GOOGLIES & CHINAMEN
An Occasional Cricketing Journal
Edition 155
November 2015
How good would cricket be if we made the easy fixes?
The following article by Ed Smith appeared on the cricinfo website
The bad-light farce in Abu Dhabi should be a wake-up call to the ICC to be more proactive in enforcing rules that benefit the game at large. The first Test match between England and Pakistan in Abu Dhabi resembled a Greek tragedy in which cricket's fate was to struggle relentlessly towards the distant dream of entertainment and competitive drama - only to give up when the prize was almost in reach.
Homer's Odyssey describes the ordeal of Odysseus as he tries to return home in order to be reunited with his wife, Penelope. It takes Odysseus ten years but he gets there in the end. So the analogy with this Test match only half-fits. The first four days of tedious cricket in Abu Dhabi certainly felt like a ten-year ordeal. But when nirvana approached - in the form of an actual competitive match with the prospect of a result - both sides were ushered off the field and a draw was pronounced. It was like pursuing a beautiful woman around the world for ten years, finally persuading her to have dinner, only to announce after the starter course, "Sorry to leave early, but I pre-booked a taxi home at 9pm. Bye."
It was a magnificent effort by England even to create a chance of a result. But sometimes you have to pinch yourself about Test cricket. Here is a game that seems unable to fix the most elementary problems, though the remedies are clearly in the sport's collective self-interest. Theoretically, cricket is engineered to entertain. In practice? The pitch played as though it had been expressly curated to negate entertainment (I'm not saying it was). The hours of play were bizarre. Overs were lost every day due to bad light - lost overs that ended up preventing a thrilling denouement - but no one seemed willing or able to shift the hours of play forward. I went running every morning of the Test and there was some dew but it was not extravagant. So there was no reason, if play had begun earlier, why 90 overs could not have been bowled every day. It is scarcely a secret that night falls quickly in the desert. So why wait till the evening to squeeze in extra overs?
Instead, England were denied victory by bad light - a move that carried a certain narrow rationality (it echoed the decision to go off for bad light at the end of day four). Do not get carried away with the logic of the game's rationality, however. How would you explain to an American that the match could not be finished on account of bad light, despite the fact that the floodlights were on and there was absolutely no threat to the players' safety? In three weeks' time, an ODI will be in full swing at the exact hour that this Test was declared as a draw.
Pakistan's attempts to slow the game down in the last hour effectively used fading light as their central tactic to avoid defeat. Everyone does it and Pakistan were no more cynical than other teams. The umpires intervened late and reluctantly, or so it seemed. Meanwhile, no attempt was made inside the ground to communicate the salient facts to the crowd, who were literally left in the dark as they waited for night to fall.
Let's draw up a short list: a desperate pitch, slow over rates, time wasting, reluctance to use common sense, poor communication with fans, light-touch umpiring. And still, despite all that, a thrilling finale nearly broke out. Imagine how good cricket could be if we cured the easy fixes. Sport can solve problems, where there is the will. When the back pass was making football boring, it was made illegal. When big servers were killing the spectacle at Wimbledon, the balls were made 10% slower to give returners a chance. Cricket has sometimes shown a preparedness to address problems - the ICC has finally cracked down on suspect bowling actions.
So why does cricket continue to get bogged down by the problems that beset the first Test here? Albert Tucker, the Princeton mathematician and game theorist, provided the explanation in 1950. He formalised "The Prisoners' Dilemma". The theoretical experiment explains how when two agents pursue narrow self-interest it can work against the long-term benefit of both parties. Imagine two members of the same gang are imprisoned in separate cells. They are not allowed to communicate. But there is insufficient evidence against them. To try to force a confession, the police offer each of them the same bargain - known as Defect or Cooperate. Admit that your partner committed the crime - and if he stays silent - then you will go free and your partner will get three years in prison. But if you stay silent and your partner testifies that you did it, you will face prison for three years and he will walk free. If you both betray each other, you both go to prison for two years. If you both stay silent, you both get only one year in prison. What is the best strategy, defect or cooperate?
The best outcome, in terms of combined punishment, is obviously for both prisoners to cooperate - to remain silent. The combined punishment would be two single-year prison terms. But that isn't what they do. Because they cannot communicate, the rational response is to anticipate what the other prisoner will do. If you think the other prisoner will stay silent, the rational response is to defect - and hence walk free. If you think the other prisoner will defect, the rational response is still to defect - and hence serve only two years in prison rather than three. The playing out of the game is both entirely rational and yet still works against the self-interest of both prisoners.
The point is very simple. There are some circumstances in life when the failure to communicate and agree to a collective response leads to a series of rational responses that ultimately work against everyone's interests. Cricket is currently suffering its own versions of the Prisoner's Dilemma. Individual teams play on pitches that may suit their own team, but certainly don't suit the game as a spectacle. Captains slow down games to avoid defeat. They escape with a draw at the expense of the drama. Teams bowl overs slowly to escape losses. It works, but to the detriment of the entertainment.
The only way to avoid this is to take the decisions out of the hands of the individual agents. There must be a collective agreement that serves the whole game. This is why sports have governing bodies - effectively to convene meetings between the prisoners in the prisoners' dilemma and to persuade them not to defect, but instead to cooperate for the good of the game - which, of course, is the best protector of their own individual long-term self-interest as well. Step forward ICC. Set the prisoners free.
Professorial Matters
The Professor corrects previous submissions
Somewhat unusually I think I have to take issue with two of the contributions in Googlies 153:
In the general spirit of: “if we beat them they must have been rubbish”, Alex Bowden was quoted as saying that the Ashes series was between two “inexperienced teams”. Inexperienced? The Australians? Rogers, Warner, Smith, Watson, Haddin, Clarke, Johnson? Could anyone sensibly write that these players are “inexperienced”? I’m not much given to checking up on cricket statistics (although I know people who are) but I had a look at Cricinfo to see just how inexperienced the team that took the field in Cardiff were. That site gives the collective number of caps for those 11 players as, at present, 496. Knock off a few for the series just completed but can 496 caps, i.e. 45 each, conceivably bear the description “inexperienced”? I know that the English language is mutable but surely words still carry some meaning and the lexicon isn’t entirely defunct.
What are they inexperienced at? Mexican country dancing? Eight of that side played in the Oval Test 23 months before so they must have had some idea of what it was like to be in England. Several, of course, had played county cricket and even captained their counties. The least experienced of that side in terms of Test cricket was Voges. This tremulous ingénue is a little short of his 36th birthday and has played 290 first-class matches scoring in excess of 11,000 runs. He has, according to Cricinfo, played for Australia, Australia A, Hampshire, Jamaica Tallawahs, Melbourne Stars, Nottinghamshire, Perth Scorchers, Rajasthan Royals, Western Australia and was appointed captain of Middlesex. What could conceivably be called inexperienced about that little lot?
In short, it was not, it would be fair to say, a felicitous phrase.
The other contributor I take issue with, and with a good deal more trepidation, is the Great Jack Morgan. In his piece Jack wrote that Buttler’s ‘keeping had been “pretty good”. Ummm…another case, I feel, of an opinion at odds with the evidence.
Buttler’s keeping has been poor this year. It may be that a case can be made out that he is improving and one would hope that he is – he is clearly a gifted player and England have made a decision to give him an extended run in the side. But I’m afraid that he has a long way to go. Having said that I’m not sure where I would look for the best wicketkeeper on the county circuit; from what I’ve seen this year I would pick Brown (albeit on a sample of one innings) but that isn’t a lot of use in this context. To be fair to Jack he writes that Buttler’s keeping is pretty good “from what I have seen” and it may be that he hasn’t seen very much. By contrast I have watched – and at times endured - the bulk of all the test cricket played by England this year and Buttler has had some indifferent games behind the stumps.
He missed two crucial stumpings in Antigua and Barbados, which probably cost us the games. There were similar lapses against New Zealand and Australia. He has generally caught well standing back and you would expect an athletic international wicket keeper to take all the regulation snicks and some of those needing a dive to left or right, indeed a couple of those have been very good indeed; but it is standing-up that most regard as the crucial test and he has not been at all good at that. It might be argued that since England have little in the spin department it doesn’t matter much, but of course at times it does.
The byes count is sometimes a bit harsh on a keeper but he must bear at least some responsibility. There was an unacceptable number in one of the New Zealand tests and again byes, when the ‘keeper is standing up, always evidence a problem. Finally, and Jack may regard this as little more than aesthetics, there is the issue of taking routine returns from the outfield. Personally I think it is important that a wicketkeeper holds on to these and generally “tidies-up” around the stumps. It raises the morale, makes a poor throw into something reasonable and generally adds an important sharpness to the fielding side. Buttler drops far too many of these balls (as well as balls that go through when the batsman doesn’t play) – it looks poor and I think many good judges would say that it is poor.
It may well be that there is little alternative; the specialist wicketkeeper debate is a thing of the past and the only apparent rival for the No.7 spot appears to be Bairstow and he is not a great keeper either (but a better bat, in my view). So perhaps they will keep going with Buttler. But he has some way to go before he can be judged “pretty good”.
Finally, I have a question for all the rugger-buggers who read Googlies. I have just spent two afternoons at Elland Road watching international rugby…and excellent viewing it was; such a change watching the authenticity of rugby – when a player is injured he really is injured. One odd element, or so it seems to me, is the role a lucky bounce of the ball can play – which it did in both games. So, the question is…When William Webb Ellis picked up the ball, what shape was it?
Dubai Matters
I wrote the following to the Great Jack Morgan
I saw a few days of both the Abu Dhabi and Dubai tests but missed the weekend days through working at shows. I no longer subscribe to the view that Rashid is a wayward leg spinner who bowls the occasional loose ball. He bowls all rubbish of variable length with the occasional satisfactory ball pitched somewhere near a length. I missed his “five for” but can only assume that he was assisted by injudicious batting since by the time I saw him again at Dubai he was all over the place in both innings.
There seems to be a forgetting that the Pakistanis can play spin. Moeen didn’t bowl many overs in Dubai not because he was being saved to open the batting but because he was hit out of the attack. This combined with Rashid’s rinse meant that England were largely dependent on the four man pace attack rather than tight spin at one end combined with rotated pace men at the other. Will this mean that Patel will be given a go in Sharjah? Moeen will continue to open and Rashid will play so perhaps Wood will be left out? Taylor may come in for Buttler with Bairstow taking the gloves, although no one expects him to be any better than Buttler. Assuming there are no injuries, particularly Cook, I nevertheless expect no changes.
The scorecard from Dubai showed some interesting consistencies. Pakistan batsmen 1 to 3 had one fifty in each innings, England had one overall. Pakistan batsmen 4 to 6 all scored fifty in both innings, including two hundreds, whilst England’s 4 to 6 scored just two fifties, both by Root. The net result of this is that England’s top six scored just three fifties out of twelve innings. The remaining five batsmen managed one fifty from ten innings. All of this on a wicket which offered no help to any of the bowlers. The tests started without any proper match practice and after a long rest period. Why were not some proper first class games not arranged? The received wisdom now is that these guys don’t need any match practice but there is little if any evidence to support this.
The commentators decided to heap praise on these feeble performances saying that England had just one bad session and otherwise equipped themselves creditably. They are missing the whole point of test cricket if they believe this crap. The opposition is constantly attempting to create one bad session and if it does so will go on to win assuming they maintain their consistency. England’s batting is just not up to it and its hard to see who will step up. I don’t think that Hales is the answer. In the county game despite a few big scores he generally fails at the top of the order and this will probably replicate at international level. The Pakistanis in the UAE are a test but no great threat but the South Africans at home will be a different proposition. The top order will get some serious pace and hostility on quick wickets, which will be testing at a higher level.
Middlesex Matters
The Great Jack Morgan notes
Middlesex have signed Gloucester’s RFM bowler James Fuller, aged 25, born in Cape Town, educated in NZ, British passport. I have never seen him, but I am not getting too excited; his career record to 2014 was 74 wkts @ 33.13 and 387 runs @ 13.34. He did better with the bat in 2015: 300 runs @ 25, but worse with the ball: 24 wkts @ 38.25. They see him as a "white ball bowler" apparently.
James Harris won 3 awards at the Middlesex Player of the Year bash including Player of the Year. G Sandhu has been released.
I hear that Chris Rogers has joined Somerset. I am guessing that Middlesex were wanting someone for more than a year, which was all CR wanted: so will Adam Voges get the vote? I do not really want Franky to carry on because I would probably want to drop him!
Surrey have made a very useful signing in M Footitt (I would definitely prefer him to J Fuller!). He did not look as threatening at the Oval this season as he had last year, but he still had a good season overall with 76 wickets @ 23.
Middlesex finished second in the First Division and their record of 7 wins and only 2 defeats was way better than any other team except champions Yorkshire. So everyone is happy with the season's performance then? Well, no, actually, the summary of the season disguises some very ordinary individual performances.
Batting: the number of batting points gained was the second lowest in the First Division, but nobody would complain about Adam Voges's average of 56 or Dawid Malan's 49, but Nick Compton's 37 was slightly disappointing and nobody else averaged above 30: Sam Robson 29.6, Joe Burns 29.1, John Simpson 28.5, Neil Dexter 27.8, James Franklin 27.7, Nick Gubbins 26.9, Paul Stirling 25 and Eoin Morgan 10, which is not good enough. In mitigation, one has to say that wickets were generally exceptionally green, especially at Lord's. But by contrast to the batsmen, some of the bowlers batted well: TSRJ 27.7, Steve Finn 24.6 and Jimmy Harris 22.2.
The green tracks assisted the pace bowlers of course and they returned some useful figures though spinner Adam Voges actually topped the averages on 22, then came Neil Dexter 23.1, Jimmy Harris 24.5, Steve Finn 24.9, Tim Murtagh 26.5 and TSRJ 27, but spinners Ravi Patel 29.3 and Ollie Rayner 32.5 found little assistance and probably the least impressive performance was skipper James Franklin's 54.4 with his slow medium left armers.
In the field, John Simpson generally kept very well (58 victims), Ollie Rayner was usually brilliant at second slip (31 catches) and James Franklin (15), Sam Robson (14) and Adam Voges (7) all caught well in the slips, while TSRJ (8) has a safe pair of hands away from the bat. It seems strange that Dexter has been allowed to depart as he was the second best bowler and seventh best batsman, but let us hope that some good cricketers can be recruited in the close season.
Second Division Matters
The Great Jack Morgan went to the Oval
Wayne Madsen won the toss for Derbyshire and chose to bat first in showery conditions in the County Championship match against Surrey at the Oval starting on September 2. Ex-Middlesex and Essex opener Billy Godleman has a fairly dour reputation, but he was entertaining enough on this occasion, hitting 45 off 57 balls with 8 fours in an opening stand of 79 with Ben Slater from Leeds/ Bradford MCCU. Slater went on to 42 off 118 balls, but when he fell with the score on 128, wickets tumbled regularly. There were only 2 more causes for happiness for the visitors: i) the skill and application of big Chesney Hughes from Anguilla, who fought long and hard for an excellent 96 off 190 balls with 8 fours; and ii) an enjoyable eighth wicket stand of 50 in 43 minutes between Matthew Critchley from Preston and ex-Essex man Tony Palladino, who both made 31. Derbyshire were all out for a disappointing 313 and it was strange that the slow left arm of ex-Cambridge man Zafar Ansari accounted for the first four wickets to fall (for 61), while the last 6 fell to the seamers, 5 of them to Tom Curran (son of Kevin) for 71.
Palladino soon had two home batsmen back in the pavilion with only 48 on the board, but ex-Cardiff University man Rory Burns was batting well and when he was joined by another wicket-keeper (there were 5 in this Surrey side) in ex-Essex man Ben Foakes, a good stand of 83 developed for the third wicket. Burns went on to an admirable 92 off 136 balls with 15 fours. Ansari made a slow and steady start to his innings, but Irish keeper Gary Wilson provided entertainment at the other end as he made a quick 72 from 110 balls with 11 fours in a stand of 109. Offspinner Wes Durston was the only bowler causing any problems for the home team and ex-Somerset allrounder James Burke settled into a long partnership of 148 for the seventh wicket with Ansari, who was finally dismissed for an impressive 106 off 230 balls with 10 fours. Burke had been the first change bowler in the Derbys innings, but it looked as if batting might be his stronger suit here as he went on to a praiseworthy 79 off 161 balls with 6 fours. Sam Curran (another son of Kevin) made a flamboyant 46 from 44 balls with 8 fours and a six and skipper Gareth Batty (35*), batting at 11, added 61 for the last wicket with Tom Curran as Surrey finished on 560 all out, a lead of 247. Ex-Millfield boy Durston was the outstanding bowler with 6 for 133 from 42.3 overs.
Derbys were in some trouble as their second innings started on day four, but the wicket was still good as far as we could tell from the performance of the home tailenders (the lowest scorers in the Surrey innings were numbers 2 and 3) and the Oval wicket has a reputation for helping spin bowling so it was rather surprising that they quickly fell to 0 for 2 and then 9 for 3 before a spinner had bowled a ball. However, Madsen (from Durban) held firm and he found a accomplished partner in Durston as the pair put on 86 for the fourth wicket before Durston departed for an entertaining 57 from 78 balls with 10 fours. However the home spinners were now in control and wickets fell regularly to Batty, who was clearly enjoying the situation. Madsen finished on a valuable 76 not out, no visiting batsman apart from Madsen and Durston made more than 5 as Derbys collapsed to 149 all out. Batty finished the match with a hat-trick (albeit numbers 9,10 and 11) which gave him the remarkable figures of 6 for 51 in 16.4 overs of exemplary offspin and Surrey won by an innings and 98 runs.
Derbyshire gained 5 points from the match and Surrey took 23 points, which took them above Lancashire to the top of the table and confirmed their promotion to the First Division. Lancashire had the worse of the draw with Kent at Canterbury, but the 8 points they took confirmed that they will also be playing in Division One next season. I watched the Surrey v Derbyshire game at the Oval last season (also in September) and whilst Surrey have improved considerably since then, Derbyshire have gone in the opposite direction. Last year, Surrey could not cope with left arm quickie Mark Footitt and the visitors strolled to victory by 8 wickets with Godleman making 104* and Cheteshwar Pujara 90*, but they are nowhere near such a good side now.
Quote of the decade
Brett Lee: The best way to stay fit as a fast bowler is to stay out of the gym.
Record Aggregate Matters
Charlie Pucket responded to Jeff Coleman’s notes
In answer to a comment about the 2nd XI Championship record run totals, I I have the following information to add. I umpired a 2nd XI match which started on 14th August 2001 between Middlesex and Northants at Vine Lane. The scores were as follows:
Northants 549 all out & 249-5
Middlesex 409 all out & 328-7
Match drawn and a total of 1,535 runs for 32 wickets.
Nothing to do with me, guv; I just counted from 1-6 (as usual).
More Surrey Matters
More reporting from the across the Thames by the Great Jack Morgan
Surrey went for their usual balance of five wicket keepers and four bowlers for the Championship match against Northamptonshire, scheduled to start at the Oval on September 22, while the visitors were more conservative and went for a mere three keepers. After day one was washed out, Gareth Batty won the toss for Surrey and unsurprisingly chose to bat first. All the Surrey top order got a decent start, but Kumar Sangakkara was the only one of them who looked likely to go on to a big score. Steve Davies helped him add 64 for the fourth wicket and Jason Roy shared a stand of 52 with Kumar before the latter finally departed for a top class effort of 101 off 140 balls with 13 fours and a six. By this time Gary Wilson had settled in and he shared a fine partnership of 71 with 17 year old schoolboy Sam Curran, before Wilson fell for 49 off 96 balls with 5 fours. Skipper Batty helped Curran to put on 56 for the ninth wicket before the hosts were finally all out for 410 in 95.5 overs, leaving Curran undefeated on an excellent 61 off 102 balls with 9 fours and a six. Jamaican paceman Maurice Chambers took 3 for 44 and slow left armer Graeme White (who did not take a first class wicket in 2014) claimed 3 for 81.
It is not possible for non-members to watch from behind the bowler's arm at the Oval, so I am unable to explain why Northants collapsed to 110 all out in 29.5 overs in reply, Josh Cobb's 29* being their best effort. Surely the wicket had not turned unpredictable, so it must have been the pathetic nature of the visitors' batting or the excellence of the pace bowling by the Curran brothers, Tom taking 7 for 35 and Sam picking up 3-46, so let's give the credit to the bowlers. The last brothers to share ten wickets in a Championship innings were Charlie and Jack Oakes for Sussex against Somerset in 1950, a bit before my time, of course, but I expect the Prof remembers it!
Batty asked Northants to bat again but their second innings was a very different affair with Ben Duckett (like White, he was educated at Stowe School) and skipper Alex Wakely (from Hammersmith) putting on 227 for the second wicket before Duckett fell for a splendid 120 off 145 balls with 21 fours. This started a collapse that included Wakely for 93 off 171 balls with 16 fours and a six, but the situation was quickly retrieved by ex-Middlesex man Adam Rossington and ex-Loughborough man David Murphy who shared a brilliant stand of 162 for the fifth wicket before Rossington fell for a superb 116 off 134 with 21 fours. Rossington's departure began a serious collapse from 441 for 5 to 443 for 9, but Murphy was still there and the last man was the considerable figure of South African Test allrounder Rory Kleinveldt, batting at 11 because of an injury picked up while bowling in the Surrey innings. These two put on 71 for the last wicket with Murphy going on to an exceptional 135* off 155 balls with 16 fours and 2 sixes as the visitors' innings finally closed on 514. Pace bowler Matt Dunn was the most successful bowler with 4-104 and Tom Curran picked up 3 for 141. All three of the Northants' centurions were wicket keepers. Surrey's Wilson had five catches behind the stumps in the match.
Surrey had precious little chance of winning the match, but they provided some fun anyway by promoting Roy from no 6 to his one day slot of no 1 and he responded with a sparkling 77 off 35 balls with 4 fours and 8 sixes. Arun Harinath helped him add 61 for the fourth wicket though Harinath's contribution was only 12. The Surrey second innings closed on 125-5 after 15.5 overs and we were left to ponder which of the Curran brothers will turn out to be the better cricketer: at present, Tom looks the better bowler and Sam the better bat, but both of them are young enough to keep on improving for a considerable time yet. Surrey took 13 points from the draw and Northants 8. Surrey are the Champions of Division 2 and we look forward to seeing them in the First Division next season.
Strange Elevens
A welcome return of this popular feature supplied by the Great Jack Morgan
I cannot, of course, really answer the Prof's question about fathers and sons playing Test cricket, but I have come up with a complete English XI. Batting order is tricky when they sometimes have completely different roles, so I have settled on alphabetical:
Bairstows DL and JM
Broads BC and SCJ
Butchers AR and MA
Cowdreys MC and CS
Hardstaffs J Sen and J Jnr
Huttons L and RA
Joneses IJ and SP
Parkses JH and JM
Sidebottoms A and RJ
Stewarts MJ and AJ
Tates FW and MW
Red Mist Matters
Early warning to the English tourists in the New Year. In the fifth ODI in India South Africa rattled up 438 for 4 in their fifty overs with de Kock, du Plessis and de Villiers all scoring hundreds. In total the Proteas clubbed twenty sixes. The Indians fell short by over 200 runs. If he stays fit this time we will have heard a lot more from de Kock by the end of the England tour.
King Cricket Matters
Ged writes:
“Have you brought the actual bottle of red wine you forgot to bring last time?” I asked, as I arrived to find Charley the Gent Malloy in the front row of the Mound Stand.
“Absolutely – here it is,” said Charley, showing off a very appealing-looking bottle of Chianti. “I’m not sure how much of it I’ll want to drink myself, though,” he added. “I have an early start in the motor tomorrow and don’t want to drink too much today.”
“I’ve had plenty to drink in Ireland over the last couple of weeks and am back here with Daisy on Sunday,” I said. “So a relatively light day on the soup will suit me too.”
Charley then asked me to explain how we had ended up with front row seats in the Mound Stand for day two of a Lord’s Test, given that I said to him on our previous visit that I hadn’t even bothered to order tickets for this match through the priority booking system.
“Simple, Chas. The day after your visit in April, I popped backed to Lord’s and asked in the ticket office if they by any chance had a couple of Test match returns. After the standard line about only restricted view seats still being available, the helpful fellow in the ticket office then took an actual look through the returns. When I confirmed that it was just two that I wanted, he said that he, by chance, had a couple of returns in the front row of the Mound Stand. He then asked me, just to be sure, whether I wanted to buy those.”
“Magic,” said Chas.
While making headway into our picnic, going gently with my bottle of Alsatian Gewürztraminer to accompany the food, we got chatting to some friendly folk sitting next to us. Turned out that they were marketing and advertising alumni from a large global corporate. A regular group for day two of the Lord’s Test, although sadly two men short this visit due to unforeseen circumstances. Their tales of derring-do, sponsoring cricketers and attending matches in days of yore, were way beyond our Cricket Badger-style and Heavy Roller stories, so Charley and I simply listened in awe and wonder.
They were a jolly bunch and delightful company for a few hours. Soon they were offering us some of their grub and some colourful cocktails, all of which we politely declined. One of their number was now marketing cocktail mixers, which only partially explained how and why this group were knocking back extravagant-looking drinks. Chas and I made slow, steady progress through my bottle of white, while the picnic was going down very nicely and eventually, so was the sun.
Late in the day, Charley offered to open the Chianti, but we both agreed that it would be a waste, as neither of us really wanted to drink any more. We got some quizzical looks – perhaps they were looks of pity – from our newfound, cocktail-sodden friends. Still, Chas and I agreed that the bottle of Chianti should live to fight another day. Indeed, our planned trip to see Essex v The Australians in a few weeks’ time should be ideal for it.
Googlies and Chinamen
is produced by
James Sharp
Broad Lee House
Combs
High Peak
SK23 9XA
Tel: 01298 70237
Email: [email protected]
www.googliesandchinamen.com
An Occasional Cricketing Journal
Edition 155
November 2015
How good would cricket be if we made the easy fixes?
The following article by Ed Smith appeared on the cricinfo website
The bad-light farce in Abu Dhabi should be a wake-up call to the ICC to be more proactive in enforcing rules that benefit the game at large. The first Test match between England and Pakistan in Abu Dhabi resembled a Greek tragedy in which cricket's fate was to struggle relentlessly towards the distant dream of entertainment and competitive drama - only to give up when the prize was almost in reach.
Homer's Odyssey describes the ordeal of Odysseus as he tries to return home in order to be reunited with his wife, Penelope. It takes Odysseus ten years but he gets there in the end. So the analogy with this Test match only half-fits. The first four days of tedious cricket in Abu Dhabi certainly felt like a ten-year ordeal. But when nirvana approached - in the form of an actual competitive match with the prospect of a result - both sides were ushered off the field and a draw was pronounced. It was like pursuing a beautiful woman around the world for ten years, finally persuading her to have dinner, only to announce after the starter course, "Sorry to leave early, but I pre-booked a taxi home at 9pm. Bye."
It was a magnificent effort by England even to create a chance of a result. But sometimes you have to pinch yourself about Test cricket. Here is a game that seems unable to fix the most elementary problems, though the remedies are clearly in the sport's collective self-interest. Theoretically, cricket is engineered to entertain. In practice? The pitch played as though it had been expressly curated to negate entertainment (I'm not saying it was). The hours of play were bizarre. Overs were lost every day due to bad light - lost overs that ended up preventing a thrilling denouement - but no one seemed willing or able to shift the hours of play forward. I went running every morning of the Test and there was some dew but it was not extravagant. So there was no reason, if play had begun earlier, why 90 overs could not have been bowled every day. It is scarcely a secret that night falls quickly in the desert. So why wait till the evening to squeeze in extra overs?
Instead, England were denied victory by bad light - a move that carried a certain narrow rationality (it echoed the decision to go off for bad light at the end of day four). Do not get carried away with the logic of the game's rationality, however. How would you explain to an American that the match could not be finished on account of bad light, despite the fact that the floodlights were on and there was absolutely no threat to the players' safety? In three weeks' time, an ODI will be in full swing at the exact hour that this Test was declared as a draw.
Pakistan's attempts to slow the game down in the last hour effectively used fading light as their central tactic to avoid defeat. Everyone does it and Pakistan were no more cynical than other teams. The umpires intervened late and reluctantly, or so it seemed. Meanwhile, no attempt was made inside the ground to communicate the salient facts to the crowd, who were literally left in the dark as they waited for night to fall.
Let's draw up a short list: a desperate pitch, slow over rates, time wasting, reluctance to use common sense, poor communication with fans, light-touch umpiring. And still, despite all that, a thrilling finale nearly broke out. Imagine how good cricket could be if we cured the easy fixes. Sport can solve problems, where there is the will. When the back pass was making football boring, it was made illegal. When big servers were killing the spectacle at Wimbledon, the balls were made 10% slower to give returners a chance. Cricket has sometimes shown a preparedness to address problems - the ICC has finally cracked down on suspect bowling actions.
So why does cricket continue to get bogged down by the problems that beset the first Test here? Albert Tucker, the Princeton mathematician and game theorist, provided the explanation in 1950. He formalised "The Prisoners' Dilemma". The theoretical experiment explains how when two agents pursue narrow self-interest it can work against the long-term benefit of both parties. Imagine two members of the same gang are imprisoned in separate cells. They are not allowed to communicate. But there is insufficient evidence against them. To try to force a confession, the police offer each of them the same bargain - known as Defect or Cooperate. Admit that your partner committed the crime - and if he stays silent - then you will go free and your partner will get three years in prison. But if you stay silent and your partner testifies that you did it, you will face prison for three years and he will walk free. If you both betray each other, you both go to prison for two years. If you both stay silent, you both get only one year in prison. What is the best strategy, defect or cooperate?
The best outcome, in terms of combined punishment, is obviously for both prisoners to cooperate - to remain silent. The combined punishment would be two single-year prison terms. But that isn't what they do. Because they cannot communicate, the rational response is to anticipate what the other prisoner will do. If you think the other prisoner will stay silent, the rational response is to defect - and hence walk free. If you think the other prisoner will defect, the rational response is still to defect - and hence serve only two years in prison rather than three. The playing out of the game is both entirely rational and yet still works against the self-interest of both prisoners.
The point is very simple. There are some circumstances in life when the failure to communicate and agree to a collective response leads to a series of rational responses that ultimately work against everyone's interests. Cricket is currently suffering its own versions of the Prisoner's Dilemma. Individual teams play on pitches that may suit their own team, but certainly don't suit the game as a spectacle. Captains slow down games to avoid defeat. They escape with a draw at the expense of the drama. Teams bowl overs slowly to escape losses. It works, but to the detriment of the entertainment.
The only way to avoid this is to take the decisions out of the hands of the individual agents. There must be a collective agreement that serves the whole game. This is why sports have governing bodies - effectively to convene meetings between the prisoners in the prisoners' dilemma and to persuade them not to defect, but instead to cooperate for the good of the game - which, of course, is the best protector of their own individual long-term self-interest as well. Step forward ICC. Set the prisoners free.
Professorial Matters
The Professor corrects previous submissions
Somewhat unusually I think I have to take issue with two of the contributions in Googlies 153:
In the general spirit of: “if we beat them they must have been rubbish”, Alex Bowden was quoted as saying that the Ashes series was between two “inexperienced teams”. Inexperienced? The Australians? Rogers, Warner, Smith, Watson, Haddin, Clarke, Johnson? Could anyone sensibly write that these players are “inexperienced”? I’m not much given to checking up on cricket statistics (although I know people who are) but I had a look at Cricinfo to see just how inexperienced the team that took the field in Cardiff were. That site gives the collective number of caps for those 11 players as, at present, 496. Knock off a few for the series just completed but can 496 caps, i.e. 45 each, conceivably bear the description “inexperienced”? I know that the English language is mutable but surely words still carry some meaning and the lexicon isn’t entirely defunct.
What are they inexperienced at? Mexican country dancing? Eight of that side played in the Oval Test 23 months before so they must have had some idea of what it was like to be in England. Several, of course, had played county cricket and even captained their counties. The least experienced of that side in terms of Test cricket was Voges. This tremulous ingénue is a little short of his 36th birthday and has played 290 first-class matches scoring in excess of 11,000 runs. He has, according to Cricinfo, played for Australia, Australia A, Hampshire, Jamaica Tallawahs, Melbourne Stars, Nottinghamshire, Perth Scorchers, Rajasthan Royals, Western Australia and was appointed captain of Middlesex. What could conceivably be called inexperienced about that little lot?
In short, it was not, it would be fair to say, a felicitous phrase.
The other contributor I take issue with, and with a good deal more trepidation, is the Great Jack Morgan. In his piece Jack wrote that Buttler’s ‘keeping had been “pretty good”. Ummm…another case, I feel, of an opinion at odds with the evidence.
Buttler’s keeping has been poor this year. It may be that a case can be made out that he is improving and one would hope that he is – he is clearly a gifted player and England have made a decision to give him an extended run in the side. But I’m afraid that he has a long way to go. Having said that I’m not sure where I would look for the best wicketkeeper on the county circuit; from what I’ve seen this year I would pick Brown (albeit on a sample of one innings) but that isn’t a lot of use in this context. To be fair to Jack he writes that Buttler’s keeping is pretty good “from what I have seen” and it may be that he hasn’t seen very much. By contrast I have watched – and at times endured - the bulk of all the test cricket played by England this year and Buttler has had some indifferent games behind the stumps.
He missed two crucial stumpings in Antigua and Barbados, which probably cost us the games. There were similar lapses against New Zealand and Australia. He has generally caught well standing back and you would expect an athletic international wicket keeper to take all the regulation snicks and some of those needing a dive to left or right, indeed a couple of those have been very good indeed; but it is standing-up that most regard as the crucial test and he has not been at all good at that. It might be argued that since England have little in the spin department it doesn’t matter much, but of course at times it does.
The byes count is sometimes a bit harsh on a keeper but he must bear at least some responsibility. There was an unacceptable number in one of the New Zealand tests and again byes, when the ‘keeper is standing up, always evidence a problem. Finally, and Jack may regard this as little more than aesthetics, there is the issue of taking routine returns from the outfield. Personally I think it is important that a wicketkeeper holds on to these and generally “tidies-up” around the stumps. It raises the morale, makes a poor throw into something reasonable and generally adds an important sharpness to the fielding side. Buttler drops far too many of these balls (as well as balls that go through when the batsman doesn’t play) – it looks poor and I think many good judges would say that it is poor.
It may well be that there is little alternative; the specialist wicketkeeper debate is a thing of the past and the only apparent rival for the No.7 spot appears to be Bairstow and he is not a great keeper either (but a better bat, in my view). So perhaps they will keep going with Buttler. But he has some way to go before he can be judged “pretty good”.
Finally, I have a question for all the rugger-buggers who read Googlies. I have just spent two afternoons at Elland Road watching international rugby…and excellent viewing it was; such a change watching the authenticity of rugby – when a player is injured he really is injured. One odd element, or so it seems to me, is the role a lucky bounce of the ball can play – which it did in both games. So, the question is…When William Webb Ellis picked up the ball, what shape was it?
Dubai Matters
I wrote the following to the Great Jack Morgan
I saw a few days of both the Abu Dhabi and Dubai tests but missed the weekend days through working at shows. I no longer subscribe to the view that Rashid is a wayward leg spinner who bowls the occasional loose ball. He bowls all rubbish of variable length with the occasional satisfactory ball pitched somewhere near a length. I missed his “five for” but can only assume that he was assisted by injudicious batting since by the time I saw him again at Dubai he was all over the place in both innings.
There seems to be a forgetting that the Pakistanis can play spin. Moeen didn’t bowl many overs in Dubai not because he was being saved to open the batting but because he was hit out of the attack. This combined with Rashid’s rinse meant that England were largely dependent on the four man pace attack rather than tight spin at one end combined with rotated pace men at the other. Will this mean that Patel will be given a go in Sharjah? Moeen will continue to open and Rashid will play so perhaps Wood will be left out? Taylor may come in for Buttler with Bairstow taking the gloves, although no one expects him to be any better than Buttler. Assuming there are no injuries, particularly Cook, I nevertheless expect no changes.
The scorecard from Dubai showed some interesting consistencies. Pakistan batsmen 1 to 3 had one fifty in each innings, England had one overall. Pakistan batsmen 4 to 6 all scored fifty in both innings, including two hundreds, whilst England’s 4 to 6 scored just two fifties, both by Root. The net result of this is that England’s top six scored just three fifties out of twelve innings. The remaining five batsmen managed one fifty from ten innings. All of this on a wicket which offered no help to any of the bowlers. The tests started without any proper match practice and after a long rest period. Why were not some proper first class games not arranged? The received wisdom now is that these guys don’t need any match practice but there is little if any evidence to support this.
The commentators decided to heap praise on these feeble performances saying that England had just one bad session and otherwise equipped themselves creditably. They are missing the whole point of test cricket if they believe this crap. The opposition is constantly attempting to create one bad session and if it does so will go on to win assuming they maintain their consistency. England’s batting is just not up to it and its hard to see who will step up. I don’t think that Hales is the answer. In the county game despite a few big scores he generally fails at the top of the order and this will probably replicate at international level. The Pakistanis in the UAE are a test but no great threat but the South Africans at home will be a different proposition. The top order will get some serious pace and hostility on quick wickets, which will be testing at a higher level.
Middlesex Matters
The Great Jack Morgan notes
Middlesex have signed Gloucester’s RFM bowler James Fuller, aged 25, born in Cape Town, educated in NZ, British passport. I have never seen him, but I am not getting too excited; his career record to 2014 was 74 wkts @ 33.13 and 387 runs @ 13.34. He did better with the bat in 2015: 300 runs @ 25, but worse with the ball: 24 wkts @ 38.25. They see him as a "white ball bowler" apparently.
James Harris won 3 awards at the Middlesex Player of the Year bash including Player of the Year. G Sandhu has been released.
I hear that Chris Rogers has joined Somerset. I am guessing that Middlesex were wanting someone for more than a year, which was all CR wanted: so will Adam Voges get the vote? I do not really want Franky to carry on because I would probably want to drop him!
Surrey have made a very useful signing in M Footitt (I would definitely prefer him to J Fuller!). He did not look as threatening at the Oval this season as he had last year, but he still had a good season overall with 76 wickets @ 23.
Middlesex finished second in the First Division and their record of 7 wins and only 2 defeats was way better than any other team except champions Yorkshire. So everyone is happy with the season's performance then? Well, no, actually, the summary of the season disguises some very ordinary individual performances.
Batting: the number of batting points gained was the second lowest in the First Division, but nobody would complain about Adam Voges's average of 56 or Dawid Malan's 49, but Nick Compton's 37 was slightly disappointing and nobody else averaged above 30: Sam Robson 29.6, Joe Burns 29.1, John Simpson 28.5, Neil Dexter 27.8, James Franklin 27.7, Nick Gubbins 26.9, Paul Stirling 25 and Eoin Morgan 10, which is not good enough. In mitigation, one has to say that wickets were generally exceptionally green, especially at Lord's. But by contrast to the batsmen, some of the bowlers batted well: TSRJ 27.7, Steve Finn 24.6 and Jimmy Harris 22.2.
The green tracks assisted the pace bowlers of course and they returned some useful figures though spinner Adam Voges actually topped the averages on 22, then came Neil Dexter 23.1, Jimmy Harris 24.5, Steve Finn 24.9, Tim Murtagh 26.5 and TSRJ 27, but spinners Ravi Patel 29.3 and Ollie Rayner 32.5 found little assistance and probably the least impressive performance was skipper James Franklin's 54.4 with his slow medium left armers.
In the field, John Simpson generally kept very well (58 victims), Ollie Rayner was usually brilliant at second slip (31 catches) and James Franklin (15), Sam Robson (14) and Adam Voges (7) all caught well in the slips, while TSRJ (8) has a safe pair of hands away from the bat. It seems strange that Dexter has been allowed to depart as he was the second best bowler and seventh best batsman, but let us hope that some good cricketers can be recruited in the close season.
Second Division Matters
The Great Jack Morgan went to the Oval
Wayne Madsen won the toss for Derbyshire and chose to bat first in showery conditions in the County Championship match against Surrey at the Oval starting on September 2. Ex-Middlesex and Essex opener Billy Godleman has a fairly dour reputation, but he was entertaining enough on this occasion, hitting 45 off 57 balls with 8 fours in an opening stand of 79 with Ben Slater from Leeds/ Bradford MCCU. Slater went on to 42 off 118 balls, but when he fell with the score on 128, wickets tumbled regularly. There were only 2 more causes for happiness for the visitors: i) the skill and application of big Chesney Hughes from Anguilla, who fought long and hard for an excellent 96 off 190 balls with 8 fours; and ii) an enjoyable eighth wicket stand of 50 in 43 minutes between Matthew Critchley from Preston and ex-Essex man Tony Palladino, who both made 31. Derbyshire were all out for a disappointing 313 and it was strange that the slow left arm of ex-Cambridge man Zafar Ansari accounted for the first four wickets to fall (for 61), while the last 6 fell to the seamers, 5 of them to Tom Curran (son of Kevin) for 71.
Palladino soon had two home batsmen back in the pavilion with only 48 on the board, but ex-Cardiff University man Rory Burns was batting well and when he was joined by another wicket-keeper (there were 5 in this Surrey side) in ex-Essex man Ben Foakes, a good stand of 83 developed for the third wicket. Burns went on to an admirable 92 off 136 balls with 15 fours. Ansari made a slow and steady start to his innings, but Irish keeper Gary Wilson provided entertainment at the other end as he made a quick 72 from 110 balls with 11 fours in a stand of 109. Offspinner Wes Durston was the only bowler causing any problems for the home team and ex-Somerset allrounder James Burke settled into a long partnership of 148 for the seventh wicket with Ansari, who was finally dismissed for an impressive 106 off 230 balls with 10 fours. Burke had been the first change bowler in the Derbys innings, but it looked as if batting might be his stronger suit here as he went on to a praiseworthy 79 off 161 balls with 6 fours. Sam Curran (another son of Kevin) made a flamboyant 46 from 44 balls with 8 fours and a six and skipper Gareth Batty (35*), batting at 11, added 61 for the last wicket with Tom Curran as Surrey finished on 560 all out, a lead of 247. Ex-Millfield boy Durston was the outstanding bowler with 6 for 133 from 42.3 overs.
Derbys were in some trouble as their second innings started on day four, but the wicket was still good as far as we could tell from the performance of the home tailenders (the lowest scorers in the Surrey innings were numbers 2 and 3) and the Oval wicket has a reputation for helping spin bowling so it was rather surprising that they quickly fell to 0 for 2 and then 9 for 3 before a spinner had bowled a ball. However, Madsen (from Durban) held firm and he found a accomplished partner in Durston as the pair put on 86 for the fourth wicket before Durston departed for an entertaining 57 from 78 balls with 10 fours. However the home spinners were now in control and wickets fell regularly to Batty, who was clearly enjoying the situation. Madsen finished on a valuable 76 not out, no visiting batsman apart from Madsen and Durston made more than 5 as Derbys collapsed to 149 all out. Batty finished the match with a hat-trick (albeit numbers 9,10 and 11) which gave him the remarkable figures of 6 for 51 in 16.4 overs of exemplary offspin and Surrey won by an innings and 98 runs.
Derbyshire gained 5 points from the match and Surrey took 23 points, which took them above Lancashire to the top of the table and confirmed their promotion to the First Division. Lancashire had the worse of the draw with Kent at Canterbury, but the 8 points they took confirmed that they will also be playing in Division One next season. I watched the Surrey v Derbyshire game at the Oval last season (also in September) and whilst Surrey have improved considerably since then, Derbyshire have gone in the opposite direction. Last year, Surrey could not cope with left arm quickie Mark Footitt and the visitors strolled to victory by 8 wickets with Godleman making 104* and Cheteshwar Pujara 90*, but they are nowhere near such a good side now.
Quote of the decade
Brett Lee: The best way to stay fit as a fast bowler is to stay out of the gym.
Record Aggregate Matters
Charlie Pucket responded to Jeff Coleman’s notes
In answer to a comment about the 2nd XI Championship record run totals, I I have the following information to add. I umpired a 2nd XI match which started on 14th August 2001 between Middlesex and Northants at Vine Lane. The scores were as follows:
Northants 549 all out & 249-5
Middlesex 409 all out & 328-7
Match drawn and a total of 1,535 runs for 32 wickets.
Nothing to do with me, guv; I just counted from 1-6 (as usual).
More Surrey Matters
More reporting from the across the Thames by the Great Jack Morgan
Surrey went for their usual balance of five wicket keepers and four bowlers for the Championship match against Northamptonshire, scheduled to start at the Oval on September 22, while the visitors were more conservative and went for a mere three keepers. After day one was washed out, Gareth Batty won the toss for Surrey and unsurprisingly chose to bat first. All the Surrey top order got a decent start, but Kumar Sangakkara was the only one of them who looked likely to go on to a big score. Steve Davies helped him add 64 for the fourth wicket and Jason Roy shared a stand of 52 with Kumar before the latter finally departed for a top class effort of 101 off 140 balls with 13 fours and a six. By this time Gary Wilson had settled in and he shared a fine partnership of 71 with 17 year old schoolboy Sam Curran, before Wilson fell for 49 off 96 balls with 5 fours. Skipper Batty helped Curran to put on 56 for the ninth wicket before the hosts were finally all out for 410 in 95.5 overs, leaving Curran undefeated on an excellent 61 off 102 balls with 9 fours and a six. Jamaican paceman Maurice Chambers took 3 for 44 and slow left armer Graeme White (who did not take a first class wicket in 2014) claimed 3 for 81.
It is not possible for non-members to watch from behind the bowler's arm at the Oval, so I am unable to explain why Northants collapsed to 110 all out in 29.5 overs in reply, Josh Cobb's 29* being their best effort. Surely the wicket had not turned unpredictable, so it must have been the pathetic nature of the visitors' batting or the excellence of the pace bowling by the Curran brothers, Tom taking 7 for 35 and Sam picking up 3-46, so let's give the credit to the bowlers. The last brothers to share ten wickets in a Championship innings were Charlie and Jack Oakes for Sussex against Somerset in 1950, a bit before my time, of course, but I expect the Prof remembers it!
Batty asked Northants to bat again but their second innings was a very different affair with Ben Duckett (like White, he was educated at Stowe School) and skipper Alex Wakely (from Hammersmith) putting on 227 for the second wicket before Duckett fell for a splendid 120 off 145 balls with 21 fours. This started a collapse that included Wakely for 93 off 171 balls with 16 fours and a six, but the situation was quickly retrieved by ex-Middlesex man Adam Rossington and ex-Loughborough man David Murphy who shared a brilliant stand of 162 for the fifth wicket before Rossington fell for a superb 116 off 134 with 21 fours. Rossington's departure began a serious collapse from 441 for 5 to 443 for 9, but Murphy was still there and the last man was the considerable figure of South African Test allrounder Rory Kleinveldt, batting at 11 because of an injury picked up while bowling in the Surrey innings. These two put on 71 for the last wicket with Murphy going on to an exceptional 135* off 155 balls with 16 fours and 2 sixes as the visitors' innings finally closed on 514. Pace bowler Matt Dunn was the most successful bowler with 4-104 and Tom Curran picked up 3 for 141. All three of the Northants' centurions were wicket keepers. Surrey's Wilson had five catches behind the stumps in the match.
Surrey had precious little chance of winning the match, but they provided some fun anyway by promoting Roy from no 6 to his one day slot of no 1 and he responded with a sparkling 77 off 35 balls with 4 fours and 8 sixes. Arun Harinath helped him add 61 for the fourth wicket though Harinath's contribution was only 12. The Surrey second innings closed on 125-5 after 15.5 overs and we were left to ponder which of the Curran brothers will turn out to be the better cricketer: at present, Tom looks the better bowler and Sam the better bat, but both of them are young enough to keep on improving for a considerable time yet. Surrey took 13 points from the draw and Northants 8. Surrey are the Champions of Division 2 and we look forward to seeing them in the First Division next season.
Strange Elevens
A welcome return of this popular feature supplied by the Great Jack Morgan
I cannot, of course, really answer the Prof's question about fathers and sons playing Test cricket, but I have come up with a complete English XI. Batting order is tricky when they sometimes have completely different roles, so I have settled on alphabetical:
Bairstows DL and JM
Broads BC and SCJ
Butchers AR and MA
Cowdreys MC and CS
Hardstaffs J Sen and J Jnr
Huttons L and RA
Joneses IJ and SP
Parkses JH and JM
Sidebottoms A and RJ
Stewarts MJ and AJ
Tates FW and MW
Red Mist Matters
Early warning to the English tourists in the New Year. In the fifth ODI in India South Africa rattled up 438 for 4 in their fifty overs with de Kock, du Plessis and de Villiers all scoring hundreds. In total the Proteas clubbed twenty sixes. The Indians fell short by over 200 runs. If he stays fit this time we will have heard a lot more from de Kock by the end of the England tour.
King Cricket Matters
Ged writes:
“Have you brought the actual bottle of red wine you forgot to bring last time?” I asked, as I arrived to find Charley the Gent Malloy in the front row of the Mound Stand.
“Absolutely – here it is,” said Charley, showing off a very appealing-looking bottle of Chianti. “I’m not sure how much of it I’ll want to drink myself, though,” he added. “I have an early start in the motor tomorrow and don’t want to drink too much today.”
“I’ve had plenty to drink in Ireland over the last couple of weeks and am back here with Daisy on Sunday,” I said. “So a relatively light day on the soup will suit me too.”
Charley then asked me to explain how we had ended up with front row seats in the Mound Stand for day two of a Lord’s Test, given that I said to him on our previous visit that I hadn’t even bothered to order tickets for this match through the priority booking system.
“Simple, Chas. The day after your visit in April, I popped backed to Lord’s and asked in the ticket office if they by any chance had a couple of Test match returns. After the standard line about only restricted view seats still being available, the helpful fellow in the ticket office then took an actual look through the returns. When I confirmed that it was just two that I wanted, he said that he, by chance, had a couple of returns in the front row of the Mound Stand. He then asked me, just to be sure, whether I wanted to buy those.”
“Magic,” said Chas.
While making headway into our picnic, going gently with my bottle of Alsatian Gewürztraminer to accompany the food, we got chatting to some friendly folk sitting next to us. Turned out that they were marketing and advertising alumni from a large global corporate. A regular group for day two of the Lord’s Test, although sadly two men short this visit due to unforeseen circumstances. Their tales of derring-do, sponsoring cricketers and attending matches in days of yore, were way beyond our Cricket Badger-style and Heavy Roller stories, so Charley and I simply listened in awe and wonder.
They were a jolly bunch and delightful company for a few hours. Soon they were offering us some of their grub and some colourful cocktails, all of which we politely declined. One of their number was now marketing cocktail mixers, which only partially explained how and why this group were knocking back extravagant-looking drinks. Chas and I made slow, steady progress through my bottle of white, while the picnic was going down very nicely and eventually, so was the sun.
Late in the day, Charley offered to open the Chianti, but we both agreed that it would be a waste, as neither of us really wanted to drink any more. We got some quizzical looks – perhaps they were looks of pity – from our newfound, cocktail-sodden friends. Still, Chas and I agreed that the bottle of Chianti should live to fight another day. Indeed, our planned trip to see Essex v The Australians in a few weeks’ time should be ideal for it.
Googlies and Chinamen
is produced by
James Sharp
Broad Lee House
Combs
High Peak
SK23 9XA
Tel: 01298 70237
Email: [email protected]
www.googliesandchinamen.com
