***Official*** English Domestic Season 2009

[superkingdave]

They certainly would have got nowhere near the Championship without Mushy. But they wouldn't have been relegation material either.

The whole system is so tight though. Apart from Durham and Worcs, all the teams are on pretty much the same playing level. It's a question of the odd session or great bowling performance. So it's not a complete disaster IMO. Lancs could just have easily have been sent down. Warwickshire are staying up with a dire bowling attack. It's so difficult to make concrete judgements.

First game of the season, Jimmeh destroys Sussex, doesn't play another CC game. If he doesn't play that game, Sussex might well have stayed up...if he'd played more, who knows what could have happened with Lancs.


Apart from the Sussex win we've beaten the bottom side twice, on the flip side we've only lost to Durham and Hampshire once each.

Soo many draws...we could finish 7th with only Durham having won more games.

 

[Pothas]

Yeah that is them gone, think that leaves Hampshire as the longest surviving side in the 1st division.

Expect Sussex to come back up, just have to look at Kent this season.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Far too many draws this season, something needs to be done about it because at the moment a side can stay up drawing nearly all their matches by scoring 400 each week on flat pitches.

It could be argued that if you had no chance of being champions but there was an en masse relegation dogfight (kind of like this year, but maybe with no-one favourites to go down) you should just play without any non-batting bowlers - use allrounders and part-timers to try and scrape together enough wicket, then bat the opposition out of the game.

Something has to be done. The bonus point system is a complete mess. It favours teams like Somerset and Warwickshire who can pile up 500+ at home every other week, then get 10 wickets over 120 overs. How can a team be given maximum bowling points for dismissing a side for over 500? Madness.

I'd be interested in a system along the lines of 6 points for a win, 2 for a draw, with a bonus point for a first-innings lead in a drawn game. Just glancing through a Wisden last night, the Ranji system seems too weighted in favour of a first-innings lead in a draw.

Also I'd like the pitch panel to maybe consider some sort of action against wickets which are too good. It might mean that the groundsman can't make as good a pitch as he would wish, but it would be much better for the game. Not sure how this could be implemented though.

 

[Scaly piscine]

It could be argued that if you had no chance of being champions but there was an en masse relegation dogfight (kind of like this year, but maybe with no-one favourites to go down) you should just play without any non-batting bowlers - use allrounders and part-timers to try and scrape together enough wicket, then bat the opposition out of the game.

Something has to be done. The bonus point system is a complete mess. It favours teams like Somerset and Warwickshire who can pile up 500+ at home every other week, then get 10 wickets over 120 overs. How can a team be given maximum bowling points for dismissing a side for over 500? Madness.

I'd be interested in a system along the lines of 6 points for a win, 2 for a draw, with a bonus point for a first-innings lead in a drawn game. Just glancing through a Wisden last night, the Ranji system seems too weighted in favour of a first-innings lead in a draw.

Also I'd like the pitch panel to maybe consider some sort of action against wickets which are too good. It might mean that the groundsman can't make as good a pitch as he would wish, but it would be much better for the game. Not sure how this could be implemented though.

Yes the bowling bonus points are far too easy to achieve, it's virtually impossible not to get one point (3 wickets in 120 overs) and pretty unlikely not to get two points (6 wickets). It should be more like 6 wickets for 1 point, 8 wickets for 2 points and 10 wickets/all out for 3 points.

Maybe you could reduce the number of batting points available to 3 and allot 2 bonus points to having a first innings lead.

 

[superkingdave]

A Lancs reject getting most of the wickets against us today as well. A win should be on the cards given a decent forecast over the next two days, but the wicket has flattened out later in the game all year (see ****s game) so it might be a boring finish.

 

[Beamer]

Shiv is just too good for county cricket. He now has 3 centuries in 5 innings. He is averaging 185.5

It sounds like Worcestershire have a truly abysmal bowling attack though.

 

[Midwinter]

just 2 bobd worth on the points system.

When it was tried in Australia there were similiar problems, teams playing for bonus points instead of wins.

Ten points a win
one point for a first innings lead

A draw, sorry fellas you should have tried harder, no points.

A win is the result that must be rewarded.

 

[zaremba]

Well a desperate season for Sussex on the FC front. There is some consolation in our limited overs form, but what really matters is the Championship and we have underperformed there and been deservingly relegated. I'm not sure that I want to offer any explanations at this stage, but lack of fast bowling firepower is an obvious weakness, as is the poor form showed by our long-time banker Murray Goodwin (344* excepted).

As for the points system, I don't think there's a whole lot wrong with it, although obviously there are viable alternatives.

 

[morgieb]

So, it's Kent & Northamptonshire (probably) replacing Sussex & Worcestershire. ITSTL. Can see Northampton being like Worcestershire (i.e. whipping boys) in the first Division with van der Wath, Boje & Hall likely to leave.

 

[stumpski]

Northants four wickets away from a huge win in the East Midlands derby; I suppose they'll go up if the Derby/Essex game is a draw. They'll struggle in Division 1 almost as much as Derbyshire would though.

 

[morgieb]

More so than Derby IMO. VERY reliant on Kolpaks.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Yea would be much better if Essex went up.

 

[stumpski]

Looking unlikely now. Northants have won their match, which puts Derbyshire out of the running. Essex could still steal it but at 320-7 they're a long way behind. Draw looking most likely there.

 

[superkingdave]

Did Panesar get dropped by Northants for this game or i she injured?

Taylor last man standing at the end again

 

[stumpski]

Not sure - I've never known him to be injured tbh, but you'd think there would have been more of a story if he'd been dropped. Has done nothing all season to justify playing in that crunch game though.

Glamorgan piling on the runs predictably at the Oval, 521-5; I wonder how many times we've even had first-innings lead this season - no more than three or four I suspect. Herath and Schofield both none for 100+. And another grim rearguard action tomorrow to delight the Saturday crowd.

 

[stumpski]

Highest f-c score for Mark Wallace (129); and at Worcester Chanderpaul wants 7 for his 200. No reason why Durham should hurry things along there.

 

[S Chanderpaul]

Good to see Northeast getting his first 100.

Looks like he got under difficult conditions too, as no other Kent batsman got past 50.

 

[gio]

Why have Derbyshire declared? That could have bollocksed it right up for Northants. There is no reason for Debryshire to declare other than to help Essex win

 

[superkingdave]

Why have Derbyshire declared? That could have bollocksed it right up for Northants. There is no reason for Debryshire to declare other than to help Essex win

Like many of us, they don't want Northants to go up.

Also they probably get more prize money if they win, not sure though.

 

[gio]

Is this the Kolpak factor? To be fair, many teams exploit it. Blame the ECB, not the clubs. The clubs have to the best they can for their members, otherwise what's the point in a competitive Championship.