Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Options

Kent Cricket 2022

1104105106107109

Comments

  • Options
    Cheers AA. 
  • Options
    The High Performance review states that the change to three divisions would "ensure that the best play the best". If it were to commence next year then only six of the 17 players that played Test cricket this year would be able to play in the top division and three of the six teams in that division wouldn't have a single Test player. 

    The best versus the best! 
  • Options
    The High Performance review states that the change to three divisions would "ensure that the best play the best". If it were to commence next year then only six of the 17 players that played Test cricket this year would be able to play in the top division and three of the six teams in that division wouldn't have a single Test player. 

    The best versus the best! 
    Nonsense when Test players play bugger all domestic cricket anyway.

    And being in Div 2 hasn't stopped England calling up the likes of Potts and Robinson anyway
  • Options
    Below in green is a table that summarises how unfair the current CC is - the column on the left is the total of the position of those teams that a county has had to play twice i.e. Kent have played the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th placed teams twice and have the lowest total of 16.

    Then look at the total of the top three teams - they've only had to play each other once and Surrey and Hants haven't had to play any of the teams in the top four twice. 

    So a table that showed the strength of opposition played this season would look like this (team with hardest fixtures top)

    1   Kent
    2   Warwickshire
    3   Yorkshire
    4   Somerset
    5   Gloucs
    6   Northants
    7   Essex
    8   Surrey
    9   Lancs
    10 Hants

    image
  • Options
    Below in green is a table that summarises how unfair the current CC is - the column on the left is the total of the position of those teams that a county has had to play twice i.e. Kent have played the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th placed teams twice and have the lowest total of 16.

    Then look at the total of the top three teams - they've only had to play each other once and Surrey and Hants haven't had to play any of the teams in the top four twice. 

    So a table that showed the strength of opposition played this season would look like this (team with hardest fixtures top)

    1   Kent
    2   Warwickshire
    3   Yorkshire
    4   Somerset
    5   Gloucs
    6   Northants
    7   Essex
    8   Surrey
    9   Lancs
    10 Hants

    image
    Except surrey did much better against the teams at the top than those lower.

    I'd much rather we played Hampshire again (we battered them) than play the likes of Kent Northants Gloucs and Somerset who all produced absolute roads purely to negate us with no hope of a result even if the game had gone on for 3 weeks. Of course playing a proper spinner in thatbsituation might have made a difference...
  • Options
    I thought Jack Wills is the next England spinner? He can bat a bit so pretty much a foregone conclusion? Or will Dom Bess' heroic innings in relegation defeat push him ahead?? Exciting times for English batting spinners!! 
  • Options
    Below in green is a table that summarises how unfair the current CC is - the column on the left is the total of the position of those teams that a county has had to play twice i.e. Kent have played the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th placed teams twice and have the lowest total of 16.

    Then look at the total of the top three teams - they've only had to play each other once and Surrey and Hants haven't had to play any of the teams in the top four twice. 

    So a table that showed the strength of opposition played this season would look like this (team with hardest fixtures top)

    1   Kent
    2   Warwickshire
    3   Yorkshire
    4   Somerset
    5   Gloucs
    6   Northants
    7   Essex
    8   Surrey
    9   Lancs
    10 Hants

    image
    Except surrey did much better against the teams at the top than those lower.

    I'd much rather we played Hampshire again (we battered them) than play the likes of Kent Northants Gloucs and Somerset who all produced absolute roads purely to negate us with no hope of a result even if the game had gone on for 3 weeks. Of course playing a proper spinner in thatbsituation might have made a difference...
    It's a bit much  complaining about roads when you play at the Oval. 
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    The High Performance review states that the change to three divisions would "ensure that the best play the best". If it were to commence next year then only six of the 17 players that played Test cricket this year would be able to play in the top division and three of the six teams in that division wouldn't have a single Test player. 

    The best versus the best! 
    We’ll I’m sure the thinking is that the best ( those with a central contract) only get assigned to the top 6. Franchise cricket. 

    It really does need smaller divisions, maybe with NFL type scheduling for out off division games, leading to a 4 team playoff. 

    4 divisions of 4 
    Home and away against teams in your division - 6 games
    Home against another division - 4 games
    Away against another division - 4 games

    Everyone in a division has the same opponents. Out of division opponents rotate on a fixed schedule, so you play every out of division team twice over six years. 
  • Options
    The High Performance review states that the change to three divisions would "ensure that the best play the best". If it were to commence next year then only six of the 17 players that played Test cricket this year would be able to play in the top division and three of the six teams in that division wouldn't have a single Test player. 

    The best versus the best! 
    We’ll I’m sure the thinking is that the best ( those with a central contract) only get assigned to the top 6. Franchise cricket. 

    It really does need smaller divisions, maybe with NFL type scheduling for out off division games, leading to a 4 team playoff. 

    4 divisions of 4 
    Home and away against teams in your division - 6 games
    Home against another division - 4 games
    Away against another division - 4 games

    Everyone in a division has the same opponents. Out of division opponents rotate on a fixed schedule, so you play every out of division team twice over six years. 
    I mentioned something similar earlier in the thread and totally agree with you.
    Good players develop through competitive games not by shoehorning the best players into fewer teams with a lot of dead games.
    Give every team the chance to win the title each season. Ramp it up into a year end knockout comp.
  • Options
    edited October 2022
    johnny73 said:
    The High Performance review states that the change to three divisions would "ensure that the best play the best". If it were to commence next year then only six of the 17 players that played Test cricket this year would be able to play in the top division and three of the six teams in that division wouldn't have a single Test player. 

    The best versus the best! 
    We’ll I’m sure the thinking is that the best ( those with a central contract) only get assigned to the top 6. Franchise cricket. 

    It really does need smaller divisions, maybe with NFL type scheduling for out off division games, leading to a 4 team playoff. 

    4 divisions of 4 
    Home and away against teams in your division - 6 games
    Home against another division - 4 games
    Away against another division - 4 games

    Everyone in a division has the same opponents. Out of division opponents rotate on a fixed schedule, so you play every out of division team twice over six years. 
    I mentioned something similar earlier in the thread and totally agree with you.
    Good players develop through competitive games not by shoehorning the best players into fewer teams with a lot of dead games.
    Give every team the chance to win the title each season. Ramp it up into a year end knockout comp.
    It really is the way to go. Gives everyone a bit of hope, at least for the first few games. Given the way elite players disappear for weeks, there’s no reason to believe that any team in the current second division couldn’t beat any team in the first. 

    There’s just not enough teams to beak it down in a meaningful way in terms of quality, but just too many to have everyone play everyone 
  • Options
    However funny it is to see Yorkshire relegated, it's a bit farcical when you consider how strong they would be if their England players played. 

    Even next season, with their best players away with England or franchise cricket, they won't find it that easy in Div 2
  • Options
    Below in green is a table that summarises how unfair the current CC is - the column on the left is the total of the position of those teams that a county has had to play twice i.e. Kent have played the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th placed teams twice and have the lowest total of 16.

    Then look at the total of the top three teams - they've only had to play each other once and Surrey and Hants haven't had to play any of the teams in the top four twice. 

    So a table that showed the strength of opposition played this season would look like this (team with hardest fixtures top)

    1   Kent
    2   Warwickshire
    3   Yorkshire
    4   Somerset
    5   Gloucs
    6   Northants
    7   Essex
    8   Surrey
    9   Lancs
    10 Hants

    image
    Except surrey did much better against the teams at the top than those lower.

    I'd much rather we played Hampshire again (we battered them) than play the likes of Kent Northants Gloucs and Somerset who all produced absolute roads purely to negate us with no hope of a result even if the game had gone on for 3 weeks. Of course playing a proper spinner in thatbsituation might have made a difference...
    It's a bit much  complaining about roads when you play at the Oval. 
    Hasn't been the case for a couple of years. Been proper wickets with enough in them for bat and ball at the Oval. Just compared to how county pitches were before this season they looked comparatively good.  More results at home than away this year.
  • Options
    Below in green is a table that summarises how unfair the current CC is - the column on the left is the total of the position of those teams that a county has had to play twice i.e. Kent have played the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th placed teams twice and have the lowest total of 16.

    Then look at the total of the top three teams - they've only had to play each other once and Surrey and Hants haven't had to play any of the teams in the top four twice. 

    So a table that showed the strength of opposition played this season would look like this (team with hardest fixtures top)

    1   Kent
    2   Warwickshire
    3   Yorkshire
    4   Somerset
    5   Gloucs
    6   Northants
    7   Essex
    8   Surrey
    9   Lancs
    10 Hants

    image
    Except surrey did much better against the teams at the top than those lower.

    I'd much rather we played Hampshire again (we battered them) than play the likes of Kent Northants Gloucs and Somerset who all produced absolute roads purely to negate us with no hope of a result even if the game had gone on for 3 weeks. Of course playing a proper spinner in thatbsituation might have made a difference...
    It's a bit much  complaining about roads when you play at the Oval. 
    Hasn't been the case for a couple of years. Been proper wickets with enough in them for bat and ball at the Oval. Just compared to how county pitches were before this season they looked comparatively good.  More results at home than away this year.
    Oh OK, so Kent did better than I thought in holding on for the draw there this year. I went to the first day and was astonished we put you guys in. Certainly made for painful viewing. 
  • Options
    Harry Finch has signed a pro contract with Kent. Fills a gap and by all accounts keeps wicket (which he will do in the Royal London when Billings and Cox disappear) but I'm really not sure that it's a first discipline so far as he's concerned. In fact, he bowled far more for Sussex than he ever kept as far as I can see.

    One person who will be really pleased is Seb who says that he is a top bloke and was particularly helpful when they got the one opportunity to bat with each other. Ironically, Seb is out in Australia, playing and sharing a place with a lad who was with him at the DLCA last year and who plays with Finch in the Sussex Cricket League for East Grinstead. 


  • Options
    On another note and by way of a final update, Ben Aldred has had defibs fitted out in Australia to prevent a similar incident from happening. He is well on the way to recovery and he is staying out there for a few weeks for monitoring purposes by the hospital. I understand that Ben was even able to play golf the other day with his brother which, after all he and his family have been through, really is good news and it will be great to see him back on the cricket field next season. 
    Thanks for that positive update, AA.

    Onwards & upwards, young Ben.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    Just read 41 year old Michael hogan is signing in the next couple of weeks, whilst Harry podmore is leaving to join Glamorgan. Not sure what to make of that signing! 

    Anyone have any news if  Ollie Robinson (bowler) will be joining up too? 
  • Options
    Just read 41 year old Michael hogan is signing in the next couple of weeks, whilst Harry podmore is leaving to join Glamorgan. Not sure what to make of that signing! 

    Anyone have any news if  Ollie Robinson (bowler) will be joining up too? 
    Swapped a 41 year old for a 46 year old. The latter is a much better batsman but, perhaps, Hogan will be given out LBW during the course of his career after all. 

    Not sure that getting Robinson will be that much of a plus even if he were to join us as he's unlikely to play many games given that he is centrally contracted and has a history of injury. More likely that we will get at least one overseas quick.  
  • Options
    Can’t work out whether that’s good or not for us. 
  • Options
    A weird signing, but Hogan is certainly still good enough to continue.

    Podmore is a nice bloke, but since his injuries seems to have lost some pace?
  • Options
    Seems almost like a straight swap. Hogan for Podmore.

    Surprises me to be honest but what do I know?
  • Options
    Strange move. Assume they have a decent overseas lined up 
  • Options
    edited November 2022
    DubaiCAFC said:
    Strange move. Assume they have a decent overseas lined up 
    I think that Podmore probably felt that, in the last couple of seasons, even when fit that he no longer in the top three or four seamers in the CC and has had very limited opportunities in white ball especially in the Blast. These are the number of overs he's bowled in each of the last five seasons for Ken (CC/Blast/Royal London = Total):

    2018 - 354/2/29 = 385
    2019 - 500/0/71 = 571
    2020 - 118/0/0 = 118
    2021 - 114/7/15 = 136
    2022 - 86/0/30 = 116

    Given the above, the chances are that he only had one year left on his contract and that Kent have indicated that they wouldn't, at this stage anyway, be willing to extend it whereas Glamorgan have given him a two year contract. Podmore also has had two loan spells at Glamorgan so he is familiar with the set up there. From a financial perspective, Podmore leaving frees up a place for someone that Kent might be willing to offer a longer contracted to. 


  • Options
    So, from the perspective of seamers, we've lost Milnes, Stevens and Podmore but gained Evison and there is that rumour about Hogan though I haven't seen any confirmation of his signing. I suspect that we will sign three more quicks with one of those possibly being Hogan and another being an overseas as the cupboard is relatively bare:

    Quinn
    Gilchrist
    Stewart
    Evison
    Singh
    Klaassen (white ball)
    DBD (occasional) 
  • Options
    edited November 2022
    DubaiCAFC said:
    Strange move. Assume they have a decent overseas lined up 
    I think that Podmore probably felt that, in the last couple of seasons, even when fit that he no longer in the top three or four seamers in the CC and has had very limited opportunities in white ball especially in the Blast. These are the number of overs he's bowled in each of the last five seasons for Ken (CC/Blast/Royal London = Total):

    2018 - 354/2/29 = 385
    2019 - 500/0/71 = 571
    2020 - 118/0/0 = 118
    2021 - 114/7/15 = 136
    2022 - 86/0/30 = 116

    Given the above, the chances are that he only had one year left on his contract and that Kent have indicated that they wouldn't, at this stage anyway, be willing to extend it whereas Glamorgan have given him a two year contract. Podmore also has had two loan spells at Glamorgan so he is familiar with the set up there. From a financial perspective, Podmore leaving frees up a place for someone that Kent might be willing to offer a longer contracted to. 


    Did he have an injury around 2020, as there's a massive drop off in his numbers since then? I recall the keeper standing up to him in the 50 over cup, which suggests his pace isn't very rapid these days...
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!