Hampshire CCC 2025

[Weston Saint]

1 hour ago, Andrew Watson said:

Somerset get just a 4 point deduction for a game that lasted  for  just 156 overs and during which 35 wickets fell. Hampshire have a game which lasts 209 overs for 31 wickets and the runs per wicket were similar and yet  Somerset  get 4 points suspended and a 4 point deduction,we get an 8 point deduction, why ? 

Hampshire had a previous poor pitch in last 24 months so got 8 point deduction, which is the normal. They are also now on a suspended 24 point deduction for any further offence during 2026. Believe it or not Somerset was first offence for last 24 months so got 4 of the 8 points deducted suspended.  

Case Outcome: Hampshire CCC

Case outcome: Somerset CCC

[Andrew Watson]

Thanks Ron.

[Picard]

The women have lost their final. Just need Hants relegation for a full house.

[Window Cleaner]

Didn't see the game on Saturday but batting first in a rain reduced limited overs game rarely leads to success.

Seems to be the same problem we've had all season, we're a decent bowler short for one reason or another.

As I said during the first game actually played of the season, my preferred dose of Wheal is absolutely none whatsoever. A very undisciplined bowler, short and wide most of the time. He should be cut loose to go and play for Scotland second XI or something.

As far as the point's deduction is concerned, well we've got previous as they say in some circles. I think we may need to reassess the number of matches played at the Utilita. There are obviously far too many for a quality wicket each time. 

[Dusic]

On 08/07/2025 at 10:46, stevegrant said:

No idea if it'll be any good and I don't know Rich Edwards so have no skin in the game here, but just seen that a new subscription-based Hampshire cricket news service has just launched: https://thehawk.counterpress.media/

£5 a month, will be interesting to see how it goes. He's certainly right when he says that coverage of the domestic game is pretty thin on the ground these days so there's definitely space for something like this if it's done well.

Does anyone subscribe to this and have any feedback? He certainly seems to put out quite a lot of content and is close to the club/squad.

The club coverage is pretty limited apart from the X updates during matches.

Edited Monday at 12:08 by Dusic

[John B]

8 hours ago, Window Cleaner said:

Didn't see the game on Saturday but batting first in a rain reduced limited overs game rarely leads to success.

Seems to be the same problem we've had all season, we're a decent bowler short for one reason or another.

As I said during the first game actually played of the season, my preferred dose of Wheal is absolutely none whatsoever. A very undisciplined bowler, short and wide most of the time. He should be cut loose to go and play for Scotland second XI or something.

As far as the point's deduction is concerned, well we've got previous as they say in some circles. I think we may need to reassess the number of matches played at the Utilita. There are obviously far too many for a quality wicket each time. 

We do not seem to have any young seam bowlers who are regularly particularly accurate 

[Picard]

Looking like a points deduction wicket. (Rob White who is officiating today was at Hants two previous points deduction matches.)

[Window Cleaner]

3 hours ago, Picard said:

Looking like a points deduction wicket. (Rob White who is officiating today was at Hants two previous points deduction matches.)

Doubt it, not our fault if Surrey couldn't be arsed to bat correctly, they chose to bat first. Quite a good start for us, Gubbins has just been bowled though. Lawrence's action should be banned for impersonating a carnaval nut job !!

[John B]

3 hours ago, Window Cleaner said:

Doubt it, not our fault if Surrey couldn't be arsed to bat correctly, 

Or turn up with a decent team

[Gloucester Saint]

7 hours ago, Picard said:

Looking like a points deduction wicket. (Rob White who is officiating today was at Hants two previous points deduction matches.)

Hants batted fine on it though. Surrey have been flaky with the bat recently as Notts found. 

[Dark Munster]

Can someone explain what is the criteria for a points deduction for a "poor wicket"? I can see if no teams gets above 150, but for the Sussex match they almost made it to 300 in their first innings, and had a player make a century.

[John B]

8 hours ago, Dark Munster said:

Can someone explain what is the criteria for a points deduction for a "poor wicket"? I can see if no teams gets above 150, but for the Sussex match they almost made it to 300 in their first innings, and had a player make a century.

Ask Nick Gubbens I do not think he was happy about his dismissal

[Lighthouse]

So after starting the day in an excellent position, we’re 11-3 in the first three overs…

[Dusic]

Will certainly be a result then! Next 2 hours of play will probably decide the game...

[Lighthouse]

We might not even get a batting point at this rate. Will probably take a lead of around 100 into the second half but f**k me we should have been out of sight by tea today.

[Dark Munster]

248 all out. Zero batting points. That could be the difference between staying up and going down. 

[Andrew Watson]

Washington apart, what a spineless crock of ----. Deserve to go down.

[badgerx16]

34 minutes ago, Dark Munster said:

248 all out. Zero batting points. That could be the difference between staying up and going down. 

I think it's as simple as we win, we stay up. Can Surrey bat as poorly for a second time ?

[Dark Munster]

25 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

I think it's as simple as we win, we stay up. Can Surrey bat as poorly for a second time ?

A win was always going to be enough. I just had a look at the table. Maybe the dropped batting point doesn’t matter. If Hants and Durham both draw (or lose) then they both have the same number of points and wins (assuming Durham get 3 bowling points), but Hants finish above them on fewer losses I think.

So I think a draw is probably enough. If so, Hants finish above Durham if they draw or lose, and finish above Yorkshire if Durham wins (and Yorkshire gets less than 400 in their first innings.)

Edited 31 minutes ago by Dark Munster

[Lighthouse]

So 94-7 this morning then. Pathetic, when it really mattered most.