YB40 Thread

[jimbohammers]

First topic message reminder :

Started on 3rd May. Will keep results + fixtures updated on here....

Friday 14th June
Unicorns vs Somerset

Sunday 16th June
Durham vs Scotland
Essex vs Lancashire
Gloucestershire vs Yorkshire
Nottinghamshire vs Warwickshire
Somerset vs Leicestershire
Sussex vs Northants
Worcestershire vs Netherlands

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Interesting article on BBC website cricket pages about the 50th anniversary of the first Lords limited overs final (which was then 65 overs a side.  )  Includes interview with couple of survivors of that game - Norman Gifford (Sussex) and Jim Parks (Worcs).

My eye caught this extract where Parks talks about the first round of the competition that year. 

"When we played Kent at Tunbridge Wells in the first round, Colin Cowdrey was their Captain.


"He kept in two slips all the way through and we piled up over 300.


"When they batted, Ted [Dexter - the Sussex captain] had players scattered all over the field, we won by 72 runs and we received an official letter from Kent, saying how disgusted they were with our tactics and that it was not in the spirit of cricket."


Brings back memories of Gavaskar's famous defensive innings when he carried his bat for 36* - off 174 balls in an early ODI India v England.  Times change.

[guildfordbat]

Morning Corporal - an interesting article as you say. I had heard before about the savage criticism of Dexter's innovative tactics - a very different cricketing landscape back then. I just hope a certain "young rebel" on these boards doesn't pick up on it and throw Greg Chappell's antics back at us!  

I note you again refer to Gavaskar's infamous innings and understand your fascination. Various theories have been put forward over the intervening years for his approach that day - often involving arguments with team mates - but it has never been cleared up. My own view from the time was that Gavaskar regarded a loss in which his side was not all out as almost being on a par with a draw. I realise that sounds rather ridiculous, particularly now. However, it needs to be remembered that Gavaskar was brought up playing attritional cricket in which the desire to avoid defeat was probably greater than the desire to win. Sure, that approach makes no sense in applying it to an ODI (a term by the way not used or heard of at the time) but it should also be noted that India were among the last of the cricket playing nations to take limited overs games seriously and adapt to them. With the prominence of the IPL, how things have changed once more.

That said, I suspect we will never know for sure what spurred Gavaskar that day. I'm actually not disappointed - good for cricket to retain one of its mysteries.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Fancy a flutter on the final, gotta be Notts right lads?

[guildfordbat]

As Olly suggests, Notts - with Broad and Swann in their team - should be winners by some distance. Good for the match that Glamorgan have won the toss and bowl. A couple of early wickets and you never know ....

[GSC]

Lump on Glamorgan, Notts out for under 150

[guildfordbat]

Suspect Notts will try to target Allenby. He looks very ordinary but can be highly effective if allowed to settle and get in a groove.

[JDizzle]

I love Simon Jones. He might be my favourite cricketer ever.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Glam will be happy with the way Jones and Salter have reined in Notts.

[guildfordbat]

Notts end up with 244 which should be enough and then some. Super knock from the ever reliable Read to get them back on the straight and narrow.

[alfie]

I love Simon Jones. He might be my favourite cricketer ever.

I sat up and watched this just to see his swansong.   Thought he bowled very well , brought back memories of what England & Wales lost when he broke down eight years ago.

Would have liked to see him go out with a win , but unless he now makes a quick seventy five himself...

Hope he gets his t20 contract.

[guildfordbat]

Hi Alfie - good to have you look in for a domestic final. Alas, not to be for Jones. Too much strength in depth shown by Notts. Lovely bit of bowling from Patel to take the honours.

[Mike Selig]

Evening all, young rebel reporting for duty, although even for me it would be a stretch to compare putting some fielders on the boundary with bowling underarm! I think the interesting point is that what was once unacceptable has now become the norm; an interesting reversal of the recent scandal caused by an MEP making comments at which I guess 50 years ago nobody would have taken much notice. Anyway I digress entirely...

I was lucky enough to be at Lords for the final today which was a fun day out. Glamorgan had a couple of moments when they were really in the match, but ultimately the team with the better depth won out - whilst Glamorgan were probably a bowler or 2 light (Allenby was intelligently targeted, and Wagg is ok but no better) Notts's 6th option turned out to be the eventual match-winner. And they still could have called on the very useful David Hussey if needed.

A few points.

I thought Jones bowled very well, at times with good pace (my eyes weren't good enough to make out the pace on the screen, but he seemed to be hurrying the batsmen regularly).

Taylor looked good. He is very fidgety which I think is just his style, but he has a good range of strokes and hits the ball very solidly. He also fielded quite brilliantly. I would be disappointed based on that if he didn't get on the plane to Aus, he looks a much more organised player than Bairstow ATM. He is very very small.

Hussey on being run out seemed to go out of his way to tell Read it wasn't the latter's fault, which I thought was a nice thing to do.

Michael Hogan is a good bowler, but too floaty when full, so not the best option at the death.

I've said it a few times, but Rees surely leaves his stumps far too exposed. If you pitch it up on middle-off he's going to struggle. The ball that got him was decent but an opening batsman should never be cleaned up like that.

Cooke I'd never seen play before. I was impressed he looks like a proper player.

Patel bowled really well (obviously) and found the right pace to bowl at. It was a pitch for being quite fast, but not too fast. The young Glamorgan spinner also bowled a good pace in his first spell. I have no idea why he was taken off after 6 overs, and that as much as anything allowed Notts to recover from a perilous position. Cosker and even Swann were guilty of being IMO too slow on this pitch.

Goodwin's LBW looked plumb, yet he didn't seem too thrilled about it. On the other hand I wasn't convinced the other LBW came back far enough. What did Hawk-eye think?

I wasn't impressed at all by Ajmal Shahzad. He got away with quite a few slot balls which weren't punished (including his 2nd wicket) and his pace seemed down compared to Broad and even Jones. More importantly his fielding was poor, and he seemed half asleep at times (I noticed Read was waving a lot at him). A few years back he had the world at his feet, but now... such a shame.

I was again struck by just how many singles you can score by hitting the ball hard or softly to mid-off/on. A real lesson for young cricketers everywhere.

Watching the game live is very different to watching it on TV, so I was wondering how some/all of the above looked on TV. Did the speed guns bare out my remarks on pace (both Jones and the spinners) for instance?

Anyway as I said, a really good day and an interesting game of cricket.

[Shelsey93]

I too was at Lord's, spectating rather than reporting on this occasion.

Mike pretty much covers all of the key points.

I would add that I thought some of the top-order Notts batsmen gave their wickets away - horrible shots from Lumb, Hales and Patel really, and then the run out. They were fortunate that they had sufficient resources that this never really forced them to have to undertake a prolonged rebuilding period and that they could thus keep going at a steady 4/ 5 per over, and then accelerate towards the end. There was prodigious swing for Allenby and Hogan for the first 3-4 overs but then the ball stopped doing much. After that it took the intelligent variation of Salter (who I saw for the first time and was impressed by) and the pace/ genuine class of Simon Jones to really make an impact.

I think Jones doing well mucked up Mark Wallace's game plan. I'm sure he'd have intended to use him for 4 overs towards the beginning and then at the death, bringing Wagg in earlier than he was. By using him for eight he exposed Wagg, who lacked rhythm, to the death and allowed Swann and Mullaney to cash in. The remarkable thing about Simon Jones is that, unlike his fellow '05 Ashes heroes, he still looks like a dynamite bowler when fit. Unfortunately that probably isn't often enough for him to be seriously considered for the IPL and Big Bash contracts he cherishes, though I'd expect to see him back in county cricket next year.

Notts were very disciplined with the ball - no extras at all I think. Harry Gurney and Samit Patel really stood out. As Mike says their depth really won through here as Mullaney (who had been superb all tournament) and Swann had quite poor days. I disagree slightly about Shahzad - I thought he was pretty good. He picks up a lot of wickets in one-day cricket and, in my opinion, isn't out of contention for an England recall in that format. I'm not sure he was ever a great FC bowler and is struggling to make the Notts team in the Champo.

[jimbohammers]

What was peoples thoughts on Broad and Swann playing? A bit harsh on the players that played every week to get them into the final?

[Shelsey93]

What was peoples thoughts on Broad and Swann playing? A bit harsh on the players that played every week to get them into the final?

They are fully entitled to play them and managed to do it with fairly minimal disruption - leaving out Wessels, who doesn't play every week anyway, and the injured Jake Ball.

In fairness Swann bowled quite poorly (he has been quite inconsistent for a few years actually, particularly in one-daters) and Broad was outshone by Harry Gurney with the new ball.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Evening all, young rebel reporting for duty, although even for me it would be a stretch to compare putting some fielders on the boundary with bowling underarm! I think the interesting point is that what was once unacceptable has now become the norm; an interesting reversal of the recent scandal caused by an MEP making comments at which I guess 50 years ago nobody would have taken much notice. Anyway I digress entirely...
 

But an interesting diversion anyway.  I could well imagine a few characters like a certain MEP being leading lights on some golf club committees! 

Time plays tricks but I don't think it is all that many years that having a fielder in the sweeper position has become relatively common place in first class cricket, including test matches.  I recollect there was a vague, possibly unspoken, sense that if a batman did a flowing cover drive that sped to the boundary it was not quite cricket that it only achieved a single!

[guildfordbat]

Mike - thanks for promptly reporting for duty.  Glad you enjoyed the day - you too Shelsey. Good reports.

I didn't watch all of the match but, from what I did, found the SKY coverage a bit lack lustre. With the review system not applying, SKY seemed to keep a lot of their technical gizmos in the drawer. Don't recall bowling speeds being shown or much commented upon. Similarly, turned down appeals were hardly analysed.

The lbw of Salter - you queried whether the ball would have come back enough - was though played back and shown to be just doing enough. It wouid have gave on to clip the outside of off stump. Very much "umpire's call" had the referral system been in operation.

Certainly agree that Salter should have been kept on. He was doing well and had an established rhythm which, not surprisingly, couldn't instantly be refound when he came back later on for a single over and got clobbered.

The SKY commentators did agree with you, Mike, about Shazhad's fielding. Too often allowing the batsmen a single, they were very critical.

Not sure about Shelsey's point concerning Jones not originally being intended to bowl out his full allotment on the reel. Reminded me of how Ireland have purposely done that with Trent Johnston - another bowler past the first flush of youth and often carrying an injury. Get all the overs bowled economically and out the way in one spell when you can.

Anyway, as we've all said, Notts just had too much strength in depth. I also think Read is a very good and savvy cricketer (the Corporal will support me in that he nearly always does well against Surrey!).

As for Broad and Swann playing in this match - well, they are county cricketers as well as international ones. Just a pity that England don't recognise that more during the season.

[GSC]

Perhaps you could make the case against Broad who only really came to Notts after claiming a central contract as I recall. But Swanns been at Notts since 2005. Not like he's been flown in for T20 finals day like Pollard was a few years back.

[Mike Selig]

I have no issues with Broad and Swann playing. I thought Read's admission that actually it wasn't a difficult decision was candid and to the point - they are world class players (the term is generally overused, but justified in this case IMO) and of course Notts were always going to pick them if allowed. It's tough on Wessels, but first class cricket is meant to be tough isn't it?

Swann's move from Northants to Notts (at a time when somewhat unfairly although not without reason it was considered to be "easy" to bowl spin at Northants) was the start of him going from a bowler with clear talent to someone who will surely end his career as one of England's top 10 spinners, and quite possibly close to that top 5 mark. I certainly don't thiink it is unreasonable for him to play in their first trip to Lords since 1989 was it?

[JDizzle]

Interesting stuff from both Mike and Shelsey, it sounds like you both enjoyed the day!

Simon Jones was bowling quick. Up to 87/88, it makes me sad thinknig about what he could have done. He just looks, even now, a big time bowler. I hope he gets a contract somewhere for next year, I love watching him bowl. Apparently he has played some club cricket in Cardiff this year, some cricketers will have been seriously hurried this year!

Broad was nice and sharp too, although I only got chance to watch the beginning of the Glams reply. It doesn't surprise me what Sky and Mike have commented about Shahzad's fielding. I saw him at Durham last year and his body language on the pitch was awful. Was lackadaisical in the field and just looked like he didn't want to be there. Seems his attitude might be a bit of a problem.

Taylor is class in the field and has definitely put some muscle mass on this year and is hitting the ball harder. Whether this was at the bequiste of Eng, Notts or himself it does seem to be noticable. He is still very, very small.

[guildfordbat]

I have no issues with Broad and Swann playing. I thought Read's admission that actually it wasn't a difficult decision was candid and to the point - they are world class players (the term is generally overused, but justified in this case IMO) and of course Notts were always going to pick them if allowed. It's tough on Wessels, but first class cricket is meant to be tough isn't it?

Swann's move from Northants to Notts (at a time when somewhat unfairly although not without reason it was considered to be "easy" to bowl spin at Northants) was the start of him going from a bowler with clear talent to someone who will surely end his career as one of England's top 10 spinners, and quite possibly close to that top 5 mark. I certainly don't thiink it is unreasonable for him to play in their first trip to Lords since 1989 was it?

Mike - interesting to think where Swann might end up in the all time ranking of England spinners.

As we've discussed before, comparisons of different eras are exceptionally difficult due to so many factors including pitches, (lbw) rule changes, umpiring approach, introduction and use of technology, bats and fielding. However, I would still be staggered if Swann was not to finish up in the top ten and at least very surprised if not in the top five.

He is some way ahead of most of the leading spin bowlers that England have used over the last forty to fifty years whilst I've been watching. I'm particularly thinking here of Pocock, Illingworth, Edmonds, Emburey, Tuffnell, Giles and Panesar.

There are two others from this time who could have a claim to be superior but even then I would need some convincing - Underwood and Titmus (who although he finished playing in the early '80s actually started his career in '49).

Where Underwood outdoes Swann (and a similar case could be made for Panesar here) is in spin friendly conditions, never better illustrated than when he destroyed the Australians and won the Ashes at a wet and soggy Oval in '68; however, Swann's great(?est) strength is to be able to perform and take wickets on all surfaces - including neutral and unfriendly ones - and that is probably more important. Swann certainly outshines Underwood in that regard.

As I tried to show on the Hall of Fame thread a while back, I consider Titmus to be an underrated bowler (certainly now) and very fine cricketer. Like Swann, he had much guile which I value so highly in a bowler. Probably his other great attributes - spirit to overcome adversity, determination to keep on going and teamplay - raise his profile more as a man and a cricketer though than as a spin bowler. To be the number one, he would also probably need to have more impressive stats than shown in his Test records although, as stated above, comparisons with different ages are so tricky and you also have to somehow factor in the attritional cricket played during nearly all of Titmus' career. In my book, he's classed as ''not quite'' but a lot closer than many give him credit for.

I can only think of four others from before my time who come into contention. (I haven't researched them for this post.)

The Surrey and England spin pair of Laker and Lock. A small number of the old guard at the Oval still remember them. One or two even think Lock was the better but unluckier bowler. I can maybe just accept that over the one Ashes Test where Laker won the wicket haul 19-1 but not over an entire career where, I'm pretty sure, Laker still comes up trumps.

The other two from earlier times still are Verity and Rhodes. Both masters of attritional cricket.

If none of these four outdo Swann (and I'm in no position to judge) and there are no others I've shamefully overlooked, I actually think Swann could be looking not just at the top five but at top of the bill.

[alfie]

High praise for Swann there , guildford !

It should I think be noted that batsmen of a bygone age perhaps played spin better than a lot of moderns : maybe didn't belt it into the stands with mishit slogs off cleverly engineered superbats ; but might have been less easily bamboozled than many of Swann's victims ...I reckon Laker would have enjoyed bowling to this Australian team rather than the like of Bradman , Harvey , etc.
On the other hand , Swann doesn't get to bowl on uncovered pitches...
It is fiendishly hard to compare across generations ; and perhaps for spin bowlers more than most , with the effect of all the rule changes (the "no stroke" lbw hitting outside off ; drs...apart from pitches and bats )
Never saw Verity   And only a child's memory of Laker , though I remember being impressed , perhaps because my dad was telling me how good he was... But Swann has to be up there with Underwood of the more modern bowlers , though two very different types.
Would agree Titmus was a worthy bowler , irrespective of conditions - I saw him bowl effectively in Australia on quite unhelpful pitches. And he flighted the ball so well ! But I couldn't really rate him with the other two as a bowler. Mainly for lack of big wicket hauls.
So certainly top five , I would say.

[Mike Selig]

Interesting side discussion.

I agree with the sensible consensus that it is virtually impossible to compare different spinners across eras for all the reasons raised - I would add video analysis into the bargain, which goes both ways: spinners can analyse batsmen (scoring areas, scoring methods) and batsmen can analyse spinners (speeds, lines and lengths and in particular variations). I'm not so sure that today's batsmen are less good at playing spin than in years gone by, just that techniques and methods have changed.

That doesn't mean however that we shouldn't have fun trying...

For what it's worth I rate Underwood higher than some - I think sometimes he gets unfairly criticised on the basis of what he wasn't rather than what he was (as per HoF threads) which was simply the best "defensive" spinner England and possibly the world has ever seen. Swann is such a different style from Underwood (it is perhaps unfair to label spinners as attacking or defensive; Underwood of course was very attacking when the conditions suited him, and Swann when the conditions don't suit him can play a very good containing role as well - e.g. first day of the recent Oval test) that a comparison becomes very difficult indeed, but if you pushed me I would have Underwood ahead, just.

As I would Laker and probably Verity, although mostly those are on reputation. That would probably be it, so Swann would slot in at number 4 (Laker, then Verity, then Underwood). Tony Lock would complete the top 5, albeit I know some Surrey fans rated him higher than his contempary Laker.

[guildfordbat]

Alfie and Mike - thanks for your comments. Relieved at least that I don't appear to have overlooked anyone glaringly obvious!

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Alfie and Mike - thanks for your comments. Relieved at least that I don't appear to have overlooked anyone glaringly obvious!

You ain't losing your memory yet Guildford!  

[guildfordbat]

Alfie and Mike - thanks for your comments. Relieved at least that I don't appear to have overlooked anyone glaringly obvious!

You ain't losing your memory yet Guildford!  

Just the car keys, Olly!  

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Eddie Hemmings?

[Sponsored content]