Having lost 6 consecutive 2020 matches we neither deserve nor should we expect to be in the QF draw.
The results indicate that , in this long drawn out competition , Notts , Warwick , Somerset and Sussex should be competing on finals day. They , along with Essex , are clearly superior in this competition.
I accept that one day matches , notably 2020 , is a bit of a lottery but you cannot have a situation where a club can progress having lost > 40% of its matches

Can't argue with that, Sunbeam. T20 is a bit of a lottery, but over 104 games each, or however many it is, the better teams should rise up.

So no Surrey, Hants or Lancs then?

Is the grass greener?

Sorry to be harsh Sunbeam, but that's rubbish ! No offence. In our division the third team (Lancs) have lost 5 and the fourth team (Derby) have lost 6 ie 50% of their games. In the South division the team in second place (Middlesex) and the third team (Glamorgan) have both lost 8 from 14 ie 57%.

With the exception of Notts who seem to be the stand-out team this year it looks as though everyone else is pretty much of a muchness. Perhaps playing more games this year has shown that anyone can beat anyone else on their day, the same as the more times you toss a coin the more likely a 50/50 split between heads and tails.

If Worcs sneak through with 7 wins from 16 then you can't argue that they don't deserve it if they have a better result/points situ than the others.

I was referring to top four , 2 from each group , all of whom stand out above the rest.
If QF qualification is still possible by losing such a high proportion of matches then the system is wrong

It amazes me how we can be anywhere near qualifying having been so poor throughout the T20 tournament. For me the intensity in this years competition has been down somewhat from previous years and for me that is due to the fact of the number of games. It needs some context within the season and I feel a Friday night competition would please the majority of people. i.e. Spectators, players and administrators/money men.

Couldn't agree more with you Sunbeam, 4 to qualify from 9 is a joke. Should only be the top 2 or even the top 3 with the group winners going straight to finals day and North Runners up playing South 3rd at home and vice versa.

Middx are only one place off the bottom of the south group.
To date , three teams from each group have won a majority of their games with one from each group level on wins and losses . These are the likely counties to go through.
In the days of the sunday league a a target of 12 wins out of 17 was pretty much the bench mark for a title. In other words you had to be consistent.
Warrior has a point about revising the qualification.

I agree that the competition is too drawn out, and that the need for quarter finals is probably just a money spinner. On the other hand, just as football has play-offs it keeps everyone interested longer as there are fewer pointless matches.

But the alternative to having a fourth place team finishing with say, 8 losses (irrespective of whether there's a 1/4 final spot going or not) is having the top 2 or 3 teams finishing with near maximum points and everyone else getting stuffed. Which makes it a pointless competition, surely ?

If QF qualification is still possible by losing such a high proportion of matches then the system is wrong But it could also be argued that it's more inclusive (and I speak as a Forest supporter who's still in pain after losing out to a team who finished 6th and 9 points behind !)

Perhaps it's me, but I didn't see much wrong with the previous format: 3 groups of six - top 2 into the quarter finals plus best two third place sides. Fewer games too.

Yes, Henry, but you're not a greedy money man (are you?).

What you say is logical and sensible, so you are complety unsuited to a job with the ECB or ICC.

There was enough T20 last year, and many grounds, as has been commented on before, have been idle on gorgeous summer days, after the Championship has been squashed into the ends of the season.

Oh, haven't we drifted a bit off topic, which was the signing of Shakib?

Agree with your comment WBB, about the Warriors Rugby. That Championship play off system- That is appalling- Bristol won it last year but Exeter went up.
I still believe 4 from 9 is far too many though. I would also like to see the P40 go to a league of 18, just like the old JPL times ( I know Durham didn't exist then ) 9 home games a year,we would see every county at WCCC every two seasons.

I think much of the comment on here has been very valid indeed about the numbers of teams and the number of games.

For me the best means of providing cricket for the public would be to play CC matches Monday - Thursday. Then play T20 on Friday evenings starting at 6pm - floodlit every time, then you can start these games in early May, then play the P40 or whatever the one day is on the Sunday afternoon, but with a 1pm start.

Then the purists get their fix of Championship matches throughout the season so we don't have the ridiculous situation where in the fantastic weather we have had of late the best ground in the country sits unused.

The T20 masses and Sharons can enjoy the friday night biff and disco on their way - via the ground - from work to the pub.

And finally the one day lovers get their fix on Sundays at a time that still allows an evening out eating with their family or friends.

Travelling is accomodated because players can travel on Friday am to the T20 bash, and Saturday to the One Day stuff. the only travel problems would be Sunday evening, but with sensible scheduling it might not be too onerous.

Everyone knows when the games are taking place, and can plan their leave/attendance according to their preference. If the T20 stuff is limited to say 6 home games spread out, you are more likely to get the bigger crowds turning up, and bigger income to the club with less expense in putting the event on.

Radical or What !!

Johnnymax, that fixture scheduling is excellent, and along the lines I've thought of over the last few years. Sky won't like it, as they wouldn't have anything to show Mon - Thurs eves.
Corporate skivers can fritter their days away with their backs to the cricket on any of the championship days (apparently Fridays are unpopular, as most of them adhere to the Poets day idea).
Ah, just realised, we wouldn't all be playing 4 day cricket at the same time, or every week, thus providing teams for a few out of sequence 20 or 40 over televised matches, but still mainly sticking to your basic framework.
Again, it'll never happen, far too sensible.

Splendid suggestions all but how does this fill Sky's schedules?

That is going to be the stumbling block.

The sad fact is that even with this sensible arrangement, the clubs are unlikely to pull in enough people nad therefore money to replace Sky's and, so, we are likely to ohave a similar (If I suspect shoertened) competition in the middle which suits their need to fill the gap in the so called football off season.