Those last two wickets were necessary, but even then I think this one has got away from us a bit, 70+ run lead when we only got 150 is a lot. It is perhaps a good indicator of where we are, though, and if there is some rain tomorrow and Sunday then a better bat second time around and a draw is a decent outcome. Especially if we can get those final two wickets quickly and come out on even points.

I confess I haven't read the sources, other than the headline figure that it's made a huge loss over 2 years. It should be relatively easy to work out the truth though. There is an accountant, or a CFO person, on this forum though and I reckon they would be able to answer relatively easily. Perhaps Reabank? I can't remember.

I think we all know the point of The 100 in its current form is to road test franchise or city based organisations. If it makes a loss after four or five years, then there's no way it will continue. Rugby is proving financial unsustainability at the moment and cricket will be aware if this. I think the broadcast deal is up in a few years. If it is still loss-making by then I think it's done.

GerryShedd wrote:

In 2016, the ECB predicted that The Hundred would make a profit of £27 million a year. The ECB now says that it has made a profit so far of £11.8 million.
However, a 120 page report by Worcestershire Chair Fanos Hira, a chartered accountant, says that it has actually made a loss of £9 million. And that doesn't include the additional £24.7 million paid by the ECB to the counties and MCC, part of the original deal the counties made in 2019 in return for supporting the new competition. If it did, the total losses from the first two years of the competition — including extra money paid out to venues as staging costs — would be £37.1 million

Who do you believe?

I'm not that bothered if they don't win. Lots of other teams have had results lost to rain and we have got a full haul of bonus points.

More importantly though, they looked like they had a plan, played positively and dictated the terms of the game. That should do us well for the rest of the season. Admittedly it's easier when Kent make a mistake at the toss and have bowling injuries, but doesn't affect how well we played.

Unlike recent times, it's academy products that got us there too: Yates, Mouse, Hain all contributing. Get Bethell in later this season it's looking stronger from the academy for a while.

Rain or shine, win or draw, it's good either way.

mad wrote:

Still think it'll be hard work pressing for victory even should they get on before lunch. However regardless of the result the performance backs up my thoughts last week after seeing parts of the game at Taunton that we now possess the type of attack that will be able to take on the better sides in the division - Surrey Lancs Hants Essex.

Added to the top order now peeling off centuries it represents exciting times ahead. Short of injury or call ups i was thinking yesterday about that slip cordon could be in place for years to come - Yates, Hain, Mousley with Barnard or Rhodes at gully or 4th

Rushworth's second over yesterday was amongst the best ever seen at the ground and his spell set the tone brilliantly.

I think we all know it can only be a draw from here, but unlike the Somerset game it would be good to see a plan in place about how to get a victory from here. Don't have to stick to it with 2nd innings in hand. Declair straight away? Or another 14 overs to see what wrle can get with the bonus points? Or get 400 them put them in?

Good to see Yates get some runs seeing as there's no real alternative to him right now. Score here could set him up for the season. 100 runs in a session is good, and it's been different players that have scored at tempo this year. Hopefully it's a message across the board.

I too think it was a touch harsh on Bethell, I'd have liked to see him stay as sole left arm bowler. Though I think it's a bit ridiculous to be rotating second game, made sense to switch up the bowlers especially considering some are crocked already. Happy to eat my words if five right arm briskish run over Kent twice, mind.

It's hard to tell from just looking at the scorecard but immediate target obviously to get 400 for 4 batting points while preventing Somerset getting maximum bowling points ... what's easy to tell from the scorecard is just how conclusively they failed in that! The pattern from the last few years has been to make sure the game is safe then look to win it. They can do that if we get ten quick wickets now, not much chance of Somerset getting to a win. So on balance looks like they've done what they set out to - that push for bonus points aside.

Rayb wrote:

From 5.00pm/ish yesterday, I have no idea what our intentions have been? I thought that should be at least a semblance of an attempt to win the game. Perhaps I’m wrong.

It's got to be Rushworth. Agree Barnard is the only like-for-like but he's an up-and-coming signing and Rushworth is really here for cover. Can't see us dropping a spinner, even if it's a bat-first spinner.

BristolBear wrote:

The obvious drop out for Woakes if its like for like would be Barnard, but I don’t see that. It’s either got to be a bowler, so OHD, Bethell or Rushworth, or a batsman which probably means based on scores Mousley or Yates.
I don't see the bowlers being dropped, and with no opening replacement other than Rhodes, I suspect Mousley.

Is Lintott not playing with anyone?

GerryShedd wrote:

No doubt you have all been avidly following The Hundred Player Draft (not).
As far as I can see, there will be seven Bears players in The Hundred and therefore not available for the Bears during August:
Chris Woakes, Moeen Ali, Chris Benjamin, Dan Mousley (Birminham Phoenix)
Danny Briggs (Oval invincibles)
Sam Hain (Trent Rockets)
Alex Davies (Southern Braves)
What will be frustrating will be if someone like Dan Mousley doesn't actually get picked to play and sits on the sidelines when he could be getting valuable experience and helping the Bears' cause. That's largely what happened to Sam Hain last season.

A lesson from baseball also in the rotation of players. A pitcher only starts one game in five. The fielders don't play every game either though more regularly than 20% of games. You could easily put an xx days of cricket limit on players per season. Best way to do that have two or three development rounds in August with a mandated limit of capped players or of a certain age.

Don't know. But it was fascinating. It was definitely by a member of this forum who is an accountant. Basically went through all the clubs and how financially well-run they were. Warks didn't sound that great from memory. I think it was Reabank but can't work out if I can tag him or not.

Andy wrote:

Tayls79 wrote:

To me, the issue here is less one of naming and phrasing, and one of financing.

I was reading a blog post of someone on this forum who is an accountant - perhaps Reabank?? - who went into forensic detail about how the pavilion end was paid for (or indeed how it wasn't) and how it led to the conclusion that Warwickshire wasn't a very well run club compared to, presumably, Lancashire, Hampshire and Surrey.

Personally, I think they can describe it how they want if it leads to the club being in a healthier financial state through a profitable project. Too many elite sporting organisations in the West Midlands aren't.

Interesting, where could one find this blog post?

Averages look interesting. I'm amazed we did as well as we did (8th!) with the bowling. Only OHD and Norwell really having a good year and the latter only four games. Batting looks superficially good but two of the top four seemingly frozen out. In my minds eye Rhodes had a good batting season and Davies poor though actually have very similar records.

Ha. The dentists analogy is a good one. I'll use that again. But that's entirely it. I'd take any amount of crazy naming, on the assumption the club is basically the same thing, so long as a Worcester Warriors RFC situation doesn't come up.

GerryShedd wrote:

With the Club still owing the City Council £20 million which they have no realistic hope of ever re-paying, it's not surprising that the Council can call the shots, even though it's unlikely that they would ever put the Club out of business by calling in the loan, because of the loss of a facility that brings so much money into the City on big match days. Hence both parties dance around the debt, pretending that it will be repaid one day. It's like the patient in the dentist's chair who, when the dentist starts his drill, reaches out and gently grasps the dentist's private parts, saying: "Now, we're not going to hurt each other, are we?"

To me, the issue here is less one of naming and phrasing, and one of financing.

I was reading a blog post of someone on this forum who is an accountant - perhaps Reabank?? - who went into forensic detail about how the pavilion end was paid for (or indeed how it wasn't) and how it led to the conclusion that Warwickshire wasn't a very well run club compared to, presumably, Lancashire, Hampshire and Surrey.

Personally, I think they can describe it how they want if it leads to the club being in a healthier financial state through a profitable project. Too many elite sporting organisations in the West Midlands aren't.

Agree with this. Our chances of bowling them out twice are higher the more runs we get.

Exiled Bear wrote:

Given that the weather forecast for tomorrow and Thursday are a bit better, I don’t think we need to do anything too crazy just yet. I still think the best chance of us winning is only batting once. Also, tomorrow looks dry and given the overs lost today there’ll be 100+ overs scheduled, and we’ll be eager to get in as many as possible so might be able to get a few more in if the light holds.

Did I get that right?

Come back from rain, score 30 runs of 16 balls, Yates gets his ton, then off for rain again?

I'm not sure what the weather is doing there, but in London its tiny showers then sun. I suppose the view is get as many batting points as possible then hope for a route one, innings victory.

LeicesterExile wrote:

Good point. Perhaps throw the bat for a quick 50 or so and then declare with plenty of overs left today - weather permitting. Will we have enough DAYS left to get 20 wickets though???!!

I would have, to be fair. But not on the basis of what he has done this season. I'd pick him because he is vital for next season and in what is actually a pressure-off game it might set him up for the post-season to get a score.

Highveld wrote:

Hampshire elected to bowl.

Yates in to fail again, there is no logical reason to include him in the side.

I estimate those extra three no's will accumulate fairly quickly. Have to consider this is different to the 100. There counties didn't lose games, just there were some regions that didn't get extra high profile games. Similarly, when the CC went down to 14 games there was more lucrative t20 around. Any "bribes" would have to make good whatever is lost from the recommendations and I can't see the ECB shelling out for this.

There have been stacks of wickets all the way through today across all games so premature to say we can't win this. And if we do we pull ahead of Kent, despite them rolling over Hampshire. Could we even get close to Yorkshire if they get smashed by Surrey?

Also think very premature to say Burgess was dropped. There are plenty of reasons why he would be unavailable. For what it's worth, I don't think anyone in their right mind would say Davies is a better option with the gloves given how he's been batting. Robinson included.

Finally I think the assessment of the season is too soon as well. However it goes I think we were fortunate last year and failed to account for it this year. I can remember Eddie Jones saying it took three years to get the team you want as head coach, it could yet be that 2023 is the year Robinson gets things the way he wants.

I can't remember if I mentioned it last game but the timing is the really infuriating thing for me. 109/3 with Rhodes looking a bit more settled is not too bad - recovering nicely. But 136/5 is terrible. It's one of the differences to last year, when we needed it last year someone got something. This year the opposite.

This is a good point. Despite however many years of two divsions, there still are very few that have always been title contenders or wooden spoon specialists. Could the proposal change this? I have the feeling it actually won't, and if it does it will take years.

paulbear wrote:

Don't like to think of us as a yo yo side seeing as Hampshire have been down a division and would have been relegated in 2016 but for Durham's woes and remain a very lucky county (As the T20 final showed) and it's not that long ago that Somerset were always a stone's throw away from the title, Notts are as much a yo yo side as anyone but I do see your point in terms of where both side are now and 2 divisions is what I think most players/counties have always said they preferred. It just goes to show how bad this whole scenario is and any county who are considered a 'Feeder' will be extremely insulted. I can imagine Leicestershire and Derbyshire thinking, "Well haven't we been a feeder county for Nottinghamshire since they nicked most of our good players for the last 15 years".