Sorry, meant Notts.

If Notts win, Durham can't be champions. If Notts draw, Durham can take the title with a full bonus points win (even if Notts get a 12-point draw, because Durham will have one more win).

And to get full bonus points, they need to do what?

Remember, this is all still new to me.

Hants now 78/4, while Kent are 75/2.

Sorry. You get five bonus points for batting: one for getting to 200, two for getting to 250 and so on until you reach 400, which gives you the full five points. Bowling bonus points are collected for taking the following number of wickets: 3 wickets = 1pt, 6 wkts = 2pts, 9 wkts = 3pts. A draw gives you four more - so you can 12 points maximum from a draw. A win gives you an extra 14, so you can take 22 points from a win.

An excellent precis. Thank you.

For what it is worth, I think its a ludicrous system. I suppose it compensates somewhat for the weather in this country by allowing teams to accrue points in rain-ruined games, but it often means you get within three matches of the end of the season and every team can both win the title and go down. I mean, Somerset are challenging for this thing despite winning only three games all summer. That can't be right.

I'd prefer less first class matches - each team plays each other once - played over five days, which would make rain less of a problem. A win could be eight points, a draw two, and in rain ruined matches the team ahead on first-innings could get an extra point.

It seems more than a bit arbitrary to me too, but my tyro status makes me loathe to criticise such things.

From what I have read, however, the County Championship has a long history of bizarre systems, going back to the "play who you feel like playing" regime of the alleged "golden age".

What's the argument against the five day alternative? The usual one against not playing both home and away? Too much cricket given all the limited overs stuff?

County members would be up in arms if they lost four home matches a season, even if these were replaced with longer home games. My view is that you're going to upset someone, and a five-day, play-once system would be much better for the credibility of the competition and producing players for Test cricket. It would also allow conuties to put on Twenty20 to their heart's content, which is where most of their income comes from anyway (with the exception of what the ECB gives them).

The county championship has always been a little strange, as you say. Back in the Golden Age, amateurs would turn up for the festival matches and the professionals would be turfed out. Counties that were more prone to that sort of thing - Hants, for example - suffered as a result. Equally bizarre is that, for many years, the fixture list was lopsided. Look at this table from 1933:

1933 table

Sussex played 32 matches, Northants 24. At this stage Northants didn't regularly play Gloucs, for example. Totally mental.

I think the bonus points system works pretty well, and that 4 day county cricket is the right length (thank god they rejected the proposal to go back to 3 day cricket when any time lost to weather reduced to a lottery).

The fact that lots of teams remain in with a chance of titles/relegation/promotion to the end is a) a good thing in itself and b) indicative of the fact that the sides are fairly similar in ability. It's obviously been exacerbated this summer by all the rain meaning there have been far more draws than usual.

Hampshire are now 96-6. Looking good for Notts.

I agree most sides are of similar ability, but I'm not convinced that the fact that teams can reach September with a good chance of both winning the title and relegation is a good thing (one or the other, sure: both, there's something wrong). A championship should ruthlessly separate teams (based on differences in ability, no matter how small), not mush them all together. Draws are too highly rewarded under the current system: it can't be right that you can get more than half the points of a win with a draw. I favour a 4/1 ratio, but it should be a least 3/1.

Minor fightback by Somerset who are at 141/7 with Trego making a half century.

I had an afternoon at The County Ground planned on Saturday if Somerset can have a chance of the title. But it feels like it's drifting away so far.

Somerset might only have won 3 games, but I think (Without checking right now) they've lost the fewest in the table as well, that's got to count for something.

This is getting a lot more interesting . . .

Objectively I'd agree with you KoTR, but I think that the high weight for draws actually encourages teams to play properly when required to get a draw, rather than simply try and arrange an artificial result.

Hampshire go one run better than Somerset, 203 all out.

Notts start their innings in a Someresetian way, 0/1.


Meanwhile down in Taunton, lancs are 75/4, a 20 run partnership today helping get them slightly back on track.

Could the championship get the exciting finish Somerset wanted yet...

Durham 90-0 in response to Kent 225.
Notts 135-3 in response to Hants (Samit Patel 54*)
Lancs 156-7 in response to Somerset.

Notts still favourites, but they need to win their game.

Meanwhile, very impressive fightback by Yorks at Hove, brilliant century from Rashid and 70 odd n.o. by Wainwright. Fourth batting point secured as 350 is passed moments ago.

80 odd for 6 overnight.

Gets better. Declare at 400-9 after being on 178-8 this morning. I think we're making a fight of it.