Lancashire League Cricket

[Mondsley]

Another stat this year is the number of games rained off. Lowerhouse have lost the least with just three but two clubs, Enfield and Walsden have had eight washed out.

On the subject of Walsden, what was the crime they committed that cost them sixteen points?

Just says breach of league rules on the League website. I've a feeling they fielded an ineligible player in the Cup. But I may be wrong. There are a couple of Walsden members who post on here who I am sure will know.

[UnionBurnley]

UTH

[Andreshotboots]

Just says breach of league rules on the League website. I've a feeling they fielded an ineligible player in the Cup. But I may be wrong. There are a couple of Walsden members who post on here who I am sure will know.

I'm sure it was something to do with allegedly trying to count a banned players suspension game, for a game that was washed out..

[arise_sir_charge]

I'm sure it was something to do with allegedly trying to count a banned players suspension game, for a game that was washed out..

Thats right.

They played a player who was banned, wrongly believing his ban to have been served. As such his ban was still active and they lost then points gained in all the games he had played.

[wbfc]

One of the players got a ban ...he was suspended for 1 game ebd of last season and I think 2 or 3 ganes were carried over ...it was thought a washed out game counted as one of the games ...which would seem reasonable when the game is not replayed and 3 points are awarded which is where the 16 point penalty came from

But we also got thrown out of the cup we were in the quarter finals due to the same incident which I do not know the reason for...he did play in an earlier round may be something to do with that

Seems a very harsh penalty..apparently Ramsbottom did something similar when they won the cup but they were not treated the same way

I think relegation looks more likely than not ....the table never lies ...hopefully a better season and weather next year

[Burnley1989]

One of the players got a ban ...he was suspended for 1 game ebd of last season and I think 2 or 3 ganes were carried over ...it was thought a washed out game counted as one of the games ...which would seem reasonable when the game is not replayed and 3 points are awarded which is where the 16 point penalty came from

But we also got thrown out of the cup we were in the quarter finals due to the same incident which I do not know the reason for...he did play in an earlier round may be something to do with that

Seems a very harsh penalty..apparently Ramsbottom did something similar when they won the cup but they were not treated the same way

I think relegation looks more likely than not ....the table never lies ...hopefully a better season and weather next year

Will walk that second division, some really good players if they all stick around

[arise_sir_charge]

One of the players got a ban ...he was suspended for 1 game ebd of last season and I think 2 or 3 ganes were carried over ...it was thought a washed out game counted as one of the games ...which would seem reasonable when the game is not replayed and 3 points are awarded which is where the 16 point penalty came from

But we also got thrown out of the cup we were in the quarter finals due to the same incident which I do not know the reason for...he did play in an earlier round may be something to do with that

Seems a very harsh penalty..apparently Ramsbottom did something similar when they won the cup but they were not treated the same way

I think relegation looks more likely than not ....the table never lies ...hopefully a better season and weather next year

I don’t recall Ramsbottom doing the same or a Sonia or thing.

This season, Ramsbottom knowingly played a banned player in a second XI cup game but they lost the game. As they couldn’t be kicked out of the cup they received a £500 fine.

Walsden are still a very decent side. I can see them staying up with two wins in their last 3.

[Quickenthetempo]

Seems a very strange rule, if you say 3pts awarded and not replayed.

I'm sure the rules will cover such instances though and the clubs can change if deemed unfair.

[arise_sir_charge]

Seems a very strange rule, if you say 3pts awarded and not replayed.

I'm sure the rules will cover such instances though and the clubs can change if deemed unfair.

It’s been the rule as long as I can remember. Ordinarily nobody would notice it but in a season like this one with so many no results it perhaps seems harsher.

The LL clubs vote in all the rules so if anything needs changing it’s up-to a club to present the change and then it gets voted on.

[Clarets4me]

Radio Lancashire's Sport programme last night had the previously mentioned Keith Roscoe ( 61 ) as special guest ....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0g4lst1

[jrgbfc]

Bad day for the House yesterday with Burnley and Darwen both winning.

[Blue Skies]

Thanks to Arise I checked the website as he alluded to. The results are the same but the Rosegrove contingent do not come on here telling us the results. Especially when they are not in their favour. I would always prefer Burnley or Lower House to win the League than a Blackburn based club. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be reciprocated.

[Bigbopper]

Thanks to Arise I checked the website as he alluded to. The results are the same but the Rosegrove contingent do not come on here telling us the results. Especially when they are not in their favour. I would always prefer Burnley or Lower House to win the League than a Blackburn based club. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be reciprocated.

You seem to have a bit of a problem when it comes to LCC, by the way it is Lowerhouse.

[StayingDown4Ever]

How did Lowerhouse get on?

[Longsidelenny1882]

Colne won upthecolne

[Dressinggown]

House lost at home to Rochdale in a game reduced to 22 overs a side. How the ground staff managed to get a game on was remarkable given that the pitch was a lake on Saturday night.

Surprisingly, nearly 300 runs were scored on a wicket that was described as a 'bog' (they had to change the wicket before play could commence. Lowerhouse came narrowly second.

Darwen won which makes a title decider in the local derby a bit less likely. Still, we will be at Clitheroe next weekend with an outside chance, weather permitting.

[Burnley1989]

You seem to have a bit of a problem when it comes to LCC, by the way it is Lowerhouse.

I enjoy it, when you spend your time talking about other clubs rather than your own (whoever that may be) you know you’ve got issues

[Burnley1989]

Thanks to Arise I checked the website as he alluded to. The results are the same but the Rosegrove contingent do not come on here telling us the results. Especially when they are not in their favour. I would always prefer Burnley or Lower House to win the League than a Blackburn based club. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be reciprocated.

How did finals day go today btw? Haven’t got Google not able to check the scores

[burnmark]

How did finals day go today btw? Haven’t got Google not able to check the scores

Burnley got beat in the semi.

[Alan Young]

Greenmount superb in both games today, as they’ve been throughout the whole tournament.

It’s baffling that they look set for another season in Div 2 with the quality they clearly have.

Darwen are looking highly likely to retain their title in Div 1 unfortunately. A couple of bad results for the two Burnley sides over the past couple of weeks.

[StayingDown4Ever]

I was speaking to a guy about the local cricket today.

He said Lowerhouse had choked and lost 4 of their last 5. Surely not!?

[StayingDown4Ever]

Word on the street is that the choke artists have lost again.

Couple of weeks ago they were talking about the title run in. Now they are going to finish mid table

[Bordeauxclaret]

Win for Burnley. Defeat for Darwen. Although they took plenty of points.

[jrgbfc]

Going down to the last day between Burnley and Darwen then. Burnley at Lowerhouse, should be interesting!

[ClaretTony]

Darwen were 75/7 at one point chasing 161 and then recovered and looked like winning. Lost by six or seven.

Burnley score, nothing recorded yet again by Lancs League but thanks to Haslingden’s Twitter account I know Burnley won by 92 runs.

I think Darwen are one point clear at the top ahead of Burnley. If both list next week it could open the door for Clitheroe or Littleborough.

Points I think are

Darwen 163
Burnley 162
Clitheroe 155
Littleborough 152

Whatever happens next week, hopefully it will be based on who wins and who loses rather than the weather.

[StayingDown4Ever]

Going down to the last day between Burnley and Darwen then. Burnley at Lowerhouse, should be interesting!

So both the football team and cricket team could be celebrating title wins in 2023 at the home of their sworn enemies!

[FCBurnley]

You’ve all gone quiet over there

[StayingDown4Ever]

You’ve all gone quiet over there

Standard after a defeat for them.

[FCBurnley]

No idea how Darwen lost and yet got 5 batting points for scoring about 140 all out While Burnley scored 271/7 and got zero batting points !!!! Bedford got a ton for Burnley House are now fifth on 148 points for anybody who is interested

[Burnley1989]

So both the football team and cricket team could be celebrating title wins in 2023 at the home of their sworn enemies!

I’ll see you there… won’t be hard to spot

[Dressinggown]

PXL_20230903_163845477~3.jpg (1.07 MiB) Viewed 1596 times

[Blue Skies]

Does this mean Lower House is now out of the title race, leaving only Burnley CC to chase down the Blackburn based club? Looks like there is only one team in Burnley then.

[Somethingfishy]

Hand the trophy to Darwen now. What with Burnleys record against Lowerhouse in recent years If they can't beat us now with the form we are in then there's no hope for them.

No pressure

[ClaretTony]

No idea how Darwen lost and yet got 5 batting points for scoring about 140 all out While Burnley scored 271/7 and got zero batting points !!!!

You get bonus batting/bowling points only if you lose as ridiculous as it sounds.

[dsr]

You get bonus batting/bowling points only if you lose as ridiculous as it sounds.

It sounds less ridiculous if you think of them as losing bonus points, reward for losing narrowly. A win is a win, but losers (if they come close) get bonuses for a near miss.

Bonus system:

1. Bowling bonuses - 2 points if you bowl the opposition out, win or lose.

2. Losing bonuses, awarded for the second innings performance:
If the losing side was batting, up to five points for getting within 50-40-30-20-10 runs of the opponents.
If the losing side was bowling, up to five points for getting wickets 5-6-7-8-9.

(With adjustments for DLS targets and reduced overs games.)

http://www.lancashireleague.com/

[dsr]

http://www.lancashireleague.com/Events/ ... _2023.html

Points are as ClaretTony said, 163 for Darwen, 162 for Burnley. Table attached. Both sides are away next week, darwen at Norden, Burnley at Lowerhouse.

[nil_desperandum]

No idea how Darwen lost and yet got 5 batting points for scoring about 140 all out While Burnley scored 271/7 and got zero batting points !!!! Bedford got a ton for Burnley House are now fifth on 148 points for anybody who is interested

There's no perfect system for allotting bonus points, but the current Lancs League model has been in place for some time, and seems to be pretty well accepted by the majority of clubs. It does throw up some anomalies, but you get those anyway with rain affected games and other variables that are all a part of this wonderful game.
The bonus point system is a bit like the playoffs in football, it keeps games "alive" when the result seems beyond doubt, because the team batting second can pick up points by sticking at it, just like a team in 10th place in the Championship can try to get into a play-off place even though the top two or three are beyond reach.
It is not correct however that Darwen scored "about 140". They scored 156, falling just short of the target of 160.
That's why they got maximum bonus points. I am a member at Burnley, so I've no agenda for Darwen.
Worth mentioning too that Burnley picked up 5 bonus points a couple of weeks ago having been bowled out for 41.

[Quickenthetempo]

Lowerhouse seem to get out pro'd a lot.

If they ever manage to get a good one for a full season, they will win it easy.

[FCBurnley]

Burnley have had 22 total bonus points. Darwen have 43. Burnley also have won 11 of the 15 games played ( best win ratio). Sounds to me that LL need to review its scoring system.

[FCBurnley]

Hand the trophy to Darwen now. What with Burnleys record against Lowerhouse in recent years If they can't beat us now with the form we are in then there's no hope for them.

No pressure

Amazing that somebody from Burnley would clearly prefer a Blackburn based team to be Champions ahead of a Burnley based team. There is local rivalry then there is local stupidity !!

[ClaretTony]

It sounds less ridiculous if you think of them as losing bonus points, reward for losing narrowly. A win is a win, but losers (if they come close) get bonuses for a near miss.

Bonus points for losing can't be made to sound less ridiculous. How on earth can a league award bonuses for teams who lose? A losing team can come away with seven points in a game when a winning team on the same day can get just ten. I always thought the object of the game was to play to win.

[dsr]

Bonus points for losing can't be made to sound less ridiculous. How on earth can a league award bonuses for teams who lose? A losing team can come away with seven points in a game when a winning team on the same day can get just ten. I always thought the object of the game was to play to win.

The thing I would change about bonus points would to make the 2 points for bowling the opposition out, only available to the winners. After all, the reason it was brought in was (when they changed from time cricket to overs cricket) to give a bit extra for the team that won a game "properly", ie. by bowling the opposition out, ahead of a team that won only because the other lot ran out of overs. There was no rationale for giving it to the losers as well IMO, although they did give it to both sides.

That way the winners would always be guaranteed 10 while the losers could get maximum 5. I agree that the 10-7 differential is not enough.

[FCBurnley]

Imagine if Burnley FC had got a bonus point against Spurs for scoring a second goal and ONLY losing 5-2 instead of 5-1

[Quickenthetempo]

When I first started playing cricket in the early 90s in the Ribb league it was 5 points for a win and 2 for bowling a side out.
There was a massive pressure on lower order batters not to get bowled out and give the opposition the bowling points. It wasn’t very enjoyable for a young cricketer to come into bat with that pressure.
Teams would often block out the last 15 overs.

The bonus points have improved the excitement level in one sided games.

Winning points were extended by 5, the most the bonus points could be.
So winners don't lose out.

[Burnley1989]

Personally I think the bonus points system works alright, I was discussing it with a few yesterday and it needs a few tweaks which I think they will put forward this winter, but I think overall most quite like it.

Mike Bibby (League chairman) steps down for next season, had a chat with him yesterday, not sure who's going to take the role though

[nil_desperandum]

Bonus points for losing can't be made to sound less ridiculous. How on earth can a league award bonuses for teams who lose? A losing team can come away with seven points in a game when a winning team on the same day can get just ten. I always thought the object of the game was to play to win.

I agree in one sense, but the point of the current system is to stop some games being pretty much dead with half the game left, which can happen in limited overs cricket.
Teams batting second get bonuses for having a real go at the total even when it's out of reach, and the team bowling need to get the wickets.
Where I disagree is that the wining margin should be determined by a percentage not the number of runs.
e.g. Burnley got points for scoring just 41, which was less than 66% of Norden's poor score, whereas you could bat second and score 250 but not get any points if the other team are over 300.

[Burnley1989]

I agree in one sense, but the point of the current system is to stop some games being pretty much dead with half the game left, which can happen in limited overs cricket.
Teams batting second get bonuses for having a real go at the total even when it's out of reach, and the team bowling need to get the wickets.
Where I disagree is that the wining margin should be determined by a percentage not the number of runs.
e.g. Burnley got points for scoring just 41, which was less than 66% of Norden's poor score, whereas you could bat second and score 250 but not get any points if the other team are over 300.

Completely agree

[nil_desperandum]

Imagine if Burnley FC had got a bonus point against Spurs for scoring a second goal and ONLY losing 5-2 instead of 5-1

That exactly what happens in some sports. e.g. Rugby.
(Not that you'd expect a bonus point for a 5-2 loss)

[Burnley1989]

I guess you sort of do get an advantage by scoring another goal in football as you have GD

[FCBurnley]

I guess you sort of do get an advantage by scoring another goal in football as you have GD

Thank goodness Spurs declared at 5 then