G&C 200
.GOOGLIES & CHINAMEN
An Occasional Cricketing Journal
Edition 200
August 2019
WC Matters
Eric Tracey, a Kiwi who has lived in the UK since the seventies, sent me this
What a CWC Final. I have had many emails (all from English men and women) suggesting that given the long odds and infrequent occurrence of ties in cricket that the trophy should have been shared. I have also had the “was NZ robbed?” query from Australia (to which I have responded emphatically, “No”).
If the umpires were mistaken in awarding six and not five runs for the overthrow deflection off Stokes’ bat, so be it. Over 100 overs all sorts of mistakes can and do occur, however much technology is used to help reduce such occurrences. It is part of the game and a different outcome on that ball would not have guaranteed a different result. There are also so many other “if only” moments throughout the match which might have led to a different result. Picking out one of them and saying the result depended on that one alone is mug’s game.
Overall, I feel privileged to have been at Lords to witness a most amazingly thrilling ODI and disappointed as I was that NZ came second, I remain very proud of the Black Caps and the way in which they played, their sportsmanship and their dignity in defeat (by the narrowest of margins). And who could possibly begrudge England their win – they were down and out several times but never gave in and were strong enough to triumph in the end.
As to the “why not share the trophy in the event of a tie?”, I have some sympathy with that, but as the Zen-like super-calm Capt Williamson said afterwards, the new rules were there from the start and known by and the same for both sides. Fair enough, then! Well done England. NZ had many chances but the dice rolled England’s way. England were deserved winners once a tie was not going allow the trophy to be shared.
That said, it will be a good quiz question in years to come:
Team A 241 all out and 15 -0 (256-10)
Team B 241-8 and 15-1 (256-9)
Who won? How?
It did set me thinking on what other criteria for separating teams with tied scores could have been used, apart from the long-used number of wickets lost. I suspect there are many more but, so far, I have (none of which is very convincing):
· the team conceding the fewer extras
· the team with them most batsmen scoring over 50
· the team with the most batsmen with a strike rate over 100
· the team scoring the most runs from overthrows
· the team with the best LGBT balance (Just added that one to raise a few pulse rates!)
· the team which had finished higher in the pool stages (which was how a semi-final washout would have been decided).
I suspect the number of boundaries was chosen by the TV marketers who think boundaries are more exciting than running between the wickets. As the Stokes near run out, several shies at the stumps in each innings and the Guptill run out did show, running between the wickets can be pretty exciting. Maybe I should add “the team with the fewest runouts” to my list.
Or more simply, if tied after one super over, have a second super over, possibly with one less fielder per team, and so on until there is a result. And so on.
Meanwhile, I can share rejoicing in the England win which may produce a national feel good summer and autumn that would keep Corbyn out of power – or would that require and England winning the RWC too?
I couldn’t resist the temptation of adding to Eric’s list of tie breakers:
Side taking least drinks breaks wins
Side with most green on their pants wins
Side with most energy drinks consumed wins
Side with least referrals utilised wins
Side with best over rate wins
Side with least wickets lost in the super over wins
Side with most colours incorporated in their kit wins
Out and About with the Professor
This week Radio 4’s “Book at Bedtime” has been serialising a biography of Neville Cardus. “The Great Romantic” has been read by Toby Jones and covers some ground with which, I imagine, some Googlies readers will be familiar: the humble origins, self-taught facility with English, the fortunate chance offered to him by the (Manchester) Guardian, the long, loving but apparently unconsummated marriage, and so on.
Cardus’s position as a cricket writer is pretty much unassailable. Indeed he is often credited with “inventing” the art – the previous form of correspondence being little more than a statement of the facts of the game. Cardus adopted the role of a friend “telling you what it was like to be there”. Given all this, I wonder why I am not more of a fan than I am. I have a couple of his books on the shelves but they are not my constant companions. I’m sure this says more about me than it does about the great man and I have had another quick look inside the covers.
I think, in part, there is the inevitable problem of style which looks, these days, somewhat dated. The writing is just a touch florid for my taste. Take for example a page opened at random from Cricket All the Year; on a hot day in Adelaide: “Sympathetic hearts went out to the bowlers, white figures moving in Nebuchadnezzar’s furnace…the cricket, however, (was) as permanent and unchanging and as devoid of human purpose as the eternal Lofty hills miles away”.
Umm…they don’t write them like that anymore.
Or take: “It was, as usual, left to Hutton to render an England innings vertebrate”. Is that clever, or just a touch mannered? As with so many things, I suppose, it is a matter of taste…and I shall invest an afternoon reading Close of Play.
The charge against Cardus is that he is not always too accurate in his reporting, indeed that the facts can be embellished a little to enhance the story. I have read that his “rags-to-riches” tale is a little overdone (was his mother really a prostitute?) and that cricketers’ quotes are sometimes a bit more pithy than they knew. It is even suggested that he reported on events he hadn’t actually seen. Does any of this matter? Not to me it doesn’t, although for some cricket followers the “facts” must always be paramount. If Cardus is able to give you an insight as to what it was like to be at the match, does the truth of every sentence matter? (Indeed, as someone once said: “What is Truth?”)
If you play golf badly, as I do, you will (quite often) mishit the ball but find (more rarely) that the result is not too bad – better even than if you had done what you were trying to do. The leading edge of the iron has sent the ball scurrying down the course, popped over a bunker and onto the green. When this happens it is inevitable than someone will say (among other things): “It’s not how, it’s how many”. My reading of Cardus is that he instinctively knew this was false. Indeed the reverse is true. In the end it is not how well you played the game but what character you showed – and there has never been a game like cricket for laying the character bare.
Something Cardus would share with a few Googlies readers was a dislike of limited overs cricket. We have, over the years in this journal, had the usual disdainful descriptions of: Micky Mouse cricket, Pyjama cricket or Hit and Giggle cricket and I sense he might agree. He would certainly have struggled with the huge swipes and slogs (sometimes successful swipes and slogs, but swipes and slogs none the less) that characterise much of the format. How would the man who wrote that: “A snick by Jack Hobbs is a sort of disturbance of the cosmic order” cope with the whoops and roars that greet a huge top-edge that flies over the (non-existent) slips for six. As for the fireworks and Sweet Caroline…God knows.
I was pondering all this as I was reflecting on last weeks’ Final. Cardus liked excitement and even the limited-overs-loathers must have been gripped by it all. There was so much excitement and so many incidents in a (relatively) low scoring match (have the pitches at Lord’s already started to deteriorate after Mick Hunt tenure?) that it is hard to know where to start let alone how to sum it up. When Cardus watched the very tense 1930 Ashes match at Lord’s he wrote:
““As the cricketers came from the field sunshine fell on them, touching them with a lovely light. It might well have been a light cast by immortality, for this match will certainly never be forgotten.”
I don’t think I will try to match that but there was a tiny incident which caught my eye which others may have noticed and, in my view, summed up the manner in which this unforgettable Final was played. Almost at the end of the 50 overs – the penultimate over possibly (does it matter?) – Stokes hit a six and was caught on the boundary by Bolt who stepped on the “rope”. What happened next was the moment I shall remember. Guptill was following up, in the modern fashion, and Bolt lobed the ball to him fractionally after his foot touched the plastic. And what did Guptill do? He caught the ball and then turned to the umpire and signalled six.
Sir Neville would have approved. ..as should we all.
This & That
More déjà vu. As soon as a test match turns up we find that England can’t bat. Not only do they lack proper match practice we also find that they have technical deficiencies against the slightest deviation of the ball in the air and off the pitch. The Aussies must have loved watching the England performance with the bat. What we did find out, but already knew, is that when the conditions are favourable we have seamers who become almost unplayable. However, if the conditions are good at Edgbaston do we really want Anderson, Broad, Woakes and Stokes as a very samey attack. I suspect that Archer has already been selected but then who will be left out?
The Vitality Blast started with a Big Bang! Middlesex had a rare win in this competition beating Essex by seven wickets with three overs to spare. All this sounds convincing but it was almost totally down to ABDV scoring 88 not out from 43 balls with six sixes and five fours. Another match winning innings scored at a run rate of over 200.
Essex took this ignominy out on Surrey the next night in a match reduced to fifteen overs a side. Their new South African, Cameron Delport, scored 129 from just 49 balls with 14 sixes and 7 fours. He was supported by Dan Lawrence who made 57 with 6 sixes and 2 fours from 22 balls. Essex racked up a staggering 226 for 4 which if projected to a full 20 overs would have been 300! In reply Will Jacks opened for Surrey and scored 29 from 8 balls and Surrey accumulated a highly creditable 179 for 7 in their 15 overs but they never stood a chance.
In the local derby at the Oval last year Middlesex scored over 200 thanks to Paul Stirling’s hundred but Roy and Finch slaughtered them and Surrey won with overs to spare. Malan likes the Oval. Back in 2007 when Middlesex unexpectedly reached the quarter finals they had to play Lancashire at the Oval as Lord’s was pre-booked. Malan smashed Flintoff all over the place and scored a hundred. Middlesex again batted first this year and Malan made an impressive 117 from 57 balls. The crowd was cheated out of ABDV magic when he was given out LBW when the ball had bounced first off his glove. Middlesex scrambled to 209 which seemed not enough but Roy was away with England and as none of the other Surrey batsmen made significant contributions Middlesex ran out comfortable winners by 27 runs.
I contacted George a few weeks ago to see if we should pay another visit to the Cheltenham Festival. We selected the third day of the Championship match against Worcestershire but he was also tempted by the T20 later in the week against Middlesex as it afforded the chance to see ABDV. He proceeded to book tickets for a chum and his grandson as well as himself and the match was soon a sell out. However, on the day at number three in the Middlesex order ABDV was replaced by someone called Dan Lincoln…
This was the hottest day on record and in the evening Lancashire played at Headingley. This, as usual, was a tense affair. Dean Vilas, who looks like someone’s Dad filling in, top scored for Lancashire but their 170 looked light. Keaton Jennings came in towards the end and showed he was equally inept at slogging as he is at blocking. Yorkshire never really looked convincing at the crease and it was left to Pooran to try to get them home but after he holed out Lancashire were favourites and they held their nerve to wine by 9 runs.
I saw the seven overs a side match at the Oval against Kent. The Surrey batsman all tried to slog and only Finch succeeded in making any satisfactory contact. In reply Nabi scored 43 from 12 balls and Kent won with three overs to spare!
The Women’s game has undoubtedly improved over the years. They still have shortened boundaries but the throwing and fielding have improved as well as the batting. The bowling, though, rarely looks very testing. The England team are in the process of taking a terrible hiding in their Ashes series. The only points they have gained so far with just one T20 to go are from the rain affected test at Taunton which they drew. In the first T20 at Chelmsford the crowd were treated to an extraordinary display of batting by the Australian captain, Meg Lanning, who destroyed the England attack scoring 133 not out with 7 sixes and 17 fours from 63 balls. The experienced England opening bowler, Anya Shrubsole, concede 50 runs in her three overs and was dropped for the next match.
Middlesex’s wins against Glamorgan and Gloucester give them a chance of getting a promotion place if that form can be maintained. Both sides are above them and so their losses hurt them. It seems that TR-J has found some form and that Helm is at last fulfilling some promise. Can Malan score heavily enough to catch the selectors’ eyes again or, like Ballance, has his technique been condemned?
George sent me this: “Vic Marks who caught my attention:
"A key factor is whether England can get to about 80-2 in their first innings often enough.” It is no doubt true, but generally if a team went into lunch on day one at 80-2 I’d say it was the bowlers’ morning. A bit frightening really…I also noted that Starc may well not get into the Aussie team. Fasten your seat belts.”
I replied: “It will all depend on the wickets and the weather. Most tests have results nowadays often with time to spare. Even the best English batsmen have trouble batting long and so they are likely to struggle to make big team scores. Unless we get good weather few of the tests will see over 1000 runs and these games could go either way. The Aussie bowling, Starc apart, is more of an unknown quantity than the experts claim and they may not be as fearsome as predicted. Starc will be picked for every game he is fit for. England must be favourites to win at home and their bowlers will do the job given any assistance from the conditions. 80-2 could be about par on the way to 250, which ties in with a sub 1000 run match.”
Morgan Matters
Did you see the England/ NZ game? I did not because C4 pulled the same stunt again: advertising the programme as starting at 11pm, but actually putting it on at 10pm, causing me to see only the closing credits. Ridiculous.
Middlesex are bottom of the 2nd division: sack the manager! Why was there no recruitment in the close season?
I went to the Oval for the 2nd day of Surrey v Kent, I do not think I will see any more of the game so I will not write a full report, but it is worth mentioning that Surrey appear to be playing with ten men! I do not know what is up with G Batty, his name is on the scorecard as being in the Surrey team (on day 2), but it was announced that he would be replaced by Virdi, but (I could not hear later announcements) it appears this has been ruled out by ECB and so Surrey will play with 10 men, unless Batty recovers from whatever he is suffering from!
Sensational happenings at Northwood: Middlesex reached 244 a/o mainly due to an 8th wkt stand of 99 between TSRJ (51*, having his best game for ages) and T Helm (46), but they have now reduced Gloucester to 111-9, Murts has 5 wkts. Later: Gloucester still hanging on at 124-9. Eventually, Gloucester were out for 137 and Middlesex won by 78. Easy! Murts 5-44, TSRJ 3-27, Helm 2-35.
I hear that Sky are making the final "free to air", which is great as I gather it means that all non-subscribers like myself can watch the match... but how? I actually managed to watch the SF highlights despite the G telling us that they were on at 11pm, but knowing C4 are in the habit of changing things, I checked with the C4 listings on C4 and they said 10.30, for which I set the recorder (in case I nodded off before the end), but then Chris checked with the Freeview Programme Guide, which told us, correctly, that it was on at 10pm! How come they know more about the C4 scheduling than C4 do? And how can C4 expect to attract viewers when all the papers and programme guides are giving different information?
"Free to air" turns out to mean: "most of it will be on C4, but, unfortunately, we are committed to screening some crap motor racing, so you are going to have to turn over to More 4 (or something similar) to avoid missing a big chunk of the match", but I will take it: it seems ages since I watched a complete match on the box and I am rather looking forward to it.
Everyone is (of course) obsessing about the WC at present, so it was nice to see Tanya Aldred's long article in today's O in which she sings the praises of the County Championship...but there are still 7 pages on the WC.
Thanks to Sky putting the WC on C4 and More4, we were all able to watch the whole match... and so I did. I thought England did pretty well to restrict NZ to 241-8 (Nicholls 55, Latham 47, Plunkett 3-42, Woakes 3-37), but when NZ began to restrict England to an even slower rate, things started to go wrong and it was surprising that experienced pair of captains Root and Morgan were among the worst of the villains for i) getting bogged down; and ii) having a mad slog trying to get out of the bog! Stokes and Buttler were much more sensible of course, though they did leave the "getting out of bog" phase a trifle late and England were slightly fortunate to be able to tie the scores on 241 (Stokes 84*, Buttler 59, Ferguson 3-50, Neesham 3-43). The Super Over was completely new to me and I could not work out how England had won it as the scores appeared to be tied on 15 each! In this morning's G, however, I found out that Eng had won because they had hit 26 boundaries to NZ's 17 and if that was mentioned on commentary, it must have been while I was pouring the drinks!
The top 2 in div 1 are Essex (169) and Somerset (165), who have both won a remarkable 7 out of 10, Ng are adrift at the bottom with 48 and no wins in 10 matches. Middlesex (5th) now have 114 points from 10 matches, which is only 2 points off the promotion places. TSRJ, after a dreadful early season, has now taken 19 wkts in 2 matches and scored runs as well.
England Women: this format is seriously flawed. England tried hard to get the win they needed to stay in contention for the Ashes, but Oz were just not interested in getting a result because a draw gave them the Ashes ( having won all 3 ODIs, they needed only the 2 points for the draw to clinch the Ashes). They should either not combine all 3 formats into one competition or possibly play the Test Match first, then both teams would have to go for the win.
I went to the lovely Berkshire CCC ground at Finchampstead for the 3 day Minor Counties Championship game against Cheshire. Although the "club" standard scoreboards used in MC cricket are inadequate for my purposes, I have always been able to get detailed information from the internet at the end of the match, but now it seems that all you get on the internet is the potted scores and the result. After making 275 in their first innings (a good score on a spinning wicket) with opener Archie Carter of Wokingham making a very valuable 84, Berks were in the driving seat and it was their spinners, led by ex-Middlesex slow left armer Chris Peploe of Datchet who held the advantage over the Cheshire spinners, led by the ex-Yorkshire, Derbyshire and now Castleford slow left armer David Wainwright. Runs became scarcer as the match went on and it was Peploe and his support spinners who ended up giving Berks a comfortable win by 148 runs despite good performances by Wainwright and his back-up spinners.
Jack Leach usually bats around no 10 for Somerset, averages 12 in fc cricket and has made one fc 50 in 8 seasons, yet his 92 for England in the 1st Test was easily the best score of the match.
Team of the Tournament
Before the final visitors to the BBC’s Cricket Website voted the following their team of the tournament
1. Rohit Sharma (India)
Runs: 648; Average: 81.00; Strike Rate: 98.33; Centuries: 5; Fifties: 1
Rohit scored five centuries in the tournament, the most recorded by a player in a men's World Cup, including three back to back.
2. David Warner (Australia)
Runs: 647; Ave: 71.88; SR: 89.36; Centuries: 3; Fifties: 3
Warner notched up three centuries, the joint most by an Australian in a men's World Cup.
3. Virat Kohli (India)
Runs: 443; Ave: 55.37; SR: 94.05; Centuries: 0; Fifties: 5
Kohli put together a run of five consecutive fifties for the third time in his career. He is the only player to achieve this three times in ine-day internationals.
4. Kane Williamson (New Zealand)
Runs: 548; Ave: 91.33 SR: 76.32; Centuries: 2; Fifties: 2
Williamson's tally of 548 runs so far is the most by a Kiwi in a men's World Cup.
5. Shakib Al Hasan (Bangladesh)
Runs: 606; Batting ave: 86.57; SR: 96.03; Centuries: 2; Fifties: 5; Wickets: 11; Bowling ave: 36.27; Economy: 5.39; Best: 5-29
Shakib managed seven knocks of 50-plus in the tournament. No player has recorded more in a men's World Cup (India's Sachin Tendulkar also managed seven in 2003). Against South Africa, Shakib became the fastest player to reach 250 wickets and 5,000 runs in ODIs.
6. Ben Stokes (England)
Runs: 381; Batting ave: 54.42; SR: 95.01; Centuries: 0; Fifties: 4; Wkts: 7; Bowling ave: 32.28; Econ: 4.72; Best: 3-23
Stokes has 381 runs in the tournament, the most of anyone batting from four or lower (he has batted at four, five and six).
7. Alex Carey (Australia)
Runs: 375; Ave: 62.50; SR: 104.16; Centuries: 0; Fifties: 3; Catches: 18, Stumpings: 2
Carey has 20 dismissals, including two stumpings, in the tournament, more than any other player. His tally of 375 runs is the most by a keeper.
8. Chris Woakes (England)
Wkts 13; Ave: 31.46; Econ: 5.38; Best: 3-20
Woakes recorded his best World Cup bowling figures - 3-20 - in the semi-final win over Australia. His tally of 13 wickets is the most of anyone to also score 100 runs.
9. Mitchell Starc (Australia)
Wkts 27; Ave: 18.59; Econ: 5.43; Best: 5-26
Starc took 27 wickets in the tournament, the most by a player in a World Cup, beating compatriot Glenn McGrath's 26 in 2007.
10. Jofra Archer (England)
Wkts 19; Ave: 22.05; Econ: 4.61; Best: 3-27
Archer has bowled the most dot balls in the tournament, 338. His tally of 19 wickets is the most by an England player in a World Cup.
11. Jasprit Bumrah (India)
Wkts 18; Ave: 20.61; Econ: 4.41; Best: 4-55
Bumrah took 18 wickets and only failed to take a wicket in one of his nine bowling innings. Only Zaheer Khan has taken more wickets in a World Cup for India - 21 in 2011.
Ged Matters
Daisy and I thought we'd take in a bit of out-ground cricket and/but the dates haven't been working out great for the two of us. But this particular Monday did work well for us and also suited Fran & Simon. The only issue, as I saw it, was the unseasonably wet weather we were experiencing. True, the forecast suggested that our day was set fair, but then the forecast had looked fair for the two preceding days and had brought plenty more rain. Anyway, we took stock on the very morning and all agreed that set fair it was. So we agreed to meet up roughly at the end of the lunch interval.
Daisy and I had a "game of lawners" first thing; quite a rigorous workout ahead of my game of "realers" scheduled at Middlesex University later.
Daisy and I got to Radlett just as the umpire's called lunch. This enabled us to snap up some good front row seats during the lunch interval - perhaps abandoned after the first session or perhaps not yet used that day. Soon after we grabbed those seats we saw Posh Margaret and chatted with her for a while. She's very pessimistic about Middlesex's position this season - I'm still reserving judgement on the whole season as I feel there is still time for Middlesex to improve and get promoted.
Before Fran and Simon arrived, I led Janie to believe that she was going to see the England One-Day Captain, Eoin Morgan, playing in this match. This seemed extraordinary, as Eoin was also scheduled to appear for England in the world cup fixture the next day, in what turned out to be a record-breaking innings of his. Soon after Fran and Simon arrived, I made the same announcement with regard to Mr Morgan. Fran seemed surprised/pleased but Simon was onto it straight away; "Oh yes", said Simon, "a Welsh chap named Owen Morgan plays for Glamorgan". We then went in search of Morgan on the field, discovered that he was number 29.
So much were we enjoying ourselves that I clean forgot to get up and walk around at all - which is a bit of a mistake when a three hour session is the order of the day.When we parted company just before five, Fran suggested, gently, that I was not moving quite as a tennis player should. That accurate observation might explain my tennis results for the next few days, until I got to see Michael Durtnall (the chiropractor).
It had been a very enjoyable afternoon at the cricket nonetheless. Such a shame that this match, like so many others in the first half of this season, was rain-ruined in the end.
200th Edition
I feel some mention should be made of this newsletter reaching its two hundredth edition. When started in January 2003 it was called an “Occasional Cricket Journal” as there was no intention of producing it on a regular basis. But the second edition came out a month after the first and it has been a monthly publication ever since.
This has only been possible as a result of the contributions of many readers and in particular Jack Morgan (the GJM) and John Adams (the Professor). Graham Sharp (George), Murray Hedgcock, Ian Harris (Ged), Paddy Carlin, Steve Thompson, Allen Bruton and many others have contributed, and this has given variety to the content. I will continue to circulate it as long as I receive contributions to fill the pages.
Googlies Website
All the back editions of Googlies can be found on the G&C website. There are also many photographs most of which have never appeared in Googlies.
www.googliesandchinamen.com
Googlies and Chinamen
is produced by
James Sharp
Broad Lee House
Combs
High Peak
SK23 9XA
[email protected]
An Occasional Cricketing Journal
Edition 200
August 2019
WC Matters
Eric Tracey, a Kiwi who has lived in the UK since the seventies, sent me this
What a CWC Final. I have had many emails (all from English men and women) suggesting that given the long odds and infrequent occurrence of ties in cricket that the trophy should have been shared. I have also had the “was NZ robbed?” query from Australia (to which I have responded emphatically, “No”).
If the umpires were mistaken in awarding six and not five runs for the overthrow deflection off Stokes’ bat, so be it. Over 100 overs all sorts of mistakes can and do occur, however much technology is used to help reduce such occurrences. It is part of the game and a different outcome on that ball would not have guaranteed a different result. There are also so many other “if only” moments throughout the match which might have led to a different result. Picking out one of them and saying the result depended on that one alone is mug’s game.
Overall, I feel privileged to have been at Lords to witness a most amazingly thrilling ODI and disappointed as I was that NZ came second, I remain very proud of the Black Caps and the way in which they played, their sportsmanship and their dignity in defeat (by the narrowest of margins). And who could possibly begrudge England their win – they were down and out several times but never gave in and were strong enough to triumph in the end.
As to the “why not share the trophy in the event of a tie?”, I have some sympathy with that, but as the Zen-like super-calm Capt Williamson said afterwards, the new rules were there from the start and known by and the same for both sides. Fair enough, then! Well done England. NZ had many chances but the dice rolled England’s way. England were deserved winners once a tie was not going allow the trophy to be shared.
That said, it will be a good quiz question in years to come:
Team A 241 all out and 15 -0 (256-10)
Team B 241-8 and 15-1 (256-9)
Who won? How?
It did set me thinking on what other criteria for separating teams with tied scores could have been used, apart from the long-used number of wickets lost. I suspect there are many more but, so far, I have (none of which is very convincing):
· the team conceding the fewer extras
· the team with them most batsmen scoring over 50
· the team with the most batsmen with a strike rate over 100
· the team scoring the most runs from overthrows
· the team with the best LGBT balance (Just added that one to raise a few pulse rates!)
· the team which had finished higher in the pool stages (which was how a semi-final washout would have been decided).
I suspect the number of boundaries was chosen by the TV marketers who think boundaries are more exciting than running between the wickets. As the Stokes near run out, several shies at the stumps in each innings and the Guptill run out did show, running between the wickets can be pretty exciting. Maybe I should add “the team with the fewest runouts” to my list.
Or more simply, if tied after one super over, have a second super over, possibly with one less fielder per team, and so on until there is a result. And so on.
Meanwhile, I can share rejoicing in the England win which may produce a national feel good summer and autumn that would keep Corbyn out of power – or would that require and England winning the RWC too?
I couldn’t resist the temptation of adding to Eric’s list of tie breakers:
Side taking least drinks breaks wins
Side with most green on their pants wins
Side with most energy drinks consumed wins
Side with least referrals utilised wins
Side with best over rate wins
Side with least wickets lost in the super over wins
Side with most colours incorporated in their kit wins
Out and About with the Professor
This week Radio 4’s “Book at Bedtime” has been serialising a biography of Neville Cardus. “The Great Romantic” has been read by Toby Jones and covers some ground with which, I imagine, some Googlies readers will be familiar: the humble origins, self-taught facility with English, the fortunate chance offered to him by the (Manchester) Guardian, the long, loving but apparently unconsummated marriage, and so on.
Cardus’s position as a cricket writer is pretty much unassailable. Indeed he is often credited with “inventing” the art – the previous form of correspondence being little more than a statement of the facts of the game. Cardus adopted the role of a friend “telling you what it was like to be there”. Given all this, I wonder why I am not more of a fan than I am. I have a couple of his books on the shelves but they are not my constant companions. I’m sure this says more about me than it does about the great man and I have had another quick look inside the covers.
I think, in part, there is the inevitable problem of style which looks, these days, somewhat dated. The writing is just a touch florid for my taste. Take for example a page opened at random from Cricket All the Year; on a hot day in Adelaide: “Sympathetic hearts went out to the bowlers, white figures moving in Nebuchadnezzar’s furnace…the cricket, however, (was) as permanent and unchanging and as devoid of human purpose as the eternal Lofty hills miles away”.
Umm…they don’t write them like that anymore.
Or take: “It was, as usual, left to Hutton to render an England innings vertebrate”. Is that clever, or just a touch mannered? As with so many things, I suppose, it is a matter of taste…and I shall invest an afternoon reading Close of Play.
The charge against Cardus is that he is not always too accurate in his reporting, indeed that the facts can be embellished a little to enhance the story. I have read that his “rags-to-riches” tale is a little overdone (was his mother really a prostitute?) and that cricketers’ quotes are sometimes a bit more pithy than they knew. It is even suggested that he reported on events he hadn’t actually seen. Does any of this matter? Not to me it doesn’t, although for some cricket followers the “facts” must always be paramount. If Cardus is able to give you an insight as to what it was like to be at the match, does the truth of every sentence matter? (Indeed, as someone once said: “What is Truth?”)
If you play golf badly, as I do, you will (quite often) mishit the ball but find (more rarely) that the result is not too bad – better even than if you had done what you were trying to do. The leading edge of the iron has sent the ball scurrying down the course, popped over a bunker and onto the green. When this happens it is inevitable than someone will say (among other things): “It’s not how, it’s how many”. My reading of Cardus is that he instinctively knew this was false. Indeed the reverse is true. In the end it is not how well you played the game but what character you showed – and there has never been a game like cricket for laying the character bare.
Something Cardus would share with a few Googlies readers was a dislike of limited overs cricket. We have, over the years in this journal, had the usual disdainful descriptions of: Micky Mouse cricket, Pyjama cricket or Hit and Giggle cricket and I sense he might agree. He would certainly have struggled with the huge swipes and slogs (sometimes successful swipes and slogs, but swipes and slogs none the less) that characterise much of the format. How would the man who wrote that: “A snick by Jack Hobbs is a sort of disturbance of the cosmic order” cope with the whoops and roars that greet a huge top-edge that flies over the (non-existent) slips for six. As for the fireworks and Sweet Caroline…God knows.
I was pondering all this as I was reflecting on last weeks’ Final. Cardus liked excitement and even the limited-overs-loathers must have been gripped by it all. There was so much excitement and so many incidents in a (relatively) low scoring match (have the pitches at Lord’s already started to deteriorate after Mick Hunt tenure?) that it is hard to know where to start let alone how to sum it up. When Cardus watched the very tense 1930 Ashes match at Lord’s he wrote:
““As the cricketers came from the field sunshine fell on them, touching them with a lovely light. It might well have been a light cast by immortality, for this match will certainly never be forgotten.”
I don’t think I will try to match that but there was a tiny incident which caught my eye which others may have noticed and, in my view, summed up the manner in which this unforgettable Final was played. Almost at the end of the 50 overs – the penultimate over possibly (does it matter?) – Stokes hit a six and was caught on the boundary by Bolt who stepped on the “rope”. What happened next was the moment I shall remember. Guptill was following up, in the modern fashion, and Bolt lobed the ball to him fractionally after his foot touched the plastic. And what did Guptill do? He caught the ball and then turned to the umpire and signalled six.
Sir Neville would have approved. ..as should we all.
This & That
More déjà vu. As soon as a test match turns up we find that England can’t bat. Not only do they lack proper match practice we also find that they have technical deficiencies against the slightest deviation of the ball in the air and off the pitch. The Aussies must have loved watching the England performance with the bat. What we did find out, but already knew, is that when the conditions are favourable we have seamers who become almost unplayable. However, if the conditions are good at Edgbaston do we really want Anderson, Broad, Woakes and Stokes as a very samey attack. I suspect that Archer has already been selected but then who will be left out?
The Vitality Blast started with a Big Bang! Middlesex had a rare win in this competition beating Essex by seven wickets with three overs to spare. All this sounds convincing but it was almost totally down to ABDV scoring 88 not out from 43 balls with six sixes and five fours. Another match winning innings scored at a run rate of over 200.
Essex took this ignominy out on Surrey the next night in a match reduced to fifteen overs a side. Their new South African, Cameron Delport, scored 129 from just 49 balls with 14 sixes and 7 fours. He was supported by Dan Lawrence who made 57 with 6 sixes and 2 fours from 22 balls. Essex racked up a staggering 226 for 4 which if projected to a full 20 overs would have been 300! In reply Will Jacks opened for Surrey and scored 29 from 8 balls and Surrey accumulated a highly creditable 179 for 7 in their 15 overs but they never stood a chance.
In the local derby at the Oval last year Middlesex scored over 200 thanks to Paul Stirling’s hundred but Roy and Finch slaughtered them and Surrey won with overs to spare. Malan likes the Oval. Back in 2007 when Middlesex unexpectedly reached the quarter finals they had to play Lancashire at the Oval as Lord’s was pre-booked. Malan smashed Flintoff all over the place and scored a hundred. Middlesex again batted first this year and Malan made an impressive 117 from 57 balls. The crowd was cheated out of ABDV magic when he was given out LBW when the ball had bounced first off his glove. Middlesex scrambled to 209 which seemed not enough but Roy was away with England and as none of the other Surrey batsmen made significant contributions Middlesex ran out comfortable winners by 27 runs.
I contacted George a few weeks ago to see if we should pay another visit to the Cheltenham Festival. We selected the third day of the Championship match against Worcestershire but he was also tempted by the T20 later in the week against Middlesex as it afforded the chance to see ABDV. He proceeded to book tickets for a chum and his grandson as well as himself and the match was soon a sell out. However, on the day at number three in the Middlesex order ABDV was replaced by someone called Dan Lincoln…
This was the hottest day on record and in the evening Lancashire played at Headingley. This, as usual, was a tense affair. Dean Vilas, who looks like someone’s Dad filling in, top scored for Lancashire but their 170 looked light. Keaton Jennings came in towards the end and showed he was equally inept at slogging as he is at blocking. Yorkshire never really looked convincing at the crease and it was left to Pooran to try to get them home but after he holed out Lancashire were favourites and they held their nerve to wine by 9 runs.
I saw the seven overs a side match at the Oval against Kent. The Surrey batsman all tried to slog and only Finch succeeded in making any satisfactory contact. In reply Nabi scored 43 from 12 balls and Kent won with three overs to spare!
The Women’s game has undoubtedly improved over the years. They still have shortened boundaries but the throwing and fielding have improved as well as the batting. The bowling, though, rarely looks very testing. The England team are in the process of taking a terrible hiding in their Ashes series. The only points they have gained so far with just one T20 to go are from the rain affected test at Taunton which they drew. In the first T20 at Chelmsford the crowd were treated to an extraordinary display of batting by the Australian captain, Meg Lanning, who destroyed the England attack scoring 133 not out with 7 sixes and 17 fours from 63 balls. The experienced England opening bowler, Anya Shrubsole, concede 50 runs in her three overs and was dropped for the next match.
Middlesex’s wins against Glamorgan and Gloucester give them a chance of getting a promotion place if that form can be maintained. Both sides are above them and so their losses hurt them. It seems that TR-J has found some form and that Helm is at last fulfilling some promise. Can Malan score heavily enough to catch the selectors’ eyes again or, like Ballance, has his technique been condemned?
George sent me this: “Vic Marks who caught my attention:
"A key factor is whether England can get to about 80-2 in their first innings often enough.” It is no doubt true, but generally if a team went into lunch on day one at 80-2 I’d say it was the bowlers’ morning. A bit frightening really…I also noted that Starc may well not get into the Aussie team. Fasten your seat belts.”
I replied: “It will all depend on the wickets and the weather. Most tests have results nowadays often with time to spare. Even the best English batsmen have trouble batting long and so they are likely to struggle to make big team scores. Unless we get good weather few of the tests will see over 1000 runs and these games could go either way. The Aussie bowling, Starc apart, is more of an unknown quantity than the experts claim and they may not be as fearsome as predicted. Starc will be picked for every game he is fit for. England must be favourites to win at home and their bowlers will do the job given any assistance from the conditions. 80-2 could be about par on the way to 250, which ties in with a sub 1000 run match.”
Morgan Matters
Did you see the England/ NZ game? I did not because C4 pulled the same stunt again: advertising the programme as starting at 11pm, but actually putting it on at 10pm, causing me to see only the closing credits. Ridiculous.
Middlesex are bottom of the 2nd division: sack the manager! Why was there no recruitment in the close season?
I went to the Oval for the 2nd day of Surrey v Kent, I do not think I will see any more of the game so I will not write a full report, but it is worth mentioning that Surrey appear to be playing with ten men! I do not know what is up with G Batty, his name is on the scorecard as being in the Surrey team (on day 2), but it was announced that he would be replaced by Virdi, but (I could not hear later announcements) it appears this has been ruled out by ECB and so Surrey will play with 10 men, unless Batty recovers from whatever he is suffering from!
Sensational happenings at Northwood: Middlesex reached 244 a/o mainly due to an 8th wkt stand of 99 between TSRJ (51*, having his best game for ages) and T Helm (46), but they have now reduced Gloucester to 111-9, Murts has 5 wkts. Later: Gloucester still hanging on at 124-9. Eventually, Gloucester were out for 137 and Middlesex won by 78. Easy! Murts 5-44, TSRJ 3-27, Helm 2-35.
I hear that Sky are making the final "free to air", which is great as I gather it means that all non-subscribers like myself can watch the match... but how? I actually managed to watch the SF highlights despite the G telling us that they were on at 11pm, but knowing C4 are in the habit of changing things, I checked with the C4 listings on C4 and they said 10.30, for which I set the recorder (in case I nodded off before the end), but then Chris checked with the Freeview Programme Guide, which told us, correctly, that it was on at 10pm! How come they know more about the C4 scheduling than C4 do? And how can C4 expect to attract viewers when all the papers and programme guides are giving different information?
"Free to air" turns out to mean: "most of it will be on C4, but, unfortunately, we are committed to screening some crap motor racing, so you are going to have to turn over to More 4 (or something similar) to avoid missing a big chunk of the match", but I will take it: it seems ages since I watched a complete match on the box and I am rather looking forward to it.
Everyone is (of course) obsessing about the WC at present, so it was nice to see Tanya Aldred's long article in today's O in which she sings the praises of the County Championship...but there are still 7 pages on the WC.
Thanks to Sky putting the WC on C4 and More4, we were all able to watch the whole match... and so I did. I thought England did pretty well to restrict NZ to 241-8 (Nicholls 55, Latham 47, Plunkett 3-42, Woakes 3-37), but when NZ began to restrict England to an even slower rate, things started to go wrong and it was surprising that experienced pair of captains Root and Morgan were among the worst of the villains for i) getting bogged down; and ii) having a mad slog trying to get out of the bog! Stokes and Buttler were much more sensible of course, though they did leave the "getting out of bog" phase a trifle late and England were slightly fortunate to be able to tie the scores on 241 (Stokes 84*, Buttler 59, Ferguson 3-50, Neesham 3-43). The Super Over was completely new to me and I could not work out how England had won it as the scores appeared to be tied on 15 each! In this morning's G, however, I found out that Eng had won because they had hit 26 boundaries to NZ's 17 and if that was mentioned on commentary, it must have been while I was pouring the drinks!
The top 2 in div 1 are Essex (169) and Somerset (165), who have both won a remarkable 7 out of 10, Ng are adrift at the bottom with 48 and no wins in 10 matches. Middlesex (5th) now have 114 points from 10 matches, which is only 2 points off the promotion places. TSRJ, after a dreadful early season, has now taken 19 wkts in 2 matches and scored runs as well.
England Women: this format is seriously flawed. England tried hard to get the win they needed to stay in contention for the Ashes, but Oz were just not interested in getting a result because a draw gave them the Ashes ( having won all 3 ODIs, they needed only the 2 points for the draw to clinch the Ashes). They should either not combine all 3 formats into one competition or possibly play the Test Match first, then both teams would have to go for the win.
I went to the lovely Berkshire CCC ground at Finchampstead for the 3 day Minor Counties Championship game against Cheshire. Although the "club" standard scoreboards used in MC cricket are inadequate for my purposes, I have always been able to get detailed information from the internet at the end of the match, but now it seems that all you get on the internet is the potted scores and the result. After making 275 in their first innings (a good score on a spinning wicket) with opener Archie Carter of Wokingham making a very valuable 84, Berks were in the driving seat and it was their spinners, led by ex-Middlesex slow left armer Chris Peploe of Datchet who held the advantage over the Cheshire spinners, led by the ex-Yorkshire, Derbyshire and now Castleford slow left armer David Wainwright. Runs became scarcer as the match went on and it was Peploe and his support spinners who ended up giving Berks a comfortable win by 148 runs despite good performances by Wainwright and his back-up spinners.
Jack Leach usually bats around no 10 for Somerset, averages 12 in fc cricket and has made one fc 50 in 8 seasons, yet his 92 for England in the 1st Test was easily the best score of the match.
Team of the Tournament
Before the final visitors to the BBC’s Cricket Website voted the following their team of the tournament
1. Rohit Sharma (India)
Runs: 648; Average: 81.00; Strike Rate: 98.33; Centuries: 5; Fifties: 1
Rohit scored five centuries in the tournament, the most recorded by a player in a men's World Cup, including three back to back.
2. David Warner (Australia)
Runs: 647; Ave: 71.88; SR: 89.36; Centuries: 3; Fifties: 3
Warner notched up three centuries, the joint most by an Australian in a men's World Cup.
3. Virat Kohli (India)
Runs: 443; Ave: 55.37; SR: 94.05; Centuries: 0; Fifties: 5
Kohli put together a run of five consecutive fifties for the third time in his career. He is the only player to achieve this three times in ine-day internationals.
4. Kane Williamson (New Zealand)
Runs: 548; Ave: 91.33 SR: 76.32; Centuries: 2; Fifties: 2
Williamson's tally of 548 runs so far is the most by a Kiwi in a men's World Cup.
5. Shakib Al Hasan (Bangladesh)
Runs: 606; Batting ave: 86.57; SR: 96.03; Centuries: 2; Fifties: 5; Wickets: 11; Bowling ave: 36.27; Economy: 5.39; Best: 5-29
Shakib managed seven knocks of 50-plus in the tournament. No player has recorded more in a men's World Cup (India's Sachin Tendulkar also managed seven in 2003). Against South Africa, Shakib became the fastest player to reach 250 wickets and 5,000 runs in ODIs.
6. Ben Stokes (England)
Runs: 381; Batting ave: 54.42; SR: 95.01; Centuries: 0; Fifties: 4; Wkts: 7; Bowling ave: 32.28; Econ: 4.72; Best: 3-23
Stokes has 381 runs in the tournament, the most of anyone batting from four or lower (he has batted at four, five and six).
7. Alex Carey (Australia)
Runs: 375; Ave: 62.50; SR: 104.16; Centuries: 0; Fifties: 3; Catches: 18, Stumpings: 2
Carey has 20 dismissals, including two stumpings, in the tournament, more than any other player. His tally of 375 runs is the most by a keeper.
8. Chris Woakes (England)
Wkts 13; Ave: 31.46; Econ: 5.38; Best: 3-20
Woakes recorded his best World Cup bowling figures - 3-20 - in the semi-final win over Australia. His tally of 13 wickets is the most of anyone to also score 100 runs.
9. Mitchell Starc (Australia)
Wkts 27; Ave: 18.59; Econ: 5.43; Best: 5-26
Starc took 27 wickets in the tournament, the most by a player in a World Cup, beating compatriot Glenn McGrath's 26 in 2007.
10. Jofra Archer (England)
Wkts 19; Ave: 22.05; Econ: 4.61; Best: 3-27
Archer has bowled the most dot balls in the tournament, 338. His tally of 19 wickets is the most by an England player in a World Cup.
11. Jasprit Bumrah (India)
Wkts 18; Ave: 20.61; Econ: 4.41; Best: 4-55
Bumrah took 18 wickets and only failed to take a wicket in one of his nine bowling innings. Only Zaheer Khan has taken more wickets in a World Cup for India - 21 in 2011.
Ged Matters
Daisy and I thought we'd take in a bit of out-ground cricket and/but the dates haven't been working out great for the two of us. But this particular Monday did work well for us and also suited Fran & Simon. The only issue, as I saw it, was the unseasonably wet weather we were experiencing. True, the forecast suggested that our day was set fair, but then the forecast had looked fair for the two preceding days and had brought plenty more rain. Anyway, we took stock on the very morning and all agreed that set fair it was. So we agreed to meet up roughly at the end of the lunch interval.
Daisy and I had a "game of lawners" first thing; quite a rigorous workout ahead of my game of "realers" scheduled at Middlesex University later.
Daisy and I got to Radlett just as the umpire's called lunch. This enabled us to snap up some good front row seats during the lunch interval - perhaps abandoned after the first session or perhaps not yet used that day. Soon after we grabbed those seats we saw Posh Margaret and chatted with her for a while. She's very pessimistic about Middlesex's position this season - I'm still reserving judgement on the whole season as I feel there is still time for Middlesex to improve and get promoted.
Before Fran and Simon arrived, I led Janie to believe that she was going to see the England One-Day Captain, Eoin Morgan, playing in this match. This seemed extraordinary, as Eoin was also scheduled to appear for England in the world cup fixture the next day, in what turned out to be a record-breaking innings of his. Soon after Fran and Simon arrived, I made the same announcement with regard to Mr Morgan. Fran seemed surprised/pleased but Simon was onto it straight away; "Oh yes", said Simon, "a Welsh chap named Owen Morgan plays for Glamorgan". We then went in search of Morgan on the field, discovered that he was number 29.
So much were we enjoying ourselves that I clean forgot to get up and walk around at all - which is a bit of a mistake when a three hour session is the order of the day.When we parted company just before five, Fran suggested, gently, that I was not moving quite as a tennis player should. That accurate observation might explain my tennis results for the next few days, until I got to see Michael Durtnall (the chiropractor).
It had been a very enjoyable afternoon at the cricket nonetheless. Such a shame that this match, like so many others in the first half of this season, was rain-ruined in the end.
200th Edition
I feel some mention should be made of this newsletter reaching its two hundredth edition. When started in January 2003 it was called an “Occasional Cricket Journal” as there was no intention of producing it on a regular basis. But the second edition came out a month after the first and it has been a monthly publication ever since.
This has only been possible as a result of the contributions of many readers and in particular Jack Morgan (the GJM) and John Adams (the Professor). Graham Sharp (George), Murray Hedgcock, Ian Harris (Ged), Paddy Carlin, Steve Thompson, Allen Bruton and many others have contributed, and this has given variety to the content. I will continue to circulate it as long as I receive contributions to fill the pages.
Googlies Website
All the back editions of Googlies can be found on the G&C website. There are also many photographs most of which have never appeared in Googlies.
www.googliesandchinamen.com
Googlies and Chinamen
is produced by
James Sharp
Broad Lee House
Combs
High Peak
SK23 9XA
[email protected]