Test Cricket: England v India

[Paul McKeown]

Worcs. 209/6 with a decent partnership going at stumps. Seems like Lancs. are having a bad day...

and as for Middx. - Leics., looks like Middx. might win by an innings....

[Alex Holowczak]

Worcs. 209/6 with a decent partnership going at stumps. Seems like Lancs. are having a bad day...

and as for Middx. - Leics., looks like Middx. might win by an innings....

Cameron and Scott batted well. Although, better Zimbabweans than Cameron have played for Worcestershire over the years...

Warwickshire fought back well against Yorkshire, Yorkshire were doing well at 150odd for 1. Good day for their title push.

[David Robertson]

Come on, you Bears!

I'm the Warwickshire supporter here. They were down 1-182 today but fought back with 7-70 by the end. Seems to have been like that all season - apart from that recent calamity v.Hants. I don't know about the miracle of Worcs staying up with their squad. But if Warks win the Championship with theirs, it really will be a miracle

[Phil Neatherway]

I wonder what difference it makes if your county hosts international matches. For example, did Warwickshire make a financial killing out of the Edgbaston Test? If they did, then that should make it easier to assemble a decent squad. My own county (Sussex) doesn't have a ground suitable for internationals, and there never seems to be much money.

[Alex Holowczak]

I wonder what difference it makes if your county hosts international matches. For example, did Warwickshire make a financial killing out of the Edgbaston Test? If they did, then that should make it easier to assemble a decent squad. My own county (Sussex) doesn't have a ground suitable for internationals, and there never seems to be much money.

Any money that Edgbaston made in the Test will probably be countered by the fact they had to completely redevelop half their ground in order to get it!

I wonder what the impact of gate receipts might be. We're seeing in football that the big investors are going for clubs in centres of population. For example, Manchester City and Chelsea. Even QPR because it's in London, despite not having much history of success.

To that extent, I'd expect Warwickshire, Surrey and Lancashire to be the better teams, particularly in the era of overseas players and pulling-power. It's far easier to encourage someone to play for your county by living in south-west London than it is for Taunton!

Bigger grounds can have more income in terms of gate receipts, but equally their ground takes more money to maintain. So swings and roundabouts, I think.

It's quite interesting how they chose the Minor v Major counties, all those years ago. I'd have thought places like Berkshire and Staffordshire would be far more major than places like Worcestershire and Glamorgan. I would have thought Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire could field decent sides just from the University.

[Mick Norris]

I wonder what the impact of gate receipts might be. We're seeing in football that the big investors are going for clubs in centres of population. For example, Manchester City and Chelsea. Even QPR because it's in London, despite not having much history of success.

To that extent, I'd expect Warwickshire, Surrey and Lancashire to be the better teams, particularly in the era of overseas players and pulling-power. It's far easier to encourage someone to play for your county by living in south-west London than it is for Taunton!

Bigger grounds can have more income in terms of gate receipts, but equally their ground takes more money to maintain. So swings and roundabouts, I think.

Gate receipts would have to be coming from 1 day matches, as county championship matches don't get crowds

Hosting Test matches makes a big difference, Lancs have suffered recently from this, and the need to redevelop Old Trafford that has been held up by planning disputes for years - ironically, Lancs now have a small squad and yet are doing better this season, although they haven't won the county champs outright since, I think, 1934 and jointly since, I think, 1950

[Alex Holowczak]

Worcestershire win: http://www.espncricinfo.com/county-cric ... 92147.html

161 and 80 versus 237 and 5/0. Game over before tea on day 2. I sense Worcestershire could be losing a lot of points from the pitch inspectors about this.

[Mick Norris]

Worcestershire win: http://www.espncricinfo.com/county-cric ... 92147.html

161 and 80 versus 237 and 5/0. Game over before tea on day 2. I sense Worcestershire could be losing a lot of points from the pitch inspectors about this.

And it could have cost Lancs the title, although they only have themselves to blame for playing badly

[David Robertson]

I'd have a touch of sympathy for Worcs if they do lose points, even after what looks to be a very dodgy result. But only a touch, after their whining at Warks' expense earlier in the season

[Mick Norris]

Lancashire head coach Peter Moores told BBC Radio Manchester:

"We batted poorly in both innings so we've got no complaints and we played poorly.

"We just didn't get enough runs on the board to put any sort of pressure on.

"The pitch had a little bit in it but we lost five wickets in the two innings to full, straight balls which you just cannot afford to do."

What he fails to mention is that Lancs haven't really batted well all season, as 28 batting points in 14 matches would testify

[Malcolm Clarke]

I wonder if the pitch panel were present, as I know that they were for the match against Nottinghamshire, at the end of which Hampshire had points deducted. At that stage there were already concerns about the wickets Hampshire were preparing.

I expect that Worcestershire's next home match against Sussex will be scrutinised carefully, especially as Sussex might not be completely safe from relegation if they lose to Durham, and Hampshire beat Somerset.

Looking at the first two days in which play was possible in last week's Hampshire v Worcestershire match, 467 runs were scored for the loss of 26 wickets, whereas in the Worcestershire v Lancashire match it was 483 runs for 29 wickets, which some people might argue is not a great difference, especially as it was Lancashire's opening batsman who did not bat in today's second innings.

It is perhaps ironic that Warwickshire had eight points deducted as a result of what happened in the home match against Worcestershire.

[Mick Norris]

I wonder what the impact of gate receipts might be. We're seeing in football that the big investors are going for clubs in centres of population. For example, Manchester City and Chelsea. Even QPR because it's in London, despite not having much history of success.

To that extent, I'd expect Warwickshire, Surrey and Lancashire to be the better teams, particularly in the era of overseas players and pulling-power. It's far easier to encourage someone to play for your county by living in south-west London than it is for Taunton!

Bigger grounds can have more income in terms of gate receipts, but equally their ground takes more money to maintain. So swings and roundabouts, I think.

Gate receipts would have to be coming from 1 day matches, as county championship matches don't get crowds

Hosting Test matches makes a big difference, Lancs have suffered recently from this, and the need to redevelop Old Trafford that has been held up by planning disputes for years - ironically, Lancs now have a small squad and yet are doing better this season, although they haven't won the county champs outright since, I think, 1934 and jointly since, I think, 1950

Of course, Lancs have a thriving membership scheme......................

[Alex Holowczak]

Dramatic news in South Africa.

There's a Test Match going on at the moment where Australia made 284, then South Africa collapsed in reply to 96 all out. Australia's number 3 (a guy called Marsh) is injured, but no big deal it seems. Looking good for the Aussies as they came out to bat a second time...

Anyway, as I write, Australia are on the ropes at 21 FOR 8! Marsh is injured and has come out to bat at number 10 with Peter Siddle. Only Nathan Lyon to come.

Australia's lowest score in Tests is 36; the lowest ever in Tests is 26 by New Zealand. Could be history!

Here is the link to the Cricinfo page: http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-afric ... 14029.html

[Alex Holowczak]

And now 21 for 9! Marsh out lbw on a review!

[Alex Holowczak]

They've now ambled past 26 to 29/9, so they've avoided the lowest Test score of all-time.