4 Comments
User's avatar
Dave Sirl's avatar

Re the chasm between hundred-hosters and not; is there any evidence or discussion of which came first - the hundred or the chasm? Presumably the hundred exaggerated existing gaps (due largely to test-hosting) rather than creating them?

Expand full comment
David Lea's avatar

Surrey also benefit from people based in London but originally from other parts of the country who want to go and watch cricket in good facilities when they get a spare day/afternoon/whatever, because they can’t easily watch the counties they support. I’m one such member and most of the people I watch with are likewise.

Surrey’s offering is vastly superior to Middlesex’s on that basis, and while that’s mostly not Middx’s fault for reasons you suggest, it partly is, for reasons you also suggest. So they need to do more to make up for it in other ways.

Expand full comment
Simon Hughes's avatar

I’m sure you’re right. Thanks for the reply

Expand full comment
Dave M's avatar

Thank you for this Simon. And indeed all the other coverage - written and verbal. The County model to one extent and another has seemingly teetered on the edge of financial doom for decades. What do you think the impact was of the change from part-year to full-year contracts back in the day? Every county player had some kind of off-season income or job - and for sure the professionalism has increased alongside the coaching and analysts etc. Be interesting to compare the turnover/P and L from that era with the early impact of T20 to now.

Expand full comment