Let us hope that the Counties savage Strauss' damaging suggestions. RH

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2022/08/26/andrew-strauss-review-calls-smaller-county-championship-top/Sir Andrew Strauss's High Performance review has called for a cut in the size of Division One of the County Championship - but there will be no reduction in the number of matches in next year's competition.

The review, which will now enter a consultation phase with the first-class counties, was commissioned in the wake of England's disastrous defeat in the 2021-22 Ashes, and is centred solely on the men's elite game.

The most contentious proposed change to the domestic structure is fewer teams in Division One, with a reduction from the current 10. One potential format is of a new streamlined top division, of six counties. Below that, there are an array of options, including two conferences of six, with play-offs to determine promotion into Division One.

The recommendations, which would represent one of the most radical overhauls of the game in generations, also include:

Fewer days of domestic cricket
The 50-over competition being moved to April, with a smaller group stage and emphasis on knockout matches
A bonus points scoring system to incentivise better pitches
Better rewards for counties who develop international players
A greater concentration of talent in Division One, to help bridge the gap to Test cricket
The first-class counties will ultimately make decisions over the future of the domestic system and any changes to the schedule require the support of 12 of the 18 counties to be enacted.

Read more at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2022/08/26/andrew-strauss-review-calls-smaller-county-championship-top/

RH

On 28/08/2022 11:48, Robert Henderson wrote:
> Let us hope that the Counties savage Strauss' damaging suggestions. RH
>
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2022/08/26/andrew-strauss-review-calls-smaller-county-championship-top/Sir Andrew Strauss's High Performance review has called for a cut in the size of Division One of the County Championship - but there will be no reduction in the number of matches in next year's competition.

"next year's" ...

> The review, which will now enter a consultation phase with the first-class counties, was commissioned in the wake of England's disastrous defeat in the 2021-22 Ashes, and is centred solely on the men's elite game.
>
> The most contentious proposed change to the domestic structure is fewer teams in Division One, with a reduction from the current 10.

As the 10-team first division only started this year, it can hardly be
blamed for the Ashes defeat.

> One potential format is of a new streamlined top division, of six counties. Below that, there are an array of options, including two conferences of six, with play-offs to determine promotion into Division One.
>
> The recommendations, which would represent one of the most radical overhauls of the game in generations, also include:
>
> Fewer days of domestic cricket
> The 50-over competition being moved to April,

That would presumably mean fewer CC matches in April, which is not a bad
thing if it means more later in the season.

> with a smaller group stage and emphasis on knockout matches
> A bonus points scoring system to incentivise better pitches
> Better rewards for counties who develop international players
> A greater concentration of talent in Division One, to help bridge the gap to Test cricket
> The first-class counties will ultimately make decisions over the future of the domestic system and any changes to the schedule require the support of 12 of the 18 counties to be enacted.
>
> Read more at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2022/08/26/andrew-strauss-review-calls-smaller-county-championship-top/

"The review also suggests that some form of red-ball cricket could be
played during the Hundred."

I assume that you're not against that, given that you were complaining
that there isn't any ...

"This is likely to be a new ‘best v best’ regional series - involving,
for example, four regional teams made up of players not contracted to
any of the eight Hundred sides."

... even if it isn't CC.

--
David North

On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 18:00:25 +0100, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On 28/08/2022 11:48, Robert Henderson wrote:
>> Let us hope that the Counties savage Strauss' damaging suggestions. RH

That could be taken as strong evidence that the review has come up
with excellent suggestions, were it not for the suspicion that any
change whatsoever would have been characterised as damaging.
>>
>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2022/08/26/andrew-strauss-review-calls-smaller-county-championship-top/Sir Andrew Strauss's High Performance review has called for a cut in the size of Division One of the County Championship - but there will be no reduction in the number of matches in next year's competition.
>
>"next year's" ...
>
>> The review, which will now enter a consultation phase with the first-class counties, was commissioned in the wake of England's disastrous defeat in the 2021-22 Ashes, and is centred solely on the men's elite game.
>>
>> The most contentious proposed change to the domestic structure is fewer teams in Division One, with a reduction from the current 10.
>
>As the 10-team first division only started this year, it can hardly be
>blamed for the Ashes defeat.
>
>> One potential format is of a new streamlined top division, of six counties. Below that, there are an array of options, including two conferences of six, with play-offs to determine promotion into Division One.
>>
>> The recommendations, which would represent one of the most radical overhauls of the game in generations, also include:
>>
>> Fewer days of domestic cricket
>> The 50-over competition being moved to April,
>
>That would presumably mean fewer CC matches in April, which is not a bad
>thing if it means more later in the season.
>
>> with a smaller group stage and emphasis on knockout matches
>> A bonus points scoring system to incentivise better pitches
>> Better rewards for counties who develop international players
>> A greater concentration of talent in Division One, to help bridge the gap to Test cricket

From what I've read, there are several points which turn on some
warning lights and I can't see the whole thing being adopted without
amendment - but I doubt Strauss and his team expected it would be. On
the other hand, I can see how the general outline would be a massive
improvemnt over the current system.

It would have been dead easy to come up with an ideal structure except
for the fact that we have 18 counties who are allegedly first-class
and we don't have 400 f-c quality cricketers. So some way has to be
found of getting the top 120 to play each other a lot.

And if dead village idiots want to complain, they need to come up with
a workable alternative and show where they're going to get the money.
They can't propose getting rid of the 100 because the contract runs
until 2027, so moronic plans involving an all-play-all CC with
attached T20s are not even worth mentioning.

Cheers,

Mike

On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 18:47:55 +0100, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>It would have been dead easy to come up with an ideal structure except
>for the fact that we have 18 counties who are allegedly first-class
>and we don't have 400 f-c quality cricketers. So some way has to be
>found of getting the top 120 to play each other a lot.

The Irish inter-pro does exactly that and CI thought they dreamed it
up all by themselves. In reality they are just doing what rugby union
had been doing since forever ago.

In GAA as far as I know there aren't any inter-pros and the county
championship is the elite competition to win and always has been.

max.it

On Sunday, August 28, 2022 at 8:49:00 PM UTC+10, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:
> A bonus points scoring system to incentivise better pitches

I recall the howls of indignation from most posters in this ng when I pointed out that Trevor Bayliss had called for better pitches in CC.
Most armchair groundsmen here said it wasn't possible to make better pitches.
Most said England's national cricket coach knew nothing about preparing pitches.
Some went as far as stooping to outright racism - saying an Aussie had no right to comment on matters of English cricket.

> Read more at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2022/08/26/andrew-strauss-review-calls-smaller-county-championship-top/

Calling for less teams in the (top level of) CC and better pitches? Where have I heard that before?
Oh, that's right, from my keyboard over the past decade.
It's bleeding obviously that these changes are needed in CC. Well, it certainly is to anyone who values quality over tradition.

The real elephant in the room though is the quality and intensity of CC games. It is just full of medium pace dibblydobblers. Over, after over, after over of the same crap.
That's what the "better pitches" is suppose to fix. More reward for genuine pace. More spin bowling.

As for the red ball cricket during the 100...
The 100 goes for about a month. That's enough for 3 x 4-day matches.
Here's what I would do;
4 teams, split into 2 groups. Find something to split them by. People are tribal, so something like North vs South might work. Teams N1, N2, S1, S2.
Week 1 - N1 vs S1 and N2 vs S2
Week 2 - N1 vs S2 and N2 vs S1
Week 3 - Final. N v S.
Each finals team is a selection of the the best performing players from weeks 1 and 2.
England qualified players only.

On Monday, 29 August 2022 at 00:24:19 UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, August 28, 2022 at 8:49:00 PM UTC+10, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > A bonus points scoring system to incentivise better pitches
> I recall the howls of indignation from most posters in this ng when I pointed out that Trevor Bayliss had called for better pitches in CC.
> Most armchair groundsmen here said it wasn't possible to make better pitches.
> Most said England's national cricket coach knew nothing about preparing pitches.
> Some went as far as stooping to outright racism - saying an Aussie had no right to comment on matters of English cricket.
> > Read more at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2022/08/26/andrew-strauss-review-calls-smaller-county-championship-top/
> Calling for less teams in the (top level of) CC and better pitches? Where have I heard that before?
> Oh, that's right, from my keyboard over the past decade.
> It's bleeding obviously that these changes are needed in CC. Well, it certainly is to anyone who values quality over tradition.
>
> The real elephant in the room though is the quality and intensity of CC games. It is just full of medium pace dibblydobblers. Over, after over, after over of the same crap.
> That's what the "better pitches" is suppose to fix. More reward for genuine pace. More spin bowling.
>
> As for the red ball cricket during the 100...
> The 100 goes for about a month. That's enough for 3 x 4-day matches.
> Here's what I would do;
> 4 teams, split into 2 groups. Find something to split them by. People are tribal, so something like North vs South might work. Teams N1, N2, S1, S2.
> Week 1 - N1 vs S1 and N2 vs S2
> Week 2 - N1 vs S2 and N2 vs S1
> Week 3 - Final. N v S.
> Each finals team is a selection of the the best performing players from weeks 1 and 2.
> England qualified players only.

Be careful you don't slip down the cushion of that enormous armchair you're sitting on.

On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 18:47:55 +0100, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 18:00:25 +0100, David North
><nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>

>>> The recommendations, which would represent one of the most radical overhauls of the game in generations, also include:
>>>
>>> Fewer days of domestic cricket
>>> The 50-over competition being moved to April,
>>
>>That would presumably mean fewer CC matches in April, which is not a bad
>>thing if it means more later in the season.
>>
>>> with a smaller group stage and emphasis on knockout matches
>>> A bonus points scoring system to incentivise better pitches

I wonder what that would actually mean?

Obviously the main step they're proposing for pitch improvement is a
more sensible calendar which doesn't schedule CC matches when it's
unlikely that a decent pitch can be prepared in the first place
despite jzf's ignorant assertions.

Awarding points has to be on the basis of something measurable; asking
umpires to rate pitches out of 10 is never going to be acceptable as a
method of deciding who gets which prizes.

So what would one measure? Saying "if n wickets fall in a day, it's a
terrible pitch" pretty obviously incentivises people not to take
wickets, which is hardly the point, and you end up with the rubbish of
the 1930s.

The problem with all bonus point systems in any team sport anywhere on
the planet is that professional players frustrate them. It is
observable that over a season, teams will pay more attention to
preventing their opponents getting bonuses than they do to racking
them up for their own side. This has happened so often that it's just
about indisputable.

So how would you incentivise good pitches by means of bonus points
based on the scores? And having worked out how that would work, you
need to also explain what the effect would be if players devoted their
efforts to making sure the other side got little reward.

Cheers,

Mike

On Sunday, August 28, 2022 at 6:00:28 PM UTC+1, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> On 28/08/2022 11:48, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > Let us hope that the Counties savage Strauss' damaging suggestions. RH
> >
> > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2022/08/26/andrew-strauss-review-calls-smaller-county-championship-top/Sir" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2022/08/26/andrew-strauss-review-calls-smaller-county-championship-top/Sir Andrew Strauss's High Performance review has called for a cut in the size of Division One of the County Championship - but there will be no reduction in the number of matches in next year's competition.
> "next year's" ...
> > The review, which will now enter a consultation phase with the first-class counties, was commissioned in the wake of England's disastrous defeat in the 2021-22 Ashes, and is centred solely on the men's elite game.
> >
> > The most contentious proposed change to the domestic structure is fewer teams in Division One, with a reduction from the current 10.
> As the 10-team first division only started this year, it can hardly be
> blamed for the Ashes defeat.
> > One potential format is of a new streamlined top division, of six counties. Below that, there are an array of options, including two conferences of six, with play-offs to determine promotion into Division One.
> >
> > The recommendations, which would represent one of the most radical overhauls of the game in generations, also include:
> >
> > Fewer days of domestic cricket
> > The 50-over competition being moved to April,
> That would presumably mean fewer CC matches in April, which is not a bad
> thing if it means more later in the season.
> > with a smaller group stage and emphasis on knockout matches
> > A bonus points scoring system to incentivise better pitches
> > Better rewards for counties who develop international players
> > A greater concentration of talent in Division One, to help bridge the gap to Test cricket
> > The first-class counties will ultimately make decisions over the future of the domestic system and any changes to the schedule require the support of 12 of the 18 counties to be enacted.
> >
> > Read more at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2022/08/26/andrew-strauss-review-calls-smaller-county-championship-top/
> "The review also suggests that some form of red-ball cricket could be
> played during the Hundred."
>
> I assume that you're not against that, given that you were complaining
> that there isn't any ...
>
> "This is likely to be a new ‘best v best’ regional series - involving,
> for example, four regional teams made up of players not contracted to
> any of the eight Hundred sides."
>
> .. even if it isn't CC.
>
> --
> David North

John - my ideal for English cricket would be FC cricket and nothing else. However, that is a pipe dream so several years ago I produced the following plan for English cricket which gives
plenty of CC cricket and T20 cricket, cuts travelling and provides an easy to follow fixture list for the public. Here is it is:

A sane future for English cricket
Posted on October 19, 2012 by Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson

The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) proposed last week that first class county cricket at the weekends should be no more (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/counties/9612699/ECB-plans-to-deprive-fans-of-weekend-games.html). After publicity by the Daily Telegraph and anger amongst the counties, who asked when people who worked would be able to watch cricket, the ECB dropped the truly mad idea and agreed that 14 of the 16 Championship 4-day games would start on Sundays. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/counties/9618944/Sundays-best-for-start-of-County-Championship-after-ECB-rethink.html). This was welcome, not least because it guarantees, weather permitting, a full day’s play in Championship matches at the weekend, but the structure of English county cricket is still a mess.

The dividing of the 18 first-class counties into two divisions for Championship cricket and conferences for 40 over and Twenty/20 games has resulted in county followers not having the opportunity to see all counties playing one another each year. In addition, with most Championship matches starting on Wednesdays, often the Saturday (the fourth day) has arrived with little or no cricket to watch. In recent seasons there have also been long periods when no Championship cricket has been played because the Twenty/20 competition has been stuck in the middle of the season to the exclusion of Championship cricket. To accommodate this the season has begun earlier and earlier, with the 2012 season seeing its first round of Championship matches begin on 5 April, a time when the weather is often inclement and batting conditions unreasonably difficult. The result has been that the Championship has been squeezed into April and May with a second bout in August and September. This makes members or would-be members, wonder why they are paying their membership fee, while the fragmented fixture lists which results confuses and discourages the non-member from going regularly.

There has also the disruptive employment of foreign players, whether official or Kolpaks. Such players are increasingly being brought in in large numbers for ever smaller periods of time. Nor, because of the Indian Premier League Twenty/20 competition taking most of the best foreign players for much of the season, is the quality of those employed generally high. These practices weaken the idea of county identification, for example, how can a Middlesex member feel that it is their county when the side frequently contains three South Africans (Malan, Berg, Dexter), two or three of Australians (Robson, Rogers, Crook) and a West Indian (Collymore)? The employment of such players also blocks the way for young English players, prevents a clear career structure for the English pro who is likely to play little or no international cricket (the vast majority in the nature of things because only eleven can play for England) and allows foreign players, especially young players still to make their way in international cricket, to gain valuable experience of English conditions. There is very little reciprocity from foreign countries who allow few English players to turn out in their first class competitions (English players could readily do so because foreign seasons occur in the English winter. )

The other ECB created problems are the overload of international cricket (too many matches and too much travelling not too much cricket) and the failure to promote Championship cricket. In 2012 seven Tests, twelve ODIs and four Twenty/20s. That is far too many. I realise the ECB are tied into TV contracts for a few years, but after that they should aim for seven per season, with these divided four and three matches series. The only exception should be the Ashes which should remain at five. (In Ashes years the weakest Test nations could be given two match series). ODIs should be limited to three match series and the Twenty/20 international games held at the same number. The ODI games should be played before each Test series as an appetiser; the twenty/20s games after the Tests. That would most strikingly separate the three forms of cricket and give each the greatest impact. Even before the negotiation of new TV contracts something could be done about the sequence of ODIs, Twenty/20s and Tests.

As for promoting the County game, the ECB could allow those who have purchased tickets for England games – whether Tests, ODIs and Twenty/20 – to present their England ticket stub at a Championship match and gain free entry for the day for one adult and two under 16s – this would require next to no further administration or cost. ( I raised the matter with Tim Lamb in the early 2000s when he was Chief Executive of the England and Wales Cricket Board but nothing came of it). Even though such spectators would get in free, they would spend money on refreshments and in the club shop. As several hundred thousand people go to England games each year, many more than once, the potential increase in Championship crowds is large. Experience of County Cricket by those who would not normally go, especially the young, would be likely to draw a fair number back as paying customers. But even if that did not happen, the addition of large numbers of extra people going once or twice for free would greatly improve the atmosphere at Championship games and make them more attractive to sponsors..

What else can be done to improve matters in the County game? I suggest this:

1. Scrap the divisions in all forms of the game. This would improve the spectator interest because all counties could be seen at least once every two years playing against a member’s team at the home ground of the member. It would also make scheduling much easier.

2. Have only three competitions, the Championship, 50-overs and Twenty/20.

3. The season to run from the last week in April to the second week in September. That would give 20 weeks to fit everything into.

4. Play the 17 championship matches once a week between the last week in April to the end of August. These to be played from Saturday to Tuesday.

5. Turn the twenty/twenty competition in a league . These games to be played on Fridays. The four top teams to play in a retained finals’ day in Sept.

6. Make the 50-over competition a straight knockout The four bottom championship teams from the previous season to play off with the winners progressing to the competition. This would give 16 entrants which would mean a maximum of 4 games.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 11:56:29 +0100, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 18:47:55 +0100, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 18:00:25 +0100, David North
>><nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>
>>>> The recommendations, which would represent one of the most radical overhauls of the game in generations, also include:
>>>>
>>>> Fewer days of domestic cricket
>>>> The 50-over competition being moved to April,
>>>
>>>That would presumably mean fewer CC matches in April, which is not a bad
>>>thing if it means more later in the season.
>>>
>>>> with a smaller group stage and emphasis on knockout matches
>>>> A bonus points scoring system to incentivise better pitches
>
>I wonder what that would actually mean?
>
>Obviously the main step they're proposing for pitch improvement is a
>more sensible calendar which doesn't schedule CC matches when it's
>unlikely that a decent pitch can be prepared in the first place
>despite jzf's ignorant assertions.

Most people won't know about the existence of turf agronomy.
If the proposal to make all pitches in the country better and
basically the same all of time could be done then it would have
already been done. I'm assuming that any CC outfit would have access
to such a consultant and a competent grounds crew to understand the
instructions.and carry out the work.

Then it will rain a lot or be dry for ages and the water table will
change, the grass will grow differently or not at all, the minerals in
the soil will change and the character of the square will be
different.This happens in a timescale that means by the time you find
out it's already too late for a quick remedy.
Rocket science is easy by comparison.

max.it

On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 20:13:29 +0100, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:

>>
>>Obviously the main step they're proposing for pitch improvement is a
>>more sensible calendar which doesn't schedule CC matches when it's
>>unlikely that a decent pitch can be prepared in the first place
>>despite jzf's ignorant assertions.
>
>Most people won't know about the existence of turf agronomy.
....
>Then it will rain a lot or be dry for ages and the water table will
>change, the grass will grow differently or not at all, the minerals in
>the soil will change and the character of the square will be
>different.This happens in a timescale that means by the time you find
>out it's already too late for a quick remedy.
>Rocket science is easy by comparison.

However, knowing the prevailing weather patterns, it is presumably
more likely that you will be able to prepare a good quality pitch at
some points in the season than others. The variability of April
weather in most of England, coupled with what's likely in January to
March, surely means that the chances of preparing good pitches then
are lower than in July and August when rain is less frequent and
periods of high pressure tend to hang around. So if you play less in
April, you run less risk of encountering a poor pitch, whether the
groundsman is a genius or a total incompetent.

Cheers,

Mike

On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 21:04:53 +0100, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 20:13:29 +0100, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>Obviously the main step they're proposing for pitch improvement is a
>>>more sensible calendar which doesn't schedule CC matches when it's
>>>unlikely that a decent pitch can be prepared in the first place
>>>despite jzf's ignorant assertions.
>>
>>Most people won't know about the existence of turf agronomy.
>...
>>Then it will rain a lot or be dry for ages and the water table will
>>change, the grass will grow differently or not at all, the minerals in
>>the soil will change and the character of the square will be
>>different.This happens in a timescale that means by the time you find
>>out it's already too late for a quick remedy.
>>Rocket science is easy by comparison.
>
>However, knowing the prevailing weather patterns, it is presumably
>more likely that you will be able to prepare a good quality pitch at
>some points in the season than others. The variability of April
>weather in most of England, coupled with what's likely in January to
>March, surely means that the chances of preparing good pitches then
>are lower than in July and August when rain is less frequent and
>periods of high pressure tend to hang around. So if you play less in
>April, you run less risk of encountering a poor pitch, whether the
>groundsman is a genius or a total incompetent.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike

I reckon all that can be done by grounds work is already being done.
The multiple micro climates of the British Isles are unique. It's that
great big Atlantic ocean nearby as well causing all kinds of
variations. Not to mention nearby rivers and motorways.
Combine that with local weather conditions and the period for playing
when all the competition pitches are at their best gets a bit tight.

There must be a software model somwhere to show how different pitches
are playing throughout the season. Then fixtures could be made to suit
but that would be not quite in the traditional concept of game that
includes playing with whatever conditions exist at the time of a
match.

max.it

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 6:34:06 AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 21:04:53 +0100, Mike Holmans <sp...@jackalope.uk>

Mr Head-in-sand #1 and Mr Head-in-sand #2.

For some strange reason you both think CC groundsmen are doing their absolute best to produce "better wickets".
Btw, my belief is better == harder and faster.
Perhaps Strauss and all the other cricket notaries calling for better pitches mean something different.
Regardless, when they do call for them they're not praying to some benevolent god to make the weather more like Australia.
One of these notaries, the ex-Chairman of the ECB (whose name escapes me, and I can't now find the article, although I have posted it here before) says that CC clubs *deliberately* make medium-pace friendly wickets eg greentops, as it suits their bowling stocks.

On 29/08/2022 21:04, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 20:13:29 +0100, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> Obviously the main step they're proposing for pitch improvement is a
>>> more sensible calendar which doesn't schedule CC matches when it's
>>> unlikely that a decent pitch can be prepared in the first place
>>> despite jzf's ignorant assertions.
>>
>> Most people won't know about the existence of turf agronomy.
> ...
>> Then it will rain a lot or be dry for ages and the water table will
>> change, the grass will grow differently or not at all, the minerals in
>> the soil will change and the character of the square will be
>> different.This happens in a timescale that means by the time you find
>> out it's already too late for a quick remedy.
>> Rocket science is easy by comparison.
>
> However, knowing the prevailing weather patterns, it is presumably
> more likely that you will be able to prepare a good quality pitch at
> some points in the season than others. The variability of April
> weather in most of England, coupled with what's likely in January to
> March, surely means that the chances of preparing good pitches then
> are lower than in July and August when rain is less frequent and
> periods of high pressure tend to hang around. So if you play less in
> April, you run less risk of encountering a poor pitch, whether the
> groundsman is a genius or a total incompetent.

From the stats I've seen, the average amount and frequency of rainfall
seem to be roughly similar throughout the season. However, if it rains
in April, it's probably going to take much longer to dry than in July or
August, so it's likely to cause more disruption to pitch preparation.

--
David North

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 4:03:22 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> From the stats I've seen, the average amount and frequency of rainfall
> seem to be roughly similar throughout the season. However, if it rains
> in April, it's probably going to take much longer to dry than in July or
> August, so it's likely to cause more disruption to pitch preparation.

As per Strauss' report, CC batting averages are second highest in April (34.08, vs 34.11 in June [the highest]).
Not sure of the raw stats, nor if they're skewed by fewer games in April.

In message <d8c61c74-c640-44e9-a688-8c190d1b07aen@googlegroups.com>,
jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
>On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 4:03:22 PM UTC+10,
>nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>> From the stats I've seen, the average amount and frequency of rainfall
>> seem to be roughly similar throughout the season. However, if it rains
>> in April, it's probably going to take much longer to dry than in July or
>> August, so it's likely to cause more disruption to pitch preparation.
>
>As per Strauss' report, CC batting averages are second highest in April
>(34.08, vs 34.11 in June [the highest]).
>Not sure of the raw stats, nor if they're skewed by fewer games in April.

There's also the question of how many seasons they cover, as we've had
several unusually dry Aprils in recent years.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On Tuesday, 30 August 2022 at 10:58:13 UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> In message <d8c61c74-c640-44e9...@googlegroups.com>,
> jack fredricks <jzfre...@gmail.com> writes
> >On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 4:03:22 PM UTC+10,
> >nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> >> From the stats I've seen, the average amount and frequency of rainfall
> >> seem to be roughly similar throughout the season. However, if it rains
> >> in April, it's probably going to take much longer to dry than in July or
> >> August, so it's likely to cause more disruption to pitch preparation.
> >
> >As per Strauss' report, CC batting averages are second highest in April
> >(34.08, vs 34.11 in June [the highest]).
> >Not sure of the raw stats, nor if they're skewed by fewer games in April.

In the period in question, there have amost certainly been more games in April than in June, July or August, if not May and September. I don't know how that would skew the stats, but the data for months with fewer matches might be somewhat less reliable.

> There's also the question of how many seasons they cover, as we've had
> several unusually dry Aprils in recent years.

2014-2021. See p21 here:

https://resources.ecb.co.uk/ecb/document/2022/08/25/5ed38d62-72c0-45d3-9514-aa3b310ca067/Men-s-High-Performance-Review-Consultation-Material-FCCs.pdf

Why start from 2014, I wonder.

On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 06:01:52 -0700 (PDT), David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>
>Why start from 2014, I wonder.

If we go back to the 1990s, the championship ran all season.

In recent years, what were once the peak months of the season have had
little or no red-ball cricket played at all.

Examining recent statistics therefore offers us no evidence at all
about when the best times to play county championship cricket would
be. All it tells us is which of the stupid times to play are less
stupid than others.

Cheers,

Mike

On 30/08/2022 16:53, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 06:01:52 -0700 (PDT), David North
> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> Why start from 2014, I wonder.
>
> If we go back to the 1990s, the championship ran all season.
>
> In recent years, what were once the peak months of the season have had
> little or no red-ball cricket played at all.
>
> Examining recent statistics therefore offers us no evidence at all
> about when the best times to play county championship cricket would
> be. All it tells us is which of the stupid times to play are less
> stupid than others.

My question was really why 2014 specifically, which gives a period of 8
seasons (7 CC seasons), rather than the seemingly more natural choice of
5 or 10 seasons?

--
David North

On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 12:30:34 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> My question was really why 2014 specifically, which gives a period of 8
> seasons (7 CC seasons), rather than the seemingly more natural choice of
> 5 or 10 seasons?

5, 7, 10... they're all arbitrary.
Do you think 7 years was chosen to help "fudge" the stats?

On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 03:30:31 +0100, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On 30/08/2022 16:53, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 06:01:52 -0700 (PDT), David North
>> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Why start from 2014, I wonder.
>>
>> If we go back to the 1990s, the championship ran all season.
>>
>> In recent years, what were once the peak months of the season have had
>> little or no red-ball cricket played at all.
>>
>> Examining recent statistics therefore offers us no evidence at all
>> about when the best times to play county championship cricket would
>> be. All it tells us is which of the stupid times to play are less
>> stupid than others.
>
>My question was really why 2014 specifically, which gives a period of 8
>seasons (7 CC seasons), rather than the seemingly more natural choice of
>5 or 10 seasons?

Did the format or scheduling change significantly that year?

Cheers,

Mike

On Thursday, 1 September 2022 at 04:12:50 UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 12:30:34 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> > My question was really why 2014 specifically, which gives a period of 8
> > seasons (7 CC seasons), rather than the seemingly more natural choice of
> > 5 or 10 seasons?
> 5, 7, 10... they're all arbitrary.

That depends on whether they are selected arbitrarily, but picking 7 rather than 5 or 10 tends to ring alarm bells.

> Do you think 7 years was chosen to help "fudge" the stats?

Given that the same criteria were used for many different stats, I'd guess that there was some other reason.

On Thursday, 1 September 2022 at 05:19:18 UTC+1, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 03:30:31 +0100, David North
> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On 30/08/2022 16:53, Mike Holmans wrote:
> >> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 06:01:52 -0700 (PDT), David North
> >> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Why start from 2014, I wonder.
> >>
> >> If we go back to the 1990s, the championship ran all season.
> >>
> >> In recent years, what were once the peak months of the season have had
> >> little or no red-ball cricket played at all.
> >>
> >> Examining recent statistics therefore offers us no evidence at all
> >> about when the best times to play county championship cricket would
> >> be. All it tells us is which of the stupid times to play are less
> >> stupid than others.
> >
> >My question was really why 2014 specifically, which gives a period of 8
> >seasons (7 CC seasons), rather than the seemingly more natural choice of
> >5 or 10 seasons?
> Did the format or scheduling change significantly that year?

No, but I think that was the year when the ban was lifted on the heavy roller after the start of a match, so maybe that's why.

On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 10:14:56 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> On Thursday, 1 September 2022 at 04:12:50 UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 12:30:34 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> > > My question was really why 2014 specifically, which gives a period of 8
> > > seasons (7 CC seasons), rather than the seemingly more natural choice of
> > > 5 or 10 seasons?
> > 5, 7, 10... they're all arbitrary.
> That depends on whether they are selected arbitrarily, but picking 7 rather than 5 or 10 tends to ring alarm bells.

Would picking 5 over 7 or 10 tend to ring alarm bells? I think not.

> > Do you think 7 years was chosen to help "fudge" the stats?
> Given that the same criteria were used for many different stats, I'd guess that there was some other reason.

Maybe it was the roller issue. Maybe they thought 5 years didn't give enough of a picture, and 10 included data that was too old.

I often do stats for players, and flip flop between 2 and 5 years for these reasons. There's no "correct" time period.

On 01/09/2022 23:07, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 10:14:56 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>> On Thursday, 1 September 2022 at 04:12:50 UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 12:30:34 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>>>> My question was really why 2014 specifically, which gives a period of 8
>>>> seasons (7 CC seasons), rather than the seemingly more natural choice of
>>>> 5 or 10 seasons?
>>> 5, 7, 10... they're all arbitrary.
>> That depends on whether they are selected arbitrarily, but picking 7 rather than 5 or 10 tends to ring alarm bells.
>
> Would picking 5 over 7 or 10 tend to ring alarm bells? I think not.

No, because 5 years is one of the usual periods to pick if you're just
looking for period that gives you a reasonable amount of data. If you're
using Statsguru on CI, it's one of the options (this year, last year,
last 12 months, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 10 years, or a particular decade or
century). They don't give an option for 7 years because people would
seldom use it.

>>> Do you think 7 years was chosen to help "fudge" the stats?
>> Given that the same criteria were used for many different stats, I'd guess that there was some other reason.
>
> Maybe it was the roller issue. Maybe they thought 5 years didn't give enough of a picture, and 10 included data that was too old.
>
> I often do stats for players, and flip flop between 2 and 5 years for these reasons.

Yes, and if you suddenly used 7 years, or 3.5 years, or 2 years and 8
months, without a stated or obvious reason for doing so, you'd probably
expect people to ask questions.

--
David North