[Cricket] The Ashes - England v Australia - 4th Test, Old Trafford, July 19-23, 2023

[essbee1]

Deary me, you need to up your banter, seeing as you've ran into the biggest bus nerd on NSC. Firstly the 7 seater buses were replaced by double deckers on an every few minutes route and, more importantly, everyone knows that it's best to get off at Palmeira Square anyway where buses go in all directions.

Sort it out buddy, or come home a bit more often. That there Surrey has turned your brains to mush.

 

[um bongo molongo]

I think people have missed the point Joe Root was making. He was basically saying there’s no reason to walk off in bright sunshine when 90 overs haven’t been bowled. Keep playing till they’re bowled. He’s right. He wasn’t saying play to 10pm, merely illustrating that there’s no good reason not to go beyond 6:30.

 

[Gonzo BHA]

I'm not the biggest cricket fan but have throughly enjoyed this year's Ashes. From an outsider, I find it so hard to wrap my head around the fact that the result of such an important sporting event can be decided by the weather. Is there no way of delaying until the weather is playable?

 

[essbee1]

I'm not the biggest cricket fan but have throughly enjoyed this year's Ashes. From an outsider, I find it so hard to wrap my head around the fact that the result of such an important sporting event can be decided by the weather. Is there no way of delaying until the weather is playable?

I think you probably need to ask the Cricket authorities the same question. I guess ticketing, logistics and players'/staff other
commitments might come in to the equation if they did have such a scheme.

 

[keaton]

I think you probably need to ask the Cricket authorities the same question. I guess ticketing, logistics and players'/staff other
commitments might come in to the equation if they did have such a scheme.

If they had a reserve day today, you'd only get two days before the next test

 

[Jim in the West]

If they had a reserve day today, you'd only get two days before the next test

True, but the timing of the next test has been dictated by the desire to finish before the bloody Hundred starts. The very definition of a meaningless competition.

 

[Eeyore]

Neither was Worthing.
Sussex played their last ' festival ' ( back to back County matches ) there in about 1964. From memory it was Derbyshire and Warwickshire. Neither side reached 200 in eight innings. Sussex were bowled out for 23 in the 8th and final innings of those two games, never to return.

Yeah, that one was discussed a few years ago in here. It was the match where Ian Thomson took 15-75 and still ended up on the losing side.

 

[Mo Gosfield]

Yeah, that one was discussed a few years ago in here. It was the match where Ian Thomson took 15-75 and still ended up on the losing side.

Didn't he take all 10 in one innings?

 

[Eeyore]

Didn't he take all 10 in one innings?

Yeah, first innings. 10-49.

Sussex v Warwickshire at Worthing, 6-9 Jun 1964

 

[Eeyore]

Yeah, first innings. 10-49.

Sussex v Warwickshire at Worthing, 6-9 Jun 1964

Yeah, one of the guys in here was there. @GT49er ?

 

[GT49er]

Yeah, one of the guys in here was there. @GT49er ?

Not me, I'm afraid. My Dad did once take me to watch Sussex at Eastbourne (The Saffrons?) skittle out Hampshire for not very many. I think that ground is no longer considered fit enough for first class cricket either?

 

[banjo]

Not me, I'm afraid. My Dad did once take me to watch Sussex at Eastbourne (The Saffrons?) skittle out Hampshire for not very many. I think that ground is no longer considered fit enough for first class cricket either?

Perfect for Sussex then.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Well I can see why. Hampshire just sounds so dull in the speaking. The media seems to have invented a 'derby' for Sussex against them which I guess you have no objection to. It's Surrey who I don't like for multiple irrational reasons.

I object to it to the extent of thinking "El Coastico" or whatever they call it is obviously stupid.
To be clear, I don't like Surrey either. But that's not a Sussex thing, it's the normal human condition.

Something that occurred to me recently is how little success Middlesex have had in comparison to the esteem they are held in as a county. Take out the Brearley years and the rest of the 80s and there is so little. I wondered why that might be and then it occurred to me that it's possible that they have no actual stake in Lords, just an historical playing arrangement. I wonder if anyone can cast light on that.

To be fair, of the 13 Championships they've won/shared, only 3 of them were under Brearley.
I'm not sure of the detail of why Middlesex play at Lords rather than anywhere else, but it's not that unusual for them to not have any stake in their home ground. Yorkshire didn't used to own Headingley either, which is why they played so many matches across the rest of Yorkshire for so long (and why the ground was such a dump).
Conversely, I tend to think Leicestershire have a decent record of winning things and producing players, considering they're so often mentioned as one of the clubs we should get rid of.

 

[Pavilionaire]

True, but the timing of the next test has been dictated by the desire to finish before the bloody Hundred starts. The very definition of a meaningless competition.

The tight scheduling of the Ashes compromises team selection, i.e. a tight 5 tests series will mean more wear and tear on the pace bowlers. This definitely works against the touring side as they have a limited squad to select from.

Given the stated importance of the Ashes to test cricket then I think every test should carry a spare 6th day, to be utilised if required. They have this in golf majors if the final round is washed out.

 

[Eeyore]

I object to it to the extent of thinking "El Coastico" or whatever they call it is obviously stupid.
To be clear, I don't like Surrey either. But that's not a Sussex thing, it's the normal human condition.

To be fair, of the 13 Championships they've won/shared, only 3 of them were under Brearley.
I'm not sure of the detail of why Middlesex play at Lords rather than anywhere else, but it's not that unusual for them to not have any stake in their home ground. Yorkshire didn't used to own Headingley either, which is why they played so many matches across the rest of Yorkshire for so long (and why the ground was such a dump).
Conversely, I tend to think Leicestershire have a decent record of winning things and producing players, considering they're so often mentioned as one of the clubs we should get rid of.

Leicester is the ultimate sporting city. Both the football and rugby team have been English champions in the last ten years. Add the cricket team and it becomes a perfect place for the enthusiast.

 

[dazzer6666]

Not really a pity at all. At Surrey we have Vauxhall, Oval and plenty of bus routes south and north. Hove has a couple of
7-seater minibuses to Hove station.

Most are able to manage the 10 minute stroll from Hove Station without needing to wait for a bus anyway

 

[Gwylan]

Something that occurred to me recently is how little success Middlesex have had in comparison to the esteem they are held in as a county. Take out the Brearley years and the rest of the 80s and there is so little.

Eh? Only Yorkshire and Surrey have won more CC titles than Middlesex. And they'd certainly have won more if the Second World War hadn't intervened - the team with Compton, Edrich and Robertson broke all batting records. They're definitely one of the big teams of county cricket.

 

[Eeyore]

Eh? Only Yorkshire and Surrey have won more CC titles than Middlesex. And they'd certainly have won more if the Second World War hadn't intervened - the team with Compton, Edrich and Robertson broke all batting records. They're definitely one of the big teams of county cricket.

21 trophies. Take out the golden years (1973-1993) and that becomes 7.

Two major trophies in the last 30 years. Sussex have nine.

My conclusion is that outside of a 20 year period Middlesex have always been pretty average.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

21 trophies. Take out the golden years (1973-1993) and that becomes 7.

Two major trophies in the last 30 years. Sussex have nine.

My conclusion is that outside of a 20 year period Middlesex have always been pretty average.

I feel like the logical conclusion of this is that only Surrey and Yorkshire can be considered "big teams", and even then most of their trophies are limited to certain periods (pre 1968 for Yorkshire, 50s and earlier for Surrey).

 

[Eeyore]

I feel like the logical conclusion of this is that only Surrey and Yorkshire can be considered "big teams", and even then most of their trophies are limited to certain periods (pre 1968 for Yorkshire, 50s and earlier for Surrey).

I'm not sure that the 'big team' theory applies so much in modern times of cricket where players are more transient. Back in the old days I suspect many played for the county they were from.

Yorkshire have three championships and two one day trophies in 50 years.

I guess it comes down to how we think of 'big'. Yorkshire is a famous old county cricket name. But, for decades, a not very successful one.

I suppose the football comparison would be.... Leeds United

I think of Warwickshire as being 'big' county. They would never go long without a major trophy. Certainly not in modern times. In fact, taking a look, they haven't had a decade without a trophy since the 40s, often multiple trophies.