Daily Archives: June 19, 2008

Quiz question of the day

And now for another gripping quiz question: What was unusual about Archie MacLaren’s dismissal in the first innings of his second Test against Australia in 1894. Clue: there are actually two unusual elements to this.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Some you win, some you clues

Well done to cdak and Miriam who correctly recalled, after a little nudging,¬†that the only England player to fall victim to Gordon Greenidge’s bowling in international cricket was David Lloyd. For the record, it was the one-day international at Headingley in 1980, a game that spilled into its reserve day on May 29 and that England conspired to lose despite chasing only 195 and a dazzling undefeated 82 in only 129 balls from Chris Tavare.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

When no result is the best outcome

In the Recent Comments section (below right) Tony Belford makes some interesting points about yesterday’s abandonment of the one-day international at Edgbaston. I was at the Oval watching Surrey getting stuffed by Hampshire so didn’t witness the incident but I did overhear a fellow spectator talking about a controversy at the match after he came back from getting a beer, so was keen to know what happened when I got home.

It does, though, on the surface, appear a nonsensical decision and it seems as if England, as any other country would have done, used all the methods at their disposal to ensure that they didn’t complete the 20 overs that would have constituted a game. I can understand New Zealand’s frustration but, to their credit, they have not pushed the issue.

I appreciate the annoyance of spectators, at home or at the ground, and agree with Tony that English cricket has to some extent shot itself in the foot again. But I think the game had been reduced to something of a farce anyway. I don’t really think that there are winners and losers in a match in which the team batting first has had to change their strategy because the original number of overs has been reduced again by further disruptions.

I suppose, on that basis, a no-result verdict is as good as any. 


Filed under Uncategorized