THE CONCRETE ROUNDABOUT (TCR)

Brilliant effort from two former England players tonight, for Notts v Worcs. Samit Patel bowled 3 overs in the power play, and his fourth at the death, and ended with figures of 4-1-4-3, to help limit Worcs to 86-8 from 20 overs - with just 2 boundaries in the whole innings. Notts then whacked the runs off within 6.2 overs to win by 10 wickets, with Alex Hales hitting 60 not out off 24 balls. That's as one sided, dominant display as I've ever seen in T20. And makes up for the previous match between them earlier in the season when Notts were 76-1 after the 6 power play overs, chasing just 152, and somehow ended up only tieing the game.

What do people think about the Test Championship being played in a neutral country? Rather than, say, at the home of the team who finishes top?
I know they've been unlucky that Covid logistics means they've gone to Southampton rather than Lords - it looks even stranger when it's not even at one of the neutral countries more famous Test grounds.
And they've been unlucky with the weather - I guess if it had been a good game with a positive result (still a bit of a chance of that on the 6th day), then there'd be more talk about the match than the venue.
But the fact it's mostly been rained off in a neutral country - traditionally probably the one that gets the most rain - and at quite a random ground in that country, does leave you wondering 'why the hell is it even being played here, thousands of miles from either country?' Whereas, if it was raining in New Zealand, at least you'd know exactly why it was being played there - because they'd finished top of the league and had earned the right to host the final.
I assume the thinking is to prevent the hosts preparing overly friendly conditions in their favour for the final - but that's what mostly happens in each Test series anyway, and I guess could just be seen as the reward for finishing top, and the obstacle to be overcome if you finish second? Unless it's for political reasons (Pakistan), then Test matches and neutral venues really don't go together imo.

What do people think about the Test Championship being played in a neutral country? Rather than, say, at the home of the team who finishes top?
I know they've been unlucky that Covid logistics means they've gone to Southampton rather than Lords - it looks even stranger when it's not even at one of the neutral countries more famous Test grounds.
And they've been unlucky with the weather - I guess if it had been a good game with a positive result (still a bit of a chance of that on the 6th day), then there'd be more talk about the match than the venue.
But the fact it's mostly been rained off in a neutral country - traditionally probably the one that gets the most rain - and at quite a random ground in that country, does leave you wondering 'why the hell is it even being played here, thousands of miles from either country?' Whereas, if it was raining in New Zealand, at least you'd know exactly why it was being played there - because they'd finished top of the league and had earned the right to host the final.
I assume the thinking is to prevent the hosts preparing overly friendly conditions in their favour for the final - but that's what mostly happens in each Test series anyway, and I guess could just be seen as the reward for finishing top, and the obstacle to be overcome if you finish second? Unless it's for political reasons (Pakistan), then Test matches and neutral venues really don't go together imo.

I think the problem lies in scheduling. The cricket calendar is badly congested enough as it is so the final has to be played at a very specific time of year. And England is one of only a very small number of places that could host international cricket at this time of year.