County Championship Round 6: Gloucestershire v Somerset

 

 

County Championship Round 6

Gloucestershire v Somerset

 

Preview:

Still top and with a game in hand, Gloucestershire put their lead in Group 2 on the line as we head in to the run-in of the Group Phase of the County Championship. With qualification now a tightly contested battle between the top three, a defeat could drop Gloucestershire to third. Hampshire, who have started their game a day earlier against bottom team, Leicestershire, have the chance to leapfrog both Gloucestershire and Somerset. Both Somerset and Hampshire will have just three games left after this round so, little time will remain to recover any ground lost in this round of matches.

And, in the background, the news that James Bracey has an excellent chance of obtaining a first Test cap against New Zealand. Of course, being in the squad and being in the XI picked on the morning are two different things. Back in the 1970s, Somerset had a run machine called Roy Virgin: the only Somerset batsman to score 2000 runs in a season (in fact, with his one-day runs, he totalled almost 3000 in 1970). Finally, he received a call-up for the Test XII, but was left out on the morning of the match and never again got close to playing for England. James Bracey is a different case, a young player, still on the rise and likely to win many caps over the next ten years, but Roy Virgin’s experience, like the possibly even more disconcerting experience of Glamorgan stalwart, Alan Jones, is a warning to all aspiring England players not to count your caps. James Bracey could be available for the game against Surrey at The Oval, but will definitely miss the Leicestershire game at Grace Road. After that, the last two Group matches in July should see him available again as the IPL regulars return to the England side.

Both sides know that a high-scoring draw on a lifeless Bristol strip, with a full set of bonus points would suit their ambitions perfectly. It will be interesting to see if Ian Harvey and Chris Dent modify the attacking tactics that have paid-off so well so far this season, including inserting every time that the captain has won the Toss. However, a doubtful weather forecast for the first two days, with the possibility of interruptions to play and high winds may influence both captains to want to field first in the hope of favourable bowling conditions. Both sides start with the knowledge that the first day of Hampshire’s must-win match against Leicestershire was almost a washout, with just 26 overs possible and that more interruptions are expected on Thursday and Friday, which could make it hard for Hampshire to force a result.

The only change in the Gloucestershire squad is Miles Hammond for George Hankins. Hankins has struggled this season with just 120 runs at 20.0 and a top score of 37. While Hammond’s First Class record is modest, in part because he has been asked to open, he has shown some good form for the 2^nd XI this season, with 87 v Worcs 2nds and 53* last time out against Somerset 2nds. One suspects that Hammond will bat at #7, well away from the New Ball and given a chance to make his case for a run in the side, with a balanced attack picked again, Tom Smith, Matt Taylor, David Payne and Dan Worrall supplementing all-rounder, Ryan Higgins.

Day 1:

So, Chris Dent has won the Toss and inserted, again, on a day when interruptions look certain and the middle of the pitch had a tinge of green. A band of rain is just approaching Bristol on the radar and much heavier rain lies behind it. This promised to be an on and off day that was ideal for the bowlers. And the XI is as predicted above, with a balanced attack and Miles Hammond at #7.

David Payne took the new ball, with both openers getting off the mark in the first over. However, the under pressure Lammonby’s stay was of just 5 balls. He pushed Ryan Higgins to Short Square Leg and, nervously, set off on a single that was simply not there. Ian Cockbain collected and beat Lammonsby’s dive with his underarm throw to execute an excellent runout with a direct hit. Somerset 4-1 and a real energy in the field in front of a modest crowd. Although Somerset were tied-down, there was a feeling that the bowlers were consistently a fraction too short to exploit the conditions to best advantage. After 10 overs, David Payne gave way to Matt Taylor, with the score at 14-1. Not long after, though, the umpires started to get increasingly nervous and, after 13.4 overs, the players came off with the score 23-1. 53 minutes of play had been possible. Just ten minutes were lost and play resumed. To the credit of the umpires, they stayed out through a mild shower around 20 minutes after the re-start as the attritional play continued. Dan Worrall in particular was having big problems with his footholds and already producing footmarks outside off that Leach and Tom Smith will view with interest. It was a brief respite. The rain started again and, with it continuing, the players went off again after 20.2 overs, with the score at 45-1 and Somerset probably the happier of the two sides.

An early Lunch was taken,  but, as the rain got heavier – although seemingly never very heavy – out came the tarpaulins and, with the wind billowing under the covers, the ground looked a miserable, sodden scene after Lunch. Play was knocked on the head finally around 16:20. With more unsettled weather forecast, this match could turn into a hunt for first innings points.

Day 2:

The horrific appearance of the rain radar at 9am suggested that today was likely to be a washout, with band after band of heavy rain sweeping in from South Wales. In fact, so much rain looked likely to fall, added to the heavy rain that had fallen overnight, that you wondered about an on-time start even on Day 3. Certainly, it looked more like a day for rubber ducks and rubber boats on the ground rather than cable-knit sweaters. A 3pm inspection was scheduled and, as expected, decided that play would be abandoned. The chances of play on Day 3 depend on the rain stopping in time for the strong wind to dry the outfield but, with puddles in part of the outfield already and more rain expected, you wondered how much more the ground could take.

From a local point of view, it will not have escaped the notice of either captain at breakfast that things looked better on the South Coast and that, although Hampshire v Leicestershire would be in its third day, with the first innings of the match still incomplete, quick wickets in the morning session might just give a chance of setting up a result there on the fourth day. Certainly, with a total of 8 sessions of play possible at the Ageas Bowl, the match would have to move on quickly to set up a game on the last day. That though is what happened, with 8 wickets falling for just 38 runs in the morning. However, Chris Dent’s amazing powers have a long reach these days and that has included the handy knack of having a direct line to Jupiter Pluvius to send rain to other grounds. With Leicestershire tottering at 28-5, still 56 short of the follow-on, that ability certainly came in handy. With just a day left, Hampshire must enforce the follow-on to have any chance of winning, even so, taking 15 wickets in a day looks to be a tall order.

Day 3:

While the forecast for today is promising for Bristol, tomorrow looks bad again, so the game is going to be no more than a hunt for first innings points. An early look at the rain radar showed that things were genuinely looking much better at Bristol but, what was just as important to the local fans is that more rain is heading to the Ageas Bowl. Fans will remember that, when Gloucestershire narrowly missed out on the title in 1977, the biggest culprit was the rain, with a critical match in the run-in that could have sealed the title becoming the second of the season to be abandoned without a ball bowled. If the rain, this time, seems to be giving Gloucestershire (and Somerset) a hand, it may be because the rain god has a sense of natural justice (and, an even bigger sense of humour). Barring something truly extraordinary at the Ageas Bowl today, Hampshire will take just 12 points from their match. A draw at Bristol, with both sides reaching 250 in the first innings, would see the gap extend by one point. Out east, a big win for Surrey might just put them back in the hunt, but they look unlikely to take more than one batting point against Middlesex and have a lot of work to do to win.

So, that was the theory at breakfast time. What actually happened (or did not happen)?

What we saw, was a disturbing reminder of the 2020 Bob Willis Trophy match at Taunton as Gloucestershire first appeared to have the match under complete control, before a Somerset fightback with the bat and a Shire capitulation.

Play finally got under way at 11:45, which reflects great credit on the Bristol ground staff. And, initially, all looked rosy for the Cidermen as Byrom and Abell took their partnership to 81 before Byrom edged David Payne to Kieron Brathwaite at 1^st Slip. In came James Hildreth – the best current batsman never to have played for England? – and bedded-in. As the score mounted serenely, Somerset must have been thinking of 300+ and a good crop of batting points in a solid draw. Hardly could they imagine that the solidity of 127-2 would become the precarity of 143-6. If Day 2 was about acts of god, the afternoon of Day 3 was about acts of Payne and Worrall. First, David Payne bowled an excellent full delivery that swung in a little. Hildreth drove hard at it and missed completely, with the ball hitting middle. 127-3 and the start of an astonishing collapse. Dan Worrall came on for a new spell and, first ball, homed one in on middle stump that Bartlett played across: 135-4. In came Goldsworthy to join Tom Abell, who had batted all day. First ball of Dan Worrall’s new over, Goldsworthy fenced at one outside off and could only edge it through to James Bracey. 143-5 and Somerset running out of oxygen on the ascent of Mount 300. In came Davies who, second ball, sent a thick edge very low to Chris Dent at 3^rd Slip. Dent dived and took a superb low catch. 143-6 and Somerset suddenly in some trouble.

Abel and Overton started to re-build and, gradually the Somerset ambitions were growing again. 200? No, 250! Until now, Ryan Higgins had had little impact on the match. Ball outside off to Overton that lifted and moved away a fraction. Overton followed it and edged. James Bracey moved well to take the catch, running in front of Kraigg Brathwaite: 177-7. So, Somerset went to Tea at 180-7, with 40 overs left in the day. At 127-2, Gloucestershire would certainly have taken that.

Things though started to go seriously wrong for the Shire after Tea. You know how it is with Somerset: you work your way through the tail and then the serious batting starts at around #9. Gregory went after Matt Taylor and brought up the 200 in the 77^th over with a second six in the over. The new ball was taken by Dan Worrall and, rather than end the fun, after a few, quiet overs, the leather started to fly seriously. Abell moved into the 90s with a nice clip off his legs that was pulled-in just inside the Square Leg boundary. Back came David Payne after the initial new all thrust was unsuccessful and Gregory took him for consecutive fours. 250 up and the second batting point in the 91^st over with Abell on 96* and the stand starting to get seriously annoying. Up came a superb hundred for Abell with a deflection through Point off David Payne. With brilliant sunshine and the ball coming nicely onto the bat, conditions were as in favour as the batsmen as they had been at any point. A Cover Drive off David Payne and Gregory brought up his own 50. Half way through the afternoon session, 200 had looked a long way off: now 300 was looking distinctly possible and even 350. 288-7 after 100 overs and, with only ten overs left to obtain it, that third bowling point for the Shire looking very uncertain. When, finally, a wicket fell, it was a strange one. Matt Taylor, who had taken some punishment, beat the inside edge. The ball skimmed the thighpad and onto the Off Bail. The batsman waited and the umpire gave the decision… not too often will you see a batsman waiting to be given after being bowled. 292-8, Gregory bowled Taylor, 57 (6x4, 2x6); Abell, 124*.

Abell was still playing sublimely and took the score up to 300 with boundaries off the first and third ball of Dan Worrall’s next over – a pull and a cut – at which point Somerset’s batsmen ran off, denying Gloucestershire the third bowling point and giving the batsmen nine overs in bright sunshine to survive. The strategy was clear: try to fire out a couple of wickets and go for bowling points on the last day.

What happened, was not good viewing. Overton opened to Kraigg Brathwaite, who saw off the first two balls before taking a blow amidships and crumpling at the crease like a house of cards. After a considerable delay, the next ball was cut elegantly for four. An Off-Drive for a single brought the captain onto strike, who then edged the sixth ball of the opening over to Goldsworthy to fall for a golden duck. In came James Bracey, with Brathwaite still evidently in great discomfort, despite which he looked in decent form. Another cut off Overton brought him his third boundary of the innings, 14-1. This happy state of affairs did not last. First ball of the next over, Davey gave James Bracey a lovely ball, right in the channel outside off and the batsman could only feather an edge to the ‘keeper. 14-2, Bracey 1 and Tom Smith as nightwatchman.

Although Brathwaite and Smith made it through to the Close, this was not the situation that you wanted. Somerset would run in in the morning with nothing to lose and memories of the collapse at Taunton in 2020 still fresh. Surely, Somerset could not win, but there were those fans on the YouTube Channel who proclaimed loudly that they would bowl out the Shire cheaply twice to win.

16-2 from 9 overs at the Close: Kraigg Brathwaite, 13*; Tom Smith, 0*. And rain forecast for Day 4.

As this was happening, astonishing events were going on at the Ageas Bowl. A win for Hampshire would have been extremely worrying for both sides. When Hampshire had Leicestershire 54-9, 30 short of saving the follow-on, it looked as if they might engineer the most unlikely of victories. Alex Evans and Ed Barnes may just have earnt the freedom of Bristol and of Taunton by staying together for 12 overs and saving the follow-on by a single run. Even though Hampshire forfeited their second innings, setting 150 to win, too little time remained to initiate a second collapse and both Gloucestershire and Somerset breathed a sigh of relief. Had that last wicket fallen quickly, it might have been so different.

Day 4:

Occasional watery sunshine, but rain threatening and a very poor forecast for the day. Although the rain made defeat unlikely in the extreme, you wondered if we would see a situation like the Manchester Test in 1953 when, after rain and with no chance of a result, Australia collapsed to 35-8 on the last afternoon, changing the momentum of the whole series. It was set up for a collapse. And boy did we get one.

The first over gave no hint of what was to come. Tom Smith got off the mark with a confident clip off his legs for two and five runs came off the over. That was as good as it got. First ball of the second over of the morning Tom Smith missed a straight one from Overton that kept a bit low and was off, LBW, for 3: 21-3. It got worse… rapidly. In came Tom Lace. He survived a loud LBW shout first ball before, to his evident displeasure, being given out, caught behind down leg from a ball that the umpire ruled had touched glove. In came Ian Cockbain, who just failed to get a touch outside off first ball. 21-4 and the Shire imploding. Five dots from Davey to Kraigg Brathwaite and the batsman clipped him straight to Short Mid-Wicket. It was getting darker, but this collapse was hard to believe. Already the rain was starting to fall. Ian Cockbain got off the mark, as did Ryan Higgins with a clip for 3 next ball and, at 25-5, the players ran off.

At that point, with the follow-on mark 151, Somerset might just have been thinking of bowling the Shire out twice in a day. Play re-started at midday, with Ryan Higgins 3* and Ian Cockbain, 1*.

Ryan Higgins saw off three balls quietly. The fourth, lifted a little and jagged in violently, just passing the inside edge. The fifth was deflected past the slips for two. Back came Overton at the other end, for what proved to be the last over of the match. And just as well. It took just two deliveries for Overton to get one to lift a little that Ian Cockbain inside-edged onto his stumps. 27-6, Cockbain 1. And, as the rain started to fall again, out came a new leg stump as the old one had been broken in the dismissal. Miles Hammond did not even have time to reach the crease before the stumps came out and the players headed back off, this time, permanently. On came the tarpaulins, billowing in the wind and the scene was increasingly miserable, fittingly for the scoreboard.

Although the umpires waited until after Tea to knock the match on its head, the only change in the situation was for more tarpaulins and hosepipes to come out to protect the Square. We got just 26 balls on the last day, but they were 26 balls of high drama.

Aftermath:    

Will the real Gloucestershire please stand up?

Six matches. Four impressive wins. Two desperate scrambles to save a draw. Although there was never much danger, given the poor weather forecast, that the match would be lost, this was a performance that invoked comparison with the corresponding game in 2020. Was it simply a side that relaxed a bit too much knowing that there would not be a result, or a sign of a season starting to unravel?

Too much play though was lost for this to be regarded as representative. We saw the equivalent of fewer than 4 sessions, or which Gloucestershire dominated one and were very poor in another. What we are seeing though, systematically, is that luck is generally on the side of the team this season and luck is a big factor in success. As Richie Bernaud said, so memorably:

Captaincy is 10% and 90% luck, but don’t do it without the 10%.

The same applies to Gloucestershire in 2021. A poor side can fluke a win occasionally but, generally, a side makes its own luck and, in this round, they have had plenty. They are still top of Group 2, unbeaten, with a game in hand and have more points than any other team in any group, having played a lot of very good cricket. However, with Hampshire still only 11 points behind in third, Gloucestershire still have a lot of work to do to secure qualification for Division 1. The good news is that three of the remaining four games are against the bottom three in the group, but two wins from four games may be necessary to seal a place at the top table.

Of Arrows and Rakes and Bumbling Administration

 

Of Arrows and Rakes and Bumbling Administration

October 13^th 2017

The County Championship finished on September 28^th – 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 4^th 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 4^th and relegation was 45 points. The smallest gap between sides in the table was the 6 points between Surrey, in 5^th (a small amount of prize money) and Warwickshire in 6^th.

In 2017, the gap between 4^th 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 31^st. 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 3^rd 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 5^th and Middlesex in 7^th, with Somerset ahead of Middlesex on the first tie-breaker of wins. Hampshire and even Surrey, in 3^rd, are not safe, with just 13 points covering the sides from 3^rd to 7^th.

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 4^th 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 4^th 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 5^th 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 29^th. 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 7^th 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.

County Championship: Of Champions and Contrived Results

 

County Championship

Of Champions and Contrived Results

September 24^th  2016

So, after some remarkable events over the last four days, Middlesex have been pronounced Champions. A match that was dying and that appeared to have been killed the previous day, suddenly came to life in mid-afternoon of the last day of the season, with the Trophy seemingly coming off the Taunton exit of the M5 after an inexorable three and a half day trip from Headquarters.

On one level there will be some serious soul-searching and a few complaints that it is a tarnished victory for Middlesex.

That point of view is absurd.

Middlesex went top of the table on July 6^th with a big win against Yorkshire and were never headed [save briefly in the penultimate round when they were 2 points behind, but had a game in hand]. At that point, after 9 games, the Middlesex lead over Yorkshire was 15 points (Yorkshire with one game in hand) and over Somerset, more interested in not slipping into the relegation battle, 25 points.

Victory against Somerset in the next round of games left Middlesex 38 points ahead of Yorkshire and 45 ahead of Somerset (look how their nearest challengers on July 13^th, after 10 games, were Warwickshire and Lancashire, both of which entered the last day under real threat of relegation and watching anxiously the events at Southampton).

Somerset gave a hint of things to come by winning their next two games against the free-falling Nottinghamshire (themselves top of the table after 4 rounds – a quarter of the season) and Durham.

On August 16^th, Middlesex were 26 points clear of Yorkshire, having played a game more and 35 points clear of Somerset, also with a game in hand.

September 3^rd. Games in hand played out. Three matches left. Middlesex still top, 4 points ahead of Yorkshire, 21 points ahead of the rapidly rising Somerset.

September 14^th. For the only time since taking over at the top on July 6^th, Middlesex were headed when Somerset beat Yorkshire and, Middlesex, with a game in hand, momentarily found themselves a full 2 points behind Yorkshire and 1 point behind Somerset.

At this point, bearing disaster in their last two games, Middlesex were virtual Champions, given that even two, high-scoring draws would be likely to win the title. Victory at Old Trafford would all-but-seal a thoroughly merited title. Middlesex supporters know  though that their side is likely to shred nerves at any moment. How right they are!

Old Trafford. September 12^th. Middlesex bat and are 151-1 in the 50^th over. With plenty of forcing batting to come, 350 looks certain, even 400 in 110 overs requires little more than 4-an-over from there. A partnership of 97 in 34 overs for the third wicket made the 5^th batting point unlikely, but the 4^th, should have fallen. What happened was a slow crawl as the enormity of the situation seemed to paralyse the batting: even the 300 and a third batting point was just, barely reached inside 110 overs with James Franklin and Toby Roland-Jones just barely scrambling over the line before Middlesex subsided to a disappointing 327, taking up almost four sessions to do it.

Even then, the go-slow seemed irrelevant as Lancashire slipped to 6-4. Not too many people have Toby Roland-Jones on their list of likely England bowlers, but when he is on song with the new ball he can be very destructive and is extremely consistent. However, the Middlesex bowling has also shown an alarming tendency not to follow through on early breakthroughs and to let opponents off the hook. 6-4 became 32-5, 138-6 and 230-7. Even though Lancashire themselves collapsed from 230-6 to 250ao, another 100 overs had been taken out of the game, only around 4 sessions remained and Middlesex needed to add to their lead… FAST! The collapse to 55-4 was the last thing that they needed. 140 ahead on the last morning and knowing that a quick wicket would open up a real chance of a Lancashire win, acceleration was out of the question until it was far too late. There was never a realistic chance of setting a target and the game died.

The two batting points surrendered by Middlesex radically changed the situation for the last round. Instead of being 12 points clear of Somerset and able to win the title with a high-scoring draw, the difference was 10: a draw would offer no guarantees if Somerset passed over the corpse of the relegated Nottinghamshire, on what seemed certain to be a sporting Taunton pitch.

Here, things muddy a little.

Somerset were to face the already relegated Nottinghamshire who had lost four of their previous five matches. With the game at Taunton and recent pitches there offering low-scoring minefields on which Jack Leach and debutant Dominic Bess had caused chaos (in the Warwickshire game, the innings had lasted 30, 49, 74 & 58 overs respectively, with Bess taking 6-28 in his debut innings), no one doubted that there would be a result, possibly in well under three days. Middlesex had to face Yorkshire on the low, slow Lord’s pitch which, all season, had produced a series of pretty turgid draws.

Photographs of the Taunton pitch at the Toss showed a surface that suggested that a two-day finish was as likely as the match stretching into a third day. This though was, if anything, good news to Yorkshire and Middlesex fans as it appeared unlikely that Somerset would take any batting points: with a 19-point win, Middlesex would need just 10 to win the title: score 250, take the bowling points, avoid defeat and the title would go to Lord’s.  For Yorkshire, matching the Somerset result would be enough.

Just possibly this feeling that a relaxing draw would be enough on a reliably low and slow Lord’s pitch, influenced what was to come. Even the fact that this was the same pitch that had produced an utterly one-sided One Day Cup Final did not dispel the feeling that there was no need to take the slightest risk when a draw would suit nicely.

The combination of a 1030 start, bowling conditions, tight bowling and a pitch that did not allow quick scoring at any stage plus, undoubtedly, some Middlesex butterflies, led to an arthritic crawl to 270ao. Add in overs lost to bad light (desperately slow over rates, leaving Middlesex at -8) and some rain (which duly arrived later in the match) and Middlesex were leaving themselves painfully vulnerable rather than seizing the moment. Do not do anything positive. Take the draw. Middlesex though were getting close to the point where the points deduction for a slow overrate might even lose them the title.

It was gripping. It was a titanic battle but, you could almost hear Geoff Boycott muttering “those dopy so and soes. There’s more brains in a pork pie.”

All the more so because, despite being able to field two Test bowlers in Imran Tahir and Samit Patel, Nottinghamshire let Somerset reach 300 and three batting points before finally waking up. Five wickets fell at 322, Somerset crashed from 302-2 to 322-9 but, in a final indignity to a Nottinghamshire side bereft of any self-confidence, the last pair were allowed to add 43, bring up the fourth batting point and ensure that Somerset were likely to take a 23-point win, totally changing the dynamic of the title race.

Only the fact that Somerset failed to enforce the follow-on stopped the match from finishing in two days. Even some heavy rain was never going to send the match into a fourth day.

With Somerset 13 points ahead and also ahead on the first tie-breaker (most wins, 6-5), a draw was no use to Middlesex and Yorkshire now needed a 23 point win as they were behind on the second tie-breaker (most defeats, 1-2), surely there would be some positive cricket at Lord’s?

Although both sides would probably deny it, there seemed to be a little bad feeling between the sides. Yorkshire were very aggrieved that Jonny Bairstow was not released and then Adil Rashid dropped out of the match (it turns out that off-field issues left him in no mental state to play). Middlesex, in contrast, had all their players available, with Tim Murtagh released for the game by Ireland. With Andrew Strauss calling the shots, one could understand that there was maybe a little paranoia going into the match. Then Nick Gubbins had edged behind on 97 and not walked. Had he been given, Middlesex might well have been dismissed for a little over 200. Other chances were dropped. A few marginal decisions went the Middlesex way. If you were Andrew Gale and walking a disciplinary tightrope it must have been really tough to take. It meant though that Yorkshire were in no mood to do anyone any favours at all.

Yorkshire’s chances of the title seemed over when Toby Roland-Jones had Lees, Ballance and Gale all for ducks. With Lyth out for 43 made from 53-4, you felt that Middlesex could win the natural way and settle the title race. Not a bit of it.

Same as in the previous game against Lancashire. Tim Bresnan, batting at #5, although with a career batting average near 30, added 116 with Hodd. Then 35 more with David Willey and when Nick Compton returned the favours received by dropping a sitter from Rafiq and the pair dug in, Middlesex must have felt that it was all over.

When Middlesex’s only chance of keeping the match alive was to allow Yorkshire to reach 350 quickly and keep them interested in the result, they continued to apply suffocating fields. Killing the game meant playing everything on an agreed declaration. Overs 98 to 107 took the best part of an hour out of the game and produced just 10 singles and 50 dot balls, as the Yorkshire last wicket partnership edged (literally, at times) to the promised land of 350. Surely Middlesex would have been better off had he had one of his bowlers offer a couple of juicy half volleys, or maybe a couple of balls that just happened to slip down leg (so sorry, ‘keeper!)

Murtagh, Roland-Jones and Finn produced an eye-watering 405 dot balls between them in the innings.

When you start your second innings 120 behind with just four sessions left, you rather expect a draw. When you then fall to 2-2 and are left to hobble to the Close at just a fraction over 2-an-over, you start the last day knowing that you will need the best part of an hour to reach parity, before even thinking of setting a target. On the final morning Yorkshire had a real chance to take a couple of quick wickets and set up a simple chase.

A quick calculation also showed that even if Middlesex scored at 4-an-over – well above anything achieved in the match so far – any declaration would not come until after Tea, with a target of around 220 from 25 overs. If you were a Somerset fan, only a clatter of early wickets seemed likely to disturb your road to a first ever title.

Lunch. 201-3. Middlesex lead 81.

Half an hour after Lunch. 210-3. Middlesex lead 90.

Middlesex would say that they were ensuring against defeat, but this was just ludicrous.

55 overs left. Lead 95 and the new ball about to arrive.

50 overs left. Lead 115. 20 from the last 5 overs is an improvement, but there is no danger of a result this way. And Middlesex are facing a hefty points deduction for a slow overrate that requires them to get back out and bowl some overs quickly.

239-3 from 85 overs. Middlesex have shown a little more urgency with 22 from the last 4 overs, but the match is still going nowhere fast. However, Andrew Gale either has a chronic stomach problem or even he has realised that what is happening makes no sense and is going off to negotiate with James Franklin, returning with an offer that is rejected and then trying again and again to get an agreement.

Lyth comes on to bowl: 4 4 4 6 . 4

Then Lees: 4 . . W (Jack Brookes, you idiot! What a stupid moment to take a blinding catch)  4 1

Lyth again: 4 4 4 4 4 .

Lees, a better over: 6 1 6 W (bowling a straight one though was a bad mistake) 4 6

74 from 4 overs has helped a lot, if not done much for the dignity of the game.

From here it is a matter of hitting the agreed two boundaries per over and defending the remaining balls. 46 from the next 5 overs and James Franklin signals the declaration by deliberately sending the ball straight up into the air for the bowler. How else does one declare? Maybe by putting on a silly hat and playing the Joker from It’s a Knockout?

240 from 40 overs looks a very generous target, but that run-rate has only been reached in the last 10 overs of pie-chucking so, in reality, it looks like an act of desperation for Yorkshire to accept it. For most of the game even well-set batsmen have struggled to reach 3-an-over. The only question seems to be whether or not Yorkshire will shut up shop if they are well short with 7 or 8-down.

It did not take long for the answer to come. Yorkshire were never close to the run-rate required. Tim Bresnan was the only batsman to score at the required run-a-ball. By the time that it came to 153 from 20 overs, the writing was on the wall: with 10 wickets in hand, fine; when it is only 7, you need everything to go right and cannot afford an accident. Once Bresnan (to a marginal LBW) and Gale fell in quick succession it was all over. Yorkshire knew that they could not win. Somehow it was appropriate that the end was brought with a Toby Roland-Jones hat-trick as Yorkshire decided to swing on and hand the title to Middlesex rather than shut up shop and give it to Somerset.

Seven thousand paid at the gate to watch. Probably a couple of thousand more watched as members. Who says nobody watches the County Championship?

Of course, this being Middlesex, there was a sting in the tail in the form of a 4 point deduction for slow over rate. How many points the Middlesex scorer has saved his team this season by negotiating away negative over rates no one knows: it is generally reckoned that if the over rate is -2, he can get it back to zero and thus save a two point deduction. A conservative estimate is that the scorer has saved his side some 20 points over the season: the difference between being Champions and finishing 3^rd.

Hollow victory? Middlesex beat Yorkshire twice and beat Somerset at Taunton. They went through the season unbeaten and four of their eight wins were achieved away from home, while dead pitches at Lord’s made winning there almost impossible. Despite a slow start – their first win did not come until their seventh game and then to relegated Hampshire – with Middlesex starting that game only just above the bottom two, three wins from four matches in mid-season saw them rocket up the table from seventh to top and put down a marker. The chasing pack – Warwickshire, Lancashire and Durham – all faded, Middlesex did not. No other team could sustain a challenge. Somerset left themselves too much to do. Yorkshire, though affected by Test calls, never gave the impression of invincibility that they had in the previous two seasons. No, Middlesex were worthy winners. No other side could have claimed as much.