|
|
Post by joe on Jul 29, 2017 8:13:45 GMT
Why wasn't the game called off 30 minutes earlier? There was no way they were ever going to play again once it got to 9pm. I felt the umpires and groundstaff were under pressure from Sky to get the game on and that the game was not called off before 9:30pm to maximise beer sales. There's an awful lot of planning and cost involved in televising a game, it's no ones fault when the weather intervenes. You have to feel sorry for Sky and Sussex. Friday night T20's are, I would guess, the biggest money spinner for the club in terms of ticket sales so they are going to do everything in their power to keep the players on the pitch. Whereas its preferable to have these fixtures in a block, it's unfortunate that a lot of the games have now come during a run of bad weather. The group is still wide open and the fact that Glamorgan are at the top despite having 4 of their games abandoned is proof of that. Unfortunately our 2 losses at the start of the campaign may be the deciding factor in us not progressing. |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jul 29, 2017 9:08:06 GMT
I have always advocated that a match should carry on during moderate rainfall and so was delighted to see the umpires agreeing
last night. Why is cricket given such preferential treatment where a slight bit of mizzle and they're called off the pitch? Few other
sports gain such attention.
Just before the first rain delay, Nash slipped picking up a ball and immediately Taylor went up to an umpire asking for the game to
be stopped. Ridiculous. If a footballer, rugby player etc.. slips during rain, no-one gives a damn. That's sport! Sorry, but the idea
cricketers are treated like delicate flowers is not on when 6,000 people have payed good money to watch a game.
So SKY or not, I applaud the umpires for allowing the match to carry on. I just wish this would occur more often. Cricket will never
develop its popularity when it so easily kowtows to a bit of wet.
|
|
|
|
Post by philh on Jul 29, 2017 9:19:48 GMT
Funniest moment for me was immediately after the announcement that the game was abandoned and wishing us a safe journey home (or whatever it was), the T20 promotional video was played which begins with "Take your seats, the action is about the begin". Er, no.
|
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Jul 29, 2017 9:45:06 GMT
I feel a little sorry for anyone who paid £28 to watch that! Can Sussex stop comparing cricket to football! With football you would get a result irrespective of the weather. They didn't even see one team bat the whole 20 overs and yet there are no refunds because 10 overs constitutes a game in the case of a 5 over game. I think the refund policy needs to be urgently reviewed to avoid putting new spectators off cricket forever.
A solution to this madness would be for each side to bat 10 overs each. Team 1 10 overs, team 2 10 overs, team 1 10 overs and team 2 10 overs. Under those circumstances there would have been a result here if there was just 10 minutes between innings.
A win should be 3 points, tie 2 points and a no result one point. The table would look quite different if this were the case.
2 for a win, 1 for a tie and 1 for a no result
P W D T N/R RR Points
1 Glamorgan 8 3 1 0 4 0.325 10
2 Surrey 8 4 2 0 2 0.086 10
3 Hampshire 8 4 3 0 1 0.01 9
4 Middlesex 9 3 4 1 1 0.208 8
5 Somerset 8 3 3 0 2 -0.01 8
6 Kent 7 3 3 1 0 0.014 7
7 Gloucs 7 2 2 1 2 -0.33 7
8 Sussex 7 1 2 1 3 -0.19 6
9 Essex 8 2 5 0 1 -0.19 5
3 for a win, 2 for a tie and 1 for a no result
P W L T N/R RR Points
2 Surrey 8 4 2 0 2 0.086 14
1 Glamorgan 8 3 1 0 4 0.325 13
3 Hampshire 8 4 3 0 1 0.01 13
4 Middlesex 9 3 4 1 1 0.208 12
6 Kent 7 3 3 1 0 0.014 11
5 Somerset 8 3 3 0 2 -0.01 11
7 Gloucs 7 2 2 1 2 -0.33 10
8 Sussex 7 1 2 1 3 -0.19 8
9 Essex 8 2 5 0 1 -0.19 7
|
|
|
|
Post by philh on Jul 29, 2017 10:54:04 GMT
I feel a little sorry for anyone who paid £28 to watch that! Can Sussex stop comparing cricket to football! With football you would get a result irrespective of the weather. They didn't even see one team bat the whole 20 overs and yet there are no refunds because 10 overs constitutes a game in the case of a 5 over game. I think the refund policy needs to be urgently reviewed to avoid putting new spectators off cricket forever. A solution to this madness would be for each side to bat 10 overs each. Team 1 10 overs, team 2 10 overs, team 1 10 overs and team 2 10 overs. Under those circumstances there would have been a result here if there was just 10 minutes between innings. A win should be 3 points, tie 2 points and a no result one point. The table would look quite different if this were the case. 2 for a win, 1 for a tie and 1 for a no result P W D T N/R RR Points 1 Glamorgan 8 3 1 0 4 0.325 10 2 Surrey 8 4 2 0 2 0.086 10 3 Hampshire 8 4 3 0 1 0.01 9 4 Middlesex 9 3 4 1 1 0.208 8 5 Somerset 8 3 3 0 2 -0.01 8 6 Kent 7 3 3 1 0 0.014 7 7 Gloucs 7 2 2 1 2 -0.33 7 8 Sussex 7 1 2 1 3 -0.19 6 9 Essex 8 2 5 0 1 -0.19 5 3 for a win, 2 for a tie and 1 for a no result P W L T N/R RR Points 2 Surrey 8 4 2 0 2 0.086 14 1 Glamorgan 8 3 1 0 4 0.325 13 3 Hampshire 8 4 3 0 1 0.01 13 4 Middlesex 9 3 4 1 1 0.208 12 6 Kent 7 3 3 1 0 0.014 11 5 Somerset 8 3 3 0 2 -0.01 11 7 Gloucs 7 2 2 1 2 -0.33 10 8 Sussex 7 1 2 1 3 -0.19 8 9 Essex 8 2 5 0 1 -0.19 7 I've thought for some time that four blocks of 10 overs would be a better format and might add something to the game. It would also allow the T20 fidgets that can't seem to sit for 20 overs to do whatever they do. I'm not sure about penalising teams that can't complete a match by giving winners 3 points. However, I agree we could have got a result last night if Middlesex had batted 10 covers and we had batted 7 and a bit overs. The spectators are there, so far as I can judge, to see a result however much it is fabricated thanks to Messrs Duckworth and Lewis. |
|
|
|
Post by deepfineleg on Jul 29, 2017 12:31:00 GMT
Why wasn't the game called off 30 minutes earlier? There was no way they were ever going to play again once it got to 9pm. I felt the umpires and groundstaff were under pressure from Sky to get the game on and that the game was not called off before 9:30pm to maximise beer sales. On Sunday we were told the groundstaff needed 30 mins to get the ground ready after rain. In which case if it was dry at 9.25 there was time to start at 9.55 allowing a 5 over innings to complete by 10.20 |
|
|
|
Post by deepfineleg on Jul 29, 2017 12:35:51 GMT
A solution to this madness would be for each side to bat 10 overs each. Team 1 10 overs, team 2 10 overs, team 1 10 overs and team 2 10 overs. Under those circumstances there would have been a result here if there was just 10 minutes between innings. Agreed. I've thought for a long time limited over games should be played so that less contrived results are maximised. I would advocate team A bat half the overs, Team B bat through their whole allocation, Team A complete their innings. Last night that would have been as you describe. |
|
|
|
Post by deepfineleg on Jul 29, 2017 12:41:59 GMT
As it was always going to be a wet evening, I decided in the afternoon not to make the journey to Hove. I watched the truncated action on TV, and was astonished at how many people had defied the weather forecast. Nowhere near a full house, but still a lot of folks must have gone home wet and disappointed. Having bought tickets in advance and as there seemed to be a significant window in the weather I went along. I'm not sure the crowd size was any different from Sunday's match. We saw some good action and, not being American, I don't always expect a result.  |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Jul 29, 2017 12:49:30 GMT
I feel a little sorry for anyone who paid £28 to watch that! Can Sussex stop comparing cricket to football! With football you would get a result irrespective of the weather. They didn't even see one team bat the whole 20 overs and yet there are no refunds because 10 overs constitutes a game in the case of a 5 over game. I think the refund policy needs to be urgently reviewed to avoid putting new spectators off cricket forever. A solution to this madness would be for each side to bat 10 overs each. Team 1 10 overs, team 2 10 overs, team 1 10 overs and team 2 10 overs. Under those circumstances there would have been a result here if there was just 10 minutes between innings. A win should be 3 points, tie 2 points and a no result one point. The table would look quite different if this were the case. 2 for a win, 1 for a tie and 1 for a no result P W D T N/R RR Points 1 Glamorgan 8 3 1 0 4 0.325 10 2 Surrey 8 4 2 0 2 0.086 10 3 Hampshire 8 4 3 0 1 0.01 9 4 Middlesex 9 3 4 1 1 0.208 8 5 Somerset 8 3 3 0 2 -0.01 8 6 Kent 7 3 3 1 0 0.014 7 7 Gloucs 7 2 2 1 2 -0.33 7 8 Sussex 7 1 2 1 3 -0.19 6 9 Essex 8 2 5 0 1 -0.19 5 3 for a win, 2 for a tie and 1 for a no result P W L T N/R RR Points 2 Surrey 8 4 2 0 2 0.086 14 1 Glamorgan 8 3 1 0 4 0.325 13 3 Hampshire 8 4 3 0 1 0.01 13 4 Middlesex 9 3 4 1 1 0.208 12 6 Kent 7 3 3 1 0 0.014 11 5 Somerset 8 3 3 0 2 -0.01 11 7 Gloucs 7 2 2 1 2 -0.33 10 8 Sussex 7 1 2 1 3 -0.19 8 9 Essex 8 2 5 0 1 -0.19 7 I've thought for some time that four blocks of 10 overs would be a better format and might add something to the game. It would also allow the T20 fidgets that can't seem to sit for 20 overs to do whatever they do. I'm not sure about penalising teams that can't complete a match by giving winners 3 points. However, I agree we could have got a result last night if Middlesex had batted 10 covers and we had batted 7 and a bit overs. The spectators are there, so far as I can judge, to see a result however much it is fabricated thanks to Messrs Duckworth and Lewis. The fact Glamorgan are top having had four abandonments I think is proof why it is needed. |
|
|
|
Post by joe on Jul 29, 2017 13:35:24 GMT
I have always advocated that a match should carry on during moderate rainfall and so was delighted to see the umpires agreeing last night. Why is cricket given such preferential treatment where a slight bit of mizzle and they're called off the pitch? Few other sports gain such attention. Just before the first rain delay, Nash slipped picking up a ball and immediately Taylor went up to an umpire asking for the game to be stopped. Ridiculous. If a footballer, rugby player etc.. slips during rain, no-one gives a damn. That's sport! Sorry, but the idea cricketers are treated like delicate flowers is not on when 6,000 people have payed good money to watch a game. So SKY or not, I applaud the umpires for allowing the match to carry on. I just wish this would occur more often. Cricket will never develop its popularity when it so easily kowtows to a bit of wet. Don't agree with this. Football and rugby aren't played with a hard ball which is launched at 90mph at another player. If the ball is wet it may slip out of the bowlers hand and if it's raining the batsmans visibility is reduced. |
|
|
|
Post by deepfineleg on Jul 29, 2017 14:08:21 GMT
A win should be 3 points, tie 2 points and a no result one point. The table would look quite different if this were the case. 2 for a win, 1 for a tie and 1 for a no result P W D T N/R RR Points 1 Glamorgan 8 3 1 0 4 0.325 10 2 Surrey 8 4 2 0 2 0.086 10 3 Hampshire 8 4 3 0 1 0.01 9 4 Middlesex 9 3 4 1 1 0.208 8 5 Somerset 8 3 3 0 2 -0.01 8 6 Kent 7 3 3 1 0 0.014 7 7 Gloucs 7 2 2 1 2 -0.33 7 8 Sussex 7 1 2 1 3 -0.19 6 9 Essex 8 2 5 0 1 -0.19 5 3 for a win, 2 for a tie and 1 for a no result P W L T N/R RR Points 2 Surrey 8 4 2 0 2 0.086 14 1 Glamorgan 8 3 1 0 4 0.325 13 3 Hampshire 8 4 3 0 1 0.01 13 4 Middlesex 9 3 4 1 1 0.208 12 6 Kent 7 3 3 1 0 0.014 11 5 Somerset 8 3 3 0 2 -0.01 11 7 Gloucs 7 2 2 1 2 -0.33 10 8 Sussex 7 1 2 1 3 -0.19 8 9 Essex 8 2 5 0 1 -0.19 7 You could exclude no results and calculate percentage points gained. This does make some sense as the rules separate teams on wins before NRR which disadvantages teams with more NRs P W L T N/R RR Points (excl NR) 1 Glamorgan 8 3 1 0 4 0.325 6 / 8 75%2 Surrey 8 4 2 0 2 0.086 8 / 12 663 Hampshire 8 4 3 0 1 0.01 8 /14 574 Middlesex 9 3 4 1 1 0.208 7/16 435 (6) Kent 7 3 3 1 0 0.014 7/14 50
6 (5) Somerset 8 3 3 0 2 -0.01 6/12 507 Gloucs 7 2 2 1 2 -0.33 5/10 508 Sussex 7 1 2 1 3 -0.19 3/8 379 Essex 8 2 5 0 1 -0.19 4/14 28 |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jul 29, 2017 14:21:31 GMT
Joe,
To better clarify my point. How many times do cricketers go off the field due to rain only to come back 15 or 20 minutes later. Computer
technology has improved very short term weather forecasting, so if the rain is only going to be a short shower, then stay on. This info
can be relayed to the umpires via a head piece.
The degree and heaviness of rain is a major factor. A long downpour then of course the players must come off but consistent mizzle they
remain on the field if the short term forecast says it may only last 20 minutes or so. As for a hard cricket ball, ask a footballer who has been
whacked in the face by an extremely forceful shot. I am sure it hurts just as much.
Meanwhile, I would not be surprised that when the CBT begins in 2020, we will see greater flexibility surrounding the weather. The refund
policy must also change. I have advocated for years now about the need for reserve days put aside - especially for important semi-finals
and Finals tournament games. How many people last night who bought a ticket went away feeling disappointed and upset. How many will
think again about not coming to a match if there is any sniff of rain around? At least offer them a freebie to a day's championship game,
if nothing else. Yet, they are expected to pay £28 to watch 17 overs of cricket, without any result, and leave happy?
Cricket must change some of its archaic rules and ways of thinking to meet the rigours of the commercial 21st century.
|
|
nemmo
Captain 2nd XI
Posts: 285
|
Post by nemmo on Jul 29, 2017 15:14:05 GMT
I imagine the issue they came off for the first time was mainly the wet outfield with fielders starting to slip over when fielding. Also remember that Middlesex had Tom Helm injured last season on a wet outfield in one of the 50 over games. Refund policy isn't ideal but the club are merely following the same guidelines that every single other county follows and are stipulated by ECB. There's also the point that they can't afford to constantly dish out refunds if there is a little rain or they'd have to be running to the ECB for help.
I agree that they should make more use of forecasting but the tournament and rules are not set up to support it at the moment. If we had perfectly predicted the rain (and not been delayed 5 minutes by the test match) yesterday we could have got a result in by playing 8 overs a side. The other issue with this is that the forecasts generally available on the internet are usually conflicting and often inaccurate, coupled with the fact that we are on an island makes predicting the weather in the UK quite hard. In the USA they will call off Baseball games hours in advance if they know rain is forecast, saving spectators time. During a baseball game they will also check the rain radar and pull on covers before rain arrives. Their situation can't really be compared to ours though, with the vastly greater number of games in a season and the fact that games are played in a series of 3 or 4 (normally) allowing for doubleheaders the day after to catch up on missed games.
|
|
|
|
Post by liquidskin on Jul 29, 2017 15:58:28 GMT
"As for a hard cricket ball, ask a footballer who has been whacked in the face by an extremely forceful shot. I am sure it hurts just as much."
It definitely doesn't S&F. You know in football people are used as blockers in walls, and are expected to take the hit anywhere - imagine a batter smacking a cricket ball at people from ten yards away. I've taken both balls in the face, ooh-err, one stung, the other broke skin, closed an eye for a week and some how didn't fracture bones.
That said I agree with you to a certain extent but I believe everyone makes much more effort these days to stay out there.
Not a lot to say about this latest game really. Two stand-out thoughts - Archer is brilliant, how long before England come? What's his qualification status? He could play now on ability.
Second thought, with no Wright why still no Salt? Perfect opportunity to include him last night but we took the defensive option - a real shame.
Third thought, having just arrived, I look at our batting line-up and it looks so weak. We have no chance of success with this balance. Six bowling options is a luxury afforded to teams who have a batter who can bowl well, in every other team. We're taking costly liberties for our sixth bowling option.
|
|
|
|
Post by 2015t20everpresent on Jul 29, 2017 16:32:43 GMT
Weather is Proving t20 Blasted Nuisance ! There was so many excellent things happening around the 1st Central County Ground last night, including some breath taking action. However for the 3rd time in seven Nat West T20 Blast matches rain turned up to spoil the party. The evening started very brightly as a near full house entered the ground. Friday night Blast occasions are very exciting indeed as fans look to get their weekends off to a flyer. I managed to have a few words with Sussex Cricket Chief Executive Rob Andrew at the front gate. He was happily meeting and greeting fans as they arrived. He said ' we are very excited about hosting this match against Middlesex CCC this evening. There is lots going on around the ground and we hope that a full house will enjoy their experience' As to the competition itself he explained ' the T20 Blast South division is very tight and we are still very much in the hunt for a quarter final spot. We are currently operating at around 50% success but we will need to improve on that over the coming games' Pyrotechnics greeted the players as they stepped out, Middlesex with bat in hand. The Tymal Mills injury saga has been well documented so it wasn't a surprise to see him suited and booted rather than bowling the first over. The big surprise for me was the omission of our talisman batsman Luke Wright. It is understood he was out through injury. For an hour Sussex bowled and fielded like demons as a top Middlesex batting order were left struggling. Keeper Ben Brown deserves a lot of credit for taking three brilliant catches as our seam attack took control. Weise and Archer with two wickets a piece. Not that Middlesex didn't create some fire power of their own. Skipper Brendon McCullum wowed with two massive sixes. The first was perhaps one of the best shots of the entire competition. A vicious flat cut that flew and bounced off the scoreboard. Two Sussex youngsters Danny Briggs and George Garton bowled extremely well in the middle part of the inns with just 49 runs coming off their 7 overs. At 136 for 6 off 17.4 overs the game was shaping up to be a Friday night thriller. BUT THEN CAME VERY HEAVY RAIN. ANOTHER NO RESULT. Hopefully fans enjoyed a brilliant display from Sussex and saw lots of potential for the coming 7 matches. The Sharks now have 6 points to take forward into the business end of the group stage. We have seen this squad of players, under the guidance of head coach Mark Davis improve since Arundel and there is every reason to believe that Sussex can take their place in the next round. We all go again on Sunday 30th July making the long trip west to Taunton. Its an occasion to savour and we shall bring you that one right here.          |
|
