Royal London One Day Cup

Yorkshire beat Derbyshire at Chesterfield yesterday, just, one of the most picturesque grounds on the circuit, but sadly played one of the worst wickets I've seen this year. How nobody got seriously injured was down to luck. After being put in the Derbyshire batters where taking blows, with the ball climbing off a good length, one or 2 kept low, but it really looked like the umpires would call it off very early. Opener Godleman got 3 boundaries away, which proved to be the best way to approach batting on a pitch no one could trust. The class-act on either side, Shan Masood, who should pass 2,000 runs in all cricket this season, struggled to make contact with most of his deliveries. Yorkshire have signed the Pakistani star for next season. At one point the runs dried up, & they stumbled along at 2 runs per over for much of the innings, Eventually the last wicket fell in the 43rd over, at 109, just 5 batters made double figured. harry Came top scored, with 19 from 58, after taking 25 balls to get off the mark.
The Yorkshire innings followed a similar vein. Fraine opened with a quickfire 12, before they fell to 4-37, & looked odds on the lose. Waite then smashed 5 boundaries in his 23 off 17 balls, & with Hill added 33 runs in the highest partnership of the match. Hill came in at 25-2 & was the 8th wicket to fall, at 101. He made a painstaking 21 off 48 balls, & never looked in at any point. The 9th fell with the scores level, a tie would've been a fitting result for a farce of a game, but they got home inside 32 overs.
A little bit of redemption maybe, after a painful loss to Kent, with the last ball being hit for the six runs required.

Missed Friday's Quarter-Finals, Lancashire chased a 339 target against Notts, with Croft making an unbeaten century. Kent recorded a comfortable win over Leicester, with Stevens in his last season putting in another all round performance against his old side, still going strong at 46 & not ready to quit the game yet, looking for another club.

Lancs recovered well after Sussex reduced them to 67-5 after electing to bat. A century from Vilas, with 50's from Lavelle & Lamb helped them post 319-8. Sussex looked well placed half way into their innings, but their hopes faded with Pujara's dismissal, Lancashire progress to the final with a 65 run win.
Hampshire fell away late in their innings, as would've hoped far more than the 310-9 they posted. Robinson (95) & Finch (52) repaired the early damage, at 68-3 with a century stand, before the both fell quickly, leaving the stage set for another Stevo masterclass. Batting with the lower order, Kent win was never in doubt as he compiled an assured 84 no from 65 balls, finding a boundary when required, as he paced his side home with 6 balls to spare.

(30-08-2022 12:47 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote:  Missed Friday's Quarter-Finals, Lancashire chased a 339 target against Notts, with Croft making an unbeaten century. Kent recorded a comfortable win over Leicester, with Stevens in his last season putting in another all round performance against his old side, still going strong at 46 & not ready to quit the game yet, looking for another club.

That was a ripping contest once again Booms! Today saw Lancashire breeze past Sussex with a 65 run win. Major contributor to the Lancashire total of 319 was Vilas (and this after they were reduced to 67 for 5) In truth Sussex were always behind the 8 ball, and when Pujara went for 10 (what a leveller cricket is) they were done!

KENT V LANCASHIRE FINAL! Pleased that there is a 3 week lead in to the showpiece occasion, as it gives both clubs time to prep properly! caveat: (haven't checked on how close to the final either one of them are playing upon the resumption of the county championship)

^^ Both teams have 8 days after the next round of Championship matches end.

Wonder how many of The Hundred players come into either side. Buttler, Livingstone, & Gleeson are out injured, But opener Phil Salt, spinners, Parkinson & Hartley, & left-armer Luke Wood could all play.
Kent could call upon Bell-Drummond, Leaning, & Matt Milnes. If they have any sense they will avid Zak Crawley.

(30-08-2022 22:23 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote:  ^^ Both teams have 8 days after the next round of Championship matches end.

Wonder how many of The Hundred players come into either side. Buttler, Livingstone, & Gleeson are out injured, But opener Phil Salt, spinners, Parkinson & Hartley, & left-armer Luke Wood could all play.
Kent could call upon Bell-Drummond, Leaning, & Matt Milnes. If they have any sense they will avid Zak Crawley.

Oh ok, then not ideal but could be worse I guess! - I thought I heard 3 weeks from comms!! I wouldn't hold out much hope for the club 100 to turn out for the final. In actual fact, why should the new faces we have been able to identify with during the tournament - from all the clubs, but specifically the finalists be excluded for the showpiece event?? Come to think of, why should SKY be able to rock up for the final having pushed the competition to the margins of their youtube channel. I personally accessed the clubs websites throughout, as they deserve the support!

Interesting conversations around the changes being suggested in the 'butchers' review (sorry Strauss review) on 'the badgers' county cricket podcast, including from a former chairman less than happy by the recommendations (who also hinted at the agenda to see some clubs outside the hundred fail to accommodate the reduction in counties). He though said that all is not lost, and with so many clubs member owned, that they should make strong representations to their respective boards. Really good podcast actually, fronted by a guy who was 'relieved' of his duties at Yorkshire CCC

Despite the depleted squads, this competition, & 50 over format, has provided many more exciting contests that it's big brother.
It was ironic that last evening The Hundred provided the first really close contest in game 30, out of 32 group matches. To the many new fans who the simplified format was suppose to attract, may well have missed the bigger-picture, & the vital equation which required Birmingham Phoenix to not only win, but in 73 balls & not 100 balls, in order to improve their net run-rate to move into a Playoff position.
On the other hand London Spirit had to win by 36 runs or more, in order to top the table, & gain an automatic spot in the Final.
Once these 2 scenarios failed, for a seasoned supporter, it had already spoiled, what turned out to be a close match. Phoenix getting home 9 down with a run off the last ball.

Dagnell made the comment of the night for me, when he remarked that Crawley looked to have carried his Test form into this game. He made 20 off 29, which is practically a 3rd off the innings, in a format were a quick start is essential. You could argue that his innings cost his side an automatic final spot, & without Bopara's knock, there would've been no contest.
Regardless of the format this is a player who has spent all year out of form.

Apologies to hornball, as apart from the first paragraph, this post belongs in the hundred thread, but I doubt he would've read it, & I really wanted to contrast the 2 comps.

Another failing of The Hundred has been that most of the overseas stars underperformed massively, it's only 8 matches, 10 at the most in a short timeframe yet so many haven't even stayed the course.
I can only have an opinion on The Hundred if I watch it, so I do. One last point is that the Women's Hundred has provided many more evenly contested games.

(31-08-2022 09:44 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote:  Despite the depleted squads, this competition, & 50 over format, has provided many more exciting contests that it's big brother.
It was ironic that last evening The Hundred provided the first really close contest in game 30, out of 32 group matches. To the many new fans who the simplified format was suppose to attract, may well have missed the bigger-picture, & the vital equation which required Birmingham Phoenix to not only win, but in 73 balls & not 100 balls, in order to improve their net run-rate to move into a Playoff position.
On the other hand London Spirit had to win by 36 runs or more, in order to top the table, & gain an automatic spot in the Final.
Once these 2 scenarios failed, for a seasoned supporter, it had already spoiled, what turned out to be a close match. Phoenix getting home 9 down with a run off the last ball.

Dagnell made the comment of the night for me, when he remarked that Crawley looked to have carried his Test form into this game. He made 20 off 29, which is practically a 3rd off the innings, in a format were a quick start is essential. You could argue that his innings cost his side an automatic final spot, & without Bopara's knock, there would've been no contest.
Regardless of the format this is a player who has spent all year out of form.

Apologies to hornball, as apart from the first paragraph, this post belongs in the hundred thread, but I doubt he would've read it, & I really wanted to contrast the 2 comps.

Another failing of The Hundred has been that most of the overseas stars underperformed massively, it's only 8 matches, 10 at the most in a short timeframe yet so many haven't even stayed the course.
I can only have an opinion on The Hundred if I watch it, so I do. One last point is that the Women's Hundred has provided many more evenly contested games.

Don't worry, I am happy to see all sensible comments on the sport, and I like to think that we both - with others - 'charlesmagne' immediately springs to mind, are foremost among them. Ok the hundred isn't cricket, but we have to put our considered views somewhere. For the record, I agree with every word. I am constantly opened eyed at the stupid comments so - called experts make at times. Dagnell is just another one, celebrating a test innings in a format that requires the polar opposite. Another is Raynsford Brent, who is highlighted as an expert, but fails to notice the depths of skills required at professional level when advocating 4s and or 6s as the preferred watch. I know that is an opinion, but how can you profess to be knowledgeable about cricket to the point of 'expertise' and suggest the sport is about only those two things. What about the contest?? a dirty word these days apparently.

Just on the other issue you and I discussed. One of the contributors to that forum was asked whether he would put the Ashes ahead of winning the World Test Championship, he said :quote: ' Dear lord yes - no contest'. That is not having respect for test cricket in my view, let alone the disrespect it shows to every other nation. Personally, I believe we have to burst that bubble.

Kent v Lancashire RLC Final - Trent Bridge
Kent elected to bat
Kent 306-6 Evison 97 Denly 78 Robinson 43 Blake 38 Stevens 33 no Bailey 2-46 Hurt 2-64
Lancashire 285 (48.4 overs) Jennings 72 Croft 72 Jones 29 Stewart 3-42 Gilchrist 3-65 Evison 2-34
Kent won by 21 runs

Kent stick with the same XI that played in the Semi Final. Lancashire, resisted the opportunity to bring in players from the Hundred, & make one change with Jones coming in for Balderson. Admirably, although many of the Hundred players are unavailable, through injury or England duty. Parkinson would've been an option, although, as leg-spinner ho bowls slower than most would be a gamble, on a ground with some very short boundaries. Man for man Lancs look the stronger, & more experienced side, so it is Kent that should be praised for resisting the temptation to strengthen their side with Bell-Drummond & Crawley. Kent stated their intentions early, that the Hundred players wouldn't be included, Lancashire sat on the fence, & you wonder that they listened to the critics before they settled on a side.
It's worth pointing out that Lancashire have fielded 2 overseas players throughout, the Vilas century in the Semi was instrumental in Lancs reaching the Final, hardly a development tournament in their minds.
I'm not having a go at Lancs, personally you should pick the best side available, & in big games all top players should be made available. We've already had a big T2oo quarter-final between county crickets 2 biggest clubs, Yorkshire & Surrey, which had half of the best players missing.
You could argue that for a side such as Yorkshire, all domestic competitions are for development of younger players, throughout the season, 5 or 6 players are rarely seen due to England commitments.
The subject came up during a discussion between Strauss, Athers, & Nasser regarding the long awaited changes to our game. He hinted that counties who provide England players should be better rewarded, financially, I assume, but I would like more to be done in terms of player availability, otherwise were is the incentive to provide International players, when it weakens your side.