Joined: Apr 23 2002 Posts: 3882 Location: In the midst of Manchester's Steak Diane belt
Lancs lose the toss for the 8th home game this season (surely some kind of record??) and are batting first...I think we'll be all out by lunch unless it rains!
Joined: Jul 03 2003 Posts: 11532 Location: The Cloth Capped North
MSH wrote:Problem is, if a team has gone for the win and been thwarted by, say, the weather (this one remind you of anyone? ), is it fair to take away their bonus points?
It'd be utterly unfeasable, a point is awarded for getting to 200 runs, thats the rule so its earned, win or not...
What they done with the points for wins and draws was better IMO. Now its 16 for a win, its a big incentive to go for it.
I do agree, the rain affected draw is the big flaw with that idea. You could say rain affected draws get bonus points too, but then again a game could be rain affected but end up a draw because someone's shut up shop.
16 for a win and 3 for a draw has improved things massively.
GT wrote:I found myself agreeing with a lot of that, I have to say.
The one thing that got me about that Warwickshire side was that most of the time they played for the draw and a win was a bonus. That doesn't make for good cricket and that side were not good to watch when they were doing that. At least when you get teams winning a lot of games and losing a few you know they're going for a result. Durham at Hampshire this year being a prime example. Warwickshire in '04 would've gone for the draw in that game. The bonus points system has struck the right balance now, I think, although I'm still not keen on the system.
Which brings me round to the point you made about Lancs, Surrey and batting points. In 2008 Surrey finished bottom of the table with 45 batting points. Lancashire finished 5th with 24 batting points and a grand total of 170 points. If Lancashire had managed to gain the same batting points as Surrey that year we would've won the title with 191 points to Durham's 190! (5 wins, 9 draws, 2 defeats...) It does show that we're seriously behind other teams in the batting department, but then again it also shows up flaws in the bonus points system, albeit there's been changes made since then.
I have heard the suggestion that bonus points should only be awarded if a team wins, which would cut out people shutting up shop for the draw. Whether it's feasible in reality or not is another matter.
Some of the best Test matches of recent years has been when teams hung on for a draw. It did seem about 10 years ago that a team batting last with no chance of winning the game would fold all too easily. So some incentive to draw games needs to be kept.
Joined: Jul 03 2003 Posts: 11532 Location: The Cloth Capped North
Cibaman wrote:Some of the best Test matches of recent years has been when teams hung on for a draw. It did seem about 10 years ago that a team batting last with no chance of winning the game would fold all too easily. So some incentive to draw games needs to be kept.
Again, there's a difference between this - England at Cardiff in the Ashes, for example - and a team deliberately playing for a draw from the start instead of going for a win when their team is in no danger of losing.
Joined: Mar 03 2004 Posts: 5308 Location: On a hill above Mold, North Wales
388?! Lancashire's batting?! What?!
Must be a bowler's nightmare that pitch, that or the second innings will balance it all out (i.e Lancs get about 6, which would not surprise me one bit).
Joined: May 31 2005 Posts: 4064 Location: An exclusive mansion apartment in fashionable South London
GT wrote:The one thing that got me about that Warwickshire side was that most of the time they played for the draw and a win was a bonus. That doesn't make for good cricket and that side were not good to watch when they were doing that.
That's what everyone remembers them for. I can't recall a less popular Championship winning team.
GT wrote:Which brings me round to the point you made about Lancs, Surrey and batting points. In 2008 Surrey finished bottom of the table with 45 batting points. Lancashire finished 5th with 24 batting points and a grand total of 170 points. If Lancashire had managed to gain the same batting points as Surrey that year we would've won the title with 191 points to Durham's 190! (5 wins, 9 draws, 2 defeats...) It does show that we're seriously behind other teams in the batting department, but then again it also shows up flaws in the bonus points system, albeit there's been changes made since then.
It's probably also worth pointing out that Surrey didn't win a single match in 2008!
I think the balance between bonus points and points for wins and draws is about the best it's been right now. Bonus points are a sort of deterrant against counties producing overly spicy pitches and gambling on winning a shoot out. (Is there an element of that with Lancs home games this year? Certainly Surrey have made no secret of aiming to prepare "result" pitches at The Oval, which has tended a bit too much towards bland draws in recent years.)
You now have to score pretty quickly to get all five batting bonus points too. I think I'm right in saying Warks would have had 130 overs in which to accumulate their many first innings totals of 400 seven seasons ago, as opposed to the current 110.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
), is it fair to take away their bonus points?
