Well, John McNamara provided the assist, but Walter ghosted in at the back post to nod home. Indeed, the unusual circumstance about Archie MacLaren’s dismissal from the first ball of a Test was that it was also bowler Arthur Coningham’s first delivery in a Test. It’s educational this, isn’t it?!
Monthly Archives: June 2008
Well, Jonny Mac has answered the first part of the question correctly but there is another element to it. Come on, a bit or research on the cricinfo match/series archive should do the trick!
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.
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.
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.
Surrey’s Twenty20 campaign has been a bit of a shambles this season and a comedown for a county that won the inaugural tournament in 2003 and were beaten finalists the following year – and the faithful in the pavilion and the not-so-cheap-seats are beginning to grumble and indulge in gallows humour.
But, leaving aside a confused selection policy and an inability to settle on a convincing batting order, there is still plenty of entertainment to be had at the Oval. While the Health and Safety Executive continue to raise concerns about the gas holders just outside the perimeter of the ground, asking for the Local Government Secretary to call in their redevelopment plans, last night’s match against Hampshire proved there are dangers even closer to home.
Chris Schofield, back in the Surrey side after injury, didn’t get a chance to bat and was so late in being called into the attack by stand-in captain Mark Ramprakash that most spectators thought he must have packed his bags and gone home in a huff, but he threatened to turn a game that was slipping away from the hosts in his first over, removing Michael Carberry (three fifties and a 45 in his last four Twenty20 appearances) and Nic Pothas in his first few deliveries.
Inbetween, though, Carberry smote him for a huge six down towards the members’ pavilion over long-off, the ball crashing on the full into the sightscreen. To the surprise of those sitting in the six rows below and in front of it, it dislodged one of the long slats of which the screen is constituted and it fell, with a loud clang, onto the spectators beneath, leaving one bleeding from the lip.
Stewards worked swiftly to usher the man away from the scene, hoping perhaps that a nice cup of tea and a sit down in a less hazardous area might dissuade him from making a call to injury-lawyers-are-us.com or one of their competitors.
Nobody knows or has bothered to answer the most recent quiz question of the day, which was, if you’re too lazy to read down: “Which England batsman was the only victim of Gordon Greenidge’s international bowling career?” OK, I’ll give you a clue. Nowadays, he’s a familiar voice in cricket braodcasting. Any takers?