Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

England's_No7 wrote:
18 is the lowest first class score since 1959 and is the lowest score in English cricket for about 90 years, when there were uncovered pitches.

No it isn't. I can remember a CC game in the 80s where Essex bowled Surrey out for 14.

Aidan11 wrote:

England's_No7 wrote:
18 is the lowest first class score since 1959 and is the lowest score in English cricket for about 90 years, when there were uncovered pitches.

No it isn't. I can remember a CC game in the 80s where Essex bowled Surrey out for 14.

On Twitter, that's what one person posted but when i just looked it up, it is actually the 2nd time that it has happened in the last 90 years in English cricket.

Here is the scorecard from the Surrey v Essex game.

http://www.cricketarchive.com/Archive/S ... 43511.html


Henry Blofeld tells the story of how he was a newspaper journalist at that game but had to leave an hour early just as Essex were all out. So he phoned his copy in and, not expecting much to happen in the final hour he asked them to finish off by saying "Surrey were blank for blank at the close and just fill in whatever the score is".

England's No7 seems to be very steamed-up about this; it's a matter of complete indifference to me.

DeltaAlpha wrote:England's No7 seems to be very steamed-up about this

Not really. I just think it's another bad decision by the ECB. They should have left it as it was. It was fine when there were 2 Universities playing as the standard was alright but now more and more Uni's have been granted first class status, the standard is diminishing and means there won't be high quality cricket. Oxford and Cambridge are just about good enough but the other 4 aren't which is why county batsmen/bowlers have better records than they should have. You could sort of compare their first class records to Monty Panesar's Test record. Overall, it looks quite impressive but when you look at who the performances have come against, then you realise he is just an average player.

If Monty is an average player, then what does that make the likes of you or I then?

braveneutral wrote:If Monty is an average player, then what does that make the likes of you or I then?

Average in terms of an international player. He's great at domestic level. Anyway, that's another discussion that we have already had numerous times.

What I don't see, ENo7, is what negative effect it has. It's not keeping anyone more worthy out as far as I can see, and any effect on county players' figures isn't likely to be greatly significant - that is, if you think they're significant in the first place - and all will be similarly affected anyway.

DeltaAlpha wrote:What I don't see, ENo7, is what negative effect it has. It's not keeping anyone more worthy out as far as I can see, and any effect on county players' figures isn't likely to be greatly significant - that is, if you think they're significant in the first place - and all will be similarly affected anyway.

Take Nick Compton for example. He averaged 37 before the University match, after 1 innings of 236 against the Uni side, his average is up to 39. You can see how his average will keep building up nearly every time he plays against a Uni side. Instead of averaging 40 at the end of his career, it might be 45 instead.

For a country that wants Test status, they have to show consistent performances over a period of time. The same logic should apply to teams who want first class status. Out of the 4 new Uni's with first class status, only Loughborough have done that. The other 3 have been average performers which is why they usually get thrashed when they play county sides because they aren't actually that good at their own level never mind an even higher level.

Yes, but consistency isn't everything is it. Otherwise, by this logic, every side would draw every game and the CC would be tied exactly every season by nine teams in each division.

braveneutral wrote:Yes, but consistency isn't everything is it. Otherwise, by this logic, every side would draw every game and the CC would be tied exactly every season by nine teams in each division.

Well, the question is have the Uni sides put in consistent performances and shown any signs of improvement over a long period of time. As i said only Loughborough have (won the last 2 Uni championships). Leeds/Bradford, Cardiff, Durham haven't really improved at all and i feel that they have only got first class status for the sake of it (just because there a Uni side and not because they have done well at Uni level).

Why should they need to improve? Everyone knows what they are getting. If anything, they will never improve as they have a consistent pool of players to pick from.

braveneutral wrote:Why should they need to improve? Everyone knows what they are getting. If anything, they will never improve as they have a consistent pool of players to pick from.

If counties had a choice, nearly all (if not all) of them would choose to play another county rather than a University but unfortunately for them, they are forced to play them as MCCU's have to play 3 matches a year against counties (2 first class).

Don't get me started on batting averages, ENo7 - the question is, is 39 significantly different from 37? I think not.

But I still don't see what negative effect is caused by these teams having first class status; it may or may not just be "for the sake of it", but I don't see that it matters.

England's_No7 wrote:

braveneutral wrote:Why should they need to improve? Everyone knows what they are getting. If anything, they will never improve as they have a consistent pool of players to pick from.

If counties had a choice, nearly all (if not all) of them would choose to play another county rather than a University but unfortunately for them, they are forced to play them as MCCU's have to play 3 matches a year against counties (2 first class).

How do you know that is what they would choose?