The thing that really did it for me though was the TV coverage by the BBC. Back then (we are talking 1959-60), this was the era of Peter May, Colin Cowdrey, Ted Dexter, Fred Trueman, Brian Statham and others. Glorious to watch but they did always seem to lose when they played Ashes test matches. Actually, it has pretty much always been a battle against the Aussies in Ashes tests and in my memory with only relatively few high spots; virtually never away from England.
Earliest cricket memories include the batting card on TV. These days all computer driven and presented. Certainly more efficient, faster in production and informative but what a loss! In those days it was hand written by someone who had beautiful copper plate writing. I can't remember who the opposition was but my first first TV memory was Ted Dexter getting out for 180 and the batting card disappeared and then reappeared with the full details.
I started formally playing when I went to Eton House School at the age of 8; no chance of that when I was at the catholic convent Lindisfarne as the school was run by Belgian nuns. I'd had great success playing in our driveway against other boys and girls (yes, even then) but discovered after being no balled for 3 successive deliveries in my first over at Eton House that that was most likely due to the fact that I had been throwing the ball all the time. This meant a total reworking of my action and is most likely a key reason that I never quite made it to play for England at Lords. My pace dropped sharply!
 |
| I did make it finally to Eton House 1st XI a few years later. Back row, 2nd from right |
 |
| Our last game all together at Shelly Bay, Bermuda |
If you are cricket followers you will know that the matches themselves were pretty low standard affairs. Neither set of batsmen could cope with the quality of the bowlers and on balance the Aussie bowlers were the better lot... except for a couple of the guys. One Aussie, one Brit. The Aussie simply ground away for hours on end and scored a gazillion runs in the series evoking memories of Don Bradman, the greatest of them all. His name is Steve Smith and do look for articles about him or rather his performances. Here's one to start with. The Brit is a totally different kettle of fish and is a fine stroke maker but in this series with England only one ball away from collapse on every delivery, he was forced to adjust his style to grind away too. It is strange to watch someone who clearly isn't that good at something but puts so much effort into doing it anyway because that is what the team needs and really has to happen, but that is what watching Ben Stokes bat like that was all about. Where Smith knew what he was doing and could go about things calmly, Stokes had to force it with the result that for much of the time he was stroke less and run less. This whilst all about him collapse and panic reined (this is England's batting) until there came a point that there was only him and the last man and another 73 runs to win. Total mindset change.
Stokes knew he could not rely on the last man, after all he was a bowler not a batter even though he was one of those salt of the earth, get knocked down but get up again, kind of guys. Totally gawky but very, very brave. Where others ducked and bobbed and weaved as the ball whizzed past their heads... and then got out to very poor efforts, the 11th man, Jack Leach, stood tall, swayed in and out, kept his eye on the ball and bat away from it so it could not inadvertently take an edge and be caught. He 100% looked the part and immediately became a legend, rather like Eddie the Eagle in ski-jumping. Not very good but very brave and very determined.
And totally against the odds at the other end Stokes simply did what he does best and smashed the formerly formidable attack to all parts. Sixes and fours everywhere off everyone. Until the score reached single figures left to win when Stokes grew nervous. First he went for a wild thrash and missed it and the ball hit him on the leg right in front of the wicket. The Aussies appealed for LBW (leg before wicket, one of the ways in which a batsman can get out. If the ball hits the leg and would have gone on to hit the wicket, that could be out LBW). Not out said the umpire.... the TV announcers were howling at this point. They knew that was wrong. The ball WAS going to hit the wicket but the Aussies were not able to review this decision as they had already reviewed two others incorrectly in the innings and were consequently all out of challenges. The TV showed the review and it was absolutely out. Stokes would have been out, should have been out and the Aussies should have won the test match but the umpire got it wrong! The crowd were going crazy. Next ball another frenetic thrash and both Stokes and Leach made a total hash of running with Leach running towards the bowler's end where the ball was being returned and he knew he would be yards short... when the bowler blinked and missed the ball and as he fumbled Leach was able to scramble home. Again, Leach should have been run out, England should have lost, and the Aussies should have won the match and the Ashes, but this time it was the bowler who made a hash of the whole thing.
Next ball Stokes thrashed it into the crowd again (in all he hit 8 sixes in this final dramatic run assault/chase) and that was 2 to win. But it was also the end of the over and now Leach had to face all 6 balls of the currently finest fast bowler in test cricket. He casually flicked a single, his only run in the entire process, which brought the teams level and next ball Stokes thrashed the winning boundary and the celebrations began.
I was screaming too at this point. I recorded it and have watched the last amazing hour 3 or 4 times. Every time I still don't believe England did it. They really shouldn't have.
**
I'd thought that the World Cup final some 6 weeks ago now was the most dramatic, exciting, unlikely day of cricket I had ever seen... In that game between England and New Zealand played over 50 overs per side, the Kiwis scored some 245 runs, way below what an acceptable score should be. These days teams knock off 300+ with regularity so all of a sudden England was firm favourite. This changed within 5 overs as the English batters realised to their alarm (and doom) that although the English bowling had been mean, tight and penetrating and did a great job restricting the Kiwis to such a small score, the Kiwi attack was every bit as good and that in fact the pitch was extremely awkward and did not allow for a side to simply smash a decent bowling side all over the place. It took one batsman, again Stokes, to steady the ship after a clatter of wickets and amidst an ongoing debacle at the other end and approach the final over with the not inconsiderable amount of 15 required to win.
The first two balls he did not score. Then the third he hit for 6!! Then on the fourth he wanted to run 2 and hit it to the boundary where he tried to run 2 but it looked very much like he would end up short and be run out .... when the ball thrown in from the boundary hit him as he was running and ran off to the boundary for 4 overthrows, making this shot a .... 6!! Or maybe something else. Did Stokes mean to do this or was it an accident? If accidental, then overthrows. If deliberate, then out. The crowd was going crazy. The umpires hadn't a clue what to signal for that 4 overthrows ball but after deliberations it was obvious that Stokes hadn't a clue what was going on either and that the ball had simply hit him and run away. So after multiple TV replays, they came up with 6 scored and 3 left to win. Two balls to do it. The bowler bowled and I'm afraid like Dirty Harry in the first movie, in all the excitement I kinda forget what exactly happened, but they did run one and the number 10 batsman was run out going for the second. And then on the final ball, the exact same thing happened again. He tried to run 2 but only managed 1 with the new batsman run out well short of making his ground. So a tie!!
Sudden death single over ensued. England to bat first. It would be Stokes of course and another big hitter. 6 balls. Most runs win. Only 2 wickets allowed. First ball Stokes hit the ball into the crowd!!.... which went even more crazy, and for the remaining balls the pair of them managed to amass 14 runs. A decent amount. The Kiwis turn was next and first ball was a .... no run, dot ball!!! The crowd were going wild. I was going wild.... I was watching it on my phone, I think in the car. My friend John was on a bus in France.... and he was screaming! Next ball the batsman hit it miles into the crowd! Aaagh!! 9 left and 4 balls to do it. Runs and balls ensued and left 2 runs needed on the last ball. One to tie, 2 to win. The batsman hit it to the fielder on the boundary who collected it cleanly and threw it in what was probably his greatest ever piece of fielding and the batsman was run out by a whisker. Another tie but England won it.... not because they scored more runs than the Kiwis but because they scored more boundaries in their innings.
Did I say that cricket is full of weird rules?
**
I'm a Test Match guy. I just love the fact it takes 5 days to reach a conclusion which may well be a draw... no result in fact. I know this makes no sense to some people but it is how it is. In the old days, test matches could be played to completion; so-called 'timeless tests'. That's how teams could rack up nearly 1,000 runs in an innings and still get a result... think Ashes test of 1938 at the Oval. In the 1980's it was decided to add a 6th day to one Ashes test match as an experiment. The result was one of the dullest day's play I have ever watched and with one batsman scoring the dullest century of all time (it wasn't, most like. It just felt like it). So even enthusiasts like me have their limits.
The 50-over One Day Internationals (ODI in modern parlance) are also fine. In club cricket this is effectively what everyone in the world only plays. It may not be limited to 50 overs per side but games have to be finished in a single weekend day and the practicality of it all makes it to be around 50 overs per side. Of course in club cricket, a draw is possible whilst in official ODI matches (like the World Cup final for example), there has to be a result. This is a key difference as it makes the end of any match a frenetic thrash for the team batting second whilst in club cricket the game meanders along most pleasantly.
The shorter form matches, called T20 these days... 20 overs per side, are usually played by we humble amateurs as an after work thing. Again practicality kicking in. In June/July in England you can squeeze in 25 overs but by August you are struggling to make 20 overs as the evenings start to close in. By September you are lucky to get 16 overs in. In Bermuda, we always struggled to get 20 overs in with 14 being usual by late August. Again no draw possible in these games which resemble a thrash from start to finish.
 |
| My Bermuda evening league team in 1995 |
In 2020 a new limited over series called the Hundred will take place. Only 100 balls will be bowled per innings making this even faster than the already frenetic T20 competitions. The already crowded cricket schedule is being changed to accommodate this new circus and the 4-day championship and 5-day test matches are being shunted aside willy nilly. Sponsors are flooding in. Mercenary cricketers for every nation are signing up. TV companies and the ECB are rubbing their hands together thinking about all the lovely cash they'll rake in as the shorter forms of the game are highly popular with non-cricket fans .... of course for the good of cricket and not to line their own pockets, solidify their power base or ironically (or maybe not so) in any way improve the quality of test cricket played by the national team.
Sounds like a lot of sports, governments, quangos, corporations.... tail wagging dog.
I hope the 2 million or so that have subscription TV enjoy the circus. I'll stay with the live feed I've found of Essex playing county championship cricket.
No comments:
Post a Comment