stevegrant

Wish I'd waited a few days to get mine now, in block 20 which is on the side rather than behind the goal

Yeah, a couple of hours of play has turned this game from "formality" to "tricky chase". Jack Shantry has his maiden century (previous best of 55 in 56 matches), and Worcestershire put on 179 for the 8th and 9th wicket. 216 ahead with the last man in. Edit: 217 to win, last man out, leaving Shantry stranded on 101.

They'd still be 20 points behind Worcestershire, so would need to win well and hope Worcestershire get smashed in their last game.

And Essex duly win inside 3 overs. That's Kent now mathematically out of the running, so I guess we could see them make a few changes to their team when they head to the Rose Bowl next week. I'd fancy us to beat them anyway, but if they're chucking a couple of rookies in place of some experienced players as well, that's a bonus

With the Saeed Ajmal news over the last couple of days, I wonder whether Worcestershire would be anywhere near promotion without him bowling his now-proven-illegal action? His record for them in first class games is incredible, they won 5 of the 9 games he played in, drawing the other 4, and he took 63 wickets at a frankly insane average of 16.31. We could have had promotion wrapped up already had his action been tested sooner.

Highly rated by them, apparently not so much by anyone else, they were pretty much publicly hawking him for sale in January as they thought they'd lose him for **** all in the summer, but nobody seemed to show any actual interest, so he signed a new contract with them.

Lovely finish

For who?

We may well lose on Monday, but this is probably the best Swiss team in their history (not saying a massive amount, admittedly, but they are no mugs), and let's face it, this qualifying campaign is the dictionary definition of "going through the motions". We'll beat all four of the other teams in our group, and it doesn't matter whether we top the group or not as both qualify automatically. Who would you replace him with? Assuming the FA wants to stick with an Englishman, there really are no outstanding candidates.

If anything illustrates just how far they've fallen, it's this tweet:

That would require Essex to win three games in a row with maximum points secured in each, though - they've only had a 24-pointer once all season, and they've only actually won 4 games.

Yeah, pretty much. The only system changes were ever made by necessity, i.e. if someone got injured. While having a "philosophy" is admirable, someone else could read it as "being a one-trick pony". Even the best teams alter their tactics to cater for specific threats the opposition pose, to fail to do so is almost a wilful negligence. Sure, you want to impose your own game on the opposition, but they're not going to stand back and let you walk through them, and they're going to pose their own threats going the other way.

So don't watch it, nobody's forcing you Rooney won't be in the team in four years' time, Hodgson will retire after the Euros, Rooney will have surpassed Bobby Charlton's goalscoring record with hat tricks home and away against San Marino and a late consolation against France in the quarter-finals so he'll **** off as well.

By way of a proper comparison, I now have the figures from the Denmark game in March, a comparable friendly fixture against similarly mediocre Scandanavian opposition on a Wednesday night. An average of 4.5m watched last night's game, compared to an average of 5.5m for the Denmark game, so a 20% decrease from March.

I assume the point being made is that he wasn't our top scorer last season

Considering the vast majority of people in this country seem to have absolutely nothing but fluff in between their ears these days, I think it's a reasonable assertion to make. It's only "worth mentioning" if there's a context, you're comparing apples with oranges.

Juventus paid 100% of his wages when he was on loan there last season, with no loan fee involved. I would fully expect it to be the same with Inter this season, especially with the relatively small 7m Euro option-to-buy fee.

So? I'm sure X Factor or Strictly Come Dancing probably have more viewers than an England qualifier when they're both on at the same time. What were the viewing figures for the Denmark friendly back in March? Comparable matches against mediocre Scandanavian opposition on a Wednesday night.

Redknapp would have Crouch and Defoe up front, with Lampard as captain (he wouldn't have retired if Uncle 'Arry was in charge). This is why I despair at how much gravitas is given to the international captaincy. No other nation seems to give as much of a **** as we do, and the problem with nominating somebody is that that person is more or less guaranteed to be picked regardless of their form. Rooney's form so far this season does not justify a place in the starting XI right now, IMO. We need to decide on a system that we are going to play and actually stick to it. There's no point chopping and changing all the time. We played a 4-5-1/4-3-3 system all through qualifying for the World Cup, then made a relatively late (but not completely mental given the personnel) switch to 4-2-3-1 in time for the tournament itself, and now we're back to a sort-of-fluid 4-4-2 with the midfield expanding and contracting to wide and narrow at various points. Apparently Trevor Brooking has said that all of the under-age teams are being brought through to play a 4-3-3 system - if that's the case, the seniors should be playing that as well. That way, when the kids become good enough to get in the seniors, they are well-versed in the system they're going to play. The return of Theo Walcott will make a massive difference, I think. I don't think even Oxlade-Chamberlain himself knows whether he's a central midfielder with a bit of pace or a winger with a bit of strength anymore, he's got the attributes to be either, but when it comes to actually playing he just doesn't seem to perform for England. I think we're a decent side when we've got the ball, the problem is when we haven't got it. Our defenders are all reactionary rather than instinctive. Even John Terry, as good as he was in his prime, is one to throw his body in the way of everything rather than having the instinct and ability to simply be in the right place when it matters so such desperate defending isn't necessary. Rio Ferdinand was probably the best defender we've had in recent years because of his reading of the game and anticipation. I don't see many of the defenders in contention for the senior squad who have those sort of attributes, they all seem to be "recovery" defenders rather than "anticipation" ones. Perhaps Calum Chambers will become that sort of defender, but they can't throw him in there yet and expect it to happen overnight, which is why I thought it would have been better for him to be in the under-21s, which would still be a promotion for him. Then of course we get onto the issue of the centre of midfield. Attacking midfielders seem to be plentiful, and we've got a few who can do a bit of everything, the likes of Henderson, Delph, Wilshere, etc, but none of them are disciplined enough to be that screen in front of the back 4. There's a case for saying that Jack Cork fits that bill, but unless he's playing regularly for us, I don't think anyone can realistically expect him to be getting a game for England. Gareth Barry would be a good option, I think, but for whatever reason he seems to be completely out of Hodgson's thinking. He had a terrible 2010 World Cup (along with many others), but from what I remember he was injured at the start of the tournament and evidently never got 100% fit before he got torn to bits by the Germans. Depends what you mean by "struggle". We'll qualify for tournaments and then it's down to the draw and performances in those games. Expecting to win tournaments isn't realistic in the short term, nor has it been realistic since Euro 2004 when we did have a genuinely good team, and it does seem as if people have finally accepted this. One problem is that while some people are content to lessen their expectations, many take that as a sign that we're not ambitious enough and complain at every small detail. The same applies at club level, selling a player for ridiculous sums of money to a bigger club is seen as a club lacking ambition, rather than one taking a "one step backwards, two steps forward" approach by reinvesting that money sensibly, and not just chucking it down a drain.

Yeah, possibly. If the amount you earned last month was replicated over a full year, and that amount took you over the threshold, they may have taxed you on that basis. Once it gets to April and you've not earned enough to be paying PAYE, you should get it back.

Have you just started a new job? If so, it's possible that the HR department failed to complete the paperwork (probably an online system these days) in time for them to receive an up-to-date tax code for you which would ensure their system would calculate the right amount of tax (i.e. zero). As a result, you've probably been put on an "emergency tax" code, which generally taxes you at the standard PAYE rate. You should get a rebate on that, but you'll probably have to wait until the end of the tax year in April.

*shudders*

So why did you bother watching it then? Genuine question, if you've already decided what you think before watching a game, why waste 2 hours of your life?

After tax, perhaps.

Leicestershire haven't won a County Championship game for two years It does come to something when going to Derbyshire is seen as a step up!