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.