cricket
Latest News:


WELCOME TO THE MIDDLESEX ROOM, THE ONLY MESSAGE BOARD ON THE INTERNET DEDICATED TO MIDDLESEX CCC

Winning catch. More of the same at Taunton, please!

 

Goto Page: Previous12345Next
Current Page: 4 of 5
 
Re: Surrey v Middlesex, 28-31 August
Fozzie (IP Logged)
31 August, 2017 16:06
The match has now been officially declared a draw.

 
Re: Surrey v Middlesex, 28-31 August
chunkyinargyll (IP Logged)
31 August, 2017 16:09
Appears game officially a draw, as BBC table has updated.

 
Re: Surrey v Middlesex, 28-31 August
BeefyRoberts (IP Logged)
31 August, 2017 16:15
Armed police in ground,from what I hear people are heading home.
Get home quickly and safely everyone.

 
Re: Surrey v Middlesex, 28-31 August
chunkyinargyll (IP Logged)
31 August, 2017 16:37
We weren't deducted any points for over rate, and are now 5th in table.

[www.bbc.co.uk]

Edit-

At the time the table didn't show a points deduction, but by 6th September a deduction of 2 points had been applied.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/09/2017 19:01 by chunkyinargyll.

 
Re: Surrey v Middlesex, 28-31 August
BarmierKev (IP Logged)
31 August, 2017 16:44
I marking myself safe on here. I left calmly as soon I heard about seriousness of incident. No casualties thankfully. For some reason when crowd trouble initially mentioned people asked if I had anything to do with it.

Life goes on. I guess we won't be deducted for over rate.



Barmy Kev
I'm only here for the tele

 
Re: Surrey v Middlesex, 28-31 August
31 August, 2017 17:21
Seen some reasons in my time for games being abandoned but never one like this.

To fire a crossbow into a public area is really stupidity of the highest level.No distance from many of the recent terror attacks the perpetrator was not only putting other people at risk but also himself. Armed response units tend to fire first and ask questions later in the current climate.

On Monday I attended the Oval as did a friend of mine from Nottingham. Although they have a history of archers in that county I doubt it was him as he is a man of the cloth.

Sounds like Surrey did a good job of keeping everyone safe though Dan Norcross's assumption on BBC that it is not possible to hit a target with a crossbow from the distance it had to be fired from outside the ground is wrong. With the correct sight and no wind these modern crossbows can be lethal at about half a mile in the hands of a good shot.

Don't see why anyone is blaming Kev , he'd have missed the Oval and probably hit the Gas Holder. smiling smiley

 
Re: Surrey v Middlesex, 28-31 August
Fozzie (IP Logged)
31 August, 2017 17:22
Credit to Simmo, Compo and Ollie for ensuring that at least we needn't feel that we were fortuitously saved from defeat. From the snatches of commentary that I heard, it sounded as if Compo was batting in some discomfort, so a great effort by him.

 
Re: Surrey v Middlesex, 28-31 August
BeefyRoberts (IP Logged)
31 August, 2017 17:24
Glad you are heading home Kev,others at the game have also text and said left ground and are heading home.
Let's hope the complete idiot gets caught.
Although obviously I wasn't there,it sounds like Surrey did a good job in making everyone safe...well done to them.

Oh yea,game finished a draw.

 
Re: Surrey v Middlesex, 28-31 August
Jonathan Winsky (IP Logged)
31 August, 2017 18:26
Hopefully it will be established what exactly happened to cause the match to be abandoned, whether that happens in days, weeks or months. I listened to most of the morning and evening session (I had a job assessment in the afternoon), although as I am not good at explaining things, I didn’t tell my mum about the incident until about half-an-hour after, as I didn’t want to worry her. It sounded like no-one was allowed to leave or enter the ground, or that they had to stay indoors, although I don’t know if that was entirely the case, as Lower Mound says that he was able to leave as soon as he realised at about 4:45pm that there was unlikely to be any further play.

Well done to Surrey, the Metropolitan Police and the other parties involved in their work today.

It has been pointed out that the arrow landed a couple of pitches away from where the match was being played and that the arrow happened to have MCC colours, so it would be sad if the incident was caused by someone with cricket awareness (the incident is sad whatever way it is looked at, although it would be a different kind of sad if the perpetrator(s) knew exactly what they were doing). Unfortunately, there have been plenty of occasions when someone with a decent understanding of cricket has used their knowledge to sabotage a ground, for example by throwing a chemical to an important area of the square or digging it up, such as when England played Australia at Headingley in 1975. Also, a recent article in the Guardian about thefts at clubs mentioned an incident in which someone cut 4m by 3m from a new artificial pitch, which the club’s secretary remarked as “too neat a job” to simply be vandalism.

At the start of the day, the height of my ambitions was that Middlesex would draw, preferably without giving our followers discomfort. It was therefore worrying when it was realised that Nick Compton couldn’t resume his innings, which was followed by four wickets falling before I went out, which ultimately resulted in six wickets falling in a 22.1 over period. I had a fear that I would come home to find that Surrey had began their run chase or were close to doing so, which meant I was relieved to see that Compo had been able to return and that John Simpson was also going well. It was also great that Ollie Rayner followed his first innings 38 by holding out for 52 balls in the second innings and contributed 30. Earlier in the day, Kevin Hand said that Rayner should bat at 8 and Toby Roland-Jones should bat at 9 due to Rayner having a better defence and TRJ having more licence to counter-attack at 9, and the evidence of this match suggests that would make sense despite calls for TRJ to bat higher.

The procession of wickets earlier today may not have began had Sam Robson not been given out when he and the commentators were convinced he hadn’t hit the ball, and when the bowler Sam Curran didn’t initially appeal.

If the match was in the balance when it had to be abandoned, then that wouldn’t have been particularly fair. However, Surrey seemed to be on their last throw of the dice when the incident happened, so a draw was a fair result.

At no point when I listened did the commentators speculate we were in trouble of suffering a points deduction for a slow over-rate, so I didn’t consider the possibility. Thankfully, it appears we haven’t been penalised, although the way the match finished leaves me fearful that it could happen once the officials get time to sort these things out. However, as much as I don't want us to lose points, I feel it would be incorrect to spare us a deduction solely due to the circumstances of the abandonment. I always find it a sad state of affairs when I have to look at the table after a match to determine whether we have incurred a deduction.

From a cricketing points of view, about the only negatives from how today’s three division one matches went were that we made heavy work of securing a draw and that Compo has an injury which may rule him out of our next match. However, with Nick Gubbins hoping to be fit, we could simply make a like-for-like change.

 
Re: Surrey v Middlesex, 28-31 August
BarmierKev (IP Logged)
31 August, 2017 21:55
I'm still trying to get my head round the incident. Lesser of two evils it was a childest prank that got out of hand. I have seen the picture of arrows that represented MCC colours, I just hope there is nothing sinister is going on here.



Barmy Kev
I'm only here for the tele

 
Re: Surrey v Middlesex, 28-31 August
Seaxe_Man (IP Logged)
01 September, 2017 11:09
Arrived at lunch. Score 86 for 5. This soon became 94 for 6 when Toby gave the bowler a return catch.

Thereafter things brightened up with resolution being shown by Simmo, Rayner and Compo.

Simmo my MoM for anchoring the innings with 88no, a hundred on the cards before the bowman intervened.

At that point, 214 for 7 with 33.5 overs left we had moved into calmer waters.

A further turning point was mid afternoon on Tuesday, when Tank brought on Adam Voges spin. This dislodged Jason Roy on 79 after a long stand.

So a potential 100plus lead for the hosts was kept to a reasonable 33 runs.

 
Re: Surrey v Middlesex, 28-31 August
chunkyinargyll (IP Logged)
01 September, 2017 12:12
In Crossbow news, suggestions there might have been more than one arrow fired (5th paragraph down)

[www.theguardian.com]

This would explain why everyone was initially interested in OCS stand (as another arrow might have landed on the roof)

 
Re: Surrey v Middlesex, 28-31 August
Jonathan Winsky (IP Logged)
01 September, 2017 17:34

 
Re: Surrey v Middlesex, 28-31 August
chunkyinargyll (IP Logged)
01 September, 2017 21:25
Arrow may have been fired from roof terrace.

[www.thesun.co.uk]

Includes Kevin Hand's commentary when incident occurred.

 
Re: Surrey v Middlesex, 28-31 August
adelaide (IP Logged)
02 September, 2017 10:06
I wasn't in touch much with the last day, having to attend a particularly raw funeral. If I had been I might have seen "crowd trouble" and thought that SWC had finally cracked. By the time I was able to look at anything it was front page news and too staggering to even contemplate thinking of the puns we use to come to terms with it.

Whilst it is worrying, any idiot with a crossbow could fire an arrow into a much more crowded place than The Oval playing surface. I suspect that's just what it was, an idiot, quite likely amazed at how far their new "toy" actually sent the arrow.

The travails of the top order really are quite worrying, though it seems there was decent help for the bowlers for a change. I notice Simmo looked very reluctant to leave the pitch. I suppose he would have been being 12 short of a century with five balls of a Borthwick over to come! Real match-saving innings. Good to see Ollie getting decent runs twice as well.


Adelaide

 
Re: Surrey v Middlesex, 28-31 August
chunkyinargyll (IP Logged)
02 September, 2017 14:27
The bowman has been apprehended.

[www.bbc.co.uk]

 
Re: Surrey v Middlesex, 28-31 August
Jonathan Winsky (IP Logged)
02 September, 2017 14:38
The Metropolitan Police are still appealing for anyone with footage of the incident, which they sound expectant that people will provide. Considering some organisations consider it to be an offence for a non-rights holder to film a sporting event (particularly if they post it online and/or use their footage to gain income), it makes it a turn of events for people to be encouraged to have filmed part of this match. I am sure I read somewhere that an ex-player posted their own footage of the Champions Trophy on Twitter, but was told off by an ICC official for doing this, and had to thus remove the footage. However, a Google search does not provide me with confirmation of this.

 
Re: Surrey v Middlesex, 28-31 August
BarmierKev (IP Logged)
03 September, 2017 09:25
According to our Sunday rag someone has been arrested in connection with the stray arrow on suspicion of attempted GBH



Barmy Kev
I'm only here for the tele

 
Re: Surrey v Middlesex, 28-31 August
Jonathan Winsky (IP Logged)
06 September, 2017 18:06
I have looked at the table on BBC, and it says Middlesex have been deducted two points, almost certainly for a slow over rate in this match. 2017 thus becomes the fourth season running in which we have lost points due to this.

 
Re: Surrey v Middlesex, 28-31 August
chunkyinargyll (IP Logged)
06 September, 2017 18:15
You're right, JW.

[www.bbc.co.uk]

It wasn't like that after the match. Without arrowgate we would have had time to sort it out.

I suppose 'foul play' is considered no different to an unexpected thunderstorm, but if we get relegated by one point this could be very controversial.

I don't think it will come to that, as I think we'll be comfortably clear, but it does prove the point you shouldn't automatically assume there will be a second innings to sort things out.

Goto Page: Previous12345Next
Current Page: 4 of 5

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net
 

Who is online?

Total users online:  

Most users online:  

Users on this site:  

Where are they?