Outnumbered


Should have been at MTS

By Leprechaun
July 15 2015

London Leprechaun reports on the final day at Somerset which produced some thrilling moments but where the numbers did not quite add up in the end. We also get a little rant about Steve Finn and England and of course no report is complete without a mention of you know what. And we finish with a little brain teaser 

With a half decent weather forecast I was half optimistic that something could still be salvaged from this match as long as we got a full day’s play and got the last two Somerset wickets quickly this morning. A touch of rain as the train travelled through Pinner dampened my initial optimism, but it was dry by the time I walked through the woods at Moor Park although gloomy enough to feel like an autumn day. 

I did wonder why there were stewards at the entrance as entry was free but they were clicking in the numbers attending. I was number 33; there were probably more cows in the adjoining fields then spectators and almost certainly more players, coaches and officials.

At that point it was 10.55 and I was congratulating myself on actually managing to get to the ground before play started only to see Murts finishing off an over he had actually started on Sunday afternoon, and realised we were playing on Northwood time which is five minutes ahead of London time.  This was swiftly followed by the sight of James Harris bowling from the Benham end (or the Railway end as it had been on Saturday).  Now seeing James Harris bowl has been a fine sight this summer, but today seeing him bowl as a substitute for Stephen Finn was quite frankly ludicrous and, in my view, disrespectful to county cricket.  What was the point of dragging Finny to a net practice for a match on Thursday being played half an hour away by train? Glad as I am that he is back in the England fold pulling him from this match makes no sense.

Anyhow while three of us (just under 10% of the audience for this match) were discussing this, our first objective was achieved, with two quick wickets as Somerset made a quick dart for a batting point.  Compo took a well-judged steepling catch off Groenewald and then Eoin Morgan hit the wicket with a direct throw.  Lots of time left in the day and the over rate showing level.  If the light and weather held another fourth day spectacular was possible.

It started promisingly with positive intent by Robbo and Burns and all the batsmen who followed. Losing wickets was not an issue – getting around 150 seemed to be the consensus among the slowly growing number of supporters. (We probably reached 50, maybe not a century).  But sadly weather, light and cricket’s lack of common sense when it comes to breaks conspired against us.  Just after 12 it rained a bit; the same mizzly rain that plagued Monday.  Not heavy but enough to justify coming off. So why did we have to wait until 12.45 to call an “early” lunch?  By which time the rain had virtually stopped.  And why a forty minute lunch? And why did we have a further delay while the umpires hung around the covers waiting for the light to improve, which looked no worse then when the rain had started. All of which cost us about 20 overs.

tBut when we finally started again the positive intent continued. Everyone came in looking to score, and most succeeded, though it was good to see from our pointy of view that batting was not that easy; balls were still finding the edge and positive batting  was definitely risky.  So it came down to how many overs we might need to give us the chance of pulling off the unlikely victory.  Not helped by another nonsense moment. Just as Malan was out, the umpires decided the light was failing again. By the time Somerset fielders had reached the pavilion they decided it was OK again. But we lost another over. Ludicrous.

But after that, and as the sun started to come out we ended up with a target of 218 in 40 overs; that seemed a fair balance.

And on another positive note we started bowling with the over rate plus one!

Somerset started with positive intent and with a solid opening partnership, and while Trescothick was in, there was always just the faint chance they would get into a position to try something spectacular themselves. But even with them scoring at four an over the run rate was climbing and the bowling and fielding was tight.  We even had a third man for most of the innings – useful for the inevitable thick edges.  Once Abell was out wickets fell regularly enough to keep Somerset on the back foot and our hopes high.  Although HIldreth did his bit by hitting Murts for four successive boundaries,  Murts responded by finding a perfect length that made the ball spit; Trescothick looked good in spite of being hit on the hand but once he was out – the 2nd of two decent catches by James Franklin - Somerset chances pretty much went.  Incidentally Franklin spent much of the innings fielding at mid off – near the bowlers so he did not have to run up and down from slip to consult with the bowlers – helping the over rate. (Though it still slipped into the minus one – albeit with quite a lot of injury delays )

We nearly got the wickets

At which point I had to leave – for an evening appointment I had not thought would be a problem to get to.  Until we were still going at nearly 6pm.

As I left Somerset were 4 wickets down and the run rate 7 an over. A fifth wicket fell while I was behind the sightscreen.  On the walk to Moor Park the 6th wicket went and somewhere between Moor Park and Harrow the 7th wicket fell.  And there was just a glimmer of hope for that spectacular finish. Unfortunately by then my phone had lost most of its power and the train went underground soon after so it took until Canning Town to see that Somerset held out.

But it had been a bold attempt to win the match and even if we had lost it would have been worth the gamble.  And we were left to rue the lack of common sense that needlessly cost us those precious overs. What might have been? And what might the pace of Finny have done on this wicket.

Positives

A brave attempt by Middlesex to win the match

Excellent fielding and catching

Being served coffee today by an England World Cup Winner

Negatives

Steve Finn being pulled from this match

Lack of common sense with weather delays

Yet again worrying about the overrate (we dipped into minus 1 again! Don to the rescue again!!)



Bookmark or share this story with:

Outnumbered
Discussion started by Middlesex till we die , 15/07/2015 01:05
Middlesex till we die
15/07/2015 01:05
What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015:07:16:17:08:47 by BarmierKev.

BarmierKev
15/07/2015 08:21
While this is a good report I'm seething. I say I'm seething!

Hi Fi is not even likely to play in test. I spend time and expense following County cricket round the country and the ECB seem hell bent on belittling my passion.

I have mentioned on previous reports how annoying it is when common sense is not used to make up for rain delays. There appears to have been 5 unnecessary overs lost here which could have made all the difference.

Barmy Kev
I'm only here for the tele

BeefyRoberts
15/07/2015 10:57
Missed this game due to other arrangements.
Poor MT does get plagued by rain when a game is held there.

After reading this report (well done LL),i am fully in agreement with what Kev has added above.
Its an absolute total joke when the ECB remove a player when a game is nearly over, same when a player isn't 'needed' for an ECB waiter position, they can travel to an already started game and join their county.
Total disregard for the county game and the county followers..... rant over smiling smiley

adelaide
15/07/2015 11:55
I suppose some county followers might argue that at least this way they see a top player in action for three days. Ironically, if the weather had done the decent thing, the match might well have been over in three days in any case.

It has been going on for years and I thought we would all have been well aware of it happening, so should have been complaining years ago rather than at a point where (delete as appropriate) we are deprived of a player for one day/we get the benefit of a player for three days!


Adelaide

Jonathan Winsky
15/07/2015 19:18
The logic behind preventing Steven Finn from playing yesterday is that England would prefer him to have not played in the three days prior to tomorrow's Lord’s Test in case a fast bowler has to suddenly withdraw in the period between yesterday and 11:00am tomorrow. If he played the whole match for Middlesex and then plays in the Test, he would have had two fewer day’s rest than anyone playing in both Tests, which would theoretically disadvantage England. Of course, the result in the first Test means that it is highly unlikely England will make any unenforced changes for tomorrow.

Despite the reasoning for Finn’s withdrawal yesterday being unstandable, it came as a surprise to me when I heard about the likelihood of him having to withdraw. I would have thought Middlesex were fully aware that Finn could only play for three days, although it was only through the media that I found out about it.

I will take a wild guess that the World Cup winner who served coffee was Beth Morgan.

adelaide
15/07/2015 19:22
JW

Almost certainly the replacement player would have had to be named before the toss, so yes, Middlesex would have been fully aware.


Adelaide

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