An improvement for T20s

This is not a rant about T20; as I believe I have said before I do not mind the format per se but rather some (indeed many) of its applications. So my suggestion for improving it does not involve scrapping it entirely or anything radical such as that. It instead deals with the problem of rain shortened matches such as the one we saw today between Nottinghamshire and Lancashire. Lancs batted for twenty overs as set Notts 179 to win. The rains came with Notts 7-0 after one over and left them a D/L target of 49 off five overs which they chased comfortably. The obvious problem was that the D/L revised target was quite low. Notts had all of their wickets in hand and could go for it. One big over against Arafat was enough to all but end the match as a contest. However, I think to blame D/L misses a deeper and more important point.

The D/L discrepancy was a problem, but I actually think it is a very minor one. Theoretically the system can be tweaked (and I believe that it is tweaked as new data comes in), but I do not think there is any adjustment that could have helped in this situation. No matter what total is set over five overs it will not have the same dynamic of a full chase and more importantly I don’t think there is any ‘fair’ way to do it. Only playing five overs means two things: that wickets are entirely irrelevant, run rate is all that matters, and that the required rate will almost always jump to either unobtainable heights or drop so low that it becomes easy. In effect then it is a one over contest. Today, Notts got 18 off a single over to render the required rate miniscule. The low target and wickets in hand made it easier for them to do that then the corollary of Lancs bowling a very tight over, but if Lancs had done so it would have come close to ending the match in their favour as well. And that would apply even if the D/L target had been higher; it would have just made it easier for Lancs to have a good over than Notts. Either way though it isn’t a proper contest. Five overs is simply too few.

The best way to improve T20s then is not to tweak D/L (though I still think that should happen, it just isn’t the most important thing to do) but to increase the minimum number of overs for matches interrupted halfway by rain and more flexibility in shortening matches before the rain starts. Most people suspected ahead of time that today’s match would be rain-affected and if they had decided ahead of time to play ten, or even five, overs a side instead of Lancs getting a full twenty and Notts getting five it would have been a perfectly fair contest. In situations where that is not feasible, however, the minimum number of overs has to be increased. If start times are brought forward and cutoff times moved back (as well as being made more flexible) I believe this can be done without a considerable increase in the number of matches without a result. Even if there is some increase, however, I think the majority of fans will understand the logic though I concede that is speculation. Certainly there should be some sort of effort to get the most overs in as possible. The current system does not produce a proper contest.

T20 format and situation

We’re just past the summer solstice and that means that in England the county season has shifted entirely to the group stage of the Friends Life T20. I have not been following it as closely as the championship, but the timing does make it substantially easier for me and I have kept an eye on it. The structure is much different this year with the effect that it is shorter. Instead of each team playing sixteen matches each team only plays ten and as a result they are all much more meaningful. There is a strong incentive to finish in the top two of the group and a fairly strong one to finish at the top and there is not a lot of room for error. It is early yet, but I think the ECB have hit upon a successful format. Which is why they are trying to change it for next year, of course.

The current table in the North Group sees the Red Rose in third following a disappointing loss away in the Roses match. Yorkshire actually top the table, but Lancashire are still very much in the hunt. They would actually qualify for the quarter-finals as one of the second best third place sides right now and have a match in hand against most of the other sides in the North Group. Of four matches left to play, two stand out: the home Roses clash against top of the table Yorkshire is the most obvious but there is also the trip to Trent Bridge to play second placed Notts. Winning both of those would give Lancs some leeway against Derbyshire and Durham. As I said above though: every match is important in this new tournament format and Lancs will be very keen to avoid another slip up against Derbyshire. Lancs could easily be two points better off and in a fairly comfortable position were it not for an early defeat to Derbyshire in a match they ought to have won comfortably and that could yet cost them.

I think that Lancashire have played very well so far in the T20. They had just hit a good run of form in the LV=CC before the break and their batting in particular has been incredible. Lancashire’s run rate in the competition so far is over 8.5 an over; that works out to 170 per innings. That will win most matches and so far it has done. A horror over by Mahmood cost them early though and they were outplayed by Yorkshire (and I so hate typing that, even in a T20). Those are the only two losses so far, however. I think we can win at least three of the remaining matches, though I am not sure how we will do against Notts. We have not yet played them and they look fairly good. All things considered then, I think Lancs will make it to the quarter-finals and although it’s a crapshoot from there we can have a go at improving on last year’s result.

LV=CC week nine roundup

This was a week of firsts in the Championship as Lancashire recorded their first win in thrilling style and Derbyshire were beaten for the first time this season. Glamorgan had one of their best chances to register their first win of the season as well, but Leicestershire thwarted them in a manner very similar to Middlesex thwarting Lancashire last week. Northamptonshire were also able to hold on for a draw at Headingley despite being 45-5 at one point in their first innings. The results were:

Lancashire beat Durham by two wickets
Middlesex beat Sussex by ten wickets
Worcestershire drew with Somerset
Glamorgan drew with Leicestershire
Gloucestershire beat Derbyshire by seven wickets
Yorkshire drew with Northamptonshire

Lancashire’s victory has seen them jump to fifth in the table, though with a match in hand against most sides. Durham only got three bonus points (all bowling) from that match, but they bowled their overs so slowly they were deducted four points. Losing a point from the match means they are now 14 points behind eighth placed Worcs. With neither Notts or Warks playing this round, the top of the first division is unchanged with Notts on top by a single point. Warwickshire have only played six matches to Notts’ seven, however.

In the second division, Yorkshire just barely got enough points from their draw to stay ahead of Kent and in the promotion zone, whilst Derbyshire are still comfortably atop the table (a 28 point lead) despite their defeat. Glamorgan’s failure to defeat Leicestershire keeps them at the foot of the division and the only side yet to record a victory in the second tier.

Looking ahead to the last round of fixtures before the T20 break: Notts and Warks will both be confident of victory facing Lancs and Durham respectively. Lancashire have now played well two weeks in a row, however, and Durham will be keen to come back from their agonising defeat. Durham’s hopes will be dented by the fact that Onions, the hero of their last match, is unlikely to take part due to being in the England squad for the Third Test. The second division features much of the same, with the top two teams playing the bottom two. Kent will thus likely need a victory against Hampshire to stay near the promotion zone.

LV=CC week seven roundup

Last week in the County Championship saw only one positive result, but this time rain was only one of the factors. Very suddenly, batting conditions around the country appeared to get much easier this round and we had some big scores. This did mean that although we still only got one result, we at least got to see quite a bit of cricket before then and some close run finishes.

Surrey drew with Somerset
Warwickshire drew with Lancashire
Worcestershire drew with Sussex
Kent drew with Northamptonshire
Leicestershire drew with Essex
Yorkshire drew with Hampshire
Derbyshire beat Glamorgan by eight wickets

Warwickshire’s points from their drawn match were enough to put them at the top of the first division table without a lot of other movement in D1. Derbyshire’s victory extended their lead over Yorkshire in Division Two, which now stands at 14 points. Glamorgan are still at the foot of the second division and now have more losses than any county in either division.

My player of the week, who I forgot to name the last few weeks, (might do so retroactively when I have more time) is Paul Horton. Lancashire looked headed for a certain defeat after following-on and he played an absolutely brilliant knock to make sure they got out of danger.

Matches at the Oval and Edgbaston both involved the team batting first scoring over 500 and the other one having to fight to stay in the match. Somerset had centuries from Arul Suppiah and James Hildreth to set up their 512-9 declares whilst Warwickshire had tons by Varun Chopra and Rikki Clarke en route to 557-6 declared. Warwicks, however, took so long to get their runs that they only got three batting points. Surrey fought better than Lancashire, however, with a century at the top of the order from Steve Davies. Eight wickets for Stuart Meaker meant that Surrey had an outside chance of winning, whilst Lancs just needed to bat out a draw. The Red Rose got a brilliant, unbeaten century from Paul Horton to make it comfortable in the end. At New Road, the biggest contribution was probably from the groundsman after the flood waters had receded. Sussex managed to set Worcs a large target thanks to a first wicket stand of 189 in the second innings between Ed Joyce and Chris Nash (the former with an unbeaten century) but there was not enough time for a result.

In the second division, Northamptonshire’s trip to Canterbury saw the visitors take a large first innings lead thanks to David Sales’ 140, but a flat pitch did not leave any time for a result. At Leicester the home side put up 372 in the first innings with 119 of them from Ramnaresh Sarwan, who also scored 98 in the second innings. When Essex responded with 409, however, and from there a result was always unlikely. The match at Headingley ultimately followed a similar story, but started with Hampshire 55-3 and 83-4 in their first innings. Simon Katich, however, scored 196 and with help from Michael Bates’ 103 sent Hants to a huge first innings score. Yorkshire needed a response and got it from Antony McGrath, putting up 399-9 in all. The only match with a result was at Derby where Glamorgan continued their poor run. Batting first, they could not do what so many other sides did only made 236. Martin Guptill and Wayne Madsen both scored centuries as Derbyshire showed just how far below par Glamorgan were. David Wainwright’s 5-51 in the second innings meant that they had an easy chase and won comfortably.

LV=CC week six roundup

Another heavily rain-affected week in the County Championship last week finished with only one positive result. That result was in a contrived match at Bristol where Yorkshire managed to chase 400 in just over a day. There was very nearly another, however, as Surrey were forced to follow-on at New Road before managing to set the hosts 260 to win and reducing them to 150-8. There was not quite enough time for a memorable victory, however. There was also a contrived match at Leicester with the hosts nine down when time time ran out. The full results:

Sussex drew with Lancashire
Durham drew with Somerset
Nottinghamshire drew with Middlesex
Worcestershire drew with Surrey
Essex drew with Kent
Yorkshire beat Gloucestershire by four wickets
Hampshire drew with Derbyshire
Leicestershire drew with Northamptonshire

Naturally, there has not been a great change in the table this week with only one result. The fact that Notts played and Warwicks didn’t has put the former on top of the division one table, but given that Warwickshire have two matches in hand I don’t think they will be worried. Yorkshire’s contrived victory in the second division has seen them fly up to second in the table. It is an interesting indication too of just how big of a difference even two victories can still make and one which will probably not be lost on Lancashire or Durham.

Whilst there was not a lot of time, there were still some very notable performances. Standing out, of course, are the centuries for Phil Jaques (160) and Gary Ballance (121*) in Yorkshire’s improbable victory at Bristol. That match also featured 111 for Kane Williamson and 5-81 for Tim Bresnan in Gloucs’ first innings. The match at Trent Bridge saw 162 from Michael Lumb countered by 143* from Ollie Rayner as the match never came close to a result. Not nearly as large, but still notable was the unbeaten 43* for the England Captain in the second innings. Surrey’s escape/near victory at New Road naturally included some very impressive batting performances in the second innings, including 115 for Rory Hamilton-Brown and 143 for Tom Maynard. Smaller, but again notable, was KP’s 69 after coming in with Surrey on 11-2 after following-on. Kent’s first innings at Chelmsford saw five ducks and nine single digit scores. And 119 for Darren Stevens. He and Geriant Jones (88) put on 196 for the sixth wicket after coming together at 9-5. The main destroyer for Essex was Charl Willoughby who took 5-70 and four of Kent’s top five batsmen. Derbyshire retained their spot at the summit of Division Two in a tame draw at Southampton. Their first innings of 403-9 featured centuries from Wes Durston (121) and Dan Redfern (133). This was after Hants skipper Jimmy Adams scored 122 in the first innings.

Lancs’ season so far

One would have to say that it’s been poor. We are a quarter of the way through the Championship and are yet to win a match. That’s not great. I do think that we have played better than our record indicates, but in the end our record is what matters and we are seventh in the table. Currently we are 51 points behind top of the table Warwickshire. Whilst it is only May, that is still a huge, huge deficit to overcome and I think it would be very difficult to realistically maintain hope of defending our title. We would almost need to win every match from here. That said, the notion of our being in a relegation scrap is almost equally far-fetched and I do still think that we will finish closer to the top than the bottom of the table.

For reasons why we have been failing, the obvious place at which to look is the batting. All of our matches have been marred by collapses (even the one in which we scored 400) and we have twice failed to set a defensible second innings target and once failed to come close to an admittedly large one. However, the batting is not actually quite as bad as it looks. It is important to remember that the conditions have heavily favoured the batsmen this early in the year and most teams have struggled. The average first innings score in Division One so far this year is only 231. (The ‘first innings’ here is the more traditional per team, not per match as I used in an earlier post.) Lancashire’s average first innings score this year is 230, so it’s hardly been a catastrophic failure of the batsmen. Of course, that average is boosted by the 400 scored at Taunton, but so too is the overall average. That overall average is also boosted by the one-off scores of 545 and 445. If we throw out the top score for every team, the overall average drops to 197 and Lancashire’s drops to 173. It’s a bigger gap, but still hardly a chasm. The bigger problem has been second innings scores, but in that case one has to note the scoreboard pressure under which the batsmen have been put by the bowlers.

That is, I think, an underrated problem. Our bowling won us the title last year (with very little help from the batsmen) and although they have generally done well this year, the expectations in these conditions are correctly higher in these conditions and at least two of our three losses can be put down at least partly to bowling lapses. The above will probably sound harsh and maybe it is a bit, but the figures seem pretty clear. We lost to Warwickshire because the bowlers conceded a partnership in excess of 200 for the eighth wicket. In the first match we let Sussex get away after having them 15-3. And it is also easy to forget that our collapse against Notts only left us 20-odd runs in arrears. The bowlers do have some excuse in that match though, as Smith was injured and Jimmy was off the field for a lot of the match. It is very hard to win with only one front line seamer, even if that seamer is Glen Chapple.

And that gets to what I think is one of the main reasons why Lancs have struggled this year: luck. We played pretty poorly against Sussex, but it was a bad toss to lose. Against Warwickshire we were undone by an incredible partnership from a side that is making a habit of pulling off unlikely wins this year. We played very well against Somerset only to have the rain ruin our chances. And against Notts we were left hoping Chappie could bowl all day and take about seven wickets. We could have played better and if we were to be proper title contenders than we would need to have played better. But I don’t think anyone can doubt that we have not had the rub of the green so far this year. Had circumstances been only slightly different we could have three wins and a loss right now. It’s small consolation, but it does mean that we are likely to improve.

Lancs sign Shazad

This move surprised me. It surprised me when Shazad left Yorkshire, to be fair, but even then I expected him to go to Somerset. They badly need a bowler and he is a good fit. Really, it never occurred to me that he would cross the Pennines. Now that he has, it forces the questions of where he will fit in to the side and how much of a boost it actually will be.

I suspect that he will come in roughly in place of Saj Mahmood. Saj has been our third seamer for a while and whilst he can be brilliant he is also erratic and using Shazad in his place would probably be an improvement. That said, whilst Shazad is certainly talented he seems to wax and wane as well. It was not so long ago that he was almost a full time England bowler, but since then he has fallen off rather a lot. If the change of scenery and change of coach can bring about a revival than he will be an excellent weapon, but otherwise he might just end up giving the Championship players a rest in the pyjama matches. I worry about that second possibility, as if that happens he might be an overall detriment to the side. His behaviour problems are fairly well established and I think Lancashire more than a lot of sides need to stay tightly knit and disciplined. It was a truly team effort that won us the title last year anything that jeopardises that team mentality is a huge risk.

On the whole, however, I think it is more likely than not that he will come good. He has a lot to prove right now and a very coach in Peter Moores. Whilst most of Lancashire’s problems this year have been with the bat, we have conceded big scores and especially big partnerships at inopportune times and I think that more than anything else has cost us. If we can have a solid second or third seamer to help stop that, it will be a major boost.

LV=CC week five roundup

There was more rain in the LV=CC this week, but not as bad as it was last week and we did have more results than draws this time. (Though this was partly due to a contrived match at Lord’s.

Nottinghamshire beat Lancashire by 185 runs
Warwickshire beat Durham by nine wickets
Middlesex beat Worcestershire by 132 runs
Derbyshire drew with Gloucestershire
Glamorgan drew with Essex
Northamptonshire beat Hampshire by 117 runs
Yorkshire beat Leicestershire by an innings and 22 runs

Of note is that now all of Durham, Lancashire, Worcestershire and Glamorgan have still not won a match this season. Yorkshire’s win at Scarborough was their first of the Championship. Meantime, Warwicks and Notts are each yet to lose a match despite some close finishes for the former and the latter having just a single batting point this season. It keeps Warwickshire on top of the D1 table by four points over Notts, having played one fewer match. Derbys have also done enough in their draw to stay at the summit of D2.

As mentioned above, one of the most notable match of the round was probably at Lord’s where Worcestershire declared before the last day on 45-2 and Middlesex forfeited their second innings. It set up a chase of 283 on the last day, but Worcs did not get near it. It was still an example of good attacking thinking, however. The points allocation system is (rightly, I think) set up to reward victories highly and almost discount draws. Worcs correctly assessed that it was worth going for a win and we got an exciting finish out of a match that looked dead.

This was also the week in which all of the England players were cleared to appear for their counties. Ian Bell rather dramatically returned to form for Warwickshire, scoring 120 after coming in with the Bears 15-3. He this time outshone his England colleague Trott, who could only make two. As Warwickshire do not play next week, Bell will appear for the Lions to get some more time in the middle. Jimmy Anderson bruised his hand and come down with a stomach ailment, but still managed to take 5-82 in Notts’ second innings. In the other dressing room for that match, Swann and Broad took 3-26 & 2-30 and 0-60 & 3-67 respectively. Swann and Anderson each bowled the other in the match as well. Andrew Strauss scored a pretty good 49 in tricky conditions at Lord’s. It was not chanceless, but it was fairly quick and pretty fluent for the conditions. It should ease the silly media speculation about him, however. Steven Finn did not play a large role on the final day, but did take 2-30. For Essex, Alastair Cook’s return to the middle did not last long, as he made only nine and five. Jonny Bairstow made his case to bat at six against the Windies with 182 in Yorkshire’s innings victory, whilst Tim Bresnan took 1-37 and 1-57.

Many of the best performances were not from the England players, or even those on the fringes of the side, however. Andre Adams completely turned the match at Old Trafford with his first innings 7-32 (a career best) and Warwickshire’s Keith Barker took 5-33 in the first innings and 5-37 in the second to ensure that Durham were only briefly in the match. Strauss got the most publicity in Middlesex’s first innings, but it was Joe Denly who put them in a winning position with his unbeaten 134 whilst Alan Richardson tried in vain to restrict the hosts with his 5-89. Derbyshire captain Wayne Madsen hit a century and Tony Palladino took 5-47 as Gloucestershire were forced to follow-on at Derby, but Kane Williamson stepped up for the visitors with 128 (of 409-4) as they secured the draw. Cook failed for Essex, but Alviro Petersen, his South African counterpart, did not and scored 145 at Cardiff. Huw Waters responded for the hosts with 5-47 to restrict Essex in the second innings as the match was drawn. David Willey put in a possibly match-winning effort with the ball for Northants, taking 5-39 in the final innings as Hants could not get close to their target. Finally, Leicestershire had a pair of excellent performances in vain at Scarborough. Wayne White took 5-90 in the first innings and Matthew Boyce scored 122 as Leicestershire tried to make Yorkshire bat again.

LV=CC week four roundup

It rained. I could list the results of every match and give summaries, but there was not a single positive result in the country this week. Two matches, Surrey v Durham and Gloucestershire v Glamorgan, were abandoned without a ball bowled over four days. It’s very difficult to have 32 scheduled days of cricket with nothing of note happening, however.

In this round, Lancashire looked much improved. They had the benefit of facing a below-par Somerset attack, but it was still very nice to see a solid performance from the Red Rose. Had the rains stayed away a bit longer there was a good chance that they would have got full bonus points. As it was we only had time to get one bowling point, but a lovely 113 from Steven Croft saw us get full batting points. We’ve still not won a match, but we have shown that we can compete well and that will be important ahead of an important match against Notts next week.

Speaking of Notts, they once again had a difficult time with the bat, but a better one with the ball. Twenty-six batsmen took guard in their match against Worcs (the highest of any match this round) and none of them passed fifty.

Yorkshire are still looking off the boil, they had already conceded a large first innings lead to Kent before the rain came in that match. They have now drawn all of their matches and only really played well in one of them. The fact that Kent got ten points from the match (the most of any side this round) means that they stay on top of the second division.

Warwickshire win by five wickets

Even today, over two days after the match ended, this one still hurts. After two days I thought we couldn’t lose, but we did. It means that we have lost both of our LV=CC matches and sit at the bottom of the first division. On the whole, however, I think we played well and that there is reason for optimism.

Our batting collapsed some in the first innings and more dramatically in the second, but it was actually not particularly poor relative to the rest of the matches. We batted first in the match and across the eight matches the average score of the side batting first was 209. Lancashire’s 250 was actually the third highest score overall (Leicestershire’s 324 and Gloucestershire’s 255 being the two higher) and the highest in the first division. No other Division One team even got a bonus point after batting first. Two hundred fifty does not look good overall, but I thought at the time that it was a pretty good score and I still think that is true.

The collapse in the second innings was more troubling. Batting for time and batting through rough patches is something at which we need to improve and our cause was not helped by some very rash shots. Being caught on the boundary just before stumps is pretty much inexcusable. It is, however, something at which we can improve and especially as the tricky early season conditions fade there is no reason to suspect that we will not. Certainly the fight both in the first match and in this one shown by Ashwell Prince is a good sign.

It is tempting to say that our bowling lost this match, but I think that would be inaccurate. As bad as it looks to let the opposition go from 81-7 to 327 all out, the fact is that we ran into a pair of very good innings. It has looked in the first two matches like counter-attacking is a good strategy and Rikki Clarke did that to great effect whilst Maddy had survived the toughest parts to make sure he had a partner. Perhaps we would have done more with the ball, but in this case the opposition simply did very well. More indicative, I think, is too look at the rest of the innings: the other nine partnerships in the first innings were worth a combined 103 runs. That is very good, especially when one then adds in the 71-5 in the second innings. We never really looked like winning, but given that we had nothing really to gain it was fantastic to see that kind of fight. Had we another fifty runs…

We lost. And we’ve now lost two matches at what was our fortress last year, Aigburth. To have done so is a horrible missed opportunity, yes. But we have to remember that we aren’t usually going to concede 224 for the eighth, or any, wicket. It was very much anomalous. There is definite room for improvement, but I strongly believe that if we play as well in the rest of our matches as we did in this one we will win much more often than we lose.