Weston Saint Posted Sunday at 15:11 Posted Sunday at 15:11 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 1
Picard Posted Sunday at 17:52 Posted Sunday at 17:52 The women have lost their final. Just need Hants relegation for a full house. 1
Window Cleaner Posted Monday at 08:07 Author Posted Monday at 08:07 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 Posted Monday at 12:07 Posted Monday at 12:07 (edited) 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 Posted Monday at 16:21 Posted Monday at 16:21 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 Posted 19 hours ago Posted 19 hours ago Looking like a points deduction wicket. (Rob White who is officiating today was at Hants two previous points deduction matches.)
Window Cleaner Posted 16 hours ago Author Posted 16 hours ago 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 !! 1
John B Posted 12 hours ago Posted 12 hours ago 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 1
Gloucester Saint Posted 12 hours ago Posted 12 hours ago 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. 1
Dark Munster Posted 9 hours ago Posted 9 hours ago 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 Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 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
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now