A good win but it only ever looked like a defeat when Patterson-White was batting. God stuff at the end from OHD and the skipper who had a terrific game.

Coolerking, not double standards, I never said or assumed who did and didn't watch CC cricket but if you are trying to say that the young people who watch 'The Hundread', go to CC games then I would love to see them because when I go to CC I never really see anybody under 20.

Coolerking, you may think it is snobbery but spoonfeeding all the Hundred/T20 to young people, will mean that they don't 'get' CC cricket. If they are fed a game that lasts a day with a positive result then we have no chance of then hoping that they will watch a 4-day game and with it, the safety that goes with sending a young person to a county ground for 4 days as opposed to 1 day and mainly with a parent. In my experience, when watching cricket from the first ever game you see, if you connect with a county, you usually follow all formats whereas now, it seems young people go to just T20 with their parent(s) and the hassle of travelling, safety and time means it is unlikely they will engage with CC and it has nothing to do with 'Snobbery' and your suggestion without knowing me is crass and your sweeping generalisation of people who watch CC is the same as you have no idea what other formats they watch. I am a Bear through and through and watch all formats if Warwickshire are playing, CC, T20 and 50 over.

Have to agree with Andy about the standard of it all. It would be nice to have families watching CC cricket but they do not 'Get It'. The same people who watch a game in The HunDread' will look at a CC game and say "I'm not sitting through 4 days of it when I can see a result in 1, there are fewer boundaries, having fewer people watching creates no atmosphere and I find it slow and boring...". Anyone who is new to cricket cannot understand the nature of the game and why it "Takes so long", they cannot see the benefit of batting all day for 120 and the nature of building an innings is lost on them. At the T20 finals day in 2015 I sat next to a father and son supporting 'The Bears' as they kept referring to them and I asked if they were members which they were not and they turned to another woman and her 2 sons who they knew and both asked if I was and seemed to want to know why I was a member, looking at me strangely when I mentioned the CC and made a face that suggested I was mad to do so. Like so many, they call themselves cricket fans when they were T20 fans and that is the big difference and they cannot see it just like the people who flock to the Hollies stand and call themselves fans because they watch 1 Test per year and a few T20 games. Do the people who watch The Hundread actually care who wins or is it just the thought of 6's flying all over the pace that attracts them. When the thought of a 6 is not a rare thing, will they get bored because once you get bored with 6's being hit, there is nowhere else to go. I see that a lot with youngsters at T20 where initially it is entertaining and then the thought of that feeling lasting, is gone and they find running up the steps in the stands more fulfilling and the game in front of them is given barely a glance. Will the people who watch 'The Hundread' invest their time in the team they watch and even go to the trouble to go to away games and even to finals day at Lord's. In it's 2nd season, this remains to be seen and I doubt it will ever have the same effect that those one-day Lord's finals has from 1963-2005 when after that it got ruined by clogged, confusing and inconsistant fixture lists. No one tried to compare Gillette/B&H/Natwest, etc to CC in the past and it's no good trying to now, they are totally different and I cannot see what a CC fixture can do to make a spectator feel valued, it is massively different to the point that putting music on, having bits of silly dialogue and shout-outs, coloured clothing and people throwing T-shirts in to the crowd would just look ridiculous.

Shame to lose this one as we often fail against a side who are generally talked about as a weak county but we appear to make them look like world-beaters when we play them.

You wouldn't mind if the management could actually explain the decision but we would like to see the local media ask the questions of them in the first place or are they not paying attention.

Unless you have a batting line-up of star batsmen who can/will score very quickly, sometimes grinding out big totals and making sure you are still in the game after 2 1/2 days is often all you can do. I think a lot of journo's (And teams, Kent) were a bit rankled when we won the title in 2004 with just 5 wins and the rest, draws. Some still prattle on about it but what they have to realise is at the time, we were so many points in front of all the other sides, that all we had to do was keep accumulating points and not losing and Knight's habit of winning the toss with a strong batting line-up (At one point, Frost batted at 8 and was averaging in the 90's) proved effective. It was similar in 2012, 1 defeat and 6 wins but 4 of those came in the first 6 games when everyone else was avoiding the rain. I would go back to the 18 county season as it was fun and we had good games without side being bothered about promotion/relegation and more likely to have good finishes to CC games.

The whole of county cricket was more fun in general in the 90's anyway because we all knew when fixtures were played and you could see good players play in the big knock-out games as there was no crossovers in fixtures. Now, we have players missing for T20 finals days and having to 'Get Permission' to play in a cup final and it's this fixture overload that has brought us to this point where we know we cannot see all the best players in the top games. I do think there is still value in the RLODC as there are a lot of good players playing in it if they haven't been stolen for 'The HunDread' and we are able to put out a good side which looks strong and should hopefully win most games. The CC is still 'fun' but if you consider how many counties will never look like winning the title, you can understand the need to just play a game to get a certain result even if it is not entertaining, if it means the chance of being champions.

Well done Mr Garrett, take a big round of applause. We didn't score too well at the end of our innings, from Pandya to Smith, 20 from 29 balls but having young fielders about has made some difference. Not really sure about Norwell to bowl in the last 8 overs but Ollie keeps his head as he so often does.

Yes, you hope they will become better players and if Lintott could become a good CC spinner, as an unknown and rare type of bowler, he could be very useful.
Just had a word with my legal team and they say that your admittance of plagiarism is enough in itself to give me victory, I raise an 'air pint' to you BR.

Did you steal 'HunDreadful from my idea last week of 'The HunDread'. My legal team are checking facts and timelines so you might be hearing from my lawyers. I am expecting no out of court settlements and figures of at least £50 have been talked of.

The only thing to watch has been The Hundred and the games have been awful, full of players who play in the 'T20 Round The World Roadshow' in various T20 leagues and a lot don't seem to have much to offer and are past their best interspersed with county players who no one has heard of and are out of their depth even in this poor excuse of a competition. I do give it a genuine go when it is on but I will never treat it as anything but a joke and I could never bring myself to get behind a team.

Cannot help but go back years when a bowler trying to deny runs would go for yorkers. I do go along with the "Oh! It's difficult to bowl them consistently....". Why, even if you get it on target and it's a low full-toss, it rarely goes for 4. But this business of bowling short at crucial times is nonsense, if a batsman knows he needs runs, he has no option but to belt it and your average pace bowler is big, strong and always fancies 'giving it a belt'. That was poor from us and we should have won it ages before Norwell suddenly said "Y'know what, I'll bowl it full".

Good point and it does seem to be a waste but maybe he will field like a demon but let's face it, that is all he can contribute to this game.

It could still be a 300 pitch but only perhaps thanks to these 2 and maybe whatever is to come.

Seem to be making heavy-weather of this. If the pitch is the usual Oval type then we are not scoring quickly enough and too many balls being patted back to the bowler or hit straight to a fielder.

There will always be those who make this sort of protest look like a big fight but in the long run, as long as the CC is still going and we keep it going, we can disassociate ourselves from any sort of minority who go about their protest in the wrong manner. The incidents that have been mentioned by LCCC have not been fully detailed so it is difficult to say just how aggressive the whole thing has been but I am still glad I signed and will continue to support the issue.

We could always keep nagging away to the management about it and you never know. I kept nagging them about having just 'Edgbaston' on the front of the ground and said we need to have the name of the club on the front and it is absolutely ridiculous not to. It did appear eventually and I am not taking any credit but at some point someone must have addressed the problem and I would like to think that others kept chipping away to get the name of the club on the building. Imagine Old Trafford on the front of the stadium and no reference to Manchester United. So come on Gerry, write 1000 letters to the committee but all with different names put to them, it won't take you long, stamps might cost a bit though.

How about 'The HunDREAD'.

Just watched the last hour, great win, glad we are putting out a strong side unlike last year and what a lovely ground to watch cricket. Hope those that went had a good day.