According to the regular Worcester comm on the stream the pitch had to be re-seeded in Feb/March due to the floods either side of the new year. Groundsman would normally be doing that around October, straight after the season ends so essentially they've only had 2 months to prepare and bed in the pitches instead of 6 months.
Which is a very good reason why their home games should have been staged at an outground. I had sympathy with Worcester because of the flooding but not relocating at least short term is inexcusable. They should be docked points.
Agree, even with having their first 3 games of the season away it was never going to give them enough time to prepare a decent pitch. The outfield was also a shocker, I don't think I've seen one as slow in a first-class game.
It reminded me of the game against the students last season when, thanks to that hideous wet close season, Vic had had no opportunity to prepare anything like a decent pitch and there were instances of the ball literally plugging in the outfield.
I remember during the Kidderminster game last year their chief-exec Ashley Giles was claiming it was costing the club a fair amount to relocate away from New Road so I wouldn't be surprised if it was purely a financial decision, which is a bit ironic given all the recent talk of counties being flush with the Hundred money.
Friday. Looks like at Hampshire. Utilita Bowl!
| Rank | Team | Played | Won | Lost | Drawn | Batting | Bowling | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Nottinghamshire | 4 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 10 | 12 | 70 |
| 2 | Surrey | 4 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 11 | 9 | 60 |
| 3 | Sussex | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 12 | 52 |
| 4 | Essex | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 7 | 8 | 47 |
| 5 | Warwickshire | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 8 | 46 |
| 6 | Durham | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 10 | 11 | 45 |
| 7 | Hampshire | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 43 |
| 8 | Yorkshire | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 9 | 40 |
| 9 | Somerset | 4 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 12 | 33 |
| 10 | Worcestershire | 4 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 10 | 18 |
