GerryShedd
Super Moderator
Averages for the Blast so far:
https://www.espncricinfo.com/records/tournament/averages-batting-bowling-by-team/vitality-blast-men-2025-16846?team=1479
Kai Smith stands out as the man who hasn't contributed. Surely bringing Rob Yates in would strengthen the batting and add a bowling option.
Regarding the crowd size, I thought that Bears v Pears T20 matches were usually near sell-outs, so a crowd of just over 10,000 is quite disappointing.
Never in any doubt(!)
Andy wrote:
That email from Stuart Cain we've had today, sounds as though our lot have accepted the reduction in the amount of games no matter what.
True but that can be overturned/reversed at a Special General Meeting.
The suggested preferred format for the County Championship, apparently, is:
" 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."
whitelightning wrote:
Think it is getting close to a must win today. How do you fancy a Friday evening, at Edgbaston, against local rivals, with old boys Brookes, Hose and Issac around to embarrass us.
Or maybe old boys Moeen and Ed Barnard might embarrass the Pears - but let's not stray into the realms of optimism on here.
i don't think signatures are being collected at the moment. Maybe after members have heard the Chief executive speak at rthe Momday lunchtime meeting, it will focus minds.
Middlesex members have forced an SGM but I haven't seen anything from other counties.
Preview from the Pears' perspective:
https://wccc.co.uk/news/bears-preview-rapids-reinvigorated-ahead-of-big-trip-into-the-bearpit/
I think Hasan Ali is available in all formats.
it would be too glib for me to say that in any argument, I would want to be on the opposite side to Giles Clarke. And there are some good points made here. But it's also true to say that the old system didn't work well. I remember helping our late and much missed friend Kim Jones with his bid to join the committee and, as Norman says, he got nowhere. But it may be that the answer should have been to make it work better.
Anyway, clunky though it is, I would suggest that the SGM route needs to be pursued now or we all will have to live with the consequences.
OK - thanks for that.
BosworthBear wrote:
Not going to revisit this at length and Norman certainly had the gift of the gab but I think this one just merits the Mandy Rice-Davies response.
Go on, if you've any facts that refute what he said, let's hear them.
The reasons for the constitutional changes introduced in 2018 were related to the Code of Governance issued by Sport England. Failure to comply could have resulted in problems with big game allocation.
If you want to delve back that far, here is the full interview I did with Norman Gascoigne at the time:
https://deepextracover.com/2018/02/proposed-changes-at-warwickshire-signal-a-shift-in-how-county-clubs-are-run/
The key point (for me) is that, both before and since the changes, members have the power to compel the Club to take (or not take) a particular course of action. What is in doubt is whether the will exists amongst the members to challenge the Club. As I said in an earlier post, if the will isn't there, we'll have to accept what comes our way. I could have added "and not whinge about it" but I'm not that naive.
I'm sure that it's right that the club is not bound to follow what members want without a special general meeting being called. But you could argue that if there aren't even 250 members willing to sign to request a meeting, we deserve whatever cricket is put in front of us, even if it's an expanded Hundred played all season.
Rayb wrote:
I really like him, I bet the natives of Headingley won’t be “chuffed”….
“
Posters on the White Rose Forum are not happy. One of them claims that Thompson's offer of a new Yorkshire contract would have involved a pay cut.
He has signed a three year contract.
I agree that The Hundred is the problem - any changes to it don't feature in this review.
Regarding the power of members, I asked (ex-Chairman) Norman Gascoigne about this when I interviewed him six or seven years ago. He said about any changes that might be proposed and possibly supported by the Club but opposed by members:
"The higher of 250 members or 5% of the club membership would be needed in order for a Special General Meeting to be convened. At the meeting a proposal could be put forward for a vote of no confidence. Or a resolution could be raised for the Board to vote against the ECB proposals. If the resolution was passed, the Board would be bound by it.”
I think what he said then still applies.
KingofSpain wrote:
Nice article on the BBC on our Woakesy.
Yes, an interesting read. He doesn't always get the credit he deserves, so it's good to read: "Overall, with 1,970 runs and 181 wickets, Woakes is closing in on becoming only the sixth Englishman to do the 2,000-200 double in Tests and will probably do so as the second-fastest in terms of matches, after Ian Botham."
In theory (at least) the decisions regarding the future of first class cricket lie with the counties and therefore (in nearly all counties) with the members. But I'm not sure the energy or the will is there for members to rise up and force counties to vote for any particular solution.
The Cricketer reports that counties have now received the revised options for county cricket's future. One ray of hope is that there is an option that still offers 14 four day matches.
The report says:
"The first-class counties will now split into six groups of three to discuss the options further. Meetings start this week.
The options include a conference option, an option which retains promotion and relegation and a hybrid model which involves conference, promotion and relegation. Most of the options would involve the county champions being determined by a final, while others would also keep the existing two-divisional structure.
The majority of those options feature a cut in the number of Championship games, but one retains the possibility of 14 matches per side."