17 stone giant

They have earned the luxury of taking their time. And it's no great hardship to continue batting. Most of the team will have their feet up relaxing, and the much criticised lower order gets a chance to have some pressure free time at the crease. Plus it makes the defeat all the more comprehensive. I would have done the same if I was India. As I said previously, there is an air of cockiness about Bazball, so I don't blame Gill for dragging it out and basically humiliating us.

Yeah, good one.

RU Lions win 3-0 England RL lose 2-1 England cricket win 3-1

191 behind now. Smith still in. Need Tongue and Bashir to stay with him and reduce the deficit as much as possible. So much better than I thought we'd be when Root and Stokes went cheaply this morning.

In Manchester and Liverpool?

Why? I was making observations about the general situation. I'm looking at RL in London for 45 years, that has had involvement from the likes of Richard Branson, link ups with Harlequins and Brisbane Broncos, various rebrands, numerous venue changes, many years in Super League etc. Is it really necessary for me to have coached the Dagenham and Redbridge Under 8's RL team in order to look at the above and say that I have doubts about how much interest there is in London for RL? I specifically said in my post that sport is a strange beast. It's hard to put your finger on why things work in some places and not in others. In my opinion, without any horse in the race, it really hasn't worked that well in London. Hopefully that can be changed going forwards. But I'll say again, if it's so obvious that all you need to do is follow a certain blue print to make the sport a success in London, why can't that blue print be followed in Liverpool and Manchester?

I don't have actual experience of rugby league anywhere. But I don't see how that precludes me from making observations.

Yeah we know you're the biggest cheerleader for London and telling everyone how much London loves RL. It just doesn't seem to translate to what I observe in reality.

I know you've upset some of the pro-London crew with that statement, but I think based on how things are right now after 45 years of RL in London, it's quite hard to disagree. The key point being "enough". It doesn't mean that there isn't SOME interest. Of course there's always some interest for everything, in every area, but is it enough to sustain things at the level required? I think it's irrelevant for certain posters to say that there's some boys in London who like playing rugby league. Big deal. There are boys playing rugby union at my local park, but in no way could Southampton currently hope to support a Premiership RU team. Likewise there is an ice rink in Gosport where a few passionate people play ice hockey, but again it's not enough to enter the UK Elite League (or whatever it's called nowadays). If it's a no brainer that London can support top level RL, why can't Manchester or Liverpool? Both are cities on the doorstep of the RL heartlands, so surely it should be easier to make a success of them than in London, which is a bit of an island in RL terms. I would love RL to be successful in London and elsewhere, but there are only so many excuses you can make for it not doing so. When you think about it, sport is a very strange beast when it comes to locations. I doubt anyone can really fully explain why certain places have things and others don't. Why does Leicester have a top RU team, but Derby and Nottingham don't? Why can't you transfer those same ingredients and make Derby and Nottingham have a team? Are people that different just a few miles apart? Why does Salford have a RL team (for now) but Manchester doesn't? Why doesn't London (I think I'm correct) have a top level ice hockey team, but nearby Guildford does? It's one of those mysteries that's clearly not as simple as just replicating what happens in one place, in another. Otherwise every area would have high level teams from all sports.

Only 414 behind now. Smith and Brook on the charge. Nervous times for India.

India 412 for 5. Are we in danger of being just a bit too cocky and complacent with this 'have a bowl and chase anything' tactic? Or is it fine margins and a couple more wickets yesterday and the decision would have been vindicated.

Another 45 years?

OK, here's my suggested format for the county stuff. 3 regional groups north: yorkshire, lancashire, durham, nottinghamshire, leicestershire, derbyshire midlands: warwickshire, worcestershire, glamorgan, somerset, gloucestershire, northamptonshire south: kent, essex, middlesex, surrey, hampshire, sussex play everyone once so 5 games each. 2 home 3 away OR 3 home 2 away (changing each year) After those 5 games, top two from each region go into div 1, middle two into div 2, bottom two to div 3 So, if I assume the teams above finished in the order I've written them, it would mean the following 2nd phase groups: Div 1 yorkshire, lancashire, warwickshire, worcestershire, kent, essex Div 2 durham, nottinghamshire, glamorgan, somerset, middlesex, surrey Div 3 leicestershire, derbyshire, gloucestershire, northamptonshire, hampshire, sussex Play everyone in your Division once. Winner of Div 1 is county champions, which in my example is Yorkshire. That should please some on here. lancashire 2nd, all the way down to sussex in 18th, if you're making an overall table. Everyone has played 10 games, although it might be some have played 4 home, 6 away - unless there's a way to fiddle that. The problem I have with the above is that while Div 1 is competing for the championship, what do Div 2 and Div 3 have to play for, except positions 7th to 18th - not very exciting. Step forward the new knockout county cup! To create some jeopardy in Div 1, only top 4 of the 6 will qualify for the cup. To create some interest in Div 2 and Div 3, the top two from each group will qualify for the cup. That's 8 teams, so it would be a simple knockout comp of QF, SF, Final. Based on my phase 2 group positions, the cup would be: yorkshire, lancashire, warwickshire, worcestershire from Div 1 durham, nottinghamshire from Div 2 leicestershire, derbyshire, from Div 3 Yes, the qualification for the cup is a bit of a fudge, but how else do you make Div 2 and Div 3 interesting and meaningful? As a Hampshire fan, if we were in Div 3 (which we are in my above example), I wouldn't be very interested in those 5 games (to determine whether we finished 13th to 18th)....but I might be if I knew that finishing in the top 2 put us into the knockout cup, because then we'd have something to play for. There's probably a million flaws in my suggestion, but it's the sort of thing that would make me more interested than I currently am. Playing the first group regionally keeps the travelling down - plus you don't play the same team more than once. It also means each game is meaningful, because you need to finish in the top two or your county championship hopes are gone already. Then in phase 2 you only have 1 team in your group that you've already played, so that's 4 new opponents. To me that adds some variety. Having 2 home and 3 away is a bit unfair, but that's what happens in the RU Six Nations, and nobody seems to complain much there. Especially as it swaps each year. The cup is mainly an attempt to keep div 2 and 3 interesting, while also creating a competition that produces a final. I didn't want to shoehorn a final into the championship, because it felt clunky to do so.

Do we? My point is that I'm not going to be interested in a final, if I have no interest in what goes before that. If it was as simple as have a final to make everything ok, why not do it with the current format? Top two play-off to determine the champion. Which as things stand would mean Nottinghamshire vs Surrey.

Did she succeed?

Are you a London Broncos fan, Eddie?

I think only if I actually cared for the competition as a whole. Otherwise it wouldn't have any meaning to me. As is my opinion with The Hundred, having a smaller number of high profile matches is definitely preferable to me. I just can't sustain any strong interest for a competition with that many 4 day matches. I always follow England Test matches, so that take up quite a few days per year. I can't fit everything in.

I much prefer dogs to horses, so I like it better than Broncos (which I strongly dislike as a name). Come on the Hounds! I guess it might encourage Brewdog to keep sponsoring them too.

How many days have you spent watching county championship cricket? I've never been to watch Hampshire. It just doesn't interest me at all. I'll wait and see what new structure they decide upon, before deciding if that interests me more.

Yes, he really meant Norfolk vs Suffolk with Alan Partridge doing a DJ set.

Fantastic test match. At one stage I was thinking we'd need the rain to salvage a draw, but that changed to wanting the rain to stay away so that we could win. 1-0.

Poor Graham's surname is obviously on the naughty words list.

The 1989 home ashes was the first test series I properly watched. I hadn't remembered that back then they had a rest day. I think I'm right that the 1990 home series against India is the last time they did that. I remember that series because of ######'s 333, but I have no memory of the rest day. I can't remember whether I would have been annoyed at there being no cricket, or whether I was young and doing so many other things that it didn't really register. It seems like a weird concept now though.

Italy are one of the few teams that you would give half a chance of keeping the other team out with only 9 men, such is their defensive pedigree. They'll be fuming at the two players that got themselves sent off. The first one in particular was a needless tackle in an area of the pitch that posed no danger. Utter stupidity, especially as he was already on a yellow card. Cost his team mates big time.