Not So Sweet Today
Ervine Romance With No Bowling
Not So Sweet Today
By Ed the Duck August 25 2008
Ed the Duck reports on a second best Pro40 effort by Middlesex against Hampshire at Lord's. Ed the Duck pulls no punches - indeed the odd remark needed toning down in editing but I'm sure all readers will get the gist. Perhaps Imran Tahir had read Barmy Kev's comments about him on MTWD and wanted his own back. Many thanks to Ed the Duck for this report.
Not So Sweet Today
Ed the Duck reports on a second best Pro40 effort by Middlesex against Hampshire at Lord's. Ed the Duck pulls no punches - indeed the odd remark needed toning down in editing but I'm sure all readers will get the gist. Perhaps Imran Tahir had read Barmy Kev's comments about him on MTWD and wanted his own back. Many thanks to Ed the Duck for this report.
Field First
Joycey won the toss and decided to field on a good batting track, then Finn set up helping Adams and Lumb got the Turnip Crunchers off to a decent start.
But Adams (19)was prepared to chance his arm once to often and Finn took a trademark sliding catch on his knee off Dial M however to take the first wicket with the score on 48.
The wickets set the alarm bells ringing and four wickets fell quickly the second coming just six runs later Carberry (2) was caught behind by Scott off Hendo.
Finn was switched to Nursery End with immediate success trapping Benham (0) in front and suddenly happy days had returned to Lords.
Things got even better when Lumb (37) who was building a decent innings chopped Hendo onto his own stumps and his side went from 48-0 to 61-4 in the blink of an eye.
Bur Ervine and Dawson dug in, repairing the damage that had been inflicted on the top order with the former smashing TSO into the Edrich was a massive six to bring up the century.
The spinners weren’t having much luck; Shaggy and TSO going for 52 off their first ten overs, they got their rewards soon enough.
No sooner had the Ervine & Dawson pair put on 100 off 107 balls, Dawson (45) skied Shaggy and Joycey took a superb catch to send him packing.
Crunchers skipper Mascarenhas (8) clubbed a four but was walking back when Hendo took a caught off Finn and they were 190-6.
Hendo to his credit has been fantastic at times this season but 30 runs off his final two overs was as unacceptable as his field places, allowing Ervine to twice hit him for lofted fours to reach his ton.
Ervine can also do it in coloured pyjamas
The Crunchers total of 227 was about 15 or 20 more than they deserved but that is not taking anything away from Ervine who was superb.
Middlesex Bat Second, Middlesex Come Second
The Middle innings appeared to be going well until the dodgiest claim I have witnessed at a county game since Langer’s gamesmanship last season.
Joycey’s choice of shot off Mascarenhas was as dodgy as the Imran Tahir’s claims that it was a clean catch and television replays proved the point.
Why Tim Robinson didn’t refer the incident to Nick Cook the third umpire beyond me, maybe he was too busy laughing at the bare-faced cheek of Tahir, if the technology is there it should be used (22-1).
Scott was promoted to three; another laughable decision and he scratched around struggling to nine before being caught by Ervine off Taylor 54-2.
Henderson was next and briefly threatened before one brainless shot too many in a 10 ball innings saw him caught by Dawson in the deep off the Crunchers skipper.
Strauss was at the other end building his innings but with a potential match winning century in sight he fell LBW to Dawson; felled on 71 for the second time in a week.
A crescendo of boos greeted The Crunchers leg break bowler and he made himself even more unpopular bowling a reverse sweeping Morgan (30).
Berg (1) did nothing to justify his place in the side going LBW to Dawson just a run later and we were 135-6.
Malan (26) was our last hope and despite clubbing 18 off an over he was brilliantly caught by Adams off Dawson to effectively end any hopes of victory just as he was motoring. 169-7.
Dial M (0)caught by Dawson off his own bowling Shaggy (20) off 26 balls caught Carberry off Tremlett and Finn (0) bowled by Taylor were the last three wickets to fall for just 25 leaving TSO not out on 12.
Bookmark or share this story with:
Digg
Delicious
Facebook
Reddit
StumbleuponRe: Ervine Romance With No Bowling
Posted by: LOVERBOY (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:25:13:34:57
I dread to think what was edited,for critiscism for the sake of it already goes too far.
Henderson know only to play one way,and his ratio of success this season has been phenomenal,to lable him 'brainless''when he fails with the bat,or goes for a few boundaries is missing the point.
Gareth Berg's selection was certainly justified in the light of recent performances,and an eartly dismissal does not justify such critical comments,nor does the innovative promotion of the in-form Ben Scott to number three in an effort to shorten the tale.
One who might have been picked out for critiscism was Eoin,whose shot selection in List A games is becoming increasingly suspect does not get a mention,nor does Murali's bowling,which appeared to have no plan or purpose.
Henderson know only to play one way,and his ratio of success this season has been phenomenal,to lable him 'brainless''when he fails with the bat,or goes for a few boundaries is missing the point.
Gareth Berg's selection was certainly justified in the light of recent performances,and an eartly dismissal does not justify such critical comments,nor does the innovative promotion of the in-form Ben Scott to number three in an effort to shorten the tale.
One who might have been picked out for critiscism was Eoin,whose shot selection in List A games is becoming increasingly suspect does not get a mention,nor does Murali's bowling,which appeared to have no plan or purpose.
Re: Ervine Romance With No Bowling
Posted by: Mart (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:25:13:57:29
Gareth Berg's selection was puzzling as it left the Middlesex line up remarkably short of batsmen! Middlesex only had four frontline batsmen!
Re: Ervine Romance With No Bowling
Posted by: Ged (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:25:15:24:47
I edited out some language used with reference to Imran Tahir's catch.
Other than that, as I am a non-witness to the events of that match day, I have respected the MTWD reporter's right to describe the match as he saw it.
Our match reports are not official reports, they are from a fan's perspective. Different fans have different views and all match reports have bulletin board space for the subject matter to be debated - as indeed it clearly is being debated here.
Other than that, as I am a non-witness to the events of that match day, I have respected the MTWD reporter's right to describe the match as he saw it.
Our match reports are not official reports, they are from a fan's perspective. Different fans have different views and all match reports have bulletin board space for the subject matter to be debated - as indeed it clearly is being debated here.
Re: Ervine Romance With No Bowling
Posted by: dynamo_harrow (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:25:18:37:52
Early days, but to date, I'd say Berg is a worthy squad cricketer, rather than an obvious first choice.
I thought yesterday was interesting insofar as it was the first time oppo batsmen had really gone after our one day bowlers. And, as I suspected, we didn't really have a Plan B to fall back on.
I agree with LB re Eoin - have commented on a separate thread on that. But that shot, even more than the stunning catch to dismiss Malan, lost us the game.
As to Ed's report - sadly your claims re the Tahir catch are plain wrong. Having watched the video carefully, there's no obvious point where the ball touches the ground - rather it bounced from one hand to another (with fingers between ball and ground).
I thought Joyce's reactions were regrettable (at best). He's got previous - e.g. at Uxbridge in a T20 game where I thought he was unlucky. But yesterday's behaviour, culminating in sarcastically applauding the umpire from the pav steps, was unbecoming. The fielder claimed the catch, the umpire gave him out - that should have been the end of the matter.
I thought yesterday was interesting insofar as it was the first time oppo batsmen had really gone after our one day bowlers. And, as I suspected, we didn't really have a Plan B to fall back on.
I agree with LB re Eoin - have commented on a separate thread on that. But that shot, even more than the stunning catch to dismiss Malan, lost us the game.
As to Ed's report - sadly your claims re the Tahir catch are plain wrong. Having watched the video carefully, there's no obvious point where the ball touches the ground - rather it bounced from one hand to another (with fingers between ball and ground).
I thought Joyce's reactions were regrettable (at best). He's got previous - e.g. at Uxbridge in a T20 game where I thought he was unlucky. But yesterday's behaviour, culminating in sarcastically applauding the umpire from the pav steps, was unbecoming. The fielder claimed the catch, the umpire gave him out - that should have been the end of the matter.
Re: Ervine Romance With No Bowling
Posted by: Seaxe_Man (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:26:13:17:39
Were you there BTW DH? Firstly, I agree with ED's take. The oppo got probably 20 runs more than they should have. From the top of Upper Compton: in real time: we had a very good view of the alleged catch. Mr Tahir appeared to be surprised when the ball suddenly dipped in flight and 'bounced' in front him. He then scrabbled around on the floor fielding the catch from a half volley and claimed same. When the brief TV replay came up: few in the ground shared view that it was a safe catch. With regard to Ed's previous at Uxers: the batter is entitled to stand his ground until confirmation of the catch carrying is confirmed. I seem to remember Robert Key doing likewise: so I am not putting Ed in the dock for that. In this case there was an off - field official to whom it should have been referred: this was not done: the reason known only to Garratt and Robinson. As regards previous: the well orchestrated Hampshire appeal machine was also in evidence at Richmond in the 20/20. There, a catch claimed by Pothas was acclaimed by every manjack of them around the park. On this occasion: the umpire stood firm: not out. They did it more than once as well. We were stitched up bigtime: there was so much doubt: that not out should have been the end of the matter. Only Mr Tahir, whose body language had a rather 'guilty' look knows the truth. No doubt his misdemeanors will be revealed in his forthcoming book. In the meantime: Mascaremhas has collected 2 dodgy points and earned a few brownie points with Uncle Rod: who has stated that their performance this season have been ' unacceptable'.
Re: Ervine Romance With No Bowling
Posted by: dingy bags (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:26:17:07:42
I, too, thought the selection to be sound - Berg is worth a go, just wasn't his day.
I know the morning had been wet but I was still surprised that we chose to field - we usually like to defend and have had success doing so.
Adama catch was astounding - I've not seen many better.
I know the morning had been wet but I was still surprised that we chose to field - we usually like to defend and have had success doing so.
Adama catch was astounding - I've not seen many better.
Re: Ervine Romance With No Bowling
Posted by: dynamo_harrow (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:26:20:44:41
Quote:Seaxe_Man
Were you there BTW DH?
Nope, and I respect your views, as you watch many more games than me.
However, I did watch the match on tv (in HD...drool)...from repeated replays, it was clear that the catch was taken safely. To the best of my knowledge - and I'm happy to be corrected - there is no scope for 3rd umpire referrals for catches in domestic cricket (there should be, imho, but that's a different discussion).
Therefore, if the fielder claims the catch, it's quite right for the umpire to dismiss Joyce. Whilst I would understand a small reaction from the batsman, I felt his reaction was overblown - the more so as he was captaining the side.
Re: Ervine Romance With No Bowling
Posted by: Gold Bart (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:27:11:04:34
surely even if Scott is in the form of his life there is no way he is ever a number 3 in Pro40 games. His whole game is based on utilising spaces and gaps and picking up quick 1s and 2s in between fielders on the boundary. Hence to come in with the PP still on he does not have the ability to hit over the top and seemed to waste crucial overs scratching around not able to hit a boundary.
Also, the spinners, espeically Kartik seemed to bowl very negatively. At 61/4 when they came on you except much pressure and to look to finish them off for under 140. Instead he had mid on/off back and allowed Dawson/Ervine to play themselves in with runs and take that confidence to build outstanding innings. They completely took the pressure off at the most important time.
Don't see how anyone can blame Henderson for getting out as their designated pinch hitting slogger inside the PP???
Also, the spinners, espeically Kartik seemed to bowl very negatively. At 61/4 when they came on you except much pressure and to look to finish them off for under 140. Instead he had mid on/off back and allowed Dawson/Ervine to play themselves in with runs and take that confidence to build outstanding innings. They completely took the pressure off at the most important time.
Don't see how anyone can blame Henderson for getting out as their designated pinch hitting slogger inside the PP???
Re: Ervine Romance With No Bowling
Posted by: LOVERBOY (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:08:27:15:00:30
The introduction of Scotty so early was strange,but presumably to lengthen a brittle batting order.
I agree absolutely about Karts bowling,symptomatic of the rather negative approach all round by the captain.
I agree absolutely about Karts bowling,symptomatic of the rather negative approach all round by the captain.
Re: Ervine Romance With No Bowling
Posted by: Seaxe_Man (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:09:01:10:43:47
With regard to the 'catch' DH. A longtime Midd-x guy I know also studied the replays at length on TV. He was quite sure the ball was grounded in the attempt. It is water under the bridge now: but I cannot see that either umpire had a good view from their angle/distance. The ' benefit of the doubt ' rule should have been applied: but then the orchestrated Hampshire Appeal machine caused then to bottle that I have no doubt. If as you say: referrals are not allowed in dom tv games
they should be IMHO): that must have been a relief to Robbo and his mate: being proved wrong is generally a hard pill to swallow. I doubt Joyce will be censured: that would require an investigation into Tahir/Robbo/Garratt as well: which might well prove embarrassing for all concerned. Otherwise DH: thx for your comments which I have to say are extremely fair.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008:09:01:10:50:20 by Seaxe_Man.
they should be IMHO): that must have been a relief to Robbo and his mate: being proved wrong is generally a hard pill to swallow. I doubt Joyce will be censured: that would require an investigation into Tahir/Robbo/Garratt as well: which might well prove embarrassing for all concerned. Otherwise DH: thx for your comments which I have to say are extremely fair.Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008:09:01:10:50:20 by Seaxe_Man.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
More Middlesex CCC headlines
- A Chance to Shine
- I was England till half past five
- Songs of Praise from Murtagh's Mount
- We Ain't Gonna Stanford It - Middx v Trinidad & T.
- Sofa So Good - England v Middx @ Anitigua
- Kev? I'm Only Dancing, England v Middx in Antigua
- Caribbean Capers Part Three
- Barmy Kev's Caribbean Capers Part Two
- Kev's Caribbean Capers Part One
Middlesex CCC latest threads
Middlesex CCC Poll
