Praise for agreed run chases and for Northants
To a non-fan of County Cricket the idea of negotiating an agreed fourth innings run chase (target and overs) must seem stunningly artificial.
We, however, know better and those at the ground or following on their laptops will have been disappointed that Middlesex and Northants failed to agree on a target yesterday so that the game became one solely for bonus points.
Nevertheless, as a Middlesex member, I feel praise is due to Northants who could have declared after saving the follow on and denied Middlesex the chance of further bowling points. Another county might have behaved differently (Somerset comes to mind - look at the score when they came to Lord's , although to be fair I was there and the ball was hooping around)
3 comments:
The circumstances in the Middlesex v Somerset game were rather different: Langer was trying to get the same conditions for his bowlers as had been used so well by the Middlesex bowlers (Silverwood in particular). He was let down because Somerset's bowlers in general (and Caddick in particular) bowled too short to use helpful conditions. (I was there too, as a Somerset member.)
On negotiated declarations in general, I think they will always have a role in converting what could be a meaningless final day (whether through weather interference or otherwise) into an exciting run chase. Obviously the result of the negotiations needs to be that both captains believe they have a chance of winning.
I'm fully in favour of one team, who are seemingly on top, declaring at a particular point in the 3rd innings of the match at a stage that allows the opposition a chance of victory, and by giving them a chance of victory the side declaring increases the chances of a win through wickets falling to attacking shots.
But what really frustrates me about manufactured run chases is either (a) when both sides declare to get to a point where the side batting last commits to chasing the total to create a result - this is just an exercise in persuasion/negotiation and as all counties employ different negotiation tactics, it leaves the eventual winners too much to chance for my liking....or (b) when the side bowling 3rd deliberately bowls balls to be hit for six to create a 4th innings run chase for themselves.
There was a Middlesex v Sussex game at Southgate in 2006 where Middlesex bowled all their non-bowlers coming off one pace in the final session of day 3 allowing Sussex to hit the ball out of the park many times and set up a run chase for Middlesex on the final day. Middlesex lost going for the runs. My problem with that is, despite the relatively exciting days play it gave the spectators on day 4, the game rested on the negotiations between the captains. Does it get to a stage where it's best to have your "most liked guy" on the county circuit as captain, because that will allow him to persuade other sides to create more results?
Incidentally, what about the Durham v Surrey game last week? Durham declined to declare until it was too late creating an incredibly dull game which ended inevitably in a draw. I wonder if they did that to make sure they didn't lose going into today's one-day final in case it lost some team morale for their big day at Lords? If that's the case then Surrey were disadvantaged compared to Durham's other oppositions....
Post a Comment