Ten overs each way smashabout would be a great laugh. If we win.

I should clarify: I know we need to finish top to go straight to the semi finals. I think that if we end up playing away to somewhere like Essex or Hampshire in the quarters we'll lose. One win from either Durham or Sussex though I think we should be able to manage even if it is a no-result here.

Yeah looks like no chance before 1400 or so according to BBC weather. I'm not sure what a 'no result' means for our qualification assurance but I think it actually hinders it, seems one more win would make sure we qualify but dependent on others results for the top spot. And I think we need top spot to go straight to the semi finals.

There's a whole separate argument that could fire up here on what the ideal catering set up is for an outground and we've had some great pointers such as the Traditional English Ale in Surrey, the ice cream van and dodgy burgers. If anything the outgrounds liberate us a bit and we're not hemmed in by Marstons stadium ale. I too remember being in a real ale festival at a Guildford bears game a few years back.

BosworthBear wrote:

We don’t need to replicate the Cheltenham Festival - what a ludicrous comparison!

We don’t need chefs, waiters, Michelin stars or any other bogus obstacle suggested.

We are talking about one day’s cricket not even a four day game at this stage.

It really wouldn’t cost much at all and numerous grounds would qualify but I would suggest higher population areas like Nuneaton and Coventry away from Birmingham would be best.

I’ve seen Warwickshire play at Whitgift, Beckenham, Maidstone, Tunbridge Wells, Guildford amongst others. It’s really not that difficult to set up seating, toilets, a beer tent, burgers and an ice cream van.

Some of the obstacles claimed are bizarre.

And to those talking about distance and transport - imagine what it’s like for some of us to travel to every match at Edgbaston.

As for Birmingham members not understanding the county concept. Of course it’s not all of them. The comment was in reply to Gerry who spoke about Notts members complaining about travelling. I said I’m sure we would get the same. There used to be one chap on the old forum - who came from Norfolk and actually lived in Worcestershire although he didn’t realise it - who obsessively complained about outgrounds because he had had to travel to Stratford. I’ve seen similar obstacle placing from Birmingham based members at the AGM. And obviously there’s a member on this forum coming up with all sorts of spurious excuses.

It’s a sad fact Birmingham has forgotten/lost its connection as being part of Warwickshire in a way Manchester and Leeds haven’t with Lancashire and Yorkshire even though the circumstances are identical.

I don't know. I'm not that invested in it (though if there were a game in Rugby it would make me more likely to attend - its much nearer) but if it were a cost of £100k with no guarantee of any income not many other counties would do it. My point about Middlesex was mainly that they do it relatively cheaply and flexibly. Personally I like a dodgy burger and a can of IPA from a chilled bathtub so their position isn't at odds with the market.

Highveld wrote:

If you look at the set up at Cheltenham, where about 1/3rd of the boundary is given over to marquees, which will need a kitchen, cooks and waiting staff, as well as the additional stewarding costs, plus the cost of transporting the stewards from Bristol each day my figure would be pretty accurate.
Corporate sponsors will not spend their money for a hard seat and a dodgy burger.

We all have differing views on the subject, I have no doubt that a lot of the logistical issues could be resolved if a comercial sponsor from Warwick, Coventry, Nuneaton or Stratford offered to underwrite the extensive costs involved.

I live in London and have seen Warwickshire at 2 Middlesex outgrounds now, Uxbridge and Radlett, plus I have been to Old Deer Park in Richmond to see other Middlesex games. No way are they laying out 100K for these fixtures. It seems to be four things they get in i) Portable toilets ii) Small stands and tents iii) An immense stack of foldable chairs with the understanding you bring your own if you don't like hard plastic iv) Catering vans or mobile bars, at it's best and most rudimentary, at Richmond, an old enamel bath filled with ice with 100s of cans in it. One thing I don't know, Uxbridge and Richmond have big bars or pavilions and can handle a big crowd, it might be the Warks ground don't have. But it's not a deal breaker. Admittedly I haven't thought about parking, that might be different in London, and I don't know how much those four things cost, but there is an income against those things as well...

Davies
Bethell
Moeen Ali
Hain
Mousley
Benjamin
Woakes
Briggs
Brookes (H)
Norwell
Rushworth

That's my counting sheep exercise from Sunday night: An eleven either with the 100 or injured. Some side. I'm aware two of those were back today. I don't have an issue with missing players, Somerset were missing 15 at one point, or the umpiring. One of OHDs was quite fortunate today. We need to be put under pressure or have some fault that we can correct. I'd rather it happen now than in the knockout stage. We've lost some real clutch games recently and playing under pressure must be something they've discussed.

I agree getting Bethell back would make sense. But not sure it would actually change the strength of this team that much, I think all that would do is a proper, specialist, established batsman (Alex Davies, looking your way). It's the only thing we're a bit light on really. As a winding down exercise yesterday evening I put together an XI of players we are missing for this competition. It is an incredibly strong XI though it gets a bit red-ball specialist with the bowlers.

Had some luck in this competition with good tosses v Gloucs and Worcs but probably more so some good play with decent patterns of performance too - the same methods are getting the results though Inwonder what would have happened without Barnard? He's contributed in every single innings. It would be good to get a really good test of our approach before knockouts but on the whole it's hard to see where we would or could change anything.

I wouldn't have thought they'd drop Booth after one game. Makes sense to give him a second or a third chance.

Good win and excellent to hold their nerve, that doesn't always happen. Is Hamza good in the field then? Excellent if so, so much potential if he's only 17.

I watched four overs of this at lunch and Yates and Barnard must have scored about 30 runs. Said then to myself, 330-340 would be a good score and should win us the game - which is where we are. Should we have got more? I see from the card both Kai Smith and Hamza were scoring at over 200 for 33 runs. Will they be dissapointed? Is it in their objectives to get more runs than that? It's definitely something to work on though I'm being too critical for now as they should be able to defend this. Rhodes' 44 off 44 I strangely am ambivalent about...

What do we know about Michael Booth? Cricinfo has him as right arm fast, which would be good, south african (surely England qualified and not overseas?) but seems like better recent batting figures than bowling??

The conditions for release were quite difficult and it's loaded in favour of the 100 team. But it did seem we got Briggs back from Southern quite easily. Who knows what line Birmingham take with Bethell. If Mo Ali has taken his space and he needs cricket, it should be a good case.

Andy wrote:

At a glance a few Birmingham Phoenix games clash with our one day cup games so am I correct in assuming it's going to be harder to get the likes of Bethell and H Brookes released?

I looked back to our results in this comp last year as I could recall winning by 8 wickets against Gloucs at the start. Our placing wasn't terrible last year, just got two massive defeats so it might well be we're very well placed this year, we're building off something. I notice Bethell didn't play in the 100 last night - would be good to get him back as a batsman.

OK that's good to know. I just looked at the scorecard and read a report. If Hamza is keeping his composure well it's promising for 17 years old and better than the game I saw him in last year, when he got frustrated, bogged down and got himself out.

Andy wrote:

Nice to see Hamza keep his composure after an uncertain start when he struggled to get a few away and hit the fielders a few times.

Good, and important, win that. Some hopefully slightly easier games coming in what is the weaker pool. Greatly encouraging to see the young lads do well, particularly Hamza. If he'd got out early we would have been run through, when he was out the game was virtually won although Kai and Lintott played well to assure it.

With the 100 meaning so many players are unavailable this is fundamentally a development competition and I actually like that about it, it's good seeing what up-and-coming players there are. It's very hard to see our, or indeed anyone else's, prospects in it without knowing who we will have loaned back. Mousley and Bethell it would be good to see back and it would allow them to shoot for a leadership role seeing as they broke-out a couple of years ago now. Micky B wasn't in the washed out warm up against Wales, hope to see him though my biggest fear is if he doesn't play in this (specialist bat at number 4? Kai Smith to keep?) then he'll leave the club at the end of the season. Love to see Norwell get some bowling as warm up for the CC run-in even though I don't really see him as a white ball player.

mad wrote:

Agree I hope we target winning this competition this season rather than use it as a development competition as we appeared to last couple of seasons. We have enough points to be able to use the final two home Championship fixtures in September as development games for a one or two of the youngsters

It seems Middlesex pick one outground a year and play multiple games there. It was Radlett last year (which I went to, was nice but a weird slope and virtually all facilities were brought in) OMT school this year, Richmond in the past and a long time ago Uxbridge. Doesnt seem to be much difference between them as the same ubiquitious stack of folding chairs have been at all of them. On the Middlesex experience, there's no problem Warks playing at any of the grounds, as someone said where there's a will there's a way, but respect the answers of those who say grounds don't work for whatever reason.

Andy wrote:

Uxbridge is woeful do Middlesex still use it?

I saw and took part in a twitter discussion on it and that passage you quote, Gerry, was the crucial one. As interpret it TRJ was still wafting his bat around, overelaborately, when regaining normal position after his shot. So it is still his follow through and therefore he hadn't "completed any action in receiving the delivery". One thing we will probably never know now is if the ball was dead or not at this moment, ie hit the ground beyond the boundary. This is the subject of the next para in the rules, and neither camera has both in shot, understandably. Both umpires were watching the ball in flight. Personally I think moral out from the unnecessary, ostentatious even, bat waving after the shot ;-). But of course I am a Warks supporter.

GerryShedd wrote:

Back to the match - there has apparently been quite a bit of discussion on at least one umpiring forum about the hit wicket decision against Toby Roland Jones. The consensus seems to be that he was wrongly given out because it is not out if the contact with the stumps occurs, as the Laws says, "after the striker has completed any action in receiving the delivery" . As I understand it, the only exceptions to this are if it happens when the striker is setting off for a run or is seeking to defend his wicket, neither of which seems to have been the case.
The suggestion is that both umpires were (understandably) following the flight of the ball and didn't see what happened and that, had there been DRS available, the decision would have been not out.
What do others (and especially our resident umpire Highveld) think?