Username
Password
Murtagh Most Foul - Middlesex v Essex Day Four

Tenfer Tim
By Seaxe Man
June 9 2008
Seaxe Man summarises a most satisfying win against Essex at Lord's. Read all about it in intricate detail - you'll almost be abel to smell the Lord's air as you read, the description is so vivid. Ged the ed interjects with his own nonsense, because that is an editor's right and Ged has had a few beers on a day off watching Middlesex beat Essex at Lord's for the first time in yonks/years.

Travelog/Weather:

Arrived at Eastcote Tube Station to find Rayners Lane to Uxbridge suspended on Met/Picc due to signal failure at Ruislip. My mind was racing for an alternative route: 282 bus to Northolt: then 140 to Harrow Met? This seemed to be a long diversion, so joined a guy looking down the track towards Ruislip Manor where we could see a stationary Met train. Our joy knew no bounds as it started moving towards Eastcote. A quick nip through the gate and downstairs onto the platform and we were on our way. Arrived at the ground at 10.50, so all was well. Weather: the sky had decided it was June after all, and was clear and sunny. So no fear of lightmeters being brandished in the pre lunch session as they were on Friday.
 


Quote of the day:

"Smith plays hardball.  Middlesex held a 361 lead when Eoin Morgan was out. A declaration soon after would have seemed logical. Instead, Smith, allowed the innings to come to a natural end. Whether it was in response to Essex not letting Middlesex to use a substitute keeper, for the injured David Nash in the reverse fixture at Chelmsford in May, is a moot point. But there seemed to be no good cricketing reason": source Daily Telegraph.

As it panned out, had Smith taken their advice, Middlesex would have been required to bat again as Essex totalled 384ao.(required 422). Not significant, but you never know. So Smithy was vindicated on this occasion. SM.
 

Scenario:

Overnight Essex 200 for 4 requiring a further 222 to make The Middle bat again. As events were to prove, they failed in that quest and lost by an innings.
 
1st session:

Opening over Murts to Pettini from P.E. This led to a couple of lbw shouts. Dirk from the N.E. 96 overs available for The Middle to take 6 wickets. Ryan ten Doeschate passed 50 in the third over. Finn was first change from NE for Dirk, who had a very short spell.

Soon after Pettini (75) fell with the oppo's score on 239, ct by Shaggy at midwicket off Murts. Time 11.40. Double bowling change had Berg at PE and Udal at NE. We settled down to a 'winkling out job '. This led to constant bowling changes. The new ball was taken at 12.35. This immediately produced a wicket, Foster (23) lbw to Murts off his 2nd ball. Fall at 283.

Nannes resumed at NE. In his next over, Murts removed ten Doeschate for 78: bowled. 7th wicket fell at 12.50. Score 288. The last over before lunch nearly produced a runout by sub fielder Adam London. Lunch 297 for 7. A satisfactory situation. With 3 wickets taken against an expectation of 2. We had a bonus wicket and the ' winkling out ' had proceeded at pace.


Lunch:

Perambulation was allowed: so strolled across the outfield through to the back gate to pick up an icecream. Not too many opportunities to do that this summer so far.
 


2nd session:

Fancied it would be over in 45 mins but in fact it took an hour. Murts opened the session to Middlebrook. Immediate success, as the batsman was removed plumb lbw from the second ball of the over. 297 for 8. Middlebrook (8).

This gave Murts a ten wicket match haul. Superb and deserved. Only fly in the ointment was that the over-rate showed -1. So Shah was entrusted with the new ball to adjust that situation. This he did  but gave away a few unimportant runs in so doing. The Essex late order taking advantage to tonk a few boundaries.   [Editor's note: I arrived just in time to miss the 8th wicket fall, and to see Ace bowling.  I noticed that the over rate was showing -1 and remarked "I wonder whether we think Ace is the most likely bowler to finish this match off or whether we've spotted that the over rate in -1".  Of course, subtle humour only works to a limited extent on Turkey Hill so I had the match situation explained to me in no small detail....]

It was back to ' nil points ' by the 92nd over of the innings. Nannes then resumed at NE. Tudor tried to smash Nannes out of the ground but without making any contact. The Essex 9th wicket put on 50 in 37 balls and 21 minutes. So no lack of entertainment with the tiring Murts being hammered for 3 successive fours by Tudes. Finn replaced Murts: his first ball being edged over the slips.  [Editor's note: that bowling change came recommended by both Seaxe Man and Ged - it would have gotten away with it too if it hadn't been for those pesky kids].

Good over. Nannes pitched one up to castle Masters off stump, for 27. Fall 356. Amusingly, the scoreboard recorded this dismissal as lbw. Later corrected.  [Editor's note: the Allen Stand scoreboard was playing up more than the aforementioned daft error - firstly a large chunk of the board's pixels disappeared - then the whole board darkened, then disappeared completely, then returned in it's partial and darkened form.  To be fair, the boards are now several months old so perhaps we should expect them to be crocked.] 

Kaneria had joined Tudes and the pair added a rumbustious 38 before Shaggy's 1st ball on return was slogged by Danish and caught by sub Housego at deep mid wicket. Tudor was left stranded on 47no. Essex 384ao. Win for The Middle by an innings and 38 runs. Time 3.42.  [Editor's note: I met quite a few MTWD readers today, initially by watching up on Turkey Hill and then on my guided tour of "the clockwise route round the ground ensuring that you don't miss a ball". We concluded that semi-circuit by plonking ourselves onto Long Room seats only to witness the final ball of the match and then the celebrations.  The first time I have ever seen a match conclude in that hallowed hall.  Most enjoyable]

Summation:

A pleasing result in reversing the Chelmers result bigtime: points Middx 22 Essex 1. The afficianados in Upper Edrich made that this placed us third but Warwickshire were, when I looked ( on ceefax) requiring a further 73 to beat Glammy with an hour and 9 wickets left. So unsure where that leaves us, but a win is a win.  [Editor's note: Warwickshire won despite... we're still a very respectable third with a game in hand over Warws but 21 points adrift from them http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/countycricket2008/engine/series/319687.html?view=pointstable]

  

 Two successive Midd-x wins at Lord's, has not been done too often in the 21st century. We obviously need to win most of our home games to maintain the challenge. Two interesting games against Northants and Warwick (both in the frame) are next on the list at Park Road, Uxbridge, bracketing Glaws at Bristol. These follow the mid season 20/20 break.

Other news:

Gareth Berg left the field with a slight injury before lunch and did not return. Hopefully this was precautionary.
 
Seaxe Man: 9th June 2008
 

View a Printer Friendly version of this Story.

Bookmark or share this story with:

Murtagh Most Foul - Middlesex v Essex Day Four
Posted by: Middlesex till we die (IP Logged)
Date: 09/06/2008 18:55

Murtagh Most Foul - Middlesex v Essex Day Four

Re: Murtagh Most Foul - Middlesex v Essex Day Four
Posted by: Ged (IP Logged)
Date: 09/06/2008 18:59

Many thanks to Seaxe Man for stepping up to the plate at the last minute to produce this report.

An MTWD classic.

Re: Murtagh Most Foul - Middlesex v Essex Day Four
Posted by: David_Webmaster (IP Logged)
Date: 10/06/2008 10:51

Nice report SM as always. Have to agree that Smith's decision to carry on batting on the Sunday wasn't good from a spectatcle and disagree that it was because Middx would have had to batted again. Middx would only have been chasing around 50 and besides, I'm sure the bowlers would have been trying harder to have won by an inns rather than let Essex have a few runs at the end of yesterdays play. 400 lead fine but to continue after that was stupid IMHO.

And yes, first time since 1988 Middx have beaten Essex at Lord's - I assume this is CC only but whatever, enjoy while it lasts boys because it won't happen next year when you go up!!

Re: Murtagh Most Foul - Middlesex v Essex Day Four
Posted by: ''My Luvver'' (IP Logged)
Date: 10/06/2008 15:35

Cannot agree that Smith was stupid David.
He got it spot on,as a victory by an innings with three hours to go clearly shows.
And I can assure you the bowlers were trying their hardest right through the innings and the match,just needed to increase the over rate yesterday afternoon so not to lose any points.

Re: Murtagh Most Foul - Middlesex v Essex Day Four
Posted by: David_Webmaster (IP Logged)
Date: 10/06/2008 16:32

Fair point LB. I guess as it turned out it worked ok but I don't believe if he had declared with a 400 run lead it wouldn't have made any difference. That's what I'm talking about - batting on after the 400 run lead was pointless but up then I had no problem with. As for Shah bowling, I understand re over rate - didn't realise that was a problem!

Re: Murtagh Most Foul - Middlesex v Essex Day Four
Posted by: The Diamond ruled ok (IP Logged)
Date: 10/06/2008 18:00

Over rates for both sides throughout the game needed some "engineering" to get them back to par . With the lack of bowlers to bowl overs quickly in the side Shah was the best option and on the odd occasion has been a bit of a "Golden Arm" as well so no problem chucking the ball to him for a few overs .

Re: Murtagh Most Foul - Middlesex v Essex Day Four
Posted by: ''My Luvver'' (IP Logged)
Date: 10/06/2008 18:05

No problem because we had plenty of time and runs to play with.
The question has been asked what with a couple of wickets to get as was yesterday's scenario and a bowling rate of say -4.
The batting side with no chance of saving the game get out deliberately, so as to deny the bowling side 4 points.

Re: Murtagh Most Foul - Middlesex v Essex Day Four
Posted by: JC67 (IP Logged)
Date: 10/06/2008 18:28

LB we should have asked John Holder his views on that question.

Some would say that Essex have occasionally sailed close to the wind on 'Spirit of Cricket' issues.

Re: Murtagh Most Foul - Middlesex v Essex Day Four
Posted by: ''My Luvver'' (IP Logged)
Date: 10/06/2008 18:32

A matter for the disciplinary committee I'd guess,the regulations make no reference.

Re: Murtagh Most Foul - Middlesex v Essex Day Four
Posted by: David_Webmaster (IP Logged)
Date: 11/06/2008 07:59

JC67, if you're referring to the Nashgate issue then please forget about it. It was agreed here that Essex were within their rights to prevent Scotty taking over the gloves and that should be the end of that.

If Essex had purposely given their last few wkts away than it wouldn't have been very professional eh?? But if that had happened then I don't think anything can really be done. I believe Worcs lost 3 or 4 points when they beat us due to bowling their overs slowly so it happens.

Re: Murtagh Most Foul - Middlesex v Essex Day Four
Posted by: JC67 (IP Logged)
Date: 11/06/2008 10:35

Don’t forget when Irani threw his toys out and went the ice cream route cos he didn’t like Strauss's non declaration. Still at least he is only making a fool of himself pretending to be a radio broadcaser now.

I have no problem with the keeper sub issue but don’t kid yourself that many other members and staff are over it.

As to this years rule of a whole point deduction per unbowled over it is open to abuse. Especially if a side is bowled out for 40 odd overs in their first innings. Imagine the last game of the season if 2nd and 3rd are playing each other.

Re: Murtagh Most Foul - Middlesex v Essex Day Four
Posted by: David_Webmaster (IP Logged)
Date: 11/06/2008 11:35

JC67, good point on the bowling point deduction issue.

Irani is a character and I think that was a bit of fun more than anything but lets not bring up that again!!

As for the keeper debate, those members I'm sure will have forgotten about it after you boys gave us a thrashing in the return match but for those that haven't, sour grapes, simple as!! Besides, I thought Sorry were closer rivals than Essex!

Re: Murtagh Most Foul - Middlesex v Essex Day Four
Posted by: JC67 (IP Logged)
Date: 11/06/2008 11:58

Not for me David, having worked in the city all my career I was surrounded by essex boys & girls.

Re: Murtagh Most Foul - Middlesex v Essex Day Four
Posted by: David_Webmaster (IP Logged)
Date: 11/06/2008 13:06

Lucky you JC! ;-)

Re: Murtagh Most Foul - Middlesex v Essex Day Four
Posted by: Ged (IP Logged)
Date: 11/06/2008 19:37

One of the wonderful things about being a Middlesex/Surrey/Essex/Kent [delete where applicable] in the City, is to enjoy the rivalry between your team and Middlesex/Surrey/Essex/Kent [delete where applicable]

Twenty20 helps to bring those fun rivalries into focus (and after a solid day's work too).

Re: Murtagh Most Foul - Middlesex v Essex Day Four
Posted by: The Diamond ruled ok (IP Logged)
Date: 11/06/2008 20:41

Can't wait to hear from Chris about Surreys performance(or lack of) tonight .

Goto Thread: PreviousNext
Goto: Message ListLog In

SPORTS SPREAD BETTING

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net