I can't answer your question, but I'll just point out that Worcs were already relegated, and that Anderson and Broad aren't playing for their respective counties, one of which will go down with Worcs. Yorks soon got the 2 points today that keeps them from relegation.
He has an unwelcome record - the most consecutive test innings by an England opener without a fifty. He made 48 today, which is probably a century by his standards: now my turn to say sorry!
This may well be the reason but they are playing against a team that might have been relegated - unlikely, but possible. Moeen has already got a championship double hundred to his name this year. A repeat performance, declare 5 down. It might have been a different story. He also leads Worcester's bowling averages! It could be that Yorkshire agreed, in which case, it could have been costly!
You weren't being rude to me, I only know what we're allowed to know, which isn't exactly transparent. In this country cricket is still run by the same sort of people who've always run it, except they're more overtly mercenary now. We have to accept that the contracted players are not just free to play for their counties now, however much they may wish it, and we'll never know the true reasons behind individual decisions. Scope for skulduggery? Of course, even if you're not given to conspiracy theories. Look how certain counties never get docked points for poor pitches!! Easier to go for the Kents and Derbyshires of the championship i.e. counties without power and influence.
Notts failed to get maximum bowling points which makes Lanc's job a tiny bit easier, at 207 for 5 they need to reach 300 and win and hope Notts (8 for 1) fail to reach 200 and lose. If Lancs could reach 350 then we could be in for a very interesting last couple of days. And where are Sky, exactly??
I'm not sure that I agree with this. When I first watched cricket, the emphasis was on playing the game and playing it 'properly', winning appeared to be secondary; now the reason why winning is important - nothing wrong with that - is that it makes money. I do think that 'mercenary' is an apt term to use, though.
It would seem that there is every incentive not to develop young players, scout the dominions for anyone with family links to the UK (or, until March, the EU), sign players up with a Kolpak contract, look round for players with the less fashionable counties who are good county players - perhaps approaching their thirties and offer them a few more quid than they are currently earning while having to offer anything to the county that has developed them. Why invest in potential England players when they will never assist you in the years to come. When a team features more players born in South Africa (for instance) than their home county, you know we are in trouble.
Yes, well off the top (Essex) who ran away with it. You could say we finished 7th from bottom. This season we finished second from bottom, a drop of a mere 5 places!!
Middlesex, Essex, Surrey... by my reckoning, that means Kent are in line to win First Division Championship next season 'lol' One in the eye for Sam Northeast.I know it's schadenfreude, but I was quite chuffed that Essex spoiled Surrey's unbeaten record this season, having managed it themselves last season
If I join them, it resembles a spiral - next stop 'Hampshire', and, judging by their acquisitions policy, I wouldn't bet against them (unfortunately).
Considering all the financial benefits they have, Hampshire are remarkably under-achieving, though. Yes, a cup final win this year (against Kent) largely due to Mr Northeast, but they're staring relegation in the face most years. Abbott was a shrewd purchase, and Fidel Edwards a quality bowler of an old-fashioned West Indian kind that used to prop up county sides in the 1970s/80s.
Plus Barker (Warks) and Donald (Glam) signed up already with Steyn threatening to return and no obvious England calls. I just feel that they are buying themselves success. They are an aging team though (Abbott, Barker, Berg, Edwards, Steyn all over 30).
They seem unable to develop any cricketers themselves. Vince looks nice, but can't produce the goods. Mason Crane appears to have fallen by the wayside, and is probably down to no. 3 (out of 3) in the England leg spinner pecking order. Dawson was preferred to Briggs as a spinner, even in red ball cricket, and somehow got into the test side as probably the least deserving pick of the last decade.
It'll be great to be able to trounce Hampshire, Surrey and Essex (to name but three) again, culminating in Kent winning the County Championship on the last day of the season! I can dream, but I was at the Oval the last time it happened.
Umm, not the greatest of successes then? Will probably go down with Trevor Chappell's underarm bowling at the World Cup i.e. a one-off.
Well, he did! Would be good now if Foakes can keep his place! For how long have the pundits been saying that he is the best'keeper in England?