mad
Member
Certainly don't buy the Lancs line that the SGM costs them any more than a binding vote would.
The board there do have issues with trust
And what will a binding vote entail exactly?
Vote X 10 CC matches and 14 Blast matches
Vote Y 12 CC matches and 12 Blast matches
Vote Z 14 CC matches and 10 Blast matches
Something along those lines when what members could well insist on is retention of 14 CC and 14 Blast matches to show solidarity with the Worcestershire's and Sussex's
What I think Lancs members fear is there will only be option X or Y.
Or perhaps option X - yay or nay?
No change to the volume has to remain on the table with an insistence on the schedule being sorted so there are games for all the counties throughout June July and August as opposed to the huge gaps we've had to put up with - some counties worse affected than others in 2021+2022
Vote A 14 CC matches and 14 Blast matches (but get the blinking schedule sorted out)
Annie Chave posted this on the Somerset Facebook page yesterday
"Hello All
Just to say on the back of the forum last night - I'm afraid I wasn't able to be there but I did meet with Gordon Hollins during the day along with Mike Unwin, Chris Winkleigh (apologies Chris I know I've got your surname a bit wrong) and Alan Higham to discuss the High Performance Review and we had a three hour meeting where we looked at the proposals as a whole. There are many aspects of the review that need to be looked at and Gordon was very definite that the Somerset CCC Board would not be agreeing with ANY proposals until the ECB had looked at the Somerset response and agreed to their points.
We will be meeting again in November to talk again about Members & fans concerns and so do get in touch with me if you have anything specific or if you're just worried or want to let off steam.
It is an incredibly frustrating time to be a County Cricket Fan at the moment and the delay in any decision making is very hard for the counties to get on and sell membership or make informed decisions but it's important we feel that we are aiming for the same score and I'm really really trying to ensure that we are keeping Winviz 50/50% and our projected score is heading for that tie...."
They may not have won the vote but that will have been mainly down to Lancs CCC throwing the kitchen sink at defeating it. What they have done however is help open up a few eyes to what they're after and their members (rather condescendingly described by the club as "small but significant") were right to call the SGM in the circumstances as information was far from forthcoming in August. They've also helped awaken members at other counties and wangled us an extra year - if nothing else - so well done Alan and the volunteers.
If I'm reading it right in an ideal world what the board of Lancashire County Cricket Club would prefer is one division of 12 or 13 (or perhaps 14?) counties playing each other once per season with no relegation or promotion. This would necessitate demoting 3 or 4 counties to minor county status forevermore.
They don't like small divisions of six
They don't like playing some teams more than once but other teams only once
They don't think smaller counties should have any say in the matter
They don't think they should ever be relegated
Yet they somehow agree with the warped view of the ECB report that there's somehow too much cricket presumably so they can fit more concerts in at Old Trafford and more slogball too
It might be what many of the supposed bigger counties are after at the end of the day.
Getting far too big for their boots at Old Trafford especially considering they've won precisely 1 county championship title in close on 90 years
It's not just Lancs however. This'll likely reflect how other so called big counties think
14 games CAN fit into the 5 months outside the 100 window they just won't admit it and they keep inventing stumbling blocks. It is is pure deflection tactics
The 100 can be played with CC alongside it. I'd actually prefer this and in the light of this there ought to be efforts made to increase the CC back up to 16 games if this is the case not reduce it to a shrunken disheveled status
Where there's a will there's a way. They just want to shrink the game and it needs opposing still
A shame for those in Melbourne that for a second week running heavy rain put paid to the entire schedule. There was a photo I saw of Essendon CCs ground completely flooded
George Garrett's had an impressive debut overnight. Came on first change and removed both openers - caught third slip with one that extracted a bit of extra bounce and caught second slip in that corridor of uncertainty area. Figures of 2-5 off 4 overs at one stage. Fair play to the lad
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LTCPIvmbljE
And Jacob Bethell has been playing for Sydney CC overnight in their away match at Bankstown
Duplicate post
Lancashire had their SGM during the week and Somerset had a forum
Lancs appear to be committed to preserving 14 FC games in the season and will push for some CC cricket in August to facilitate this. They are deeply opposed to the idea of a tiny top tier of just six teams. At one point they mentioned a 12 team division as being their preference but I can't see how that would work. Like Warwickshire they are not too fussed if a couple of T20 Blast games were cut from the schedule.
Somerset's forum suggested they are angling for a 100 franchise to be hosted at Taunton so at least they get to cash in on some of that while it exists. I personally cannot see the other counties agreeing to expand it as it generally flopped ratings wise last year. They are looking at ideas to have some CC cricket on during the Hundred - THIS IS POSITIVE NEWS as it would be less pressing to cut fixtures.
I saw some some interesting comments about only having six teams in the top division;
One thing I have grave reservations about is how a six-team top division is going to help England's cause.
It was mentioned on the Northants - Essex commentary yesterday that when there was an 8-team top division it was intensely competitive. Yet this has actually since gone up to 10, presumably to reduce the risk of "big" counties going down to Division 2.
It's obvious that with only room for 6 clubs in the top division, that risk of not being in it will increase substantially. The basic maths is that 12 teams won't be in that league.
One might say that the likes of Lancashire, Surrey and Yorkshire are the core resource when it comes to producing England players. But what if, rather than the assumption that it will be the likes of Leicestershire "marooned" in the feeder divisions, it is those big clubs? Let's face it, all 3 have spent time in Division 2 before, so it's far from a given that they will stay in a top division of 6. And once out, it could take years to get back in, especially if all 3 ended up down there.
On top of this, you then also have the other side of the coin, that the big clubs are by no means the sole providers of England players - far from it. As things stand, there is sufficient incentive for all the county clubs to try and get into Division 1, which means they build stronger sides. But with the proposed set-up, it may be that more clubs "do a Leicestershire" and privately admit that they will give-up on trying to build red-ball team capable of challenging for the top flight.
These combined effects could actually end up seeing the supplies to the England Test team worsening, not getting better.
Food for thought I reckon.
Totally agree. Gave the club the benefit of the doubt over recruitment of the overseas Nathan McAndrew this season but this makes far more sense all formats too but especially championship cricket he'll chip in in several ways.
May enable Will Rhodes to go back to opening if they're that way inclined as would ease his need for bowling
Great news about Hamza Shaikh who's spending "time in Mumbai, India during the winter where he’ll gain invaluable experience playing in different conditions and pitches plus, crucially, honing his skills against spin bowling"
Several Bears are overseas this winter a few we are aware of so far;
Jordan Bulpitt is over in Melbourne already and was selected for Kingston Hawthorn's two day fixture yesterday in the Victoria Premier League but unfortunately the entire round was rained off.
Ethan Brookes has also arrived in Melbourne to join up with Prahran CC
Rob Yates is heading over to Perth to play for Bayswater-Morley. They've had two rounds of
50-over matches already and switch to two day matches at the end of October. Henry Brookes spent a few months there the winter prior to Covid. Will Rhodes had two winters with Willetton just as he signed for Warwickshire from Yorkshire and before he took on the captaincy
The WACA Premier League is quite nice to follow as due to the time difference it's on in the mornings until about 11am on Saturdays/Sundays whereas the other grade cricket comps are all overnight.
George Garrett is heading over to Brisbane to play for Easts Redlands which is Marnus Labuschagne's club. The Queensland Grade cricket season begins a bit earlier in the year so they've played lots of T20 since August plus three 50-over games already and just completed their first 2-day match beating Toombul.
I know several other youngsters are over there or in South Africa so will keep an eye out for their performances
Excellent article. And delving into the archives here once again superb; https://edgbaston.com/news/liam-norwell-best-bowling-performance-ever-for-the-bears/
A play-off between the bottom two teams in division one will determine which county is relegated, while a play-off between the top two in division two will decide who goes up to the top flight.
???
What on earth is the sudden obsession with play offs all about???!!!? It'd represent yet another week in the schedule where 4 teams get to play while the other 14 are sat twiddling their thumbs. I'm guessing mid-September??? Or else played overseas??? And if they're drawn matches??? Ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous!!!
What we want is proper season long leagues and proper knockout cups like we had in the 1990's
According to the Leicestershire chairman speaking last night at their forum no date has been arranged for any vote.
Also aligning with the wishes of their members the Leicestershire chair and CEO have stated they will vote as follows;
No - to moving the RLODC to April
No - to the proposed schedule of fewer championship games
No - to reducing the 7 T20 blast home games they currently have
That is a county engaging with its membership fully. Leicestershire members were also very vocal about the need to resist any moves towards creating divisions of six. You can't have a county championship where 2/3rds of the counties are unable to win it.
The situation at Warwickshire is far from clear.
Members at the forum in September were unanimously opposed to reducing championship matches. Yet the club wishes to portray the members as being broadly aligned with the committee??? This appears to be not the case if the committee think 12 is any workable compromise. 14 was the compromise.
If Warwickshire decide to vote for reduced championship games they will do so against the clear wishes expressed by their membership
This needs clearing up
This is on the Worcestershire official website. Counties should reject these insidious moves to shrink opportunities in the English cricket summer. It's as true for the next Olly Hannon Dalby or Ed Barnard as it is for Masihullah Qazkhill
https://wccc.co.uk/from-afghanistan-to-astwood-bank-masih-finds-opportunity-in-worcestershire/
amid all the current debates about the future of the game, maybe it’s vital to note that while the responsibilities of county cricket clubs embrace the production of England players, those duties also extend far beyond that essential role. It is a simple truth that most professional cricketers will not wear the crown and three lions, yet they will still give essential service to the game in this country.
English cricket is not solely about the England team. Rather, it is about ensuring that age-group teams are properly financed and that no players of sufficient talent are left out of them. It is about turning the player pathways into broad highways on which male and female cricketers from any background feel comfortable. And it is about ensuring that the major competitions are valued for themselves as a stern but fair test of teams across the increasingly wide expanse of the season.
Certainly take the point Reabank I think it's reasonable to wait and see what the club is actually being asked to vote on exactly. Also any efforts the club is willing to make to ensure fairness, openness (other counties will lay it all on the table anyway) and full member engagement potentially by way of a vote? Our SGM is a review of their decisions after they're made and we know that unless this gets kicked into the long grass certain dates are key;
End of October (so by around the date of the second Warks forum) the counties will have decided on the exact schedule for 2023 - possibly some minor alterations. We will be informed of this I would hope at the forum if not beforehand. If 2023 can work then I would appeal to counties to try to make it work in 2024 aswell. Why the need for drastic change if 2023 can work? Strauss review is flawed that's for sure.
End of November the counties will have a fixture list for 2023 (probably won't be made public until nearer Xmas mind) so they'll want to know what 2024 will look like.
Clearly the mood music over the next couple of weeks will help determine any decisions with regard to serving the SGM
https://www.phoenixfm.com/2022/10/06/98-not-final-show-grumbler-george-dobell-mark-butcher/
Forward to 1.05 for George Dobell comments following the cricket writers dinner earlier this week
The whole radio show is good
And another
"By reducing teams or games, you reduce the pool of people who play. We need boys and girls being able to watch cricket in summer not just at the test grounds but at Worcester and Chelmsford too. We need to play cricket in as many parts of the country as possible and at the highest level we can"
Well said Anthony McGrath.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0d4w5km?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile
Afternoon reabank yes a number of us are in possession of more than 250 signatures. The figure was reached primarily during the Somerset championship game. These are in addition to those that have been posted/handed into the club already or completed online.
I do not know the answer to your second question but it's clear attempts have belatedly been made over the last three weeks or so to help make the committee more visible just a shame it's now October.
Reading around I found a nice summary appraisal of the Strauss Review today I thought worth sharing;
... so empty and lacking in explanation and detailed reasoning as to lend credence to any who might suggest that the Review committee not only concluded with its conclusions but commenced with them also. There is nowhere an attempt to recognise or balance the competing interests within the game. There is nowhere any explicit consideration of the threat to domestic scheduling and domestic player contracts from overseas leagues. There are no proposals for managing player demands to participate in overseas leagues where it would not serve the interests of English cricket for them to do so. There is no consideration of the viability of certain counties as centres of first class cricket. There is no consideration of splitting the domestic game between red ball and white ball squads, as England does, with no requirement for counties to participate in both or either forms. The 'rationale' presented for each recommendation is a 'why we are right' justification rather than an explanation of why alternatives were rejected. Fundamentally, there is a lazy and contestable assumption that player talent simply needs to be better managed within the current domestic pipeline, rather than that it needs to be more aggressively pursued in schools against other sports. Worst of all, the entire assumption behind it takes no account of the very diversity it seeks to promote: for example, that different types of leadership might be excellent, that there might be more than one set of qualities that have 'what it takes to win', that the talent to be 'identified' and 'developed' might (as is true of young people generally) be idiosyncratic and asynchronous; that players may need to play, train and rest in different proportions at different times, that 'the right' players might not always be selected were selection to rely on 'clear selection criteria', or that there might be different versions of 'strong performance culture' that would benefit individual players differently.
Finally, there is no consideration of the county structure as reservoirs of expertise in any of the things the Review thinks it needs: leadership, knowing what it takes to win, player/talent development, quality time on task, selection and performance culture. If the aim of this Review is to win potentially dissenting voices round to its point of view, it does not seem to have addressed any of the issues from their perspective or sought to make a case for why its view should prevail.
This is a thoroughly inadequate piece of work that does its authors no more credit than it does domestic cricket.
It's a worry so many county CEO's and chairs were falling over themselves to fawn over the review. I know some see it for it's true worth and are simply being polite with their response
Irrespective of all these comparisons with baseball the fact remains they have agreed for 2023 to be played with the same number of matches as this season.
If - and it is a really big if - there was any issue with player welfare arising from the schedule in 2022 then they would not be agreeing to arrange such a schedule for 2023.
Player welfare clearly wasn't a concern either when a random unecessary and divisive 4th format was plonked right smack in the middle of summer meaning the rest of the schdule had to be fitted into 5 months instead of 6 months
Half the players are sitting around for the bulk of August and quite a lot of June and July also - prime cricket season
Several players and coaches have already spoken out about the need for a sensible schedule rather than cuts to the schedule
This is achieveable whether or not they have championship games in August but I would prefer some in August. Just don't make them play 6 CC games in a row in April and May again that's what players have asked.
Next Wednesday, Lancashire will hold their first special general meeting since that point in the mid-1960s, although the nature of the debate will be focused around the future of English cricket as much as the specifics relating to the county, who have just completed a strong season. Indeed, all around the shires a small revolt has been growing among county membership in the face of the potential reforms pushed by Sir Andrew Strauss and his high-performance review.
As well as at Lancashire, extraordinary general meetings (EGMs) have been called at Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire. Enough signatures from members for EGMs have been gathered at Somerset, Glamorgan, Warwickshire, Gloucestershire and Surrey — although they have yet to be served on their respective clubs. Each of these clubs may have their own particular issues, although it is the possible future direction of the game that has given members a cause around which to coalesce.