What is as important as anything is giving members value for money so at least we get some cricket on Saturday and Sunday at least every other week. If not, the membership will dwindle and that will mean they will probably not watch any cricket at all. What's the point if you are working all week and the weekend comes and you are twiddling your thumbs having spent £150+ to be a member. Have the ECB or counties ever wondered what might happen if The Hundred/T20 fails at some point - There will be nowhere for them to go and no members to feel the commitment to watch will mean they try and rely on the 'Short Format Brigade' but alas they will have already gone.

The problem with central contracts is that they were initially to stop players overdoing it, especially fast bowlers finishing a Test in the north and then having to jump in a car and go and play a CC game in the south. The trouble is now, they are used to give players a rest before they even get to their home ground to start a new season. I remember a tour to New Zealand where Woakes hardly played (If at all) and the first CC of the season, the ECB said he needed to rest for the upcoming Tests. They use it to wrap players up in cotton wool but it leaves them rusty and in need of games when the Tests actually start.

Graham Thorpe is talking nonsense. The trouble now is that anyone who comes into the squad has had no 'Proper' innings, just a few 50 over knocks or a pretty 25 off 15 balls in The Hundred. Never again should a fixture list have no CC cricket whilst a Test series is on.

I am amazed how he bowled (Admittedly when younger) for us for years and he has been picked in England squads without getting picked MOST of the time and yet he is injured. England seem to have a habit of returning injured bowlers back to their respective counties. Perhaps the old ways of just letting players play for their counties and picking them in form/fitness worked better.

I think this was the game when the umpires said the game had to be played on a wet pitch that was drying out by the time Warwickshire came to bat on it. This was because the BBC refused to allow it to be played on a pitch next to the match one. This other pitch was dry but the BBC would not move their cameras so they played and the pitch got worse as the game went on. Dennis Amiss commented on it in his book 'In Search Of Runs'.

I hope they would take a younger bowler with pace rather than Curran who doesn't really do much damage on English pitches so what chance has he got in Australia. His 2 wickets per Test will frighten no one. I often wish Woakes had never played for England because he gets picked for so many squads without getting a game and no cricket at all is just frustrating for him. I just wish the England set-up would say "So Chris, we don't want to pick you so go back to Edgbaston and give your best to a side who want you". The England camp are ruining his career by just wasting his time on the sidelines when he is fit. If fit, I think he will go to Australia but cannot see him, Anderson and Broad all playing at the same time.

I stand corrected, if those idiots Glamorgan hadn't made a hash of things v Yorkshire then we would have gone through. How on earth did they lose from such a straightforward position. So Leicestershire also go through and Notts do not.

Fewer injuries at the start of this cup competition would have seen us through seeing as we only went out on net run rate and Notts (I do not like them) scrape through. If anything, this pile of injuries has at least given a few youngsters the chance to play at a higher level and a few of them have taken the chance which makes the future seem brighter at least. If the same thing happens next year where The Hundred is made out to be more important than this competition (Which let's face it, we are only world champions in after all) then we will have had young players who will not be daunted at the prospect of a step up in the quality of cricket.

Forgot about Brad Hogg. He was a big part of the 2004 CC winning side although not taking many wickets and was really miffed not to be retained as overseas player for the 2005 season.

Bresnan seems to be a spent force as far as his bowling goes in all formats and cannot see why a bloke who has 2 Test scores in the 90's would bat so low in the order. Was there a reason why Rhodes didn't bowl? This whole tournament has been topsy-turvy and strange to see Glamorgan actually qualify, perhaps they have had fewer injuries or Hundred call-ups.

So Garrett goes for little over 3 an over but bowls 3 overs short - C'mon Mr Rhodes don't be another Darren Maddy.

Wonderful. Makes you wonder why Rhodes took so long to have a bowl and in the end it was his spell that changed the game. In this competition, we have had 100's from Yates, Pollock and Lamb, all young players who have managed to get big scores when years ago we saw plenty of established batsmen (Not batters) who never really crossed that line of making 3 figures. Superb win for us and great to the lads not give up when it looked hopeless.

Highveld wrote:

A good win, and delighted that Ed Pollock played a really sensible innings for his first List A century today.
Hopefully it goes a big way to silencing those who doubt his ability.

Yes, that was a mature Ed Pollock, not trying to score off every ball and showing that having some patience does pay off. A superb win.

Wow, this would be a really good performance if the target is reached, not looking bad so far.

The result would suggest that S.A walked over England but it was a very even contest for 80% of the game until the S.A changing room kept feeding out things to the middle that they'd seen on replays and Cronje asked the umpires to keep checking. They did eventually which was not within the rules, no DRS then, the umpires then went to pieces as England got at least 4 shockers which tilted the game. The umpiring was atrocious on that tour, Graham Hick got so used to being given out to leg-side LBW's that on the umpteenth occasion he went back to the pavilion, laughing his head off.

The last person I can remember bowling 'Chinamen' as they used to call them, was Paul Adams of South Africa 'Frog In A Blender' as he was known although everybody used to mistakenly call him a leg-spinner. I remember Michael Bevan bowling them for Australia and did see him bowl them v Warwickshire in a 40 over game in 1995.

So the priority seems to be to not try and win this game then if we are allowing 3 in-form players to miss the game to play in a tour game. I agree that it is nice to see new faces in a side and hope they do well but this is stupid. I am glad I am not watching. If it looks as though a similar team will be out for Sunday's game then I might give it a miss. If you consider that I am a member like many others and didn't sign up for us to send out a 2nd XI, this would be nothing short of "taking the p***".

Josh seemed to have a big future but because of a certain Jeetan Patel, he was never going to get into the side. Pity because he did look good at times. Tim Groenwald was continually picked for us when he wasn't having any effect on the games he played in but I am glad he found success elsewhere. Rikki improved to be twice the player once he moved here but not everyone warmed to him. Towards the end of his time here, he seemed to give the impression that he just didn't care any more and that he'd had enough and his performances made him look lazy.

Is he in any of the squads for 'the Hundred', if so then he might not feature much if at all.

Thank you Leicestershire and mainly Mr Josh Inglis - Quarter finals here we come, never mind Worcestershire.