| 
Posts and words
Loading ...I don’t pay super-close attention, but there seems to be a fairly long tradition in the Australian domestic competition of captains colluding in a manner to enable the gain by one side or other of outright points.
Not one side giving in to the other, but instead of a match tamely petering out to a draw, ‘easy’ runs being granted to oppositions in the expectation that they will then declare in a strong but not invulnerable position.
It’s all a bit dodgy, but it adds a lot of spark to games that would otherwise end forgettably.
I’m sure Langer has participated in many of these and be very canny about maximising points.
50/8d
By Ian 3 years ago, at the end of May Add your comment below
No, this isn’t plea to bring back old money. That’s the total Somerset declared on earlier today. I may have missed the point, but presumably the thinking was to have a crack at Middlesex while the conditions were right and stop the opposition from getting full bowling points. It hasn’t worked in one sense, as Middx are currently 71 for 0. As far as bowling points, perhaps it was very shrewd of their skipper Justin Langer. (If this has already been discussed on The Corridor, then I apologise.)
Ordinarily, I might launch into a rant about cheating Aussies bending the rules, but I happen to be a big fan of Langer, so I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. But it does leave a bad taste in the mouth, not least as one of my fantasy team bowlers was denied the chance of filling his boots! (I also have Langer, who got a duck…)
Is it bad sportsmanship, clever captaincy or even a missed opportunity? What if Caddick had slapped a quick-fire 40? It could have changed the momentum entirely.
Tags: andrew-caddick, aussies, australia, australians, bowling-points, county-cricket, declaration, england, justin-langer, middlesex, somerset, sportsmanship |
12 Responses to “50/8d”
June 1st, 2007 at 12.55 am
June 1st, 2007 at 7.20 am
Somerset do have a history of this. Anyone remember brian rose hitting 4 off the first ball of a Benson and Hedges game in the seventies? He claimed that Somerset had a higher run rate and therefore should have won. We got thrown out of the competition…
June 1st, 2007 at 10.22 am
This happened earlier in the season too, although I can’t remember who did it. It’s in the rules, but it’s not in the spirit of the rules. Typically Australian if you ask me. Just like the infamous Aussie underarm.
June 1st, 2007 at 2.29 pm
Sprycorpse: I find your comments pretty unfair. engineering results has always been much more of a British thing. Read Steve Waugh’s autobiography about how he was appalled by it when he arrived at Essex as a young player. Aussies tend to play it much more hard headed.
Rob: Rose batted first and declared at 1-0 after 1 over in order to deny the other team an opportunity to overtake Somerset in the table through developing a faster run rate.
I’m interested to hear from somebody who was at Lords about why they declared. Middx would only have got 1 extra point for taking another two wickets so Langer wouldn’t be influenced by that in late May (and you can be docked points for doing this these days). I guess he just felt that he wanted Caddick et al to have a bowl as quick as possible, maybe thought it was dangerous? Either way, didn’t work did it?
June 1st, 2007 at 6.22 pm
I think it was a pretty shrewd decision, interesting, denying the opposition their bowling points. Maybe not sporting but challenging, meaning game on.
But Middlesex have turned the tables now haven’t they? Needing only 102 for 10 wickets to win, with Joyce and Shah still waiting for a whack.
Experimental, challenging but ultimately not quite there. I personally always believe in the value of runs on the board.
Oops, as I write Godleman LBW Trego 31
June 1st, 2007 at 10.12 pm
Stuart: How were my comments unfair? I wasn’t saying that only Australians engineer results in domestic competition. As far as I know, all other countries may do it far more often.
Unless you are saying it never happens in Australia?
June 2nd, 2007 at 3.34 am
The way the points system works for the club cricket n Tasmanian atleast, things like this happen all the time as the games are two day games, and points are awarded for different run marks in each innings, like 100, 150, 175,225,275 etc… Adn bowling points for different intervals of wickets. like after the 3rd ,5th, 7th etc…
The games is about getting as many points as you can, adn restricting you oppenents… Im only 17 and playing 1st grade club cricket and that is how we are brought up… I persume as the games get longer in days, an outright result is more common, therefore the points arent so much of an issue…
June 4th, 2007 at 10.09 am
Sprycorpse: I had the impression that you were saying that engineering results is done in Aus but not in Britain.
I’m still interested to hear more detail about the game at Lords….
June 4th, 2007 at 10.46 am
According to Ecb.co.uk, Langer was being positive….
With the ball moving around prodigiously for the Middlesex pace bowlers in the morning Langer decided to get his quick men in action as soon as possible rather than letting his tail-enders hang around to score a few runs which may have proven irrelevant.
Unfortunately for the Australian, who ironically declared on 850 when the sides met at Taunton earlier this year, the sun came out as soon as he closed the innings, making the ball less likely to swing.
Neither was he helped by some wayward bowling from Andrew Caddick in his first spell as he and opening partner Charl Willoughby failed to make the most of the new ball and a helpful pitch.
Somerset director of cricket Brian Rose said: “It was quite a brave decision that Justin took.
“He wanted to get the best of the conditions and frankly we had been struggling to put bat on ball.
“He thought he should give his bowlers a chance to put Middlesex under the same pressure.
“If we’d scratched around for another 15 to 20 runs it would have made next to no difference to the match.â€
June 4th, 2007 at 11.05 am
“Unfortunately for the Australian, who ironically declared on 850 when the sides met at Taunton earlier this year…”
What? I think that whoever writes on ecb.co.uk meant “…..who interestingly declared…”, or “…who coincidently declared…..”
Nothing ironic about it at all. What would be ironic (and very funny) is if someone were to pull a similar stunt later in the season that deprived Somerset of points and meant that they got relegated, or didn’t win the championship, especially if chippy Langer then complained about it and said it wasn’t sporting.
June 4th, 2007 at 11.57 am
Why describe this imaginative bit of captaincy as “a stunt” and then have a go at Langer with a double conjecture (that it may happen again and he may criticise it)?
This seems very different to the usual Championship stitch ups when 100 would be scored in 6 overs, to leave someone a target. Or Hanse Cronje’s generous declaration aginst England.
Langer’s initiative harks back to the days of uncovered pitches when teams would make declarations like this to let their bowlers loose on a “sticky dog”. Good on him, but come on ….. somebody must have been there.
June 6th, 2007 at 9.20 pm
This is just a test
Comments
« Beginning of the end for Flintoff? | Main | England unchanged »
