Bonus Points in CCh

[Kev]

Are Bonus Points in the County Championship worthwhile?

Personally I'm not sure they are. I'd like to see more positive play in the county championship and I feel that sometimes teams settle for a high scoring draw rather than go for a win.

Could teams that play their home games at grounds with small outfields could be advantaged over those who play at a ground with large outfields? As it should be easier to reach 400 regularly if you play on a small ground (I have not studied this to see if it is the case, maybe I will, the results could be interesting).

Also I often wonder why a team that scores a low total in its first innings but then goes on to get a good score in the second is penalised over a team with 2 average scores. Is scoring 500+ in your second innings not more impressive than 2 scores of around 300?

The quality of the wicket can play a big part in matches, as can the weather (especially this year, groundsmen must be tearing their hair out), why should a team lose out because it was overcast for their first innings when the rest of the match was played under clear skies?

On occasion this season a team that has lost a match has come away with more points (or at least equal points) to another team (in a different match) that has drawn, how can this be fair? Surely a Draw should always score more than a loss whatever the match situation.

Here is a quick table I knocked up for Div1, additional to the usual info, I've included totals without bonus points.

Interestingly the bottom half of the table is pretty much as is, but the top half is completely re-shuffled. (Ok this isn't scientific as teams may have adopted different strategies and thus results may have been different).

So what is to be done?

Should bonus points be scrapped? Should they count for both innings rather than just the first? Should they count for less than the 130 overs they do currently, maybe for just the first 80 overs? Should the scores currently given for win/loss or draw be adjusted to make bonus points less crucial? Or do you like them as they are?

 

[MUFC1987]

I like them as they are, teams should be rewarded for performing well. Under your proposal, a team could score 600, bowl a team out for 100, sit around for 2 days in rain and come away with the same points, how is that fair?

 

[Kev]

Funny, I dont recall proposing a system, I merely put some points across and asked for opinions

But to take your example and change it slightly.

Team A scores 600 (although under the current system they get no more points for 600 than 400)
Team B scores 100
Team A enforces follow-on and Team B scores enough to make Team A bat again
The game probably ends in a draw as we've run out of time. Team B have proved they are equal to Team A, especially if pitch conditions/weather had a factor in their poor first innings performance.

 

[andrew_nixon]

I've always thought that bonus points should be used as goal difference is in football, ie. to break ties in points.

So in Kev's table above, Yorkshire would take third ahead of Hampshire.

 

[Kev]

That I like as an option, as without any bonus points at all you obviously need something to separate teams on equal points.

 

[MUFC1987]

So what is to be done?

Should bonus points be scrapped? Should they count for both innings rather than just the first? Should they count for less than the 130 overs they do currently, maybe for just the first 80 overs? Should the scores currently given for win/loss or draw be adjusted to make bonus points less crucial? Or do you like them as they are?

Sounds like a proposal to me.

Funny, I dont recall proposing a system, I merely put some points across and asked for opinions

But to take your example and change it slightly.

Team A scores 600 (although under the current system they get no more points for 600 than 400)
Team B scores 100
Team A enforces follow-on and Team B scores enough to make Team A bat again
The game probably ends in a draw as we've run out of time. Team B have proved they are equal to Team A, especially if pitch conditions/weather had a factor in their poor first innings performance.

'Pitch conditions/weather', they're professional Cricketers, to use that as an excuse is pathetic in my opinion. Your example is perhaps just as extreme as mine, but the point stands, why should Team B get the same amount of points for say 1 and a half days of good cricket, when team A has played well for 2 and a half days?

Bonus points are a good idea, as they reflect performance. It's impossible to get them without doing well, or at least OK, so I fail to see your problem with them. Sure it might make games more exciting, but that happens anyway when Captains want it too, so it's more a mental thing than just dangling more points in front of people.

 

[Kev]

Sounds like a proposal to me.

If you ignore the questions that follow it. I just dont think they work as they are. If you give them then why not for the entire match, why just the first innings? Surely second innings performance is just as valid as the first.

I'd also like to add something else into the mix, under the current rules if there is no play for the first 3 days but play on the final day the game is reduced to a single innings match with no bonus points counting. Whats the point of this? You are never going to get a result in a day and are almost certain to get a draw, with no bonus points for this match, whats the point of even playing on the 4th day?

 

[MUFC1987]

If you ignore the questions that follow it. I just dont think they work as they are. If you give them then why not for the entire match, why just the first innings? Surely second innings performance is just as valid as the first.

If you make them for both innings then teams will make it more negative, as where is the advantage of winning by an innings if it means you can get less bonus points? All teams have to have a first innings, so it's fair.

 

[Kev]

Under that case maybe extra bonus points could be awarded for an innings victory.

 

[MUFC1987]

Then that would be ridiculous. We'd have one team with about 60 bonus points from one match.

 

[Kev]

Obviously if points were to be awarded for both innings the value of points would have to change. So you'd have to give more points for the win or the draw to balance it out a bit.

 

[MUFC1987]

In that case I agree, it would be farcical, having lots of points in play is a bit over the top, but with 8 per game to win, it's hardly a big deal and rewards teams for games which are hampered by the weather, which is quite a few in this country.

 

[Kev]

But look at the table as it is, Yorkshire are leading whereas Sussex have won more games and lost less. Yorkshire are sitting on top basically because of 1st innings batting performances alone (as bowling points are only 1 different). Surely winning matches should be rewarded to a greater extent than being able to pass 400.

You said earlier that to use conditions as an excuse is pathetic, but the fact of the matter is some pitches will produce big scores and some wont no matter how professional you are if the wicket is a 250 wicket then its a 250 wicket. I'll give you a real world example of this, yesterday I watched Kent v Surrey in the Pro40. Kent scored 159-8 in their 40 overs, now some might say that thats a low score and a poor performance and perhaps it was, but Surrey managed to win only on the last ball and with only 1 wicket remaining, so perhaps 160 was about par for the conditions. Now if that wicket had been used for a CCh match then it would have been unlikely to produce a high scoring match ending in a draw but instead probably could have produced a cracker of a match ending inside 4 days easily. What would I rather watch - a high scoring draw or a low scoring result? Give me the result any day.

 

[Sureshot]

The system is clearly wrong.

....

 

[Kev]

Well I've lost the bet I made with myself (Is that even possible!!!!!!) I hadn't expected it to last past the first hour without a sussex fan entering