The current round of county championship fixtures is nearing its conclusion (I am now tuned into Somerset v Kent, which will shortly resume after an innings break, with Somerset needing 189 to win in 54 overs) and in this post I look back at the first two matches to command my attention since play started on Friday morning.
SURREY V WORCESTERSHIRE
Worcestershire won the toss and put Surrey in. Initially it looked like working very nicely for them, when Surrey tumbled to 15-4, but Jamie Smith and Dan Lawrence righted the ship well enough (Lawrence’s 84 was especially impressive) that with the addition of a late flourish by Jordan Clark (42*) they managed to top 200. By the end of an action packed opening day Worcestershire were already seven down in their own first innings, and they managed a mere 128 all out by the end of it, Dan Worrall claiming six cheap wickets. Burns, Sibley, Smith, Lawrence and Clark all demonstrated that batting was not impossible on this surface. Lawrence made 87, and Clark got within sight a century, Surrey eventually being all out for 427, a lead of 512. Surrey themselves chased down a target of over 500 against Kent last season, but such targets are rarely successfully chased, especially against a seam attack of Roach, Worrall, Atkinson and Clark on a pitch offering them a bit of assistance. Although there was some late hitting from Nathan Smith (60 from number 8) and Ben Gibbon (75 from number 10) Worcestershire’s fate was sealed by then – even with this late flourish they reached only 231, which meant Surrey won by 281 runs. Dan Worrall followed his first innings 6-22 with 4-35 at the second time of asking. About the only genuine bright spot for Worcestershire was provided by first class debutant Yadvinder Singh (a product of the South Asian Cricket Academy), who claimed four wickets in Surrey’s second innings to give a hint of his potential. For those wondering about the pitch, it was never a death trap, but Surrey undoubtedly prepared a ‘result’ pitch, believing that they were more likely to benefit from such than the visitors, and they were right – they had the bowling to make full use of whatever was there for them and Worcestershire didn’t. Scorecard here.
ESSEX V WARWICKSHIRE
The match above concluded on the third evening, and I followed various other games for the remainder of that day, but had noticed an interesting scenario unfolding at Chelmsford and resolved to follow that game to its conclusion today. Essex started today 224-4 chasing 330 for victory. However it was the story of how that situation arose that made the scenario particularly interesting. Warwickshire had scored 397 batting first and Essex were rolled for 162. At this point, with whoever batted next facing an awkward mini-session before the close, and the Essex batters probably not in the best of spirits after failing once already that day Warwickshire skipper Alex Davies made a bizarre decision not enforce the follow-on with that lead of 235, thereby exposing his own side to that awkward mini-session of batting. Warwickshire were five down by the close of day, and the Essex bowlers finished the job on day three with Warwickshire mustering a beggarly 94 all out. Warwickshire needed early wickets on the fourth morning and did not get them – the target was down to 42 before they finally struck, Jordan Cox holing out for splendid 112, his second first class hundred for his new county. Pepper, the new batter, fell early to make it 293-6, but Simon Harmer, fear of whose off spin in the final innings may have influenced Davies’ fateful decision not to put Essex back in when he had the chance, batted nicely, while Matt Critchley was playing a splendid innings and richly deserved to join Cox with a three figure score. Unfortunately he was denied this, being on 99* when a boundary to Harmer gave Essex a four wicket win. When it comes to enforcing the follow-on there should be no ‘always’ and no ‘never’ – each case should be assessed on its merits, and my strong view here is that Davies messed up – with an advantage of 235 and whoever batted next facing an awkward mini-session before the close (which also meant his bowler’s would have a nights rest to break up their labours) it was clear cut to enforce it, and his decision to inflict that awkward mini-session of batting on his own side ultimately cost him and them the match. Full scorecard here.
PHOTOGRAPHS
My usual sign off…
aspiblog 