Monty Panesar

[Mick Norris]

Better forecast for Taunton than the Rose Bowl, which is good as 77 years becomes 78 if the reverse applies

[Malcolm Clarke]

Having looked at the ECB website I believe that the priorities for separating teams that finish level on points is a) Most number of wins b) Fewest losses c) Points in games between the two teams

I therefore believe that Warwickshire need 22 points to be certain of winning the title, as they are unlikely to finish above Lancashire as a resut of a) or b). and Lancashire are ahead of Warwickshire by virtue of c). Both Warwickshire and Lancashire are ahead of Durham by virtue of a).

At the other end of the table Hampshire still have a chance of survival if they win and Worcestershire fail to win. However they need 18 points to finish above Yorkshire, and will need to obtain more bonus points than Worcestershire, even if they win and Worcestershire do not.

I think that if Hampshire and Worcestershire finish level on points then Hampshire will be the higher placed team due to b).

Interesting to note that Chris Wright is now playing for Warwickshire as he was bought up in Hampshire, and I remember him playing for Liphook and Ripsley at 15 years old, when I thought he was as good at batting as he was at bowling. Chris was I believe the only one who played in the win against Nottinghamshire, who did not play in the loss against Hampshire, although I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong.



I

[Alex Holowczak]

At the other end of the table Hampshire still have a chance of survival if they win and Worcestershire fail to win. However they need 18 points to finish above Yorkshire, and will need to obtain more bonus points than Worcestershire, even if they win and Worcestershire do not.

I don't think Hampshire will beat Warwickshire, unless it becomes apparent that Warwickshire need to win to take the title, so they start to gamble with an aggressive declaration or with an optimistic run chase.

I'd hope that Worcestershire get the 6 points they need to survive regardless!

Worcestershire are only ahead of Hampshire really due to superior bonus point accumulation and Hampshire's 8-point penalty; Hampshire's extra 5 draws effectively cancel out Worcestershire's extra win.

[Malcolm Clarke]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Worcestershire need 8 points to be absolutely sure of staying up. If they get 7, and Hampshire get 24, then the two teams will finish level on points, but Hampshire will finish higher because of the point b) made in my previous post.

[Mick Norris]

Having looked at the ECB website I believe that the priorities for separating teams that finish level on points is a) Most number of wins b) Fewest losses c) Points in games between the two teams

I therefore believe that Warwickshire need 22 points to be certain of winning the title, as they are unlikely to finish above Lancashire as a resut of a) or b). and Lancashire are ahead of Warwickshire by virtue of c). Both Warwickshire and Lancashire are ahead of Durham by virtue of a).

That agrees with the info on the BBC website - usually though, Lancs don't get maximum batting points, although I suppose the wicket at Taunton is better than the ones they usually play on

If neither team had been deducted points, however, the maths would have been different

A Durham win, Lancs draw and Warks loss would leave Durham a point ahead of both Lancs and Warks and bonus points deciding it - maybe too dramatic

[Malcolm Clarke]

I think that the county championship has been very unpredictable in recent weeks. Having scored 241 runs for the loss of 19 wickets against Worcestershire, and obtained no batting points, Lancashire scored 741 for the loss of 13 wickets against Hampshire, and obtained 4 batting points.

Warwickshire on the other hand scored 574 for 7 against Nottinghamshire, having scored 348 for 20 on the same ground against Hampshire, with virtually the same team.

Somerset have lost their last two games. I believe there is a possibility of Nick Compton returning to their team after injury, but Marcus Trescothick is almost certainly still out.

If Worcestershire draw they are likely to pick up bonus points on the way, which would make Hampshire's task even more difficult. However Worcestershire have not exactly been the championship's draw experts.

[Alex Holowczak]

If Worcestershire draw they are likely to pick up bonus points on the way, which would make Hampshire's task even more difficult. However Worcestershire have not exactly been the championship's draw experts.

You're right that it's 24, and that they need 8 points. I have nearly got a degree in Maths...

I find it hard to believe Hampshire will get 24 points. I believe that the only way they can win is by Warwickshire over-pressing for a win if necessity dictates. In which case, they'll probably get 20-22 points for their win.

[David Robertson]

That Warks v Hants result takes some explaining. Magic mushrooms in the salad? What else? It had shades of Hampshire's all-time record-breaking win over Warwickshire. Please, never again!

But truly, while I do hope my county-of-birth and lifelong affection are rewarded this week, having been favorites for relegation in April, I'd not be unhappy if my county-of-residence, and yearly fancied 'favorites' to win the Championship, were actually to prevail at last.

And if Warwickshire do prevail, what can be said of Wright? A cast-off by Essex and others; drafted in 'on loan' as emergency cover by Warks; takes 19 wickets in three crucial matches. Talk about making the most of one's opportunity. And ditto, what of Kerrigan of Lancs. Twenty years old and couldn't get a game; blocked out by Keedy; takes 9-51 in his one chance for weeks. Brilliant. Warks plan to sign Keedy (aged 37) for next season. Can't see why. We have Metters and Paul Best; and Giles to help them. I'd take Kerrigan though

ps what happened to Briggs? He was touted last year; seems to have faded

[Malcolm Clarke]

Danny Briggs appears certain to play tomorrow, especially with Imran Tahir unavailable.

He missed a couple of matches through injury, and then Hampshire named an unchanged team after matches they won.

Earlier in the season he became the second youngest English bowler to reach 100 first class wickets (after Derek Underwood). Last month he achieved his best ever 20/20 figures when he took 5 for 19 against Durham.

I live 5 miles from the Rose Bowl, and weather today has been a mixture of sunshine and showers, but is O.K. at the moment.

[David Robertson]

I don't mind what happens, as long as the weather holds off - and Warwickshire don't put me through a repeat of this

http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Score ... 10456.html

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Surprised to see no discussion of the tied (by the D/L method!) ODI between England and India:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/14871439.stm

Lots of talking points there.

[Phil Neatherway]

My wife and I were at Lord's yesterday, having splashed out my life savings on 2 tickets.

I was surprised that D/L made it a tie. I should have thought that India were strong favourites until the rain came.

[Richard Bates]

My wife and I were at Lord's yesterday, having splashed out my life savings on 2 tickets.

I was surprised that D/L made it a tie. I should have thought that India were strong favourites until the rain came.

An unavoidable 'flaw' in D/L is that it necessarily assumes that the team batting first have made a "par" score. So if a team batting first bats badly D/L can still have the game closer than reality until fairly late in the game. And if the team batting first bat well then it can exaggerate the strength of the position of the chasing team. Nevertheless on a good batting pitch 10 off 7 balls will usually be seen as eminently gettable for a chasing side these days. The fact that it was a tie was because England were 8 wickets down.

India were probably favourites but only because England were down to the absolute tail, Bopara having just holed out (and Broad was injured). But D/L obviously can't make judgements about the quality of batting to come, just as it can't factor in whether there is still a powerplay outstanding or the quality of the bowling to come. Or indeed things like the size of the ground and/or the ease of hitting boundaries. All it can do is factor in the shortage of wickets remaining and therefore the possibility that England might be bowled out.

[Mick Norris]

Latest scores

Durham 264 and Worcs 225 for 3

Warks 408 for 6 against Hants

Does the combined effect of the bonus points yet mean Hants are down?

Somerset 380 and Lancs 104 for 1

Beginning to look all over for Durham, anyone idea how the bonus points were for Warks and Lancs in the first 110 overs of their matches?

[Malcolm Clarke]

I believe that Warwickshire got 3 batting points, and Lancashire 2 bowling points. If Worcestershire get 3 batting bonus points (300 runs) that would put Hampshire down. However they have already got 2, and at 255 for 3, and with plenty of overs before the 110 allocation is up, there is a good chance that Hampshire will be down by bthe end of the day.