I don't think I've got an issue with Yates. He played poorly earlier this year, true, and he got dropped. He then played OK in the Royal London and we need an opener. This season as well as next. I'm fine with him staying there the rest of the season. Is Mousley at three in place of Davies going to add anything though? Never going to happen, I think Davies is there for the year now.

Highveld wrote:

Umpires can and do get dropped from the first class panel, also if they have poor gradings they won't be given high profile D1 and one day games.

So there are consequences for umpires.

Yates and Davies seem to be totally imune from the consequences of playing badly!

Got to say my first reaction to this was simply to laugh at how quickly it came to be. To be serious though, there seems a huge confidence issue here. It was frustrating that Somerset were let back into the game but no catastrophe. Yet we opened the batting in clearly a position of mental weakness. 200+ can seem a long way off when you're batting to survive.

Highveld wrote:

The selection of Yates is looking totally justified, his average for the championship is now 11.7 and excluding his one decent innings, is just 7.81

With Davies and Yates in the side it effectively means we start each game two batsmen short.

There was a draft schedule floating around (I get too much stuff of Twitter which I then end up losing so don't have source) which had a blast game a week over several months still with finals day before August. Then three rounds of CC in August overlapping The 100. August CC would be inherently development rounds. Pros and cons, but it's likely anything more revolutionary isn't going to get done maybe before 2024.

I had an idea similar to a reverse draft on on the other thread: Not reduce the amount of cricket in the summer but reduce the load per player by having three rounds of CC cricket in August as development. It would need a quota of a certain number of players under the age of xx or of with fewer than yy first class appearances. Test players could play alongside them to prepare for internationals. I don't see how ECB will ever square the problem of playing less cricket but maintaining the fans preference of no less 50 over and CC cricket without this or the reverse draft suggestion.

Any other suggestions or speculation about what happens?

True, the specifics what each county wants is different. But I think all of them are agreed they don't want any less cricket. While the report makes it pretty clear a strong England men's team needs less.

This just occured to me overnight but I wonder if there is scope to keep the amount of cricket, but reduce the seniority of it. For instance: make three county championship games (in August or other time) officially development rounds, official quota of players who most be, for example, under 18/20 or fewer than xx first class appearances. Still gives scope for senior test players to play with them. Its what I've liked about the Royal London comp.

English domestic rugby has a similiar situation and turned its knockout cup into an, admittedly unofficial, development competition too. It was fine but you had the problem of some teams re-introducing first teasers for big games and some not. The solution to that I guess is formalising quotas. The pity is I'm not sure this competition is in place anymore. Could be pandemic, could be finances, could have been it was just a flop.

Don't take me too seriously, I'm just spitballing to help test my opinions.

mad wrote:

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.

As Gerry says, difficult to see how the formats can be separated out for decision in September. Has anyone seen the report or got a link to it? I had a rushed effort at reading it sat on a concrete slab, supervising a toddler while watching Kings Heath CC at the weekend. And Inhabe nownlost the link. So my attention wasn't absolute and can't refer, but it had the goals of getting England to the top of all three formats. So not as if they can neglect one. I think it's more likely the whole lot goes back to 2024. Additionally, it seemed to me to be light on suggestions. There might be some hidden ones that are adapted and then presented after consultation?

I haven't been a member for 20 years, the amount of time I've been outside Birmingham, so not able to influence this. But it seems most clubs have the same goals - no reduction in red ball or 50 overs cricket. If this simple goal is the single battle line then its hard to see what the ECB will do. They can't impose a structure the clubs don't want and I cant see them being bought off forever. So the outstanding issue is how much are the counties objectives and the goal of a strong England men's team across all formats aligned?

Before I saw him play I thought GG was never going to break through. Having now seen him twice I think he might do - but there's stuff to work on. It seems his action is a bit slingy and early against Middix it all came out a bit wrong. But he got better the more he bowled. Against Soms he was good line and length all the way through. If this spell in Aus can make that accuracy better while improving his pace, then I think he might come out alright.

I'm not sure about the rumour of him being frustrated comes from. He's had a whole set of games in this comp. If he wants a whole series of CC games he has to prove he's worth his place ahead of, say, Norwell or Miles. Which is what it will need. That's life really.

SC_Bear wrote:

Re: George Garrett. I know a close family member of his who tells me that he and the other youngsters are frustrated by how little cricket they are getting to play. May explain their consistent inconsistency which somewhat strikes against the ECB's attempts to reduce the amount being played. George is off to Australia to play grade cricket this winter - hopefully this will toughen him up a bit.

Thanks for the clarity on the timing of the Strauss recommendations Gerry. I can't source it because only found it through random googling. But I saw Strauss on record saying he wanted it implemented for 2023. Very tight to get that done if the recommendation is being published in September. The commentary for yesterday's game speculated on whether Warks target for the last three CC games is avoiding relegation from the 2022 champo or being in the top six for whatever comes in 2023 with a rumour of three divisions of six.

Forgive my ignorance, but two questions: 1) Have the Strauss recommendations been published yet? Not the version that was leaked, intentionally in my view, for last minute feedback at the weekend. 2) Are they intended for implementation at the start of 2023 season? Means the conclusion of this seasons CC is up in the air if they are.

I wonder what would happen if a tie was manufactured like that? I don't know if it would be match fixing as no bookmaking incentive - but I guess there would be a disrepute element to it somehow.

Coop wrote:

Wonder what the odds are on Sussex and Middlesex conspiring a tie - they both go through then? Failing that even if Leics win we will be 3rd on 11 Points if (IF) we win,

Same as MikkyK I heard anecdotally that Burgess had dislocated a thumb. From my experience doing the same with a shoulder you can get some activity out of it for the rest of the day, then it stiffens up and its a proper injury. Plus he didn't look great batting against Middix.

As regards the competition my guess is quarters are the best we can do. Just too many crucial parts, such as a fourth seamer and white ball specialist bat, missing. I could take that with the players we have at the 100 absent and if some of these teenagers show they can develop at this high level. Leics and Middix are just that much closer to complete sides.

I think we just need to win, if I'm reading it right, and 2nd and 3rd play a quarter final. Plus Sussex Middlesex is a result and not a draw/tie. I'm surprised we're still in this after the defeats at Leics and Middlesex. Much like the Surrey game infact. A quarter might do us some good, get these lads a pressure game and see what happens.

I read Somerset were missing 16 in a game last week. By my count we were missing 15 today. Could be a close one for two respective 2.5nd teams.

It does seem the case we repeat ourselves. But looking at this you can see why the batsman are red ball specialists. Play and miss a lot, not many singles,very fews 1s turned into 2s. Only management will know for sure objectives of the tournament, and we have been disrupted by injuries and 100 for sure, but my feeling is it's a double failure: both in the table and the fact we've used development players so rarely.

I have just seen Micky B in the nets while queing for a coffee. Looked to be hitting well but grimacing and grinning in equal measure. I don't think he'll miss much CC but not sure how he'll go today.

I'll tell you what George Garrett is improving my opinion of himself. From extra cover his action looks a lot of moving parts but he's getting a lot more accurate with perhaps some movement - there's some playing and missing. He did give up some boundaries early on.

I'm watching at the ground. I couldn't quite see how he did it but suspect an acrobatic take from an OHD dot ball. Might have landed on his hand funny.

Been watching for energy and enthusiasm fro. The field. Which is there in patches. You can definitely see the differences between the situations on the players and not seeing a lot from the established red ball players. You can already see that there's some players Rhodes doesn't trust with the ball and I'm wondering if both these things add up to the young lads not really having much to look up to. See how this hypothesis develops over the rest of the game.

Good win and good to see the emerging players play their part as well. Mentioned it before but one of the worst outcomes from this tournament is if our established red ball players are mediocre and we finish, say, 5th. Would rather young guys came in, did some good stuff but had heaps to work on and finished 6th. Today was better than that. My small tweak if Miles is back for Friday, he replaces Ethan and Smith goes up to 7? Maybe a bit harsh as Ethan bowled alright today, but it looks like his batting is coming up short now. Anyone seen him bat? Would also like to see Sheikh come in for Sibley but can't see it happening.

I haven't seen any games this year, either on streams or live, I wait a week today for Middix at Radlett for that, but there seems to be a theme that we don't have bowling resources at the death. That happens if you pick a non-bowler at nine. One specialist bowler has a problem in the middle overs you have to fiddle something later. No surprise there.

As to why Kai Smith is batting at nine and not even keeping is the crux of the problem this season. The competition is set up for development and he's the only emerging player consistently playing. And he's not trusted to do anything. Instead we have Rhodes and Sibley chewing up overs, etc, etc.

I don't really care if we do badly in this competition, indeed I would rather we did badly with some young players coming through, but were playing so so with proven non-white ball players. I haven't got time to work it out, but are we suffering more than others for players in the hundred?

Anyone watching this? 310 is OK I suppose but the rate of scoring was very linear, wickets fell in small clusters and only a few runs off the last over? Slow pitch?

I didn't know that Pandya had to come off and that could have explained the erratic bowling changes at the depth. Might have explained Yates bowling so late too, like I said a gamble that didn't come off. I suppose the real test is how they go in the next game as they looked up for it against Gloucs.