it seeks to promote: for example, that different types of leadership might be excellent, that there might be more than one set of qualities that have 'what it takes to win', that the talent to be 'identified' and 'developed' might (as is true of young people generally) be idiosyncratic and asynchronous; that players may need to play, train and rest in different proportions at different times, that 'the right' players might not always be selected were selection to rely on 'clear selection criteria', or that there might be different versions of 'strong performance culture' that would benefit individual players differently.
Finally, there is no consideration of the county structure as reservoirs of expertise in any of the things the Review thinks it needs: leadership, knowing what it takes to win, player/talent development, quality time on task, selection and performance culture. If the aim of this Review is to win potentially dissenting voices round to its point of view, it does not seem to have addressed any of the issues from their perspective or sought to make a case for why its view should prevail.
This is a thoroughly inadequate piece of work that does its authors no more credit than it does domestic cricket.
It's a worry so many county CEO's and chairs were falling over themselves to fawn over the review. I know some see it for it's true worth and are simply being polite with their response
Irrespective of all these comparisons with baseball the fact remains they have agreed for 2023 to be played with the same number of matches as this season.
If - and it is a really big if - there was any issue with player welfare arising from the schedule in 2022 then they would not be agreeing to arrange such a schedule for 2023.
Player welfare clearly wasn't a concern either when a random unecessary and divisive 4th format was plonked right smack in the middle of summer meaning the rest of the schdule had to be fitted into 5 months instead of 6 months
Half the players are sitting around for the bulk of August and quite a lot of June and July also - prime cricket season
Several players and coaches have already spoken out about the need for a sensible schedule rather than cuts to the schedule
This is achieveable whether or not they have championship games in August but I would prefer some in August. Just don't make them play 6 CC games in a row in April and May again that's what players have asked.
Next Wednesday, Lancashire will hold their first special general meeting since that point in the mid-1960s, although the nature of the debate will be focused around the future of English cricket as much as the specifics relating to the county, who have just completed a strong season. Indeed, all around the shires a small revolt has been growing among county membership in the face of the potential reforms pushed by Sir Andrew Strauss and his high-performance review.
As well as at Lancashire, extraordinary general meetings (EGMs) have been called at Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire. Enough signatures from members for EGMs have been gathered at Somerset, Glamorgan, Warwickshire, Gloucestershire and Surrey — although they have yet to be served on their respective clubs. Each of these clubs may have their own particular issues, although it is the possible future direction of the game that has given members a cause around which to coalesce.
One point from the Middlesex forum last night. The county was baffled by the data presented in the HPR that most county cricketers and apparently 94% (i e all but one) of Directors of Cricket were in favour of playing less cricket. This was emphatically not the case for Middlesex, for whom the scheduling rather than the volume is the problem.
This needs to be reiterated with Warwickshire. We will not swallow their bullshit about players apparently wanting to play less and have their fellow players thrown on the scrap heap
I'm far less concerned about home away integrity than others. I think probably better to have 8 in the top division to ensure this but I also understand the arguments for 10 in the top division to prevent short term thinking among counties. Having watched the recent Lancashire forum available online they are against a six team top division for this very reason so I wonder if we might see proposals to go to two top divisions of six with one feeder division? That was one rumour a few months back. I hope not because I think 8, 9 or 10 are the best sizes for divisions. There's barely enough teams for two divisions let alone three.
14 games can be made to work if we have some championship games in August. England and Wales is patently unsuited to only ten games with weather much more of a factor. The ECB are offering a schedule with 14 games anyway (10 CC + 1 play off + 3 random friendlies in August) an idea that almost everyone thinks is crap, so they may as well have 14 proper championship games
16 would be brilliant but I just don't think our season has room for 18 rounds of CC cricket within it anymore. 14 rounds there definitely is room for if they're skillfully scheduled.
https://play.acast.com/s/2fd1e566-c888-4214-aeeb-58c19269d813/45847682-c642-11ec-b957-8f724e8e51ab
interview with Sam Robson forward to 24 mins Backs retention of 14 CC matches just spread more evenly not all in April May but more in June July August. Some very astute observations about need to avoid clubs being stuck in feeder leagues for decades at a time. Wants to keep two up two down. I definitely agree with him there
Really thoughtful hope the club's listen to him
Podcast with George Dobell and Steve Harmison.
Almost no chance of Strauss review plans being voted through.
Unlikely to even be a vote
Next 8 weeks critical
Hundred is losing more £££ than the ECB have been letting on
Listen here👇 first 15 mins about Liam Norwell then Strauss review
https://play.acast.com/s/d0e70954-32ac-4e91-86c3-1c34bfb4a075/6336ca3ea84a980011ad00a6
Harmison spot on "the members just wanna watch cricket - 25 days in a whole summer is just ridiculous"
Found Olly's championship stats
Bowler, Balls bowled, maidens, runs, wickets, best bowling, average, 5-wickets in an innings
OJ Hannon-Dalby, 2834, 141, 1256, 53, 6-40, 23.69, 3
2834 balls bowled equates to 472 overs across the 14 games
Carried that team
Cheers for that - some lovely writing about the game isn't there
Wasn't there for Botham 81 but was at the MCG in 98 for what was the longest day AND the longest session in test history - Dean Headley and Darren Gough skittling the auld enemy leaving Steve Waugh stranded. I think for pure drama, situation of the match/season and importance Norwell 2022 tops even that great day
Derbyshire statement is appropriately firm. I totally understand Warwickshire not wishing to make such a statement but the direction of travel is clear now surely Strauss isn't gonna get his way. Few if any inside the game really want it
Derbyshire County Cricket Club held a Members’ Forum on Wednesday 28 September with the sole purpose of allowing Members the opportunity to voice their opinions regarding the High Performance Review and to discuss the report with the Club’s Supervisory Board.
The hybrid Forum drew the greatest attendance of a Member event for a number of years, highlighting the strength of feeling among the Membership for the topic.
Chairman, Ian Morgan OBE, and Chief Executive, Ryan Duckett, provided an overview of the report and its potential impact on Derbyshire commercially, as well as its fundamental changes to the fabric of the game.
Head of Cricket, Mickey Arthur, praised the standard of the county game, as well as the loyal support of Members up and down the country, while stressing his view that the issues remain with scheduling rather than the quantity of matches.
Members raised questions and spoke with passion, with the overriding expression being one of opposition to the proposals which impact the domestic structure, including a reduction in the amount of cricket played across all formats.
The discourse suggested emphasis should be placed on the schedule, rather than structure, while there is no compelling argument within the current proposals to suggest that change would necessarily be for the betterment of the game.
The Club would like to thank the Members for their ardent and considered opinions and the Supervisory Board will take these views into account should the parameters of any vote be confirmed by the England & Wales Cricket Board.
Apologies poor phrasing on my part I didn't intend that to sound negative - I meant it was great to see them all out on that balcony at the very end which it was. They'd not have wanted to jinx things beforehand. Great to see them enjoy the moment just like us members on the opposite side
Definitely wasn't having a dig it simply struck me at the time that here at long last was a rare moment of united joy at the club rare indeed in these times of heightened anxiety for all manner of reasons. Evrn the sight of Matt Lamb and Michael Burgess, Graham Welch and Keith Barker going for a stroll around the ground during the day added to this sense.
Will be watching highlights of that for a week and possibly again at xmas if there's nowt on
Word for the captain too. Has racked his brain all season trying to fashion 20 wickets and bloody well managed it today. Even that short break he gave Norwell when he brought himself on for 3/4 overs could well have been crucial. OHD as well has anyone totted up his overs bowled in the season yet? Must be 460 ish? What a legend!!!
Tremendous advert for the county championship. If the board and committee fail to see the value of 2 division county championship cricket after that well then I have no more to offer and I will give up following cricket forever.
No sign of the committee whatsoever until that final wicket but afterwards there they all were applauding ecstatically - and so they should be
They know or at least have some sense now of what it means and what they must do with the ridiculous bloody Strauss review
Worcestershire's chairman in a similar forum yesterday confirmed a no vote would be made by their club
Rain was still fairly heavy around 7 but by 8 had eased considerably. It has also brightened up since about 9. Hoping any delay will be short but any delay at all will scupper already remote chances of setting 150+.
May have to set 135 and try to skittle them
Forums were held at Headingley this morning and at Derby this evening
From Derby;
At tonight's members forum. The overwhelming view of the @DerbyshireCCC members and (without committing) the board, is that the ECB High Performance Review can be filed in the bin.
And from today's report on Yorkshire's defeat to Gloucestershire;
The majority of Yorkshire members who assembled in the Long Room before start of play at Headingley were of identical mind on the two great issues of the day: the Strauss Review should be consigned to the waste bin and Yorkshire had no chance of beating Gloucestershire to secure their place in Division One next season.
Their view on the Strauss Review, which seeks a drastic reduction in the amount of county cricket, was voiced in no uncertain terms in a Members Forum as they gained assurances from the acting chief executive, Andy Dawson, that an EGM would be called as appropriate and that the vote would be binding. The members' revolt around the country appears to be taking effect - although in Yorkshire's case there may still be one or two complications ahead.
Some reflections on the forum from some Yorkshire members present - worth reading as the Warwickshire forum on October 26th is likely to share similarities
Andy Dawson (Yorkshire CEO) said he was marginally in favour of reducing the number of T20 matches from 14 to 10, citing the crazy scheduling this year of Yorkshire's home matches - 6 in 12 days
Andy Dawson also read out a prepared text (no doubt agreed with the Committee) at the beginning of the meeting, and he repeated it at the end, "that the Club will not support a reduction in the number of first class county championship matches without prior agreement with the Members".
By a show of hands members opinions were gauged on various options for T20 and 50-over cricket. The feeling of many in the Yorkshire forum was that it's pointless to have an opinion on one change in isolation of the others so many did not raise their hands for either option. In other words, people did not want to be tied in to saying Yes or No to these proposed changes since it all knocks on to the CC (and vice versa).
Hants won't be in any rush so will likely only get 28-30 overs before lunch
Need to go big especially in the hour up to lunch once in and the ball loses a bit of it's shine
Then declare at or just after lunch - I'd say at lunch as bad light will be an issue from around 5.30pm
170+ to win and about 65 overs. Would like nearer 200 but will be tricky against Abbas
Any chance of setting up a game? Hants might have fancied chasing 280 in 75 under normal circumstances. Doubt that's likely unless the pitch has flattened
Yorkshire have the signatures for their EGM. It is slightly different from the SGM Warwickshire members have been signing - see below;
> Act to protect the County Championship - Yorkshire CCC members in call to club
YORKSHIRE’s members are threatening to call an extraordinary general meeting demanding that chairman Lord Kamlesh Patel vote against controversial proposals to cut the number of County Championship games.
A group led by Simon Parsons, a long-standing member and a former representative on the club’s members’ committee, has obtained the necessary 400 signatures to force an EGM in response to plans in the England and Wales Cricket Board’s High Performance Review.
The review, led by Sir Andrew Strauss, the former England captain, recommends cutting the number of Championship fixtures from 14 per county to 10 from 2024 onwards.
Yorkshire are holding a members’ forum to discuss the Strauss review at 9.30am on Wednesday in the Headingley Long Room and they will be sending out an email survey to members in the coming weeks.
Parsons is warning that the membership is ready to rise up if necessary, mirroring disquiet felt across the country.
He told The Yorkshire Post: “From what I’ve seen, there isn’t any appetite for the Strauss report among the Yorkshire members; there isn’t any appetite to reduce the amount of County Championship cricket played. The club has got to give a guarantee that the members will have a say. They have to give a clear indication that each member will have a vote on this matter.
"My findings are that at least 95 per cent of the members do not endorse what is in the Strauss report concerning the reduction of Championship fixtures.”
In a document seen by The Yorkshire Post, the motions that would be tabled at an EGM are as follows:
Sir Andrew Strauss, who led the England and Wales Cricket Board's High Performance Review. Photo by Gareth Copley/Getty Images.
> “A. The club’s chairman will oppose any reduction in the number of first-class County Championship fixtures for future seasons, without the prior consent of the membership.
> “B. Any specific proposals for reform of the schedule/structure received by the club from the ECB for a vote of the county chairs will also be put to a vote of members (having given members at least 7 days’ written notice of the proposals prior to the EGM).
> "The club’s chair will respect the wishes of the member votes when casting the club’s vote in any decision-making forum.”
Under club rules, Yorkshire would have to convene an EGM within 42 days. The recommendations in the Strauss review need the support of 12 of the 18 first-class counties.
Parsons continued: “The ideal solution for me is the status quo of 14 Championship games. I don’t think 12 games - a compromise that might be foisted on members - is palatable either.
“Clearly, a lot of the problems are caused by The Hundred, which I think is the ruination of cricket. The scheduling is a farce. The idea of a separate competition running alongside The Hundred doesn’t work either; there is no point in having this so-called Festival of Cricket.
“Personally speaking, I would like the Championship to continue alongside The Hundred rather than to cut the number of Championship games. People still came to watch the Royal London Cup alongside The Hundred, after all; look at the crowds at York and Scarborough.”