Of Arrows
and Rakes and Bumbling Administration
October 13th 2017
The County Championship finished on September 28th
– or did it? More than two weeks later, mind you, it feels like longer, we
still do not know who will be relegated from Division 1. And, what is more, it
may be a week or two before we do.
The whole business is surreal. Once again, after
the season is finished, after the points table is apparently settled, behind
closed doors, the “final table” is being re-designed. A bad precedent was set
in 2016 that “final” is not final. Then, a county that had finished 4th
in the table, a position that brings not inconsiderable prize money, received a
draconian post-season penalty that led to relegation, a millstone of points
deductions for 2017 and, ultimately, to an exodus of players that threatens the
club’s chances of returning to the top flight in the near future. In the
unseemly scramble afterwards, Hampshire, who had finished 10 points from
safety, with just 2 wins – fewer than any of the teams above them – but who had
seemingly, well before the end of the season been given assurances that they
would not lose their first division status – were not relegated. Meanwhile
Kent, second in Division 2, explored taking legal action to defend their right
to promotion, unhappy that the ECB’s decision to reduce Division 1 to eight
sides to allow the First Class programme to be reduced, allowed just one side
being promoted from what was a very strong division.
No one was particularly happy. Durham felt that
they had been unfairly punished. Kent that they had been denied a legitimate
right to return to Division 1. Somerset that they had been cheated by a
contrived result in the Yorkshire-Middlesex game. And almost everyone was left
with a feeling that justice had not been done in changing things after the
season had finished, allowing a relegated side to escape.
In 2017 we have had Rakegate and Arrowgate rumbling on.
Now, if the 2017 table had been like the 2016
table, neither Rakegate nor Arrowgate would have mattered. In 2016, the gap
between 4th and relegation was 45 points. The smallest gap between
sides in the table was the 6 points between Surrey, in 5th (a small
amount of prize money) and Warwickshire in 6th.
In 2017, the gap between 4th place (a
not inconsiderable £50000 prize money) and relegation, with its threat of an
exodus of players and loss of gates and sponsorship, was just 2 points.
Let’s go back to the afternoon of August 31st.
Middlesex are playing Surrey at The Oval. Middlesex have conceded a 33 run
first innings lead. The third day’s play has been washed out completely,
leaving Middlesex 15-0 in their second innings, 18 behind and the match
seemingly heading nowhere fast.
As the final day started, 15-0 effectively became
15-1 with Nick Compton unable to bat. The first twenty minutes or so of the day
do nothing to suggest that we will not have a rather quiet day with a token
declaration after Tea. Then the fun started: three wickets in sixteen balls left
Middlesex effectively 38-4, just 5 ahead and in real danger of defeat; at
Lunch, Middlesex were 96-6, 63 ahead and with no sign still of Nick Compton and
seemingly spiralling to a barely credible defeat. You would put good money on
Surrey finishing it off in an hour after Lunch and then making light work of a
token chase. It did not happen because Middlesex engineered an astonishing
fightback, led by the underrated John Simpson and, finally, Nick Compton reappeared,
almost immobile, but at his obdurate best.
4:20pm. Middlesex are 214-7. The lead is 181. A
maximum of 31 overs remain and even the most diehard Surrey fans are admitting
that the game will end in a draw. The betting is that Middlesex will continue
for about half an hour and make a token declaration with most people thinking
of the “4:50 handshake”.
At this point, those listening to the commentary
and those in the ground are suddenly gripped by confusion. There is something
in the ground close to the square and the players are heading off, some of them
at a really good clip. After several minutes of utter confusion it becomes
evident that the mystery object is a crossbow bolt. Mark Church and Kevin Hand,
two of the very best on the county commentary circuit and despite being locked
in the commentary box for their safety, do a brilliant job of describing what
is going on, helped by the fact that they are being fed information assiduously
by players and by fans in the ground, including photos of the object. Soon
armed police are on the scene and investigating reports of a noise in the OCS Stand
that may have been a second bolt hitting (suggesting that The Oval was
deliberately targeted), or could have been the first bolt ricocheting or, just
possibly, was unconnected to events on the pitch. Many of the details of the
incident are unknown and will presumably be revealed only when the matter comes
to trial (there was a swift arrest), but we do know that the bolt was fired
from 800m away and could have been a killer had it hit.
The post-script was that Middlesex were -2 on
over-rate when the match was abandoned. So, with no chance to make up the
overs, were docked 2 points.
Here, the waters muddy – as usual. Middlesex say
that they were aware of the need to make up overs, were about to declare and,
when the match came to its sudden and unsatisfactory conclusion, were assured by
the umpires that their report would recommend that no points deduction be made.
However, nothing of this assurance was written down and, in the confusion, the
umpires’ report did not include the withdrawal of the penalty.
Two points were deducted. Middlesex were told that
there was no appeal process. End of matter. After all, there was no significant
danger of relegation – Middlesex were 24 points clear with only 4 games to go
and in with a real chance of 3rd place given that the gap to
Hampshire, who occupied it, was just 13 points. Only a few people were looking
at the fixture list and warning that the last game of the season was at
Taunton, Somerset had a score to settle and that it would be wise not to bet
everything on getting the right result in that game.
For some people the deduction was poetic justice.
Middlesex have sailed close to the wind so many times on points deductions for
slow over rates. It is not unknown for the scoreboard to show -5. And Middlesex
have relied on their scorer – known to them as “The Magician” – to fix things,
session after session. It is a standard joke in the club that if the scoreboard
shows “-2” at any interval, he will get it back to “0” after a chat with the
scorers, pointing out to them this and that little delay for which allowance
must be made. How many points he saves them over a season is not recorded, but
20 to 30 is probably not too far away. When you depend on such sleight of hand,
it is inevitable that some time you will be bitten.
Fast forward three weeks. Middlesex have had the
worst of a sodden draw at Headingley in which, on the last afternoon, they could
have batted on in the hope of an extra bonus point that was just 28 runs away.
And then the match at Uxbridge was drowned. Suddenly Middlesex are in the relegation
places, although just 1 point covers Yorkshire in 5th and Middlesex
in 7th, with Somerset ahead of Middlesex on the first tie-breaker of
wins. Hampshire and even Surrey, in 3rd, are not safe, with just 13
points covering the sides from 3rd to 7th.
Middlesex always state that they have the huge
disadvantage that, as tenants, they cannot prepare pitches to suit their
strengths but, instead, must accept what they are given. They struggle along
with dead, lifeless surfaces in their home games. Surprisingly though the game
was played on a pitch described as “worn by a season's graft” and as “green and played to
type, but … already in a state where "plates" were evident on the
first morning”. Fifteen
wickets fell on the first day and another fifteen on the second, which would
normally have the pitch inspector calling. Neither side complained because both
needed a result pitch and a win.
Forty wickets fell for 734 runs on a surface on
which one England prospect was put out of action by a blow on the hand and
batting was always difficult and, at times hazardous. However, despite losing
two bowlers injured, Steve Finn, bowling like a demon, saved a match that had
looked lost when Lancashire were just 71 short with five wickets left.
Off to Taunton and the last round of matches. Any
one of four sides could still go down, but Middlesex’s worries had been
considerably relieved by Surrey winning a tense match to defeat Somerset in the
latter’s game in hand.
So, we came to the last round of matches. Somerset
needed a 16 point swing with Middlesex to avoid relegation. With a win and
identical bonus points, Somerset would go ahead on the first tie-breaker of
matches won (4-3).
Middlesex knew what was coming. It was going to be
a result pitch. It was going to turn a lot. So, what did they do? With Ollie
Rayner out injured, they played one specialist spinner (Ravi Patel, who had played
just one Championship match in 2015 and one in 2016 and for whom this would be only
the second game in 2017), left specialist Nathan Souter out of the final XI and
played no less than three occasional spinners to allow an extra batsman to be included.
Somerset, in contrast, played 3 spinners with a grand total of 98 wickets at 23.95
over the season. Middlesex’s foursome could, before this game, boast just 9
wickets, albeit at a slightly lower average. It was defeatist tactics.
Again though, things turn muddy. At the Toss, the
pitch was seen to be very worn – no surprise there – with rake marks on a good
length.
At the end of a first day that ended with Middlesex
18-3 in reply to Somerset’s 235ao, Middlesex made representations to the
Cricket Liaison Officer at the match about the apparent raking of the pitch before
the game to make it break up.
Here, all
manner of questions arise.
If Middlesex
thought that the pitch was unfair or dangerous, why wait to the end of the
first day to voice their concerns?
You could
say that there was an ingenuous “we wanted to see how it would play” before
making an appeal. There is also the more cynical interpretation that had
Middlesex won the Toss and made a par score, they would have been quite happy to
take advantage of the pitch. What happened though was that Somerset picked-up
some easy runs against non-specialists and a main spinner who, logically enough,
took a few overs to find his length and Somerset were allowed to make more than
they should have in what was obviously going to be a low-scoring game.
Middlesex
also found themselves in the position that, after seeing the opposition make an
over-par score, they would need to score 250 and obtain 2 batting points to
insure against defeat. At 18-3 and with your batsmen reading Linear B better
than they were reading Jack Leach, that suddenly looked an impossible task.
To get the
moral high ground – and especially after serving up a very dodgy pitch
themselves in their previous game – Middlesex should have made strong
representations to the umpires and the Cricket Liaison Officer *BEFORE* the Toss. They could have
demanded a different pitch be cut. Then, even if their demand had not been met,
they would have been able to claim the moral high ground. By waiting and by
making what looked like a dreadful selection error *and* by using the surface
poorly and thus putting themselves at a disadvantage, it is so much easier to
cry “sour grapes”.
Even if you
were not at the game – and there was a good crowd all through – close to 1000
spectators were watching the game live on the YouTube channel, with very good
quality images. In fact, the YouTubers probably got a far better view than the
spectators in the ground, with cameras at both ends and the ability to go back
and replay events. The YouTube chat was revealing: many Somerset and Middlesex
fans, a good number of neutrals. And not a few people feeling that Middlesex
had more or less given up and were showing little appetite for the fight. Where
was the spirit of that game at Lord’s on a difficult and, at times, almost
dangerous pitch where, with two key bowlers missing, Middlesex survived a
massive fightback from Lancashire to win against all odds? With a few
honourable exceptions, the Middlesex batsmen seemed overawed by the pitch and the bowling was not tight
enough. There was also some understandable grandstanding: yes, you may complain
that the pitch is turning square on the first morning (it was not), but when you
fixate on that message, you end up reducing your own batsmen to quivering
jellies, thinking that they faced an impossible surface.
Inevitably,
Somerset even had the luxury of declaring their second innings and won by the huge
margin of 231 runs. The game produced more runs (741) for fewer wickets (39)
than the game at Lord’s two weeks
earlier, but all the talk was of the strange surface and the possibility of a
points deduction.
All this put
Somerset one point ahead of Middlesex and ahead on the first tie-breaker of
wins. With one day of the season to go, now Middlesex needed favours from other
sides to avoid relegation.
You have to
say that through the game the BBC commentators and particularly Middlesex’s
Kevin Hand, were very careful with their comments. With the balance of one
commentator from each team and a neutral, third voice, listeners were kept
appraised very dispassionately about the events. After Day 1 were heard that
the Cricket Liaison Officer was going to “sleep on things” and wait until after
Day 2 to give a verdict. Here, the rules are quite clear: a points deduction
can be made only in two cases:
1. A pitch that is rated “poor” that
has uneven bounce and/or is dangerous on the first two days.
2. A pitched that is rated “below
average”, if there has been a similar rating given in the previous 12 months.
Somerset
were in the clear on “2” and, although the odd ball went through low or
bounced, you had to be pretty draconian to rate it as in anyway dangerous, or even
as having particularly uneven bounce. There was far more poor batting –
particularly poorly executed sweeps and reverse sweeps – than there were impossible
deliveries. However, there was a feeling that the preparation of the pitch had
been somewhat unsporting, even if there was also a feeling that Middlesex had
been defeatist and resigned to their fate from the start and certainly did not
help themselves.
So, back to
Rakegate. A statement was expected after Day 2. The statement was that no
statement would be made until after the game.
This
produced wild speculation. Did it mean that there would be a points deduction?
Were the ECB going to wait for the end of the Warwickshire v Hampshire game, in
which Hampshire were facing a defeat that would have relegated them by 3
points?
In the end, the
pitch was marked as “below average”, which would not imply any sanction and
Hampshire settled matters by hanging on for a quite incredible draw, showing
all the bloody-minded defiance on a big turner at Edgbaston that Middlesex had
failed to show at Taunton. End of matter? Of course not!
A second
Cricket Liaison Officer was called. He inspected the pitch the day after the
game ended, took statements from umpires, captains and groundsmen and went away
again, saying nowt.
As far as I
am aware, there has been no final statement on the pitch. There is nothing in
the Conditions of Play that would permit a sanction and, over the years, far
worse has been seen. To cite just one example, in a particular Test series with
the score 3-0 and the seamers of the visiting team running riot, players and
broadcasters arrived at the stadium for the 4th Test to find a team
of groundsmen scrubbing the pitch with wire wool to remove any shred of grass.
Or, when Tests were played on matting, it was common practice for the nails
that held the pitch to be loosened when the visitors batted: making a dead
surface come suddenly to life.
The betting
was that Somerset would only receive a wrist-slap – possibly a written warning –
but, the longer that things go on, the more that conspiracy theorists are
having a field day.
Two points
from salvation, Middlesex returned to the sanction from the Surrey game a month
earlier. Should they be relegated for a clerical error?
Why wait
until after relegation to appeal? The Middlesex line is that they have been
playing ball and not making waves, having been told that no appeal was possible.
Of course,
the timing is suspiciously convenient. There is also a certain suspicion that, as
the restitution of the two points would relegate Somerset, a decision to
correct that deduction would kill two birds with one stone: Somerset cannot be
sanctioned directly for their pitch preparation, but can be indirectly by
giving Middlesex their two points back.
The revised
table would then be:
4. Yorkshire,
W4 L5, 148 points
5.
Hampshire, W3 L3, 148 points
6.
Middlesex, W3 L4, 148 points
7. Somerset,
W4, L6, 147 points
A single
point would separate Yorkshire and their 4th place prize money and
Somerset, who would be relegated.
Another way
of looking at it is that if Somerset had scored 15 more runs in their first
innings against Middlesex, they would have finished 5th and taken
the final prize money place, based on the tie-breakers that are successively
most wins and then fewest defeats, with Middlesex again being relegated.
The more
time goes by, the worse the mess gets. Somerset are taking legal advice in case
the ECB decides to relegate them retrospectively and have a strong case. They
say that they would have played differently if they had known that they needed
to reach 250 and not 200 – given the rather cavalier way that they gave away
wickets having obtained the batting point that they wanted, this might simply
have been to grind out a few extra runs rather than preparing a radically
different pitch. Middlesex feel that they have a strong case not to be
relegated either. And the fans in general feel cheated that, once again,
relegation may be decided behind closed doors rather than on the pitch.
The longer
that the ECB takes to resolve matters, the worse it looks. The danger of a
legal challenge and still further consequent delay in deciding relegation is
getting greater and we are just a month from the publication of the 2018
fixtures. They are getting themselves into a bigger and bigger mess.
What are
their options? None are good:
1. Do nothing. Middlesex are told
that it is hard luck. Nothing in the rules covers their case and please, just
bowl your overs faster next season. Oh and by the way, Cardiff, Bristol, Durham
and Hove are nice places to visit. Enjoy Division 2.
2. Give Middlesex the points back.
Relegate Somerset. Rely on defeating any legal challenge to the decision.
3. Give Middlesex the points back as
it will not affect the distribution of prize money, but change the rules
retrospectively such that only one side is relegated. Somerset keep their
Division 1 status and after one season of eight teams in Division 1, we would
be back to nine teams.
Option (3)
seems to be the one that would annoy fewest people the least, but it comes with
various dangers.
·
Would the Division 1 return to 8 teams in 2019 and, if so, would 3 teams
be relegated and 2 promoted in 2018? If not, do they have “2 down, 1 up” as in
2016? It was agreed that 3 teams being relegated in a 9-team top division was
too many, but telling the competitive Division 2 that only one side can be
promoted will cause howls of protest.
·
If the season is to be made up of 14 games, is it right that not all
sides will play all others twice? In an extreme case, one team could play the
two promoted sides just once, both away and another side play both promoted
sides home and away and thus have what is, on paper, a much easier fixture list.
The fixture computer could conceivably decide the title and relegation.
·
Would Northamptonshire appeal? Middlesex’s plight has been received with
indignation in Northampton, as the difference between them being promoted at
the expense of Nottinghamshire and staying in Division 2 were the 5 points
deducted for a slow overrate when they had three players injured, an outfielder
as wicket-keeper and were being bombarded by Riki Wessels in the
Nottinghamshire v Northants match on August 29th. Northants fans
argue that their circumstances were just as special as Middlesex’s and if Middlesex’s
overrate penalty is lifted, theirs should be too. Of course, any Northants
appeal would upset Nottinghamshire who feel that they have won promotion fair
and square… and so it goes on.
No one comes
out of this situation with much credit.
Middlesex
can blame a crossbow bolt and a clerical error all they wish, but their
problems are mainly of their own making. Their slovenly overrate through the
season was a constant worry, with it seemingly only a question of time before a
points deduction came. Similarly, on August 7th they were 30 points
clear of relegation and with a game against Warwickshire to come. They must have
been thinking of moving up into second or third in the table with this game in
hand: however, not only did they contrive to lose badly, giving Warwickshire their only win
of the season, but then they had the worst of the draw against Surrey,
struggled against Yorkshire and although they had the better of the draw
against Hampshire, the amount of play lost to poor covering at Uxbridge gave a
dreadful impression and condemned the game. Defeats to the bottom two in the
table during the run-in were hardly the mark of the Champion county and their
only win in the last six games was a heart-stopping one. There are rumours of
dressing-room unrest and the fighting spirit of 2016 was only occasionally
present. In the end, a delayed declaration against Essex early in the season
and some poor choices on and off the field, time and again through the season, were
the difference between being in the mix for second or third place and a battle
for survival.
Somerset are
always under the microscope. Teams talk about “playing on the beach” at
Taunton. Somerset will say in their defence that they are following the ECB’s
guidelines to produce more spin-friendly surfaces. The result has been to see
Dom Bess and Jack Leach promoted to the winter Lions tour, shadowing the Ashes
and Jack Leach knows that if Sydney is spin-friendly, he must have a chance of
a Test debut. What though is the line between playing to your strengths and
sharp practice? Just because the playing conditions let you get away with a
particular type of pitch preparation, is it licit to take advantage of the
loophole? If Somerset are allowed to rake their pitch, what is to stop another
side taking even more extreme measures, for example to make a pitch break up
completely on the second day? Is it right that a pitch offer big turn on the
first morning? Somerset have been poor all season and only escaped the
relegation places in September as Leach and Bess became a lethal duo on tailored
pitches: many will say that salvation has not been earnt, although they will
cheer the fact that Marcus Trescothick will have one, last tilt at being a
Championship winner before he retires.
And the ECB?
Widely criticised for the ridiculous overkill of the Durham sanctions in 2016
that have caused a great deal of bitterness and for the way that Hampshire were
assured “don’t worry, you won’t be relegated”, can they really afford to decide
relegation in a meeting room two years running? It makes a mockery of the
competition on the pitch. And now, a month and a half after the Surrey game and
two and a half weeks after the season ended, there is still no decision. In
fact, the ECB website, rather alarmingly for Somerset, does not even show an
official result yet for the Surrey-Middlesex game. How much more can they
dither? Can they really invent the rules after the end of the season yet again?
Are they even going to be able to give a definitive verdict before the new
fixture list comes out? Will whatever decision is arrived at be challenged in
the courts?
Even
Hampshire, who have done little or nothing to demonstrate that their reprieve
in 2016 was really merited, are not exempt from some criticism. It has led to
cynical suggestions on the final afternoon that, even if they lost, their
friends in London would see them right and make sure that they stayed in
Division 1. Their accidental reprieve in 2016 has not been forgiven,
particularly the suggestion that the cheque book and influence had a lot to do
with it and might well have saved them again, had the situation arisen.
For heaven’s
sake, ECB: bite the bullet and take a decision for once. And make it a reasoned
one this time. You got the County Championship – our premier competition – into
this mess, now find a dignified way to sort it out.
