👍

Be nice to see Old Hill back in the league assuming the play off place would go to 2nd spot?

Just wondering in case a place for the mighty Attock has opened up

Congratulations to Smethwick on their first Birmingham League title since 1968 with a game to spare after leading pretty much all season.

Barnt Green or Moseley (Rob Yates and Keith Barker got their reply off to a flier against Halesowen today) will finish second. A poor season for the two jewel's in the Warwickshire League crown Berkswell and Knowle & Dorridge - noticed Dominic Ostler even had a game for Berkswell today and Neil Smith was still playing for Leamington the other week too

One final round next week only one matter to be decided who is promoted along with Wolverhampton from Div 2 - Barnards Green or Lichfield.

The weekend of September 17-18th (and 24th if required) is the play-offs to determine the 2 clubs to be promoted from the 4 feeder leagues, replacing Walsall (their demise continues) and Wem. Worfield managed to stay in the league in their debut season with some occasional assistance from Will Rhodes

Coventry & Nth Warks will be favourites but one of Tamworth, Stourport-on-Severn or Ludlow look like they'll also be promoted

There was also I thought a really detailed response to the Strauss review earlier this week by 'Radlett Ronnie' on the Middlesex forum I thought worth pasting here.

I have had the chance to have a close look at the Strauss document and have a few thoughts about some of it.

• The Review wants England to be at or near the top of all three international formats. Yet is fails to consider the impact of the 100 on those three formats. The Review is therefore deeply flawed. It assumes that the Hundred is “the best v the best” (without any evidence) and that this is the one element of the English game that does not need any reconsideration.

• The Review is clearly not finished. There is a list of 7 unanswered questions on Page 36 . It is also clear that there has been some last minute rethinking. The plan was for change in 2023. Information was to be published on 9 September with a vote on 20 Sep. Hence counties have been hastily arranging EGMs and other consultation exercises. This was to treat the counties with complete disrespect. Now, something seems to have changed. More below.

• The jargon is horrible, “thought leaders”… “performance summit”… “aligned, aspirational England environment”. This sort of language usually suggests an underlying lack of substance.

• Some ideas are in direct opposition to recent ECB policies: smaller Championship Division 1, recently enlarged to 10, from 8; North v South abroad pre-season, tried and recently abandoned by the ECB; the lack of bowling for spinners in first class cricket but scheduling most of that in late Spring and early Autumn; more Lions games, when the most recent was used as a practice match, not even first class.

• The Review stresses that the amount of cricket played in England is higher than elsewhere. There is no consideration of the fact that more cricket means more opportunities for more cricketers, and that cuts in the number of games will mean cuts in playing staffs. In any case, the issue is the scheduling not the number of days’ cricket. Toby Roland-Jones is currently on a period which could mean more than seven weeks without any cricket. Also largely ignored is the fact that the elite players are protected from over-playing by central contracts. Most significantly of all, it ignores the fact that there has been a huge increase in the number of England games. It really is rich for an ECB-commissioned report to preach cutting county games while the ECB greatly increases international fixtures.

• Comparisons with other countries are selective in the Review. It ignores, for instance, the standard of Australian club cricket and the vast Indian population. There is no comparison of games lost to weather in different countries. It does not address, for instance, the fact that Australian states do not play a second short-form competition on top of The Big Bash.

• There is a bland assumption that, in England, less will be better. This flies in the face of evidence from other skills-based activities. Nowhere is there consideration of the possible impact of fewer games on the validity, integrity and value of domestic competitions, especially the championship. Nowhere is there consideration of the impact of fewer games on the use of outgrounds such as Scarborough, Cheltenham or Chesterfield, where the game is taken to venues away from county centres. Nowhere is there consideration of what fewer matches will do for county memberships and wider enthusiasm for the game beyond its shortest versions. Yet there is vague reference to red ball cricket in August.

The Review raises some valid questions. Now that there is a year's delay to any implementation of its implications, is there now any value in rushed consultations? And what form is the vote by county chairs on Sep 20 to take in the light of the extra time now available to consider the Review properly?

https://youtu.be/cRjfdU_dodI
Andrew Cornish discussed ECB's high performance review on a Middlesex vlog
Seems calm and measured

https://www.lords.org/lords/news-stories/mcc-world-cricket-committee-renews-calls-to-speed

Such measures could include the use of a countdown clock between overs and the on-going assessment of the DRS process, to ensure players and umpires remain vigilant on moving the game forward

Penalty runs also

Long overdue some of this. Days 1&2 of the India test over rates were outrageous

Would this be trialled at a county match I wonder?

That was interesting cheers Gerry.

The 50 overs ODC has been shunted around the calendar the most (that seems set to continue) and it's also the format that has been chopped and changed the most too - number of matches is it a league, is it a cup or is it a bit of both?

Like a lot of the data we've been presented with though the question is what's it supposed to be informing us of a need for? I think the big take from that set of detailed charts is the gaps that exist in the season between any red ball cricket being played has become unsustainably too large especially for a country like England - sure to form there's a set of fixtures Monday during which 4 counties don't even get to play - and sure enough the weather and temperatures and quality of daylight has deteriorated just in time for this resumption

Say they do fill August with 3-4 championship games in 2023 and say they do go onto reduce the total number of games to 10 from 2024. I've asked it before but what on earth will the players be doing through May, June & July? All it will do is move that gaping hole we've suffered this August without any red ball cricket to another 5-6 week period earlier in the season. That cannot be allowed to happen. 14 CC rounds of cricket with all 18 counties playing each and every round is surely not beyond the schedulers considering there were 16 rounds allocated for it this year

Agree with Leicester Exile about it being flawed to only give the batting side who wins any bonus points

There will be a lot more unfair point allocation draws in that case. Rain hasn't gone away despite the last 3-4 years.

Team "A" could get 600, then bowl team "B" out for 200, then it rains for the rest of the match. Is that fair that both sides get just 1 point instead of 9 points to the dominant side and 1 to the side that was on the back foot?

Unless they're proposing bringing in winning draws and losing draws like in Saturday league Cricket perhaps?

Also people moan already about batsman friendly strips so bat first and bat for three and a half days two batting points plus one for the draw as good as a win. You need bowling points for a healthy competition.

Suggestions such as 3 points for a win and no bonus points without a win remind me of top down approach to urban post world war two planning where you get in the 1960's all manner of neat tidy modern urban developments replacing the tangled but lived communities but lack specific detail. The existing bonus points system has developed over time from lived experience within the first class game. Turn up to watch on day two of a game and there are points to see being accrued by both sides. It might be the only day of the game that spectator gets to see too. Take bonus points away and some enjoyment is lost not only for the spectator but also for the players/teams gaining bonus points likely keeps them motivated.

Moeen Ali's cousin with a big hundred there. I imagine Worcs will declare leaving Warks a big total to win today. If they had Hamza, Maddy and Amir I'd give them half a sniff but looks a tall order

Meanwhile Derbyshire have changed the date of their members forum interestingly the formal ECB proposal not now expected until September 12th not September 9th as previously set.

The Club’s next Members’ Forum has been moved to Thursday 15 September (7pm) to allow Members the time to review any formal proposals following the High Performance Review ahead of the Forum. The event, which is exclusive to 2022 and Life Members, is being held to provide Members with the opportunity to express their views and ask questions about proposed amends to the county structure and schedule. It has been pushed back by 72 hours with Derbyshire now understanding that any formal proposals following the High Performance Review will be sent to clubs by 12 September, as opposed to the original 9 September target. Documentation which is released for consideration by counties will be issued to Members via email. The Forum on 15 September, which will be held in person in the Members’ Lounge at The Incora County Ground and remotely via Zoom, will offer the opportunity for Members to discuss any formal proposals with the Club’s Supervisory Board. Chief Executive, Ryan Duckett, said: “As a Club we’re keen to engage with our Members throughout this process using our regular Members’ Forums. “We believe that by pushing the next Forum back by 72 hours this will allow the Supervisory Board, as well as the Club’s Members, a suitable window to consider any proposals before what I’m sure will be a productive meeting on the 15th. “This is an important time in County Cricket and I’d urge our Members to be a part of the debate whether that be in person or via Zoom.”

As it stands Warwickshire members will only have 24 hours to review the proposal before our forum on the 13th

I don't think the counties have the same goals to be fair. Many will say they want to retain the CC and most will be loathe to lose any Blast games.

Leicestershire probably value the Blast and RLODC higher than the championship for instance. Their CEO updated on their website a couple of days ago and I expect he'll be attending the CEO's briefing at Edgbaston tomorrow but as you can see his expectation was along what you suggest which is no change until 2024.

I along with our Director of Cricket and Chair are due to meet the ECB at the beginning of September to hear these proposals. I am also looking to see how we can get further input from our members as to their thoughts. Our board are currently considering how we do this but please keep an eye on the website as I am sure details will be announced soon. As it stands my understanding is that changes proposed will not be implemented until the 2024 season but will report back as soon as we know. I am pleased to read that any comments of reducing the number of counties is untrue. The ECB have indicated that the 18 FCC will remain in place. For people that follow me on social media will see I am an advocate of growing the game, not reducing it.

I think the 50 overs game is most vulnerable and has less support shored up for it and in terms of international mood music might be the one to be sidelined. So a drop to a shorter group stage (2 home + 2 away games) and proper quarter finals, semi finals and Lord's final likely I'd expect. Also having the group stages April/May with the final in June. These changes would give more breathing space for the championship and blast games - potentially 2 more weeks of wiggle room for rest

The big disagreement between the counties (pre COVID) was always over the scheduling of the Blast. Big city based counties like Warwicks and Lancs prefer once a week Friday nights. Smaller provincial counties like Somerset and Essex prefer it in a block or two mini-blocks playing 3 Blast games per week.

The blocks will probably stay the big thing to sort out will be rest slots for players these should be easy to schedule if there's fewer 50-over games. Warwickshire this season had a week off in mid April and also have next week off. Add two spare weeks to that by only playing 4 RLODC group games instead of 8 and that's at least 4 whole weeks rest in the schedule without any need to trim the CC or the Blast.

Yorkshire update

The Yorkshire County Cricket Club would like to update Members on its involvement in the England and Wales Cricket Board’s (ECB) High Performance Review.

Yorkshire, among other First Class counties, were invited to the first stage of the consultation process in Manchester on Friday where the ECB held the first of four regional meetings.

The Club expects to receive proposals on 12 September to ensure that English cricket, whether at international or domestic level, remains highly competitive. It is important to clarify that the counties have agreed that the LV= Insurance County Championship structure will remain the same in 2023. Yorkshire will play 14 County Championship matches next season. The proposals on 12 September will be related to the current white-ball structure ahead of the 2023 season. Any proposals regarding red-ball cricket will be deferred to allow time for further consultation.

The Club will update the Members’ Committee following the consultation process and inform Members after the upcoming EGM at 9.30am on Tuesday 13 September in the Long Room, Headingley. Yorkshire Chair Lord Kamlesh Patel and Interim Managing Director of Cricket Darren Gough will be in attendance to relay the recommendations and to answer Members’ questions.

It is important to stress that Members will be consulted on any votes that may occur in September and the Club will be sending a survey to Members that we hold an email address for. Members views will influence the decision of the Board to mandate the Chair to vote appropriately.

Thank you for your continued support.

Relieved they won't make knee jerk decisions about the County Championship this side of September 20th but we must still be on our guard

Yorkshire above all must realise any fewer than 14 (7 home CC matches) and it wouldn't be a championship any longer. Also impact on Scarborough which currently hosts 2 CC games leaving Leeds only 5 already is immeasurable

I wonder why the Warwickshire statement above didn't make this clear? Are they going to share red ball changes with us at this forum 12th September even though they won't be voted on until well after September 20th - not simply deferred till 2024 which Warks suggested but quite possibly (more likely I'd say) knocked back altogether by the counties and the members

Particularly as we were top of the 2nd Xi championship going into this game

Lots of mitigating factors alongside strength of Northants and one to take into account at that age is contract situations this time of year and the general instability around the club at present

I wonder if next week's home game might feature some fringe first team players who need a score or tune up like Northants did with a few here. Several who've been away with the circus last month or so and not got much of a game thinking Sam Hain

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/cricket/county-championship-points-b1021709.html

Bonus points would only be available for batting – and if the team wins. If a team won with a score of 325-399 in any innings of the match, they would receive one bonus point. And if a team won with a score of 400-plus in any innings of the match, they would receive two bonuses. So a maximum of five points is available to winning teams, while the losers receive nothing.

Not totally against changes to points system but no way should they cut the number of games in the championship

Also should rain wipe out 2 and a half days in any given game and only a draw is possible - what then? Joke bowling to ensure high scores for both sides?

It saddens me to see that some counties just don't want to play championship cricket in August sad that certain counties like Somerset have been bought off and while there is this disunity we will keep being served up absolute dogs dinners of schedules just with less and less to watch and less and less games for players to hone their skills. I'd have thought some CC games in August would be the way to go to enable the retention of at least 14 CC games going forwards. Does anyone on here see any merit in playing four random three-day matches in a 5th format in August instead?

What husk of a season will we be left with if the ECB and the bought off counties like Somerset get their way? 1 home CC game every 5 or 6 weeks?

A major concern of mine if they went with local derby friendlies instead of proper championship matches is what would stop them abandoning matches before a ball is bowled as happened to yesterdays 2nd Xi match up at Durham?

If counties are concerned re: loss of lots of players to the undrd perhaps that idea from a few months ago about only awarding half points might for these matches be a better compromise.

Counties clash on playing Championship games during the Hundred

Elizabeth Ammon
Tuesday August 30 2022, 12.01am, The Times
Counties are in disagreement about how to fit first-class cricket into August alongside the Hundred.

_One of the main initial recommendations from Andrew Strauss’s review was that some red-ball cricket needs to take place in the middle of the summer. While there is general agreement among counties, player representatives and directors of cricket that some red-ball cricket needs to be played in August, there is a divide about whether this should be the county championship or stand-alone first-class cricket.

A handful of counties believe there should be two or three rounds of the County Championship in August even though about 90 county players would be missing because of the Hundred. But other counties believe that being shorn of some of their best players compromises the integrity of the competition.

One alternative suggestion is a series of stand-alone first-class matches perhaps played at outgrounds against a county’s their nearest rivals. A suggestion has been put forward by some counties that there should be two four -day matches in this period played as local derbies with a 50-over game played in the same week and that would help appease county members who are concerned about the lack of red-ball cricket played throughout the height of summer.

Strauss’s review, which was prompted by the dismal Ashes tour in the winter, has set out a number of key principles they believe should be looked at by the counties as part of a reform of the structure and schedule of county cricket. These include a slimmed down 50-Over Cup, which would be played at the beginning of the season in April and start of May, first-class cricket of some sort in August and a smaller top division of the County Championship to promote “best versus best”.

It had been hoped that changes would be decided on in the coming weeks with a view to implementing changes for the 2023 season. However, Strauss wrote in a blog for the ECB website last week that because of concerns from the counties about the tight timescales and ensuring they have time to consult with their members, it is likely there will be no change in the number of county championship matches for 2023.

Meetings between the counties and the ECB are taking place to come up with a number of options for the future schedule and it is still hoped that over the next two weeks some consensus will be found and a vote can take place at the end of September. Any changes to county cricket must have at least 12 of the 18 counties vote in favour and there is a feeling among some directors of cricket that a new schedule must be implemented for next year because the current one is having an impact both on quality and player welfare.

The counties have no say in The Hundred which is ring-fenced as a five-week tournament running through the school holidays so the key decisions they need make are:_

• How many teams should be in each division of the county championship?

• How many matches should each county play? There is a general agreement that there are too many days of cricket each season and that there needs to be a reduction which is likely to come from the championship as most counties want to retain 14 games in the Blast because this is one of their major sources of revenue. There is also agreement that the Blast needs to be played in June and July rather than starting in May as it did this year, which had an impact on ticket sales.

• What county cricket should be played in August while the Hundred is taking place? Both Strauss and Rob Key, England’s managing director, are adamant there must be some first-class cricket to help with preparation and development for the Test team.

All counties have committed to holding members consultation forums prior to any vote.

https://beingoutsidecricket.com/2022/08/29/lies-damn-lies-and-high-performance-reviews/

Well worth a look at this excellent analysis of the analysis presented by the strauss review

We can only hope the county ceo's when presented with this also have their bullshit detectors on before waving this through

Members will be armed with this stuff at the upcoming forums certainly and the conclusion to the analysis is damning

All in all, the report is almost entirely without merit. How it took three months or more to come to this point when the data used in the charts would take an A Level Statistics student about a day to compile and the resulting ‘evidence’ is a mess of conflicting numbers which don’t really suggest any clear ‘solution’ to the problems at hand. As worthless a use of time and money as I can imagine, in all honesty. A fitting tribute to the end of the Tom Harrison era at the ECB.

County chairs take note

The weekends and bank holidays thing is self fulfilling. They'll probably give us a couple next year then point to sparse stands in April and go see?!??

When it really needs season after season to bed in and for locals to get used to relying on a game being on once a fortnight to actually work like it sort of did in the 80s 90s

It'll be the same going forward with the big gaping hole in middle of summer we've got now. There'll be the odd bone thrown to members and spectators but it'll be so hit and miss crowds initially will stay low so they'll say it proves CC belongs in April and October

When Scarborough festival and Colwyn Bay and a county festival at New Road early and late August will need 4-5 years regularity for the public to get used to them.

https://edgbaston.com/news/ecb-high-performance-review-update/

_Following Andrew Strauss’ latest blog about the ECB’s Men’s High Performance Review, Mark McCafferty, Chair, Stuart Cain, Chief Executive and Paul Farbrace, Director of Cricket have issued the following update to Members.
As you are aware, the ECB, under Strauss’ leadership, instigated a Men’s High Performance Review earlier this year in the wake of a sustained period of poor performance in the Test arena. The review’s stated aim is to seek the best outcomes for English cricket with a view to ensuring that England become the number one men’s team across all formats and that we have a thriving domestic game.

The review has now reached the consultation stage and the first of four regional meetings to discuss with all 18 First Class Counties took place on Friday in Manchester. We are attending our consultation meeting at Edgbaston on Thursday (1 September). This is when we will hear first-hand the thoughts of the high performance panel and be able to see how we best balance the needs of England international cricket with those of the various counties, including ourselves.

We understand that there will be a wide-ranging set of proposals designed to create a high performance environment for the men’s England teams, under-pinned by a thriving, future-proofed domestic county structure. Some of these will involve ideas for creating a more competitive domestic schedule, elements of which in white-ball could be introduced in 2023, but red-ball elements may be deferred until 2024 to allow for further consultation. It has been agreed by the counties that the 2023 LV= Insurance County Championship season structure and number of matches (14) will be unaltered.

Following the consultation meeting, we shall prepare a detailed briefing note for the Members’ Committee which will allow it to consider the proposals and put forward its views on behalf of the Membership. We will also hold an open Members’ Forum during lunch at the Somerset LV= Insurance County Championship game on Tuesday 13 September. This will give us the opportunity to discuss the proposals and seek further the views of those Members in attendance.

The important views of the Membership will inform the Board, and ultimately the Chair, on how Warwickshire should vote with regard to any recommendations requiring a vote in September.

For more information on thee High Performance Review and to read the Andrew Strauss blog, visit _ecb.co.uk.__

All I'll add is this "sustained period of poor performance in the test arena" was primarily away from home wasn't it and therefore outside of factors that can be mended by pruning the county championship.

In fact at home England have been very strongly competitive for about 20+ years now.

Overall the club's tone is better here it does feel as though members views will be taken account of.

I hope they understand how much members have already compromised already up to this point from the shrinkage of CC down from 8 home games to 7 and the loss of weekend and holiday cricket to watch. So they need to meet us half way this time. To see any further shrinkage down to 6 or even 5 home CC matches would represent a big kick in the teeth from a club that prides itself on superb championship victories in the past and then 1994, 1995, 2006, 2012 and 2021. I also recall good performances in 1991/92 and going so close being robbed by Sky TV choosing our game at Southampton in 2011. Reducing games going forward would cheapen any future victory and cannot be a more serious misjudgement of the mood of Warwickshire members

Essex CCC Board have voted unanimously in favour of rejecting any potential reduction in Championship and T20 cricket. In addition, it is imperative that the 50-over competition is retained. This view is supported by many of our fellow First-Class Counties and will be emphasised in future review meetings.

Chief Executive and Interim Chair, John Stephenson, will be part of the consultation

Why can't our board show similar backbone?

https://www.essexcricket.org.uk/2022/08/26/ecb-high-performance-review/

Tremendous win for England. Forged in the county championship.

Beating the world champions comprehensively and then the powerhouse of India and then the current world number 1 side south africa

Kind of negates the need to make hasty decisions based on some flawed high performance review

Counties should reject the Strauss proposals and in fact make the case for 16 matches in the county championship

All it needed was better people in leadership positions on and off the field and a release from the bubbles

If they persist with the proposals now it shows what we all knew from the beginning what it was really for all along

Highveld wrote:

From the Worcestershire chairman

https://wccc.co.uk/update-from-our-chair-high-performance-review/?fbclid=IwAR2V46y7nJl2hjQ8X4kKsQO9qG2JOxN791tBDeMxrV2aucMgjyCeCNHWj7E

Does this indicate there'll be no vote on September 20th or that any vote would be delayed by several months?

If they're still hell bent on pushing for a vote on September 20th to decide what 2024 will look like we need to mobilise quickly.

Worcestershire suggest there'll be several months for forums and consultation so hopefully nothing major gets decided on September 20th which would be wreckless and far too rushed

Personally I think the counties ought to be miffed at the deeply insulting nature of much of Strauss's HPR. And should therefore ready themselves to take appropriate action with regard to the ECB itself or garner assurances from the new chair