India’s Sneh Rana is the most recent nightwatcher (NW), with a successful stint in the December test against Australia. The NW’s job in the morning is to dampen the enthusiasm of bowlers who are fresh and keen to make a good start to the day. Sometimes they can shield the recognised bats slated to follow them from early movement:
The wicket should do a little early on in the morning but if Mandhana and Rana can go through the first hour unscathed, conditions should get better to bat [Dec 2023 Ind v Aus Test match commentator].
Usually, the longer the NW can last, the more the momentum shifts to her team. Sneh did a grand job, lasting for almost an hour, facing 16 overs. She deflated the Australian bowlers and helped to take the score from 98-1 overnight to 140.
[Smriti] Mandhana, who was unbeaten on 43 on the first day, took her time to find boundaries in the morning and looked positive to convert her fifty to a big score. With the nightwatch Sneh Rana, she stitched 50 runs for the second wicket. Rana contributed 9 off 47 deliveries to frustrate the bowlers [Srinidhi Ramanujam ESPNcricinfo Report 22 Dec 2023].
Sneh and Smriti happy thwarting Australia in the morning (BCCI)
England will not need to be reminded of Sneh’s ability to frustrate bowlers. As a debutant at Bristol in June 2021 she starred in India’s great escape (as Valkerie Baynes put it). She came in with India on 189-6 in their second innings, just 24 runs ahead and with 63 overs still to play. Sneh batted for over three hours, scoring an unbeaten 80.
Sneh driving India to safety at Bristol
Sneh won the Player of the Match award against Australia for her all-round show, taking 3-56 and 4-63 in addition to her useful NW knock.
Statistics: NW in Women’s Tests
NW who play well in the morning usually have to face some chin music, as bowlers vent their frustration. It was while watching Tumi Sekhukhune battling away against England at Taunton, that I realised I was long overdue to do some research into NW in Women’s Tests – I looked at the men years ago. The note is here
NW Tumi demonstrates exemplary technique at Taunton in 2022 (CSA News)
Sneh’s wonderful effort at Bristol in 2021 provided a thrilling finish. Tests between India and England have produced much excitement, including two of the most spectacular finishes in any Test match. There have also been notable NW appearances: one from Shikha Pandey in 2014 which helped turn the tide of India/England Test series (Shikha, incidentally, helped Sneh at Bristol by batting for 70 mins at No. 10). These are covered in the note.
No one should begrudge cricketers the financial opportunities from various franchise 20/20 tournaments across the calendar. The professional sporting life is fragile: injuries can inhibit skills, involve arduous physiotherapy from which the body never really recovers or abruptly bring careers to an end. Bowlers have long been particularly susceptible but, with the standards of fielding now expected in short-form cricket, no-one is immune from joint and tendon injuries. There should still be space in the calendar for Women’s Tests. Fewer are being played now.
No. of Tests played (with 10-year moving average)
Perhaps there will be more Women’s Tests in the future. India’s crushing victories over their leading rivals this winter give hope that the BCCI will become enthusiasts for red-ball cricket.
County Championship records for runs and centuries scored, and wickets taken in a season are dominated by cricketers from years when 25 to 30 matches were played in the championship. Modern players have very little chance of breaking those records, but we ought to be able to celebrate the best of their performances. Up to 1991, the County Championship was at least 22 games-a-side (as is mentioned by the post two below this one). From 1992 to 2000, each county played 17 games, which dropped to 16 with the introduction of two divisions. The tables below show the top twenty performances all-time and those from 1992 to 2016 inclusive.
Modern players have had getting on for only half the innings enjoyed by their predecessors. Their averages are better. Although the modern County Championship has 4-day games, as many overs were bowled in the 3-day games of yore (if that expression can be used of the first half of the 20th century); over rates having fallen lamentably. So, batsmen probably face, on average, a similar number of balls in each match. The higher batting average for modern players is predominantly a consequence of wickets being covered. Yes, there are still some dodgy surfaces prepared (hello, Taunton), but batsmen no longer have to worry about being caught on a “sticky dog.”
Mark Ramprakash must be the most notable modern County Championship batsman: three times topping 2000 runs in a season and twice averaging over 100; the only cricketer to do so in consecutive seasons in England. He recalled for Wisden his remarkable 1995 season, in particular the 205 he made for Middlesex against Sussex at Lord’s:
I started the season quite well, then I got a pair at Lord’s against West Indies and I was a bit hacked off. I’d bought this bat from Dominic Cork for £50 and decided to give it a go against Sussex. I thought “I’ve got nothing to lose”, so I took it out of the wrapper and went on an incredible run. I ended up with about 2,000 runs that year, and about 1,850 from that bat! [Interview with Sam Snow for Wisden, 2011]
Ramps in action during 2006, a record-setting year (The Cricketer)
Also Ramps tops the modern century-making list. The rate at which the best batsmen have compiled centuries is pretty similar, but the all-time rate includes a fair few innings on poor surfaces. Perhaps, finding himself on a good batting track, and with the threat of English summer rain ever-present, there was more determination to cash in?
In 2008 Ramps became the 25th cricketer – and almost certainly the last – to score 100 centuries in first-class cricket. The completion came after a move from Middlesex to south London:
I rediscovered my love for cricket at Surrey. I was enjoying what I was doing, batting in the middle and getting big scores gave me a huge amount of satisfaction … I managed to stay relatively fit and injury-free over a long period of time. When it [the 100th century] did come in 2008, it was 20 years after my debut and it came against Yorkshire at Headingley, which is exactly where I scored my first century, so that was very special. [Interview with Addis Army Cricket, 7 Jan 2021].
Ramps celebrates his 100th century at Headingley: 2nd of August 2008 (Test Match Special on X)
From the late 19th century to the Second World War about 30% of CC games saw an innings muster fewer than 100 runs. For 1992- 2016 this drops to 8% (see the graph in post below). As well as uncovered wickets, out-grounds were used regularly for CC games and many often had very exciting tracks. All this amounts to wickets being cheaper of yore, which is reflected in the averages. As covered in the post below, the ascendancy of ball over bat has declined for various reasons.
The difference in all-time and modern strike rates is perhaps smaller than expected, given the generally truer surfaces (which bowlers from between the wars would from heaven doubtless condemn as shirt-fronts). There’s a much bigger disparity in wickets taken per match by these top bowlers, averaging out at 8 per match compared to 5.7 for modern bowlers.
Spin has not much changed so much. Generally, there’s usually only one ace spin bowler in the side, and he bears that load himself. For a similar number of balls bowled per match, the all-time record spinners should average more wickets. They were the ones who profited most from sticky dogs. That’s why 14 of the top 20 all-time wicket-takers are spinners. There is a big drop in the balls bowled per match by pace bowlers. The predominance of medium pace in the modern game means most sides can field two or even three all-rounders (or, shall we say in some cases, batsmen who are allowed to bowl?) Thus, in the modern game the pace bowling load is spread across more players.
The bowler of the modern County Championship game must be Mushtaq Ahmed. His 2006 SR is better than most of those of the wonderful Tich Freeman. In eleven seasons, he was the Championship’s leading wicket-taker six times (once in his 5 years at Somerset, five times in 6 years at Sussex). Only Tich has exceeded that mark with eight.
Mushy making the ball fizz for Sussex
Sussex coach Peter Moores remembered Mushtaq’s focus at their first meeting. “He said, ‘If you pick me, Mr Peter, I’ll get 100 wickets in the first season.’ And he did. It was like signing a top-class striker. Rather than drawing 1-1, we’d win 2-1 because Mushy would do something special.” Not that the signing was entirely straightforward. There was an impasse in a committee meeting, but captain Chris Adams and Moores had a strategy. “We didn’t have any money to sign him,” Adams says. “The strategy was to pitch them [the committee] Stuart MacGill – who was coming in at twice what Mushy wanted – and then throw in the cost, knowing there was no chance we’d get that. But then we’d say, ‘Well, there is another option…’ “We nailed it. We got the committee to buy into the idea that this player was going to complete the side.” [Good old Mushy by the sea, Scott Oliver, The Cricket Monthly 6 Jun 2018]
Mushy takes his 100th wicket in 2003, bowling Brad Hodge of Leicestershire in the final County Championship match at Hove (Sussex Cricket Museum)
Sussex weren’t a one-man band. Chris Adams: “Of course, Mushtaq’s contribution was immense, and I know many people outside our environment at Sussex would say, ‘Well, you only won it because you had Mushtaq’, but he’d played five years at Somerset and never got close to taking that many wickets or winning the Championship. We were obviously doing something right to get the very best out of him as a team, as a club, and as a management.” [Good old Mushy by the sea, Scott Oliver, The Cricket Monthly 6 Jun 2018]
Mushy bowls Ryan Sidebottom of Nottinghamshire at Trent Bridge in the final County Championship match of the season: his 100th wicket in 2006 (The Cricketer)
Mushy decided to retire after the 2008 season:
“This is a very hard decision for me to make, as I feel that I could possible play one more year, but out of respect, I would only do that if I felt one-hundred per cent … I am going to miss playing for the club greatly. I am truly honoured to have spent six wonderful years here. There are not enough words to express my gratitude to the club, but I would like to specially thank Peter Moores, Mark Robinson, Chris Adams, all my team-mates, all the fans and everyone who is part of this magnificent family for all the opportunities and memories that they have provided me with … My love, my feelings and my heart will always be with Sussex and I will always pray to Allah for continued success at Sussex.” [Cricket World 2008]
From 2017 the number of County Championship matches played by each team was reduced to 14, so it’s unlikely that the season records of 1992 – 2016 will be broken. However, it’s early years yet, and one can only hope that the County Championship season is not reduced further. Here are the season records for each county (click to view)
The top five so far from seasons of 14 games are shown in the table below. Only Simon Harmer’s 83 wickets would have cracked the modern Top 20. Kumar’s run-total falls short but it came from only 16 innings. His 8 centuries at one every other innings is the best rate all-time.
I’ve condensed my notes on Western art and posted them in pdf files below. Each file is about half the size of the original (the earliest of which dates back to 2008). Some notable art has been cut but important paintings and trends remain.
Most files have a table of contents which can be used for navigation (Ctrl+Click on an item in the contents table will take you directly to the page). Scrolling through the files and stopping when a picture catches the attention works well too. There are lots of pictures. In the original Word files these are of high resolution but a great deal of fidelity is lost in the translation to pdf format. Nevertheless, zooming in should reveal details.
Here is a list of artists covered in each section.
Greek and Roman (18 pages, 30 pictures) –> Greek_Roman. Important foundations of form and theory come from these ages. Greek artists Zeuxis and Parrhasius of ancient Greece and Alexander the Great’s court artist Apelles are mentioned. Architecture is omitted. The Pantheon, and temples of Vesta at Tivoli and Castel Sant’Angelo can be seen in their original pristine state in landscapes by Claude and Poussin in the 17th century.
Early Christian & Byzantine (23 pages, 39 pictures) –>Early Christian_and_Byzantine The emergence of art for Christians, originally a persecuted sect, the differences between Western and Byzantine images, and the illuminations of the Celts. The churches of S Apollinare and S Vitale at Ravenna are included, the latter the first example of Byzantine architecture in Western Europe, of which the most notable example is the perfect, Hagia Sophia in Constantinople (Istanbul).
Late Mediaeval (24 pages, 33 pictures) –> Late_Medieval The artists included are Cimabue, Duccio, Giotto, Simone Martini, The Limbourg Brothers, Gentile da Fabriano and Pisanello.
Fifteenth Century (67 pages, 83 pictures) –> Fifteenth_Century. From now on there is more detail. Jan van Eyck, Rogier van der Weyden, Masaccio, Fra Angelico, Fra Filippo Lippi, Piero della Francesca, Sandro Botticelli, Piero di Cosimo, Andrea Mantegna, Giovanni Bellini, Antonello da Messina, Albrecht Durer.
Sixteenth Century has two files.
Italy (89 pages, 110 pictures) –> Sixteenth_Century_Italy has longer sections of text because art developed in many directions. Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, Giorgione, Titian, Paolo Veronese and Tintoretto.
Northern Europe and Spain (69 pages, 94 pictures) –> Sixteenth_Century_NEurope_Spain.docx. Included are pictures of closed doors of triptychs (especially those by Bosch), which are not usually seen in museums. Hieronymus Bosch, Joachim Patinir, Matthias Grunewald, Lucas Cranach, Hans Holbein, Pieter Bruegel and El Greco.
Seventeenth Century has three parts, but the Dutch stuff is split into three.
Italy (68 pages, 110 pictures) –> Seventeenth_Century_Italy. This file includes the Frenchmen Claude and Poussin as they lived in Rome (there is much cut from Poussin). Annibale Carracci, Caravaggio, Bernini (quite a bit cut here, including his church of San Andrea al Quirinale where he used to rest from his troubles), Borromini, Pietro da Cortona, Gaulli and Andrea Pozzo.
Spain and the Catholic North (60 pages, 103 pictures) –> Seventeenth_Century_Spain_CatholicN. Jusepe de Ribera, Francisco de Zurbaran, Diego Velazquez, Murillo, Peter Paul Rubens, Anthony van Dyck, Georges de la Tour, the French Academy and later trends.
Dutch Golden Age (54 pages, 85 pics) –> Dutch_Golden. Frans Hals, Jan Steen, Johannes Vermeer, Pieter de Hooch. Still life and architectural paintings are included but there are separate documents on …
… Rembrandt (34 pages, 47 pics) –> Rembrandt. My original notes have not been cut down as much here to preserve the story. There are a few pages made up wholly of text (no! the horror!!)
… Dutch Landscapes (42 pages, 66 pics) –> Dutch_Landscapes. Jan van Goyen, Salomon Ruysdael, Jacob van Ruisdael, Aelbert Cuyp.
Eighteenth Century has three parts.
France (89 pages, 123 pics) –> Eighteenth Century France. Antoine Watteau, Francois Boucher, Jean-Honore Fragonard, Jean-Baptiste-Simeon Chardin, Jean-Etienne Liotard, and Jean Baptiste Greuze. History painting in the years before and during the Revolution: Jacques-Louis David with Neo-Classicism covered and including Antonio Canova.
Italy (56 pages, 65 pics) –>Eighteenth Century Italy. Sebastiano Ricci, Giovanni Battista Tiepolo, Canaletto and Francesco Guardi.
Britain (68 pages, 95 pics) –>Eighteenth Century Britain. William Hogarth, Thomas Gainsborough, Joshua Reynolds, George Stubbs and Joseph Wright of Derby.
This is not really the moment to be posting a history of Russian art. I started learning about it 2 years ago, finished writing about it recently and now really want to get to the 18th century in Europe. I’m just clearing the decks: no affront intended. Russian art is not well known in the West. There are reasons for that, which are mentioned in the summary of each chapter. WordPress has changed slightly – each chapter has a big download button (whereas for my art notes on other pages you click on the title of the chapter).
To begin with nascent Russia, centred on Kiev, was pagan. Grand Prince Vladimir felt he had to adopt a religion and, having reviewed the options, chose the Greek Orthodox Church. For ordinary folk, largely illiterate, the wonders and power of Christianity were best conveyed through pictures and imposing churches, so Vladimir started building. The same approach had long been adopted by the Roman Catholic Church and the Normans in England would soon follow suit. The art of early Russia is really church architecture, frescoes and icons. There was little artistic contact with the West: master builders and artists came from Constantinople to build and decorate the new stone cathedrals in Russia. Like all northern heavily-forested countries, most structures in Russia were made of wood. The majority of new Russian churches were wooden, built by native craftsmen. To begin with the designs for secular buildings were adapted, but wooden churches soon became more elaborate. They were, however, very different to stave churches in Norway and log churches in Finland (there’s a small project waiting there). Russian painting remained almost entirely religious into the 17th century. Artistic contact with Western Europe grew after Ivan III married Zoe, a ward of the Pope: Italian artists (along with other technical experts) were invited to serve in Moscow. The origin of portraiture in Russia came when Queen Elizabeth sent her portrait to Ivan the Great after a trade treaty had been agreed.
Portraits for Tsars and the nobility were commissioned from foreign artists. There were really no Russian artists. There was no middle/merchant class and therefore no guilds, just the nobility (who felt painting to be beneath them) and serfs (required by the nobles largely for productive work). Peter the Great brought Western European culture to Russia. His desire to set up an Academy of Arts was finally realised in 1764. Portraiture was the dominant form and remained so into the opening decades of the 19th century. As a comparison, the full range of artistic genres had been going on for three centuries in Western Europe. Innovation in Russian art came outside the Academy. Landscapes started to appear from the 1820s, peaking from 1870. Most significant was the development of art as social criticism from just before the middle of the 19th century. Initially, the norms of behaviour of the Russian nobility and the attitudes of the Orthodox Clergy came under fire. Then, and more powerfully, art made demands for social reform, portrayed the life of peasants and depicted the failure of revolutionaries. Almost none of this art appeared in the West. Of course, works of social criticism would have appealed in Europe – impoverished titled young men seeking a daughter from a rich merchant family was a phenomenon common in England, for example – but most paintings were too closely related to the Russian experience to have much resonance beyond her borders. Further, travelling to Russia was not easy and touring within the country was virtually impossible as roads were few and railways non-existent for much of the 19th century.
Having lagged behind Europe, and by some margin, the early part of the 20th century was astonishingly different. In the space of 20 years, Russian art not only ‘caught up’ with modern trends in the West but took on a leading role. The appearance of Ballet Russe in Paris and London with fantastic costumes and sets must have been a beautiful shock to the art world and its patrons. Then the art of the Russian avant-garde gripped Europe, notably the pioneers of abstract art Kazimir Malevich and Wassily Kandinsky. The latter, together with Marc Chagall, has a separate chapter.
Although their formative years were spent at home, most of their careers lay outside Russia. Each of them had their ideas for art education rejected by their Soviet peers in 1920 and 1921 and they emigrated. The story of Chagall’s art can be told through his biography. The works of Kandinsky have little to do with events in his life but reflect his developing theory of art.
Russian artists were generally whole-hearted supporters of the October 1917 Revolution. The works they produced to educate people about the vast changes in their country and to improve life wrought innovations in graphic design, photo-montage and material design which (mostly via El Lissitzky and the Bauhaus) also influenced the West. After this intensive period of extensive export of Russian art and artistic talent, the shutters came down.
Almost nothing came out of the USSR which was of interest to the West once Stalin came to power in the late 1920s. Officially sanctioned Socialist Realism works, whilst not without merit, had little appeal in a Western Europe whose art was expanding with all manner of new approaches after World War I. The works of Russian modern artists which would have been popular were banished to dusty store-rooms and museum basements, to emerge only in the late 1980s. The iron grip exerted on art by Stalin relaxed under Khrushchev and Socialist Realist art expanded into new styles. More importantly, Unofficial Art flourished, but not much was exported: some pieces did make it out of Russia and some artists were exiled (although usually their works were retained by Soviet authorities). During the Cold War, travel to the USSR and exports from the country were tightly controlled so only limited information about Soviet life and art was available: the USSR was not a place for cultural vacations. It can be said that Unofficial Art in the Soviet Union ‘caught up’ with the West from the 1960s to the 1980s.
There is much here that will be new. It is telling that in this introduction (compared to the others elsewhere in the blog) there are few named artists. That’s not because Russian artists were not talented, but I want to re-create the start of my journey: I didn’t know any Russia artists working before the early 20th century and none who worked during Stalin’s years. I discovered many who are now favourites. But these are personal choices and I don’t want to sway you by naming names. If nothing else (and as always), I hope some of the pictures will grab your attention and you will enjoy them. Who cares about the text??!
Statistics in the main article below this have been updated. The two years to the end of April 2022 saw 74 Tests played and 30 NWM stints. That’s very high; the expected number is 15. We were all much more sensitive to our health and well-being during these COVID years. So, we can hardly criticise recognised batsmen who were unusually eager to stay safely indoors in the pavilion instead of venturing out into the evening gloom. Despite the added workload, the sacrificial lambs performed as well as previously, with only 5 failures in their 30 innings.
Alzarri Joseph: success after success …
The best NWM was West Indian pace bowler Alzarri Joseph with an unblemished 4 appearances. At the second Test at Old Trafford in July 2020, Alzarri was sent in on the evening of the second day with the score on 16-1 as the West Indies replied to England’s 469-9 declared. Rain washed away the third day and seemingly England’s chance of squaring the series. That chance got even slimmer as Alzarri got the West Indies off to a grand start on the fourth day with 32 in his longest Test innings (and just two short of his then highest Test score).
Alzarri pulls in Manchester (Getty Images)
He finally departed on 70-2, having contributed the illustration for the MCC Coaching Manual – Chapter 4: The Straight Drive (and one for his own personal scrapbook). The West Indies built on his foundations, moving to 242-4 and with at least a drawn series in sight. Then came a new-ball burst – 4 wickets in 4 overs – a collapse to 287 all out, followed by the clatter of more wickets on the final day as England pulled off a great win.
Textbook Driving (Getty Images)
Despite having his fine effort spurned, Alzarri persisted. He was NWM in both innings (the 20th time that has happened) at Jamaica in August 2021 against Pakistan. Then déjà vu in the second Test at Bridgetown against England in March 2022: sent in again when West Indies were replying to a huge score (507-9d here). Again, he played well, batting for 88 minutes and adding 52 with his indomitable captain Kraigg Brathwaite. This time he was rewarded with a better outcome: a draw. That enabled the West Indies to win the series when they romped to victory in the third Test, preserving an excellent recent home record against England of three series wins and a draw since 2004. Joe Root resigned as captain three weeks later.
Neil Wagner joins the elite
Fittingly, the two most notable NWM come from the newly-crowned World Champions New Zealand. Paceman Neil Wagner became the third Black Cap to have 6 successful NWM appearances (from 7 showings) after spinners Daniel Vettori (7 from 12) and Paul Wiseman (a perfect 7). This was long foreshadowed: on his debut Test in Antigua in July 2012 Neil was NWM in both innings. At the start of the final day New Zealand were 199-3 leading by 28 runs. Neil batted beyond lunch that day which should have been enough to save the match, but the specialist batsmen let him down. Among them, his captain Ross Taylor who confirmed Neil’s new appointment after the loss; “We had a chance to realistically draw the match … Wagner might be a nightwatchman for the rest of his career. He did a good job there. He has had a successful run with Otago and now he knows what his cricket is all about and I am sure it will be better for us also (Cricinfo Report 30 July 2012).” Captain Taylor was as good as his word, sending Neil in as NWM in the next Test too. But, the augury of this career with the bat dates back to January 2006 when Neil appeared as NWM in his debut First-Class innings. That was for Northerns in his native South Africa. Sent in at 94-5 in reply to North West’s 186, Neil saw his partner fall early in the morning, but batted for an hour and a half to help his team take the lead and, later, the match.
At the time of his debut Test Neil had not appeared as NWM for Otago – Nick Beard had the role, having had 4 successful stints, including a maiden FC half-century with 62. Neil did the job twice in the winter of 2012 when Beard wasn’t playing, scoring 65 against Central Districts on the second occasion. If that suggested a competition, Nick Beard responded in emphatic fashion at his next opportunity two months later. Against Auckland in February 2013, Beard compiled an unbeaten 188 as NWM, batting through the day after and into the next. This was the world-record FC score by a NWM, beaten only when Jason Gillespie celebrated his 31st birthday against Bangladesh in April 2006.
So, Nick Beard remained in post until his retirement. Neil took over and scored a century as NWM for Otago in 2017, but the match was not deemed FC because 13 players were allowed to play for each side (only 11 batting and fielding):
Otago and Black Caps left-armer Neil Wagner may well want to bat a bit higher in the order this summer after posting an undefeated century. At the very least, Wagner’s ton will have helped him cement the nightwatchman’s spot. His innings has helped strengthen Otago’s grip on its four-day warm-up match against Canterbury at Molyneux Park. The home side dismissed the defending Plunket Shield champion for 182 on the opening day and yesterday pushed on to reach 413 for nine. [Otago] Volts coach Rob Walter was pleased with the way his side batted. ‘‘Everyone knows Wags’ potential with the bat and today he showed that.’’ (Adrian Seconi in the Otago Daily Times 12th October 2017).
Neil enroute to a century as NWM (Pam Jones, Otago Daily Times)
That was a long digression; back to Test matches. The two appearances that lifted Neil into the company of Vettori and Wiseman came at Lord’s in June 2021 and against South Africa at Christchurch in February this year. Having dismissed South Africa for 95, Neil was sent in on 111-3. With his team in a good position, the next morning he went onto the attack as Firdose Moonda reported:
“He hit seven fours and two sixes, all off South Africa’s new-ball pair of Rabada and Stuurman. He cut Rabada for successive fours in two different overs, showing off perfect weight transfer to the back foot to flay the ball to an unmanned point region … then he took on Stuurman’s opening over of the day when he worked the second delivery off the hip to long leg, drove the third through the covers for four and then top-edged a hook off the penultimate ball for six … on 49, he attempted to flick Rabada over deep square leg but picked out Rassie van der Dussen instead. Despite Wagner’s disappointment, he’d done his job and then some. When he was dismissed, New Zealand had scored 81 runs off 86 balls in the morning and Nicholls was responsible for just 23. Wagner’s aggression allowed Nicholls to collect runs almost unnoticed and he reached lunch on 87 (Cricinfo 18 Feb 2022)”.
This was a reprise of the Test against Bangladesh in March 2019 when New Zealand, in an even better position (on 449-4 replying to 234) had sent him in as NWM. Commentators criticised the move, saying that Wagner would simply slow down the scoring the next day. Silence reigned as Neil thrashed 46 off 26 balls with 6 fours and 3 sixes.
Those two innings were perfect for a side in the ascendancy: stoic defence in the evening, guns blazing the next day. The latter seems a natural fit for Neil Wagner; a highly entertaining and engaging cricketer. By the end of the Roses Match at Headingley in 2016 he had both sets of supporters firmly on his side.
Neil Wagner flays South Africa’s pacemen (Getty Images)
William Somerville helps save the match
The theme of NWM on debut recurs with William Somerville. He performed the role successfully on his debut for New South Wales in the Sheffield Shield in November 2014, on his debut for Auckland in the Plunkett Shield in October 2018 and, less than two months later, in his debut Test for New Zealand.
His next stint came in the opening Test at Kanpur in November last year in a series (unfortunately short) which was eagerly anticipated. A few months earlier in June 2021, New Zealand had beaten India at the Rose Bowl to win the inaugural World Test Championship at the Rose Bowl in June 2021. Several players were rested for Kanpur as the strain accumulated of playing and living in Covid bubbles during a heavy schedule of international matches. India chose to bat and started very well, but fell away rather on Day 2 from a promising position of 266-4 to 345 all out. New Zealand followed suit, collapsing more completely: 197-1 became 296 all out. On the morning of Day 4, India slumped to 51-5 in their second innings but New Zealand’s high hopes were dashed by the lower order: debutant Shreyas Iyer (centurion in the first innings) made 65 and veteran ‘keeper Wriddhiman Saha an unbeaten 61 allowing India to declare. New Zealand faced a target of 284 and 4 overs at the end of the day. Young fell to Ashwin, and Will quietly saw out the last 5 balls of the day.
The pitch offered turn and some variable bounce, and the expectation was that India would win the match, with their wonderful spin-bowlers. The following morning, the hosts started with spin at one end and pace at the other. “Somerville played the part of annoying nightwatchman to perfection … India caused him problems. Umesh Yadav and Ishant Sharma found his outside edge twice each, but neither carried to the cordon (BCCI Report)”. The two fast bowlers “tried the short-ball tactic to the unfancied Somerville but he swayed and ducked without any discomfort and also played the rising delivery with soft hands …
Somerville defends a short ball (BCCI)
… Somerville, who basically comes in at No 10, hit Umesh for three boundaries and after that gained a lot of confidence. Out of the three, the first one was a drive and the other two fierce cut shots as the bowler dropped short and also gave width. Somerville’s confident approach also rubbed in on Latham, who gave him a lot of strike (Times of India, 29 November 2021)”.
After pace proved futile, India used spin at both ends. There were some demon deliveries, but Will used his reach to good effect. The pair batted through the morning’s 32 overs, adding 75 runs. Former Black Cap captain (and ace nightwatchman) Daniel Vettori paid tribute at lunch: “Somerville has been fantastic. Not many nightwatchmen bat a session and whilst New Zealand do bat deep, they didn’t anticipate this sort of performance. It’s not just about the time he batted; it’s the fact that he’s been effective in scoring runs as well. He took a little bit of pressure off Tom Latham. The fact they maintained this partnership for the whole session, bodes well for New Zealand and sets it up for the strong middle-order.”
Somerville and Latham go off for lunch (Associated Press)
Daniel’s comments hint at the prospect of a New Zealand victory. A few commentators shared that view but most of the lunchtime discussion was about the sound prospect of a draw. New Zealand need another 205 from 60 overs to win this Test, so that’s still a mammoth task but they have taken a big stride towards that, or at least towards drawing this Test. Both Latham and Somerville were patient, playing every delivery at merit. In between those dead-bats, Somerville used the back-foot punch to good effect to fetch five boundaries in all. Latham was comfortable both on back and front foot, deploying sweep from outside off to keep the scoreboard ticking. It will be interesting to see New Zealand’s approach in the second session. If they can score about 90 in 30 overs post-lunch, that will leave them needing 115 in the final session (Cricinfo Commentators).
Will fell to the first ball after lunch. Umesh Yadav chose to bowl round the wicket to a short leg, leg gully and short forward square. The expected short ball came. Rather than risk being caught by the close fielders off a defensive shot, Somerville tried aggression, but his hook was brilliantly caught by Shubman Gill sprinting in from long leg. Back in the pavilion Will put his feet up and watched New Zealand built on his effort, moving to 119 for two. Their progress was a little too slow for a victory march, so a draw appeared certain. Then the Indian spinners struck – taking 4 wickets for 10 runs – and suddenly the situation looked very different. It became positively alarming as New Zealand slipped to 155-9. In a tense atmosphere with the crowd baying, Rachin Ravindra and Ajaz Patel survived the last 52 balls until bad light ended play 12 minutes before the scheduled close.
The compelling finish to the match threatened to waste Will’s fine effort. His part in New Zealand’s survival was recognised. “As big a role as Ravindra and Ajaz played in saving the game, the result was also hugely down to Tom Latham and the nightwatchman Will Somerville (Karthik Krishnaswamy, Cricinfo Report).” “Somerville … faced 110 balls, while playing a valuable innings of 36 runs with the help of 5 fours. This marked the return of New Zealand in the match (PressWire18).”
I took a few years away from studying European art to learn more about Chinese art than is covered by the excellent A World History of Art by Hugh Honour & John Fleming (Laurence King Publishing 2009). Public libraries in England have shelves full of books on European art but publications of standard authors on Chinese art – Michael Sullivan, James Cahill, Craig Clunas – are hard to find. Almost all the books I’ve read on Chinese art have been borrowed from academic libraries.
Given this lack, presumption overtook me (lightly camouflaged as altruism) and I decided to write a History of Chinese Art. Below in pdf form are 9 parts, each usually about 50 pages long. Do not be daunted, however, as each part has many more pictures than pages. Thus, the text-averse can skip quickly through the documents and read only about those artists whose works appeal. The pictures are usually high resolution, so zooming in may help, especially to look at landscapes. The two parts covering the 20th century are longer than the others, but have twice as many pictures. Some eras will be more interesting than others, so below is a summary for each part.
Part 1. To the end of the Tang Dynasty, 907 (51 pages, 80 pictures) –> 1_Tang Art began mainly for ceremonies and burials, but gradually appeared as decoration and in shows of wealth. Calligraphy was revered as the means to communicate with gods and ancestors. During this period different styles of script developed, and there emerged a strong link between calligraphy and painting. Figure painting at the imperial court developed during the Tang and the dynasty marked the beginning of landscape painting. The genre is regarded as high art by the Chinese. Mountains and rivers have been considered sacred since remote times and qi, the cosmic life-force, was believed to be exhaled by mountains in the form of mist and clouds. Pilgrimages were made to the mountains to rejuvenate one’s spirit. Zong Bing’s wife originated the idea of landscape painting. When her husband was too old to wander up mountains, she painted scenes on the wall of their home: landscape as surrogate for pilgrimage. This era closes with Wang Wei, considered the prototype of the scholar-official who paints only in his spare time – the literati painter – superior to professional painters.
Part 2. Five Dynasties to the end of the Song, 908 – 1279 (51 pp, 75 pics) –> 2_Song Buddhist art was popular and new Chan (Zen) painting, spontaneous and intuitive, would prove an inspiration through the subsequent centuries. This was a great age for landscape painting. Northern Song monumental landscapes and the more atmospheric scenes of the rivers and rounded hills of the Southern Song developed. Many grand examples were painted by artists regarded as the first landscape masters. Under the guidance of Su Shi, features of literati art crystalized with subjects of trees, rock and bamboo, and the importance of an inscription. Bird and Flower paintings made their first appearance, so that by the end of the Song all the genres and styles of Chinese art were in place, some already with rich traditions.
Part 3. Yuan, 1271 – 1368 (45 pp, 55 pics) –> 3_Yuan Although China was over-run and administrated by the barbarian Mongols, the Yuan is one of the greatest ages of Chinese painting, dominated by stunning literati art, in which the poem became an integral part of both the message and the composition. At the beginning of the period officials loyal to the defeated Song dynasty, yimin, who refused to serve the foreign invader painted works of dissent and at the end, the Four Great Masters of the Yuan expressed the turmoil of the deterioration of Mongol rule and their sense of isolation. In between, landscape and calligraphy were revitalised and various styles of painting bamboo developed.
Part 4. Early and middle Ming, 1369-1560 (57 pp, 90 pics) –> 4_Ming_Early_Middle The Zhe School departed from conservative court art, painting Southern Song landscapes with brushstrokes associated with the literati, with an eye on the new demand from rich merchants wanting bucolic scenes and large decorative paintings for reception halls. The beginning of a commercial art market is an important feature of the dynasty. During the first century of the Ming, scholars were executed in large numbers and their roles in government given to eunuchs, so literati art virtually disappeared. The Wu School – the Four Masters of the Ming – rescued and developed it, to the extent that scholarly art became immensely popular across China. Albums were sought-after as gifts and important works appeared in this new form. The first two Masters started using colour, which would have appalled their predecessors. The last two Masters used stronger colour and adopted some professional practices so they could sell their paintings (even more appalling for their ancestors) in a burgeoning market for literati art which grew as Suzhou and Hangzhou became the economic centres of the empire.
Part 5. Late Ming, 1560 – 1644 (43 pp, 60 pics) –> 5_Ming_Late The art market created a demand from women among the merchant class and gentry for works of art produced by women. Relatives of scholars and professionals filled the breach, joined by talented courtesan-painters. New forms of bird and flower paintings appeared; monochrome in a sketchy style (xieyi) and with a wet-on-wet technique which produced sensational effects. Don Qichang, China’s ace theoretician, the late Ming’s most notable artist and the dynasty’s most celebrated calligrapher, lamented the influence of the art market; hack painters were knocking out copies of early Ming masters and had never set eyes on the works of the Yuan and Song greats. Don Qichang reversed this degeneration of literati art and created a new mode of landscape painting, moving towards abstraction through a patterned surface and repetition of forms with a cool rhythm. As a result of Don Qichang’s art theory, albums of paintings in the manner of Yuan and Song masters became very popular commercially. Don Qichang did no paintings in the style of monumental Northern Song landscapes and these had been largely ignored by the Ming, but the genre enjoyed a revival at the end of the dynasty. The arrival of Jesuits sparked a brief interest in landscapes in a European manner.
Part 6. Qing to Qianlong emperor, 1644 – 1735 (46 pp, 70 pics) –> 6_Qing_1 Some scholar-officials reacted to the foreign Manchu invader as their predecessors had to the Mongols, but the Ming loyalists produced much more varied and inventive art; most notably Shitao, but also Zhu Da and Kuncan. In contrast to these great Individualists, the theory of Don Qichang was sustained by the Orthodox School, notably the Four Wangs, of whom Wang Yuanqi was regarded as the best. Yun Shouping produced gorgeous natural paintings of flowers in the boneless style, which look as if the plants are alive in the garden. His female descendant Yun Bing carried on this style, painting wonderful albums. She and her female friend, Ma Quan, were important flower painters of the Qing. The Kangxi emperor had used Jesuit expertise, particularly in artillery, in quelling rebellion and the art of Catholic missionaries exerted a fascination at court, notably through Castiglione, but had no lasting effect on Chinese art.
Part 7. Later Qing, 1736 – 1911 (40 pp, 70 pics) –> 7_Qing_2 The Qianlong emperor’s inspection tours produced important landscape scrolls, but the feature of his reign was yet more growth in the art market which became increasingly competitive, forcing artists to adopt novelties to stand out from the crowd. The Eccentrics of Yangzhou, led by Jin Nong whose calligraphy and painting contrasted beautifully in his art, led the way: bamboo, pine, plum, orchids were given new life; historical figures were resurrected and even ghosts appeared. Gao Qipei produced astonishing works with his fingers. Rank exploitation by European powers (led by Britain) and famine (produced by a rapidly growing population and a neglectful Manchu administration) produced rebellions, starting the descent to collapse. In the midst of this Shanghai prospered, and her merchants and middle-class demanded colourful and vigorous art. This was provided by the Shanghai School, who used literati touches in paintings of historical figures, landscapes, birds and (notably) flowers in rich colours. Discontent with Manchu rule was expressed by the Stele School which preferred traditional Han script to the calligraphy used at court and produced wonderful hanging scrolls of poetic couplets.
Part 8. Republic, 1911-1948 (57 pp, 125 pics) –> 8_Republic Some artists reasserted traditional Chinese styles. Qi Baishi painted all manner of subjects in simple but lifelike fashion, using the strong colour of the Shanghai School, whose flower paintings continued to thrive. Landscapes were painted by Huang Binhong, in an impressionistic manner, and Fu Baoshi, with lively surfaces and often with towering waterfalls. Conversely, the feeling that China should modernise, meant other painters attempted a synthesis with Western art. This produced uneven results. The most successful artists and leaders of the modern movement were Liu Haisu and Lin Fengmian who formed their own style rather than simply adopting a hybrid of techniques: both believed in self-expression. All this art was for educated folk. The violence of life and a spate of executions in China prompted a desire for art which appealed to the masses and depicted the cruelty of the government and warlords. From this aspiration the Woodcut Movement was formed and soon produced prints of suffering and resistance during the fight against Japanese invaders. Painters also contributed, the most striking works being those of Jiang Zhaohe. Forced to flee west from war, painters discovered the diversity of China and thus began an important theme in modern Chinese art: the depiction of minority people and their lands.
Part 9. People’s Republic of China (PRC), 1949 – 1980s (72 pp, 170 pics) –> 9_PRC Soviet Socialist Realist style was the prescribed form of art early in the PRC, implemented in oils and also affecting prints. Traditional Chinese painting largely was limited to figures. Through this period, party policy lurched unpredictably between heavy control and sudden relaxation. Many painters caught departing from the party line were punished. Approval for landscapes from life eased the pressure on traditional painters and further relaxations in the early 1960s meant lyrical art was produced. This was ended by the Cultural Revolution. Artists, even those formerly celebrated by the Communists, suffered greatly. This torment lasted a decade. Many painters had fled China in 1949. They brought modern art to Taiwan, predominantly through the abstract expressionism of the Fifth Moon Group, and Singapore. In Hong Kong, where AbEx was already established, they brought a strong Chinese flavour to art, particularly with Chan painting. In the 1980s in China photorealism was strong, especially paintings of minorities in oils. Artists were able to explore Western influences, and some of their works expressed disillusionment. Traditional Chinese themes were revived and revitalised: literati techniques and subjects, landscapes, including eccentric works, and bird and flower painting. Wu Guanzhong brought new expression to old literati subjects and to landscapes. By the end of the decade Chinese art had escaped the stranglehold of the party.
Hopefully this is interesting. Learning and writing about Chinese art was hugely enjoyable and satisfying. Now I will return to studying European art and the 17th century. My notes on European art will be too long to be posted here (so far, from early Greek times to the end of the 16th century, there are 480 pages and 660 pictures; half of that on the 16th century). However, I may post other histories in coming years.
Under comments (below), Tristan is interested in rain scenes in Chinese art. I’ve searched briefly. There are quite a few in the 20th century but not many earlier than that. Here’s a pdf of the examples I found –> Rainy_Landscapes (Bamboo in rain paintings are included in the pdfs above.)
Excluding Durham, who started playing First-Class (FC) cricket only in 1992, four-fifths of County Cricket’s FC records for lowest scores and best bowling date from before World War II when wickets were uncovered, matches were played frequently at out-grounds often on sporting tracks and changes to the laws almost always favoured bowlers. A quarter of these records were set in the 19th century when the “normal” wicket was very different to that of today. A comparison can be made across the years.
At the Antelope Ground in Southampton in July 1876 Hampshire played Derbyshire on a pitch provoking approval – “an exceedingly good wicket … a piece of bright green shining out conspicuously” (Hampshire Advertiser) – which drew, one imagines, the usual resigned sighs from batsmen and the trade of itinerant pedlars offering witch-hazel, gauze and finger-splints.
In August 2000, Scarborough saw Surrey meet Yorkshire for a title-deciding match. They played on a similar pitch – “it had so much grass that it was greener than the rest of the square” (Times) – which this time attracted disgust from the visitors (“the most important match of the season and they produced that!”) and a TCCB pitch inspector who imposed an 8-point penalty.
After World War II pitches were still uncovered and many out-grounds remained in common use, but changes to the laws, with one important exception, tended to favour batsmen. After 1980 wickets were covered, apart from a brief lapse in 1987 which was condemned unanimously by the 17 county captains. Only 7% of the FC records for lowest score and best bowling were set after 1980.
Many of the FC records, then, are unlikely to be beaten in the modern County Championship where conditions are comparatively less favourable to bowlers. So it seemed useful to compile lists of the best performances since the County Championship was decided wholly by four-day matches. At least the lists provide a fairer context in which to appreciate, say, Simon Harmer’s 14-wicket hauls, Rory Kleinveldt’s 9-65 and Kent’s dismissal of Gloucestershire for 61 in the 2017 season.
This pdf –>: Modern_Season_bowling shows the top 3 performances (for and against) for each county in the County Championship from 1993 to 2017. The FC records for each county are also shown, with comments augmenting the dry statistics. These records are colour-coded: orange depicts a record attained on a pitch described by contemporary reports as treacherous for batsmen and green depicts a pitch considered to be reasonable. Those records set on pitches whose nature is unclear are left uncoloured. Excepting Durham again, for those cases where conditions are known 82% of FC records for lowest totals and best bowling were set on wickets treacherous for batsmen.
In all the FC records for lowest totals (excluding Durham’s) sides have been dismissed for fewer than 50 runs. Twenty-seven of those records were set before 1993. Since then, there have been 8 occasions when a county has been dismissed for fewer than 50 runs in the Championship. The table summarises the conditions under which these bowling-fests occurred.
Of the records set before 1993 which are not attributable to poor batting, spin bowling featured in half of them – in 9 taking all or almost all the wickets and contributing to 4 others. (“Both” in the table means a 4-6, 5-5 or 6-4 split of wickets between pace and spin).
Two of the totals under 50 since 1992 are FC records (Essex’s 20 and Glamorgan’s 31), and are covered in the pdf above. They were the result of poor batting. The other 6 low totals were a result of late swing, sometimes with assistance from the pitch.
Middlesex 49 v Nottinghamshire at Trent Bridge 2006. “Charlie Shreck (8-31) was irresistible, controlling his line superbly and swinging the ball from a full length. From the moment that Ed Smith fell to his fifth ball, trapped leg-before to a rare in-swinger as he padded up, the Middlesex batsmen were unsure which balls to play and which ones to leave … As panic began to take hold, Eoin Morgan’s dismissal highlighted the uncertainty that had crept into Middlesex minds, shouldering arms to be leg-before (Times).”
Derbyshire 44 v Gloucestershire at Bristol 2010. James Franklin took 5 wickets in his first three overs without conceding a run, as Derbyshire, inserted, slumped to 9-6. John Jameson, an ECB Pitch Inspector, was satisfied it was swing, not seam, with some indifferent batting, that caused the carnage. Going in to this match Gloucestershire were in the hunt for promotion and Derbyshire were bottom of Division 2 with only 2 wins from 14 matches (with 7 losses). So, after Franklin’s effort, the hosts must have been confident. They lost. Set 125 to win, Hamish Marshall scored 44 at No. 3. That might have been the platform for victory but, having seen an opener fall for 0, he then watched a succession of partners go for 2, 0, 1, 0, 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Understandably losing heart he was dismissed a few balls later and, soon after, the side was all out for 70. Gloucestershire’s heart followed Marshall’s as they slumped to defeat in their last two fixtures. Worcestershire, who had been behind them before the Derbyshire match, won their last two games to earn promotion alongside Sussex.
Leicestershire 34 v Essex at Southend-on-Sea 2011. This match, the last County Championship fixture played at Garon Park, was thoroughly enjoyed by David Masters. Early on the third morning, he joined Ravi Bopara with Essex only 127 runs ahead with 4 wickets in hand. They added 111, Masters making 48, his highest FC score for 15 months – and this on a nasty pitch. David capped off his day with 8-10 in under 8 overs: “Ravi’s batting set it all up. It was a pretty good pitch to bowl on – it was seaming and swinging – so his innings was outstanding. It’s an unbelievable day for me; the sort of thing you dream about as a kid.” On this pitch Ravi Bopara batted for almost seven-and-a-half hours scoring 178 and turned the match.
Leicestershire 48 v Northamptonshire at Grace Road 2011. In June, a little over one month before the shambles by the seaside, Leicestershire entertained Northamptonshire who were leading Division 2. Electing to bat, the hosts lost the last 5 wickets of their first innings for 13 runs. They began Day 3 on 27-2 in their second, trailing by 176. In a little over an hour the right-left combination of David Lucas (5-20) and Jack Brooks (now Yorkshire, 5-23) swung the new ball to take the last 8 wickets for 15 runs. Phil Whitticase, Leicestershire head coach, “I’m embarrassed for the players and the supporters, who have come paying a lot of money expecting a full day’s cricket, so I apologise to them.” Northamptonshire remained in a promotion berth until August Bank Holiday, but then lost at home to Surrey who went on to win their last two games (the final one with maximum points) to deny Northamptonshire promotion by 2 points.
Northamptonshire 46 v Essex at Luton 1995. Six years previously in mid-June Northamptonshire were leading the Championship. They started promisingly at Wardown Park by inserting Essex and extracting them for 127. But Mark Ilott made that seem like riches by taking 9-19 to shoot out Northamptonshire for 46. “Ilott’s feat … was the result of late swing under heavy cloud cover on a pitch still drying after heavy rain during the past week … As the ball zigged and zagged laterally, 13 batsmen fell to LBW decisions (Times)”. Mark became the first player since Mike Procter at Cheltenham against Yorkshire in 1979 to take a hat-trick of LBWs. He said afterwards: “It was not my first hat-trick of leg-befores. I got one playing for Watford under-15s. On that occasion my dad was umpire and, in my excitement, I shouted ‘howzat, Dad?'”. The first day had yet more excitement; Essex were dismissed in their second innings for 107, and play closed with Northamptonshire on 1-0, needing another 188 runs for victory. The next day saw the hosts recover from 56-4, but stutter to 161-8. Anil Kumble provided some fluency with an unbeaten 17 to help Alan Lamb (50*) to add 31 and take the title-aspirants to victory. A month earlier Northamptonshire had won a game in which they had been bowled out for 59; beating Surrey by 7 runs at Wantage Road. Luton marked their 6th win in 7 games. Northamptonshire took their title challenge deep into the season, but a crucial match against Middlesex ended in stalemate on a good batting track at Uxbridge in early September, and Warwickshire were able to overtake both of them by winning their last three games to clinch the title.
[As an aside, Steven Patterson of Yorkshire was on a hat-trick of LBWs at the end of Surrey’s 593 at the Oval this season, but his ball to the prospective victim Gareth Batty was wide outside off-stump].
Leicestershire 43 v Worcestershire at Grace Road 2016. Leicestershire made an excellent start to the County Championship. They beat Glamorgan easily in Cardiff after the home side had begun the match by making 348, had the better of a draw at home to Kent in a rain-shortened match, scared Sussex at Hove by bowling them out for 163 and running up 473-8 declared, and were robbed by poor weather of victory at home to Northamptonshire. They started their match against Worcester brightly, posting 316 and early on Day 3 took the last two Worcestershire wickets for a first-innings lead of 42. However, two hours later the Foxes had been run to earth – two of them attempting suicidal scampers. The deteriorating pitch played its part with some balls keeping low and others leaping shoulder-high off a length. They lost the match but kept their heads, drawing at Canterbury and, two weeks later, inflicting a first defeat of the season on leaders Essex at Chelmsford. Halfway through the season after 8 games, Leicestershire were third in Division 2, four points outside a promotion place. They then suffered a controversial defeat in their return match at New Road: Joe Clarke, given out LBW on 31, was recalled and went on to score 127 to lead Worcestershire’s run chase. Even with that set-back, Leicestershire kept their tails up. After 12 matches they were still third and four points away from a promotion berth. Big defeats to Essex and Sussex and the loss of their coach in late August and early September ended a fine run.
Looking at the modern County Championship records in the pdf, all the lowest scores are under 100, best bowling figures in an innings are at least 7 wickets (Kent against) and in a match at least 11 (Leicester for, two and Surrey against, two). The figure below shows how often totals below 100 (completed innings only), innings hauls of 7(+) wickets and match hauls of 11(+) wickets have occurred across the years of the County Championship. What is plotted in each case is the number of instances in a season divided by the total number of matches played in that season. This is not strictly the percentage of games in which these totals or hauls occurred (low scores tend to appear more than once in a match or not at all, for example), but it gives some indication of frequency.
Although there are year-to-year variations, often reflecting the weather but sometimes changes to the laws, the steady decline of ball over bat is clear. Eight of the FC records for lowest totals were set before the County Championship began in 1890. The table below shows the instances of totals of fewer than 100 runs (completed innings) for FC county games back to 1830 – the year in which the oldest FC record was set; Sussex’s 19 against Surrey at Godalming. The matches included are those between FC counties and FC games featuring a FC county against another non-county opponent. These opponents are usually England and the MCC (throughout these decades), Cambridge University and Oxford University (from 1860 onwards), touring Australians (from 1878) and occasional festival games.
Only eleven-a-side matches are included. Some games featured a county with 12, 13 or 14 players (batting) against the 11 of the MCC or England, or a county allowing a University side extra players. Thus, the table covers only those FC games in which a FC county record might have been set. To give an example of the type of match excluded; England played 13 of Kent at Lord’s on the 6th and 7th July 1863. Cambridgeshire’s George Tarrant in England colours returned figures of 37-20-40-10 in Kent’s second innings. The fixture is deemed FC and George’s haul is the best conceded by Kent, but his performance is not considered a FC record because of the extra batsmen he faced. Thus, these types of FC fixture, ineligible for FC records one could say, are not included in the table. Clearly also a batting side of 14 players would be expected to fare better than the usual eleven.
The percentage figure shown is the same as that used in the figure above – the number of times a side was dismissed for fewer than 100 runs divided by the number of matches. The average score is for completed innings only.
Batsmen had a difficult life in the middle decades of the 19th century. Pitches were prepared differently then. The methods used at Lord’s were described by Sir Spencer Ponsonby-Fane in his Introduction to “Lord’s and the MCC”(1914):
“the grass, as I have said, was never mowed. It was usually kept down by a flock of sheep, which was penned up on match days, and on Saturdays four or five hundred sheep were driven on to the ground on their way to the Monday Smithfield Market. It was marvellous to see how they cleared the herbage. From the pitch itself, selected by Mr Dark, half a dozen boys picked out the rough stalks of the grass. The wickets were sometimes difficult – in a dry north-east wind, for instance, but when they were in good order it was a joy to play on them, they were so full of life and spirit.”
Lord’s hosted a match between England and Kent in July 1841. The joy presumably was shared by William Lillywhite, who took 13 wickets for England, and the county’s combination of Alfred Mynn “The Lion of Kent” and William Hillyer, who took 9 wickets apiece (the other two being run-outs). The batsmen, however, were left with little spirit. Kent, with totals of 54 and 91, beat England, who could muster only 31 and 44. Fuller Pilch’s unbeaten 33 in Kent’s second innings must have been a masterpiece of batting and a prolonged tutorial on the benefits of forward play, which he is said to have introduced (“Pilch’s Poke”) to combat the shooters and spitters common to wickets of his time. Arthur Haygarth’s career as England and Sussex cricketer overlapped that of Pilch. Arthur was familiar with the diligence required of batsmen, once opening the innings for the MCC and battled away for nearly two hours to score 7 runs, more than anyone else in the top seven. Haygarth was a noted cricket historian and wrote:
“Fuller Pilch is the best batsman that has ever yet appeared … His style of batting was very commanding, extremely forward, and he seemed to rush to the best bowling by his long forward play before it had time to shoot or rise, or do mischief by catches” (“Frederick Lillywhite’s Cricket Scores and Biographies”, 1862).
Fuller Pilch
Charles Taylor, the first captain of Sussex, scored 4 not out and 19 for England in this 1841 match. The same fixture in 1846 at Lord’s saw better scoring. Kent (91 and 66) set England (71) 87 runs for victory. Kent did not help their cause by carelessly running out the best batsman for one. When allowed to show his form in the second innings, Fuller Pilch responded with 27, but was abandoned by the lower order as Kent subsided from 39-3. Charles Taylor excelled, scoring 16 in his first knock and, with 43, provided the backbone of England’s run-chase. He fell on the brink of victory, 85-9, but last-man Tom Sewell smacked the first ball he faced for the winning two runs.
Charles Taylor (copyright Sussex CCC)
In the 1850s mowing machines became available:
“Mechanical lawn mowers came into use at the majority of cricket grounds during the second half of the 19th century, despite opposition from conservatives like Robert Grimston [President of the MCC] at Lord’s who was still advocating [till his death in post in 1884] sheep-grazed turf for cricket.” (Roger D C Evans: “Cricket Grounds, The Evolution, Maintenance and Construction of Natural Turf Cricket Tables and Outfields”, Sports Turf Research Institute, 1991 – an excellent book).
The table shows that scoring in the 1860s, 70s and 80s was significantly better than the earlier decades. Mass-produced cast iron heavy rollers became available in the 1880s. The MCC acquired one of the first models which came to be known by the ground-staff as “Thomas Lord”. The beast can be seen in the Coronation Garden at Lord’s, presumably having rolled out the pitch for WG.
WG and the ‘Thomas Lord’ Roller, Coronation Garden Lord’s, copyright Paul Birnie, The Sporting Statues Project
All this might have been considered progress by Fuller Pilch and his fellow batsmen, but new technology was not (as was to prove usual) met with universal approbation. Hon. Robert Henry Lyttelton (of whom more later) commented on developments in pitch preparation in his essay The Development of Cricket for the 1892 edition of Wisden:
“Of all the inventions that ever worked a revolution in cricket, nothing had more effect than the heavy roller and the mowing machine. The old scythe, however deftly wielded, left a tuft of grass here and there. But watch the mowing machine – it shaves to a perfectly uniform length or shortness, the wicket becomes a billiard table. While, if the weather is dry, only a ponderous modern roller can have any effect on a clay soil; so, in former days, in addition to the tufts of grass you had little lumps of clay.”
Another advance – in the view of batsmen – was the use of red Nottingham marl as a top-dressing which was absorbed into soil as a binding element and produced longer-lasting, fast and true pitches. “Fiddler” Walker, groundsman at Trent Bridge, introduced the practice in the last third of the 19th century, and within a decade or so most county grounds were using marl as a top-dressing. Spectators enjoyed the stroke-play, as scoring improved.
Marl itself was an excellent tool in pitch preparation, but a particular way of using it on cricket pitches came to be regarded as evil; “doping”. In the 19th century, farmyard manure was commonly used as the fertilizer on cricket grounds. The Sports Turf Research Institute book above suggests that groundsmen accidentally became aware of the effect of a watery slurry mixture of marl and manure. When used to form a liquid layer on the soil surface, the pitch could be rolled out to be a shiny “shirt-front”. Such doped wickets were judged unfair to bowlers.
Lancashire captain Archie Maclaren lamented these “shining billiard table pitches” when he wrote for Wisden in 1906 and, in the same year, E V Lucas longed for the day when “pitches were less perfect” and “117 was a decent score for a whole side.”(“Cricket All His Life: The Cricket Writings of E V Lucas”, The Pavilion Library, 1989).
Eventually the authorities took action to “assist the bowler to check the heavy scoring which has become noticeable of late.” In April 1929 the Advisory County Cricket Council (ACCC) increased the size of the wicket (adding an inch to the width and to the height), limited the use of a heavy roller to 7 minutes instead of the customary 10 and introduced an experimental LBW rule. Strangely, this rule bore no relation at all to the debate which had been raging for the previous 30 years.
Since the late 19th century, batsmen had been using their pads to protect the wicket from balls that pitched outside the line of the stumps. The first meeting of the ACCC on 5th December 1887 discussed this pad play which Lord Harris hesitated to call notorious, and resolved to tell the MCC that the LBW law was unsatisfactory.
The Hon. Robert Henry Lyttelton detested pad play, regarding it as a breach of sporting etiquette, and “strove for half his life to bring about amendments to the law which would penalise any batsmen who resorted to such distasteful tactics (Wisden)”. Lyttleton drafted a new law under which a batsman would be given out LBW if he was struck in line with the stumps by a ball which would have gone on to hit the wicket, irrespective of where the ball had pitched. It was considered that “the impunity with which batsmen defend their wickets from balls curling from leg [as well as coming in from the off] had become detrimental to good play. It does not pay a right-hand bowler to bowl round the wicket with a leg-twist … the result is that bowlers confine their attention to the off-side which is easy to defend instead of attacking the leg-side of the wicket which is difficult to defend.”
The MCC was to consider the Lyttelton law at its meeting on the 1st May 1901. Those members opening their morning Times over kippers would have read sterling advice in the Letters Column.
WG wrote: “the alteration of the LBW rule would do good in first-class matches where you have the best umpires” but he warned about introducing any change, though it be advisable in itself, if it is against the wishes of the majority of players: “nearly all first-class cricketers led by county captains, are strongly opposed to the change.” An accompanying letter from Lord Hawke, Plum Warner and four other august worthies argued against the new law, complaining that a ball pitching a foot outside leg and breaking in cannot be judged by an umpire unless he is standing at mid-on.
How many members were influenced by this thundering over their breakfast? In the event, the MCC voted in favour of the new law by a margin of 259 to 188, but this was not the required two-thirds majority, so the law was rejected. Discussion over the subsequent years centred on whether or not balls pitching outside leg should be included in a new law.
The experimental rule introduced in April 1929 reflected none of this, leaving Lyttleton dissatisfied over its trivial nature. Instead it said that a batsman would be out LBW if struck in line by a ball which would have gone on to hit the wicket even if he had deflected it by bat or hand first.
The ACCC sent a questionnaire to players and umpires after the 1929 season. There was unanimity that the larger wicket had helped the bowler, as had the limit placed on the use of a heavy roller. The experimental LBW law met with an unenthusiastic response from bowlers but a majority of umpires thought it had helped the bowler. One fault was found – when a ball was played down with the face of the bat but rolled on to hit the pad or foot the batsman had to be given out LBW. The experimental law was carried on for the next few seasons, but only covered cases when the ball had been edged onto the pads and would then have gone on to hit the stumps. Frank Chester in The Umpire’s Point of View in the 1933 edition of Wisden considered “the experimental rule regarding LBW and ‘the snick’ has been a very good one, and I think it has come to stay”.
Frank’s predictions were nowhere near as infallible as his decisions behind the stumps, for the Snick LBW rule was dropped soon after that edition of Wisden was published. The table shows the number of totals below 100 runs and above 500 runs in the decade or so before World War II. Pretty much the same number of County Championship matches were played in these years, so the statistics are comparable season-to-season. The table shows the heavier scoring in 1928 which finally prompted action to help the bowler, and the impact of the changes over the next few seasons.
Scoring improved quickly in 1933 and 1934, in response to which the ACCC decided in November 1934 to introduce an amended LBW rule, which might be termed “The Half-Lyttelton”: a batsman struck in line by a ball going on to hit the stumps would be out LBW if the ball had pitched in line or outside off-stump. This was sometimes referred to as the Lyttelton law or the “N” law. An umpire giving a batsman out under this experimental law, held up an arm to signify to the scorers that the ball had pitched outside off-stump. Such dismissals were annotated on scorecards with “(N)”.
Times match report, 20th May 1935
The County Secretaries meeting at Lord’s in December 1935 considered the “experimental LBW rule had been an unqualified success and that many off those people who at the start had opposed the innovation admitted at the finish that their fears were groundless. It did help the bowler and it would help him more if he made use of the bowling crease [a fault which remains common in county cricket today].” It was continued for following season and became the new LBW law in May 1937.
The table shows the help it afforded bowlers (although they were also assisted by wickets which were difficult in the first three months of the 1935 season) as the number of totals under 100 shot up, and those over 500 halved. Nevertheless, as reflected in the statistics for the 1937 to 1939 seasons, batsmen adjusted. There had been a worry that they would cut down their off-side strokes, but the Times Cricket Correspondent commented in 1935:
“gradually batsmen realised that their off-side strokes need not be discouraged and that in fact when playing to the off it was to their advantage to fling their left leg well out, so that it should be clear of the wicket. I believe that as the season advanced I noticed a distinct increase in off-side play.”
Patsy Hendren in his Reflections essay for the 1938 Wisden:
Personally, I thought the ‘snick’ experiment with the LBW Law was better than the ‘N’ rule. The new rule is not fulfilling expectations as regards improvement in off-side strokes; maybe it makes batsmen afraid to get across as they should [although as the Times Correspondent had noticed, it was safest to thrust the leg outside off stump]. One thing I do think, and that is that a batsman should not be given out under the ‘N’ rule when playing a forward stroke … and I am pleased to say that, so far as I have noticed, not many umpires give a man out in these circumstances.”
That observation was confirmed by Frank Chester’s comment in the Times in 1937:
“The new LBW rule has increased the umpire’s difficulties considerably. Personally, I treat it in the same way as I did the snick rule. I give the batsman out only when he plays back. I do not consider that the new rule has improved off-side play. It has undoubtedly helped the bowler.”
Patsy also preferred the “Full-Lyttelton”:
“I am in favour of the rule being applied to the ball turning from leg as well as that breaking from the off. After all, the leg-break is the most difficult ball to bowl, and the additional reward to this type of attack would bring the spin-bowler back into the game.”
Don Bradman also sided with Patsy and the Honourable Robert in this regard. One shudders to imagine the utter carnage Shane Warne would have wreaked if dear old Nasser Hussain and countless others had not been allowed to kick away his deliveries pitching outside leg.
Irrespective of the LBW rule in force, bowlers might take the advice suggested by 19th century Nottinghamshire captain and “Lion of the North” George Parr:
“When you play in a match, be sure not to forget to pay a little attention to the umpire. First of all inquire after his health, then say what a fine player his father was, and, finally, present him with a brace of birds or rabbits. This will give you confidence, and you will probably do well”
Bowlers after World War II might not be able to lay hands easily on game (and in the scheme of things they were more likely to be beaters than shooters), but there is no doubt that a diplomatic approach would become increasingly important with umpires as now the authorities largely turned against them.
From the outset the new LBW rule prompted worries that bowlers would just bowl in-swingers or off-breaks and have close fielders on the leg-side to catch edges. This came to pass.
As Bill Bowes observed in Wisden 1956, bowlers “found that a leg-stump attack to expert short-leg and leg-slip fieldsmen paid dividends … moreover, the nearer you bowl to a batsman’s legs – with a well-placed field – the more you limit his scoring. During last summer the South African bowler, Goddard, showed that this type of attack could be extended to well outside leg-stump and still be successful.” At Leeds in the 4th Test in 1955, England began the last day on 115 for 2, chasing 381. Trevor Goddard bowled unchanged “to a strong leg-side field” until South Africa won at quarter past four, returning overall figures of 62-37-69-5. Jim Laker liked to bowl to 3 short-legs and 3 men on the leg-side boundary on turning pitches. Indeed, on the intentionally dodgy pitch at Old Trafford in 1956 he bowled with 4 close-in fielders on the leg-side with 3 further back.
In 1957 the authorities attempted to shift the bowler’s attention from leg-stump by limiting the total number of on-side fielders to five, and stipulating that three of them must be in front of square.
Ken MacKay caught by Alan Oakman off Jim Laker, final day Manchester Test, 31July 1956 copyright The Cricketer International
The late 1950s and early 1960s saw wickets being covered in various ways. After the 1962 season the ACCC had some regret over these moves, as it was found that pitches sweated under the type of covers used then (unlike modern ones) and grass grew;
“Over the last two seasons when pitches have for the most part been covered there has been, if anything, a growth in seam bowling, which is precisely what we were aiming to avoid.” After the 1963 season the Times Cricket Correspondent amplified the tune; “The Championship is in the grip of seam bowling. Even in a wet summer of partially-covered pitches the spinners have hardly had a look in. Only four slow bowlers have taken 100 wickets. Instead … medium pace bowling has monopolised the scene … the wrist spinner is looked upon as an expensive luxury, the off spinner as more expensive than the accurate seam bowler.” Before the 1964 season the ACCC lamented “the canker of seam bowling” and urged counties to produce dry wickets with less grass.
There were two consequences. First, bowlers had to wait longer to get a new ball. This had been a running theme: in 1949, 65 overs instead of 55; in 1954, after 200 runs had been scored (the average score at 65 overs had been about 150); in 1956, 200 runs or 75 overs. Now, to encourage slow bowling, the new ball would be delayed further to 85 overs.
The second consequence was fore-shadowed in speeches in the winter of 1963. GOB Allen, President of MCC, guest of honour at Sussex’s annual dinner, hinted that there; “wereplans to control the prevalence of seam bowling and something might be done to prevent the polishing of the ball by bowlers.” A fortnight later, SC Griffith, Secretary of the MCC, in his annual speech to the County Secretaries at Lord’s expressed concern over seam bowling but then moved on to swing, noting that green wickets and plush outfields helped maintain the ball’s shine. Groundsmen were instructed to cut outfield grass shorter for the 1964 season. Griffith then said, “Although one does not wish to knock the swing bowler, I feel that the practice of polishing the ball has gone too far and I think the time has come to add a word or two to Note 4 of Law 46 about fair and unfair play.” The Imperial (!) Cricket Conference in July 1964 discussed “excessive polishing of the ball, which is considered to be time wasting.” After an initial rejection, polishing the ball was prohibited for the 1966 season. The ACCC decided to continue the ban into 1967 and, following a unanimous recommendation from the MCC National Cricket Association, even imposed it on village cricket. That was an unwelcome burden on the village umpire, who was already hard-pressed to protect his half-pint glass of beer while craftily rolling a fag. Polishing was allowed again from 1968 but only by the bowler: it was only in 1976 that the TCCB allowed anyone to polish the ball. The counties and the England team imposed their own restriction; usually choosing only fielders with a predilection for boiled sweets or Murray Mints.
That restrictions on polishing the ball might not entirely “control the prevalence of seam bowling” finally dawned in 1989 when the 15-strand seam Reader ball with a seam height of 0.9mm was outlawed by the TCCB in favour of the 9-strand version with a lower seam (0.5mm).
Bowlers did have something to cheer about when in 1970 the new LBW law (as we know it today) was introduced. Nevertheless, after World War II, the sensible cricket-aspiring schoolboy would have chosen willow over leather, whereas his predecessor would have been seeking advice about his run-up.
The decline in the bowler’s lot, especially the spinner, is evident when considering Simon Harmer’s two 14-wicket hauls in the 2017 County Championship mentioned earlier.
The last time a bowler took 14 wickets in a match twice in a season in the County Championship was 1960 when Fred Trueman performed the feat for Yorkshire. Fred played 22 matches compared to Simon’s 14, but both helped their side win the title. 1948 was the last time a spinner had two 14(+)-wicket match hauls: Len Muncer of Glamorgan (again in a title-winning cause) and Jack Walsh of Leicestershire (sadly for the Foxes, more in an avoiding-the-wooden-spoon effort).
Only 6 times in 72 seasons since World War II has a bowler had two 14(+) wicket hauls in a County Championship season. Between the wars this feat was much more common, 21 times in 21 years. Spinners accounted for 18 of those: Tich Freeman of Kent and Charlie Parker of Gloucestershire did it 6 times each. Before 1914 it was done 16 times in 25 seasons, evenly split between pace and spin.
Only two other bowlers have managed the feat for Essex, Simon Harmer being the first spinner: fast bowler Ken Farnes (14-119 against Worcestershire and 15-112 against Glamorgan) in only 8 County Championship matches in 1938 and JWHT Douglas in 1921.
John William Henry Tyler Douglas was an indefatigable captain. His 14-156 against Worcestershire in May 1921 combined with his unbeaten 123 helped Essex recover from being bowled out for 90 to win their opening home match of the season. He might have been denied three wickets in his 14-91 against Hampshire the following month at Bournemouth. Hampshire, beginning the match, were on 40-6 (Douglas having taken four of the wickets) with Phil Mead on 28 when Mead was cut over the eye by a rising ball from Joseph Dixon. The cut was bad and Mead was going to retire hurt. However, there was no one to come in in place of him, as Alex Bowell, Alex Kennedy and Walter Livesey had missed a train from Southampton. The umpires agreed to a delay of 10 minutes so Mead could get treatment. During his resumption, the Hampshire tail arrived; two of them following Mead as grist to Johnny’s mill.
Johnny Douglas may have enjoyed an advantage over Simon Harmer in gaining his two 14-wicket hauls for the simple reason that he was captain. In those days, an umpire’s position depended on the views of captains, all of whom were amateur. Michael Marshall gives a flavour in his “Gentlemen and Players”, Grafton Books, 1987.
GOB Allen, an amateur, playing in his first Gentlemen v Players match at Lord’s in 1925 was given out LBW by Bill West. In the pavilion Lord Harris asked Allen if he was satisfied with the decision. “When Allen indicated he was extremely unhappy about it, Lord Harris had umpire West (who was considered good enough to stand in Test matches) struck off the first-class fixture list.” Allen commented; “Bill was a dear old boy and I was terribly upset.”
Amateur captains were known to get the benefit of the doubt from umpires. Johnny Douglas himself confirmed this:
“They said that I seemed to have lost form, to which I replied, ‘Loss of form be hanged!’ When I was relieved of the captaincy of Essex it cost me thirty wickets and two hundred runs a season. The bloody umpire couldn’t say anything but ‘Not out’ when I appealed and they only said ‘Out’ when I was appealed against.”
The season after Johnny Douglas took his two 14-wicket match hauls saw the afore-quoted Frank Chester join the ranks of FC umpires. His county championship debut was Essex’s opener against Somerset at Leyton. Frank can be seen, in flat cap and tie, second from the right on the back row: his fellow umpire, Harry Butt, similarly attired, at the other end. Johnny Douglas, bare-headed, is in the centre wearing his splendid blazer.
The Essex team to play Somerset at Leyton, May 1922 copyright The Cricketer
Vivian Jenkins’ essay Thirty Years an Umpire in the 1955 edition of Wisden completes the story and underlines the point made by Johnny Douglas:
“… young Chester was called on to give decisions against both captains, Johnny Douglas and John Daniell, and did his duty according to his lights. Douglas LBW, Daniell stumped [off the first ball he faced]. “You’ll be signing your death warrant if you go on like that”, he was warned by his venerable colleague [Harry Butt], but Chester has gone on giving out captains ever since, reports to Lord’s notwithstanding.
Chester’s integrity is perhaps more notable when it is remembered that Johnny Douglas won the Middleweight Boxing Gold Medal at the 1908 London Olympics and 6-foot-7-inch, 16-and-a-half stone John Daniell played rugby union for England.
Back to the present day; among Simon Harmer’s 14-128 and 14-172 were 12 LBW victims. Perhaps the most important came under floodlights on the last Thursday in June. Middlesex, facing a first-innings deficit of 296, had fought their way to 252-5 with only 12 overs left to survive. Nick Compton, whose previous 5 Championship innings had yielded 83 runs, had patiently amassed 120 over more than 6 hours at the crease. However, to the first ball of Simon Harmer’s next over, he offered no shot to a ball that came in sharply and was given LBW. Harmer dismissed Ollie Rayner by the same means and, to great roars around the County Ground, had Steve Finn (plunging forward with no shot), leg-before to complete an innings-victory with only 8 balls remaining.
Simon Harmer and team-mates celebrate beating Middlesex under floodlights at Chelmsford, copyright Getty Images
The win lifted Essex 29 points clear and installed them as title favourites – an estimation they fulfilled joyously at Edgbaston with two games to play. Both those games finished with the County Champions routing their opponents: Hampshire for 76 and Yorkshire for 74.
Life is more difficult for bowlers than it once was, but Jamie Porter and Simon Harmer have shown that they still win Championships.
General Sources: Wisden, Cricket Archive, ESPN Cricinfo.
An enthralling two days were spent at the Rose Bowl in April supporting Captain Ballance’s splendid resistance. In his second innings, as Yorkshire neared safety and Ballance approached an aggregate of 500 runs in the first three County Championship matches, thoughts turned to where he, and indeed Ben Coad (who had taken 22 wickets in the same three matches), might finish the season in the county’s records.
Naturally, cricket’s season records are dominated by those years in which rather more First-Class (FC) games were played than are today. Between the World Wars teams did not play the same number of County Championship games, but many played 28 and some played 30 or 32. From 1946 to 1968 all counties played 26 or 28 games, with some playing 32 in the early Sixties. Further, usually all counties played at least one FC game against Tourists and two against the Universities. In contrast, from 1993 when the County Championship was decided wholly by four-day games, counties played 17 matches – 16 from 2000 when the teams were split between two divisions – with usually only one game against a University and rarely against the Tourists.
Playing 28 three-day games amounts to 84 days of cricket, compared to 64 days in the modern County Championship up to 2016. The meeting of the counties at Lord’s in November 1961 noted that, “despite the plea at the start of the season to improve over rates, the average was raised only from 19.28 overs to 20.11 overs per hour”. That equates to 120 overs a day; much more than today’s norm of 96 overs. The disappointment expressed at the meeting suggests higher over rates had been achieved in the past. In 1966, the Advisory Cricket Committee decided at Lord’s on March 1st that, “County committees must instruct their team to bowl an average of 20 overs an hour and should make enquiries as to the reason on each occasion when the target is not achieved.” The Times Cricket Correspondent wrote on the 29th May 1967; “In 1937 bowlers might average six overs an hour more than they do now”. Perhaps then, in the 1930s more than 120 overs in a day would not have been uncommon. Anyhow, there were more overs per day, as well as more days of FC cricket, in the past.
The tables in the attached PDF file –> Modern_Season_blog_tables_2017show the best three performances for the most FC and County Championship runs, wickets and centuries in a season for each county since the County Championship became a wholly four-day affair. The all-time FC records in these categories cited in the Playfair Cricket Annual 2017 and the all-time County Championship records for each county are also given.
Almost all county FC season records (the exception being Durham) will never be beaten now that the amount of cricket played is so much less. Yet, it is interesting to compare the level of performance at the top. In batting, the modern-day season records for Yorkshire, Gloucestershire and Hampshire are inferior to those of the all-time record-holders Herbert Sutcliffe, Walter Hammond and Phil Mead, respectively. In contrast, modern-day batsmen for seven counties have markedly superior records.
Kent: David Fulton (average 75.68) compared to Frank Woolley (59.06).
Lancashire: Stuart Law (91.00) compared to Johnny Tyldesley (56.02).
Leicestershire: HD Ackermann (75.33) compared to Les Berry (52.04).
Northamptonshire: Mike Hussey – twice (79.03 and 89.31) compared to Dennis Brooks (51.11).
Somerset: Marcus Trescothick – twice (75.70 and 79.66) compared to Bill Alley (58.74).
Surrey: Mark Ramprakash – twice (103.54 and 101.30) compared to Tom Hayward (72.13).
Warwickshire: Nick Knight (95.00) and Brian Lara (89.82) compared to Mike Smith (60.42).
The situation is different when it comes to bowling where modern-day cricketers of only four counties have turned in superior performances compared to the all-time record.
Essex: David Masters (average 18.13, strike rate 41.11) compared to Peter Smith (27.13, 56.02).
Lancashire: Muralitharan (11.77, 35.12) compared to Ted McDonald (18.55, 36.79).
Northamptonshire: Curtly Ambrose (14.45, 42.08) compared to George Tribe (18.70, 43.47).
Worcestershire: Glenn McGrath (13.21, 31.18) compared to Fred Root (17.52, 42.41).
Modern Record … Inferior Equal Superior
——————————————————————————————-
Batting 3 7 7
Bowling 9 4 4
Counties season performances: 1993-2016 compared to earlier years (excluding Durham)
The record for most wickets taken in a season for every County (excluding Durham) was set in a year when pitches were completely uncovered. Of course, they were also set when more games were played than today. Bowlers setting the record for most FC wickets in a season played in at least 26 matches and most played 29 or more. Limited covering of wickets in the County Championship was decided upon at the Advisory County Cricket Committee’s meeting at Lord’s in March 1959. Much toing and froing then ensued with covers over the next two decades, with further dithering in 1987. The extent to which sticky wickets, as opposed to sheer weight of overs, helped the bowlers who set season records for FC dismissals is unclear. However, one wonders if county FC records for low totals and best bowling come from games on uncovered pitches (apart from the alarming 20 at Chelmsford in 2013), but that is a project for another day.
Perhaps ex-players are not really interested in cricket statistics. However, Peter Hartley, now one of our redoubtable FC umpires, may be tickled to know that he has taken more FC wickets (81) and County Championship wickets (71) in a season in the four-day era than any other Yorkshire bowler. Other modern-day record holders who may be seen with finger aloft:
Tim Robinson – most FC runs (1728) and County Championship runs (1627) for Nottinghamshire;
David Millns – most FC wickets (76) and County Championship wickets (68, tied with Devon Malcolm) for Leicestershire;
Martin Saggers – most County Championship wickets (79, tied with Min Patel) for Kent.
And what about Gary Ballance and Ben Coad, who sparked off this short project? Of course, now that the ECB has decided to limit the County Championship to 14 games, it will be harder for players to break modern-day records. At the time of writing (16 June 2017) Captain Ballance is on pace to break the Yorkshire record for most FC runs, but Ben Coad, who was on track to beat Peter Hartley’s record, did not play in the recent match against Somerset. Other players presently on pace to break their county’s modern-day records:
Kumar Sangakkara (Surrey) – runs and centuries;
Darren Mitchell (Worcestershire) – centuries;
Billy Godleman (Derbyshire) – centuries;
Kyle Abbott (Hampshire) – wickets;
Darren Stevens (Kent) – County Championship wickets.
When a side embarks on chasing a sizable target to win, Test match coverage often mentions that team’s highest fourth innings totals; sometimes too, the team’s successful run chases. That’s all very well but the geek asks, “How often have these sorts of totals been chased?” and, “What has been the outcome?”
The 2179 Tests played before 1 October 2015 have been surveyed. Those which did not have a fourth innings are irrelevant. Other matches have been ignored, as described next.
Draws in timeless Tests. Seemingly a contradiction in terms but before today’s busy airline schedules, touring sides were at the mercy of irregular, sometimes erratic, steamer timetables. Having to catch a boat may have denied spectators exciting climaxes in Durban in March 1939 (England 654 for 5 chasing 696) and Melbourne in January 1882 (England 127 for 3 chasing 283). However, England’s rush to the harbour in Jamaica in 1930 when the West Indies were five wickets down and still 428 short of the target, must have been greeted with relief by the islanders.
Fourth innings chases on rain-affected pitches. For many decades Test pitches were not covered. Sun beaming down on a wet wicket produced a haven for slow bowlers. The effect can be gauged from the Sydney Test of December 1894. Australia (587) had England (325 and, following-on, 437) on the ropes. At the close of the fifth day the hosts were 113 for 2 chasing 177. Overnight rain fell and was followed by bright sunshine in the morning. That changed the pitch. When the wicket had dried enough to become sticky, Bobby Peel and Johnny Briggs took the last 8 Australian wickets for 36 runs.
The 1903-04 tour of Australia had two such matches. As Wisden explains, “The Second Test Match ended in a victory for England by 185 runs. The significance of the win, however, was altogether discounted by the fact that before the Australians had any chance of batting, rain had ruined the pitch.” The hosts were chasing 297, but were victimised by a further bout of rain and dismissed for 111. Australia had their revenge when the teams reconvened at Melbourne two months later for the Fifth Test where they, “set England the impossible task, on a sticky wicket, of getting 320 to win. In the last innings Hugh Trumble [7-28] bowled in his finest form, and was practically unplayable (Wisden).” Batting fourth on a rain-affected wicket therefore skews results. All matches in which the chasing team were caught on a sticky wicket have been ignored.
Insufficient time for the fourth innings. In many drawn Tests the side batting fourth simply has had to bat out time, perhaps for as long as a session, for a dull draw against a target which they could not be expected to reach. Further, in some draws, rain or bad light has taken away a large amount of time from the fourth-innings chase. All those matches have been ignored. Also excluded are those Tests where a frantic attempt has been made to score at a high rate to gain the required runs but where the chase has been called off following the loss of wickets. These matches, which have finished without sufficient time for a proper resolution, occur in two forms; a batting collapse by the team batting third leaves the chasing team very little time to score the required runs; and (usually in an attempt to square or win a Test series) sporting declarations.
The 1907 Oval Test is a good example of the former, as Wisden describes. “England seemed in quite a safe position, but the match underwent a sudden change … the innings, which at lunch [on the final day] had promised so well, was all over for 138, the last six wickets going down in three-quarters of an hour for 49 runs. The South Africans were then left to get 256 to win, the time remaining for play amounting to two hours and forty minutes … The task seemed impossible but, with everything to gain and nothing to lose, Sherwell decided that it should be attempted … to the relief of the England eleven and the spectators Hirst clean bowled Sinclair and Faulkner at 72, and at 76 the Yorkshireman followed up his successes by shattering White’s wicket. After this the South Africans had nothing to hope for but a draw.” After losing wickets South Africa simply batted out time for a draw, ending on 159 for five.
Sporting declarations (defined by Vic Marks as any declaration which the captain has completely misjudged and which results in defeat) are rare in Test cricket. The earliest example of the species was observed in May 1965 when Bob Simpson, 2-0 down going into the penultimate Test, tried to get Australia back in the series: “with time running out Simpson had no alternative but to gamble and declare early in the second innings. West Indies had to get 253 in four-and-a-half hours. Hunte and Davis made 145 in ten minutes under three hours, a West Indies first-wicket record against Australia, but when Kanhai was out 106 were needed in ninety minutes… then 70 in fifty-five… and down to 28 in sixteen. By then Simpson had eight defending the boundary, and despite a gallant effort by Sobers, the West Indies fell 11 runs short with five wickets left in as thrilling a finish as any could wish to see (Wisden).”
The latest sightings of sporting declarations have come between Zimbabwe and New Zealand. The most recent, at Bulawayo in September 1997, ended in an exciting fashion and is mentioned later. The other came at Hamilton in January 1996 in the First Test of a two-match series. “With that rarity in modern Test cricket – a declaration setting a realistic target – Germon tried to produce a result from a rain-ravaged match. Challenged to score 257 in two sessions, Zimbabwe might have pulled it off, too; they were 143 for three from 39 overs before three decisions went against them. Andy Flower, who saw them all from the bowler’s end, said afterwards: “I wish I was allowed to comment. I think I would get into a lot of trouble if I did… Those hiccups in the middle destroyed our momentum.” Houghton, who had just become the first batsman to score 1,000 Test runs for Zimbabwe, in his 15th game, was given lbw to one that could easily have missed leg stump. Campbell was caught behind off his forearm sleeve, while Cairns secured a dubious lbw against Streak. Flower then gave up the chase … Zimbabwe ended 49 short with four wickets left (Wisden).”
Overall Outcome
Excluding these matches leaves run chases in 1186 Tests which were resolved naturally in a win, draw or loss. The outcome achieved by the chasing team in those matches is shown in Figure 1. Results are shown for target scores in groups of 50 runs; 1-49, 50-99, 100-149 and so on. Hence, the data is plotted at mid-points of 25 and 75. The number of chases in each group is shown below the horizontal axis. Shown at each data point on the graph is the average margin of victory: wickets for wins and runs for losses.
Most of the draws have been achieved against large targets when the chasing team has survived by batting for more than a day. The larger the target the more time the declaring captain will have felt able to give his bowlers without risking defeat. Thus, draws against larger targets have required generally longer stalwart actions.
Six times teams have survived for more than the equivalent of 150 six-ball overs to secure draws. In five of those occasions the battle kept the series alive. The sixth, at the Oval, saw India mount a tremendous attempt to repeat their famous win there in 1971.
Sunil sweeping India towards a distant target; Oval 1979 (Getty Images)
A drenched, but delighted, Mike Atherton at Johannesburg, with Jack Russell behind him (Getty Images)
At the more ignoble end of the scale, draws have been gained by teams desperately holding on in deep trouble chasing more modest totals. There have been 7 such draws against targets of 200-249 runs, but only two when chasing fewer than 200 runs, both of which ended in indecorous scrambles.
Christchurch, February 1966. England (342) and New Zealand (347) were pretty even after the first innings of the First Test. Mike Smith declared England’s second innings, setting the hosts a target of 197 runs in two hours and twenty minutes. With an hour remaining New Zealand found themselves on 22 for 7; victims of Ken Higgs’ 4 for 5. Blushes were spared by Dick Motz and Bob Cunis each staying with Vic Pollard for half-an-hour to end the match on 48 for 8.
Sabina Park, Jamaica, February 1968. At Bridgetown two years later, the West Indies, forced to follow-on 233 runs behind, had reached 204 for 4 when Parks took a diving leg-side catch to dismiss Basil Butcher who had been going well. The crowd showed their objection to umpire Sang Hue’s decision by bombarding the field with bottles. Garry Sobers went to the boundary to explain that Butcher clearly had been out, but police and tear gas were needed to restore order. Play resumed, but with minds focussed on the prospect of further glass artillery, West Indies managed to finish the day without losing more wickets. Eventually England were set 159 to win. As Wisden explained; “Until the bottle-throwing riot England looked like winning comfortably. They made the mistake of agreeing to resume after the trouble had been put down. It would have been wiser and fairer to the visiting players to abandon play for the day. The last innings was played in a feverish atmosphere, which seemed to unsettle the umpires. Cowdrey was lbw off his bat, and in 42 minutes England were reduced to 19 for four. During the final 75 minutes on the extra day [to make up for time lost to the riot] they barely held off the spin of Gibbs and Sobers.” England finished on 68 for 8.
Leaving the field at Sabina Park against a background of bottles and tear-gas (The Cricketer International)
Teams
Have some teams fared better or worse than others? Wisden commented in 1997 on, “Australia’s reputation for vulnerability in a run chase”, and England cricket supporters will remember with fondness the 1981 summer when Australia failed to chase 130 at Headingley and 151 at Edgbaston. Indeed, earlier in 1981, six of the same side faced with a small hill climb to 143 at Melbourne collapsed on the first hillock to 83 all out against an Indian attack badly handicapped by injuries.
Yet these sorry tales are not the horror of the story. Five times teams chasing totals lower than those three, between 100 and 125, have unexpectedly fainted dead away; Australia swooning in four of them. Wisden’s comment related to one of these calamities – the Ashes Test at the Oval.
Two totals below 100 have proved enough to win Test matches. The lowest winning target is 85 in the Oval Test in 1882. The hosts’ terror of the Demon Spofforth (7 for 44 to follow his 7 for 46 in the first innings) prompting the obituary of English cricket to appear in The Sporting Times when, incidentally, the cremation of any body was illegal. The second followed more than a century later in March 2000 in Port of Spain, Trinidad. Zimbabwe, having had the better of the match, had to get 99 runs to win their first ever Test against the West Indies. Perhaps remembering bowling out India for 81 three years earlier, Franklyn Rose (4 for 19) and Curtly Ambrose (3 for 8) lead a display of wonderful pace bowling – only one boundary was struck, and that off the edge – which doomed Zimbabwe. The coach, David Houghton, sighed, “The West Indies fast bowlers, Walsh, Ambrose, King and Rose were magnificent. They bowled 47 overs, and there was hardly a ball to be hit anywhere off the square. The fact that we are all out was one thing, but we only scored 63 runs.”
Back to Australia: their record chasing targets is depicted in Figure 2. The dashed lines show the outcome of chases by the rest of the Test-playing nations. Australia’s weakness in chasing totals from 100-149 is clear. While Australia have a weakness against small totals they are better than the rest against higher targets. When chasing totals between 250 and 450, Australia consistently have won more games across that entire range (compare the two green lines) and generally have lost fewer (compare the two red lines). Further, they lose less often around the higher end of the range, escaping with draws when they have not won.
Bangladesh have chased only 17 times in Tests. Their results against targets of fewer than 400 runs are in line with everyone else’s. The draw they secured in Dhaka in January 2005 by surviving for five sessions – 142 overs – after being set 374 to win by Zimbabwe was considered by their coach, Dav Whatmore as good as a win; “Saving the Test here went a long way in showing people that batsmen of Bangladesh are not just about crash, bang, wallop, who get a lot of runs in a short space of time. We do have the ability to occupy the crease for long periods of time. In the greater picture of Bangladesh’s cricket, this is very significant. That is why I had said that today’s result was better than a victory.” The draw, coming after a victory by 226 runs in the opening Test, earned Bangladesh their first series win.
Dhaka: Bangladesh celebrate their maiden Test series win (AFP)
England’s record is shown in Figure 3. They have won more and lost fewer games than the rest when chasing 200 to 300 runs to win.
When chasing a target of 200 to 300 runs to win, apart from the occasional draw, the norm is to win almost as many games as are lost. Table 4 shows the outcomes for each team.
England clearly have the best record when chasing between 200 and 299. However, as Figure 3 shows, they do less well than the rest against higher totals. England’s highest successful run chase came against Australia in Melbourne in January 1929 where their 332 for 7 won the series and retained the Ashes with two Tests to play. With the exception of New Zealand, all of the other longer-lived Test nations have won against larger totals; Bangladesh’s highest successful chase is against 215, Zimbabwe’s against 162. Further, England have the lowest proportion of wins among the longer-lived Test nations against targets of 300 or more.
Australia’s superior ability to win against testing totals is evident. They were the first team to successfully chase a target of over 400 (Headingley in 1948). The second was India, famously getting 403 to beat the West Indies in Port of Spain, Trinidad in 1976. The cost of that win was paid in bruises, blood and hospital bills, first, immediately by the Indian tourists and, then over the succeeding two decades, by all nations, as Clive Lloyd was prompted to sack his spinners in disgust and install a pace quartet.
The other two were achieved against Australia. At Perth in December 2008, Australia’s batsmen (falling to 166-5 and 157-6), twice were bailed out by the tail (finishing with totals of 375 and 319), but the effort clearly told as only Mitchell Johnson of the bowlers had any fire in South Africa’s second innings as the visitors chased 414. AB de Villiers joined the fray in a small crisis – skipper Graeme Smith (108) and Hashim Amla (53) having been dismissed in quick succession – with the score on 179 for 3. AB stood fast from there, sharing in century stands with Jacques Kallis and Jean-Paul Duminy as South Africa lost only one more wicket. Australian skipper Ricky Ponting, frustrated by his bowler’s impotence, spent much time grim-faced with hands on hips; a stance prompting one Australian newspaper to dub him, “Captain Pout”.
AB and JP take South Africa home (PA Photos)
The highest successful run chase came at St John’s in Antigua in May 2003, where Australia may have appeared to succumb to their predilection for losing the last rubber in secured series. Here, however, they were trying mightily to sweep a series against the hosts for the first time: an ambition which was quickened by bowling controversy and frayed tempers – there was nothing dead about this Test match. The West Indies struggled in pursuit of 418, skipper Brian Lara’s dismissal leaving them on 165 for 4. However, Shiv Chanderpaul joined Ramnaresh Sarwan and they took the score to 288 with aggressive batting. Whereupon Sarwan mis-hooked Brett Lee and off the next ball Ridley Jacobs was given out caught behind, off his elbow. The decision incensed the crowd who resorted to the time-honoured method of signalling discontent with officialdom. After the bottles were cleared, Shiv found a remarkably composed partner in the 20-year-old Omari Banks playing in just his second Test and the pair took the score to 371 for six at the close of play. Chanderpaul fell the next morning after the addition of just a single, bringing 22-year-old Vasbert Drakes to the crease. Over the next hour Australia threw everything into the fray, but amid much nail-biting in the crowd and dressing-room, the youngsters calmly took the West Indies home to a famous victory.
Youth has no fear: Omari and Vasbert at the moment of victory (Getty Images)
India’s record roughly follows the norm. Figure 4 shows New Zealand’s. They have had consistently less success against targets of 150 to 300 runs. Table 4 showed that New Zealand have the worst record among the longer-lived Test-playing nations against totals of 200 to 299.
However, the Kiwis are much hardier birds against higher targets up to 450 where they lose proportionally less often than the rest.
Table 4 showed that Pakistan have one of the worst records when set between 200 and 300 runs to win. Figure 5 indicates that much of that weakness lies in the 250 to 300 range.
Pakistan are more tigerish when faced with higher targets. Pakistan are especially good in the 300-400 range where they lose fewer games than the rest 50% (10 of 20) to 62% (152 of 246) and win more, 15% to 9%. Further, they are remarkably tenacious when set 450-odd to win, escaping three times with draws. Those three draws and two of Pakistan’s wins against targets greater than 300 have come in the 21st century.
Younis Khan leads Pakistan to victory at Pallekele (Lakruwan Wanniarachchi/AFP/Getty Images)
In contrast to Pakistan, South Africa have been much better than the norm when set 200-300 to win (the second best record according to Table 4) and can be seen in Figure 6.
Like Pakistan, South Africa have lost fewer and won more games than the rest against higher targets. Further, South Africa have also secured three draws when faced with a target in excess of 450 runs. Table 8 shows the statistics (Zimbabwe have not chased a total in this range).
Two of South Africa’s three draws came in the 21st century, as did both of South Africa’s wins when set more than 300 (their 414 for 4 to beat Australia is mentioned above). So they seem to be vying with Pakistan for recent honours. However, their win drew only muted praise, and their draw at Johannesburg in December 2013 was greeted with prolonged jeers from their home supporters, as Wisden lamented:
“An astonishing match had the tamest of endings as both teams shied away from victory. When du Plessis was run out, South Africa needed 16 runs off 19 balls. India needed three wickets. South Africa had been asked to chase a world-record 458; India had the chance to stave off that ignominy, and to set up a first series victory in South Africa. Instead, everyone unscrewed their courage from its sticking place. Philander and Steyn blocked three of those last 19 deliveries, left three others, and declined three singles off three more. Zaheer Khan and Mohammed Shami bowled five harmless short deliveries, and three more balls wide of the stumps, and never to a field set with more than two fielders in catching positions. The players were booed off by a gouty crowd. As if they knew they had blundered but couldn’t bring themselves to admit it, both teams tried to blame the other for the diabolical draw. “India were ahead of the game; they would be very disappointed that they didn’t win it,” Smith said. “I’d be surprised if M. S. [Dhoni] didn’t feel his bowlers should have won that game.” Smith also wondered why India “didn’t have four slips, a short leg and a gully” in the final overs. Undeterred, Kohli insisted: “We were pretty shocked. Vernon Philander was hitting the ball well and we know Dale Steyn can bat.””
The other draw, at Perth in December 2005 was much more laudable. Set 491 to win in 132 overs, South Africa reached lunch on the final day on 140 for 4 with 67 overs left “and nobody was seriously contemplating a draw (Wisden)”. Jacques Rudolph, playing only because his namesake, Kallis, had tennis elbow, and Justin Kemp, plagued by an injury to his right shoulder and several to his self-respect inflicted by Shane Warne in the first innings, seemed unlikely saviours. Yet, they stayed together for the next 52 overs. Kemp, using his long reach to smother Warne’s spin, had some fortune but made his maiden Test half-century. Rudolph, in contrast, looked as though he could have batted for 52 days, remaining unbeaten on 102 in 431 minutes.
Jacques Rudolph drives to safety (Getty Images)
South Africa’s second win against a big target in the 21st century was also against Australia, this time at Kingsmead in March 2002. But this was little more than a footnote, as well as being another occasion Australia lost a dead Test. The sides met in two series of three Tests in 2001/2002, touted as a “Title Fight”, as South Africa aspired to the ICC Test Championship. However, in the series in Australia in November and December 2001, “the South Africans were not merely beaten, but beaten into submission (Wisden)”, swept by margins of 246 runs, 9 wickets and 10 wickets. Reconvening two months later, “after three savage beatings in Australia, South Africa came home to something worse – the second-heaviest defeat in Test history (Wisden).” They lost at the Wanderers by an innings and 360 runs.
The Cape Town Test a fortnight later was much closer, though that appeared to be unlikely when South Africa stuttered to 92 for six at the start of the match. Their second innings of 473 meant Australia had to score 331 to win. They were romping home in exhilarating fashion, having scored 251 for 2 in 58 overs, when they had a brief stutter, but won by 4 wickets to secure the lead in the Test Championship. South Africa in the final Test were faced with a similar target; having to score 335. Wisden commented:
“Though they had nearly three days to do it, sceptics talked of their decade-long tendency to choke on the big occasion. But this was not a big occasion. No one seemed to remember how efficient South Africa could be in pursuit of a victory of little consequence. Kallis was the key, and he saw the job through with an unbeaten 61 … with four runs required, Boucher came in to end the game with a six. The shot, like South Africa’s victory, was a modest note of defiance in the face of Australia’s proven superiority … But impressive as South Africa’s spirit was in pulling off a consolation victory, the truth was that Australia were emotionally and physically spent. Five consecutive wins, complete vindication of their supremacy, and a mere two days for it all to soak in, left them understandably short of their characteristic fight.”
Sri Lanka and the West Indies have similar records, pretty much around the norm. They each have average results against targets of 200 to 300 runs (Table 4), slightly better than average outcomes when set 300 to 450 (Table 6) and are slightly worse than average when faced with higher scores (Table 8). The West Indies record is shown in Figure 7, which clearly depicts an aspect unique to them.
Among Test-playing nations, only the West Indies have always won when chasing a target of fewer than 200 runs. Moreover, in none of those 51 occasions have they been in any hint of danger. However, the First Test at Sabina Park, Jamaica in February 1983 set the pulses racing. Rain had prevented play on the fourth day and at tea on the final day, India were 168 for 6, 165 runs ahead and seemingly safe. Andy Roberts, newly revived after his cuppa, destroyed the tourists’ security by taking three wickets in his first over after the break and then the last Indian wicket three overs later. Despite these shocking strikes, the West Indies were faced with a stiff target, needing 172 in 26 overs. Wisden relates how the Test was won, paving the way for a 2-0 win in the series:
“Haynes set them on their way with a delightful 34 off 21 deliveries, but it required batting of exceptional brilliance from Richards for the target to be reached. His appearance delayed to one position below his accustomed No. 3 because of a painful shoulder, Richards’s first scoring stroke was the first of four huge sixes and, off 35 deliveries, he attacked mercilessly for 61. When he was out at 156 for five, West Indies required 16 off two and a half overs and, with sixes from Logie – off his first ball – and Dujon, over square leg off Amarnath, West Indies won amidst scenes of great excitement.”
The lowest score the West Indies have failed to chase successfully is 214; four times reaching targets between 200 and that failure. Sri Lanka have lost only twice, in 26 attempts, at chasing 250 runs or fewer and those losses have come by very slim margins.
At Colombo in August 1992, Sri Lanka began a three-Test series against Australia. The teams had met four times previously, Australia winning three with one drawn. The only other Test Australia had played in Sri Lanka had been at Kandy in April 1983 where they won by an innings and 38 runs. At the Sinhalese Sports Club, Sri Lanka were much more formidable. They took a first innings lead of 291 runs (547 to Australia’s 256). Border exhorted his men to show some guts in the second innings. The lower half of the order responded, lifting the score from 269 for 5 to 471 all out. Set 181 to win Sri Lanka were making light work of the chase on 125 for 2 with Asanka Gurusinha and Aravinda de Silva at the crease. Asanka recalled that the pair had agreed to play normally. But Aravinda attempted to hit Craig McDermott over long-off. The shot was mistimed; Border ran back but couldn’t hold on – the batsmen ran two. Off the next ball, as Dean Jones remembered, “Aravinda ran down the pitch and [again] tried to hit McDermott over the top. Can you believe it he did in a Test match?” Wisden clearly couldn’t:
“The carelessness of Aravinda de Silva cost Sri Lanka what would have been their third and most famous victory since entering the Test arena in February 1982. With 54 runs needed from nearly 25 overs, De Silva, who had taken 37 from 32 balls with seven fours, attempted to strike McDermott for the second time over Border at mid-on. Border, at full stretch, ran 25 metres with the flight of the ball and held a magnificent catch over his shoulder. From that moment Sri Lanka collapsed utterly, losing their last eight wickets for 37 runs. A crowd of 10,000, the biggest of the match, jeered them at the presentation ceremony. After De Silva’s fateful error, Matthews returned four for 76 and with Warne, who claimed three in 13 balls without conceding a run, engineered an improbable victory [by 16 runs]. It was one of Australia’s greatest fightbacks. Only once before had they won a Test after trailing by more than 200 on the first innings: in Durban in 1949-50 they beat South Africa by five wickets despite being bowled out for 75 in response to 311.”
The match marked a turning-point for Shane Warne who was playing in only his third Test. Before Sri Lanka’s collapse he had taken just one wicket for 335 runs in Test cricket. Allan Border said, “The Sri Lankans had taken to Shane’s new-look bowling [0-107 off 22 overs in the first innings]. With them needing 30-odd to win, still four wickets in hand, I threw the ball to Warnie. It was a huge gamble. He looked a little shocked to get the ball but said he was ready for the job.” Warne remembered that after dismissing Pramodya Wickramasinghe, “Deano ran over and said, “Well done, mate. You’re only averaging 160 now.” I tried to laugh, but couldn’t. I was too nervous.” With nine wickets down Ian Healy missed a stumping chance by rising too early, but Warne took the final wicket in the next over. Border commented, “We won a Test we shouldn’t have and the Warne legend was born.” Warne reflected, “If that Test had been on television in Australia, it would be remembered as one of the great matches of all time. Those three wickets changed things for me.”
Shane Warne celebrates pulling off the “greatest heist since the Great Train Robbery”, according to Allan Border (Getty Images)
Sri Lanka’s other failure was even closer, losing by 7 runs to South Africa at Kandy in August 2000. Sri Lanka had won the First Test a week before by an innings and 15 runs. The third day at Kandy had ended with South Africa on 192 for 8, only 137 ahead. A large crowd of supporters came the next morning expecting to see the home team wrap up the series. The first hour of play dampened the mood as Nicky Boje and Paul Adams added 39 runs. Five wickets then fell in 3 overs; Boje and Nantie Hayward in the first. In the second over, when Sri Lanka began their chase of 177 runs to win, Marvan Attapattu was given out leg before first ball. In the next over, skipper Sanath Jayasuriya shared Marvan’s fate and Mahela Jayawardene was caught behind. A scoreboard of 9 for 3 silenced the crowd. Ten overs later it read 21 for 4. However, the afternoon play slowly revived Sri Lanka’s fortunes and their supporters’ optimism. Arjuna Ranatunga, largely in company with Russel Arnold, took the score to 161 for 6. In the penultimate over before tea, however, Arjuna fell to a sharp reflex catch off the full face of the bat by Jonty Rhodes at short leg. Over tea South Africa sniffed victory:
“Sri Lanka then needed only 16 with three wickets still in hand. Klusener, bowling slow, awkward cutters and “grippers” off just five paces, yorked Chandana first ball after the break, and five overs later Vaas, jittery and nervous, was run out by the injured Zoysa’s runner, Jayasuriya, who had gone out himself to avoid exactly this possibility. Muralitharan was then unkindly given out caught behind off his first ball (Wisden).”
Zimbabwe’s highest successful run-chase came against the target of 162 set by Pakistan in Peshawar in November 1998 (time and umpiring decisions preventing them winning against Lee Germon’s sporting declaration of 257 as mentioned in the Introduction). Fourteen times Zimbabwe have been set more than 200 runs to win. They have lost 13 of those Tests, drawing with New Zealand in the match after the one with the sporting declaration: set 367 to win, their escape over 100 overs which secured a drawn series was built on the then record opening partnership of 120 in almost 4 hours by Grant Flower and Stuart Carlisle.
A Brief Glance at History
Test matches have not been played under uniform conditions since March 1877. Some games were played on matting in South Africa and the West Indies into the 1950s. Wickets were left uncovered until that time too. Indeed, while the rest of the Test-playing world began covering pitches totally in the 1950s and 1960s, England dissented. The rule for Tests in England was that the pitch was covered overnight and on the rest day, but when play started each day the pitch was uncovered and remained so until either the end of the day’s play or a decision by the umpires to abandon play for the day. Thus rain showers, often lengthy, could fall on the pitch and play would recommence afterwards.
New Zealand suffered at the Oval in 1969, “a shower lasting twenty minutes in the early afternoon put enough life into the pitch to convince batsmen they had little hope of survival against Underwood and Illingworth (Wisden).”
The Kiwis were sawn off at Trent Bridge in 1978, when having decided conditions were fit for play to start, the umpires stopped proceedings after just 2 balls because of bad light. Bad light augured rain which fell on an uncovered pitch.
At Lord’s in 1974 Pakistan were victims of incompetence as the covers used by the MCC leaked. But before that lamentable episode, they began the match batting in bright sunshine and put on 51 without loss in the first hour. Then rain fell. Play restarted five hours later under the returned sun. Pakistan had to battle on a sticky wicket, eventually declaring on 130 for 9 so they could have a bowl at England before play ended for the day.
At the end of the 1970s, England relented and pitches were covered fully in both Tests and the County Championship. The decision was criticised heavily; pitches “hermetically sealed” reduced the value of spin bowlers; sweating under the covers promoted the “canker of seam-bowling”. 1987 saw a reversion to partial covering for County Championship pitches, an experiment which, the Times reported after the season, “was condemned by all 17 county captains” (10 December 1987).
Tests have varied in duration, only settling into the modern 5-day form in the 1950s. Those played in Australia before World War II were timeless, and only two of the 92 ended in (agreed) draws. In the same era Tests played in England were predominantly 3-day matches; 93 of those were played and 42 ended in draws.
Changes in the laws of play (to the LBW rule in 1935 and 1972, for example), procedures and practices in pitch-preparation have shifted the balance between bat and ball. Technology has also played a part, perhaps especially recently with innovations in bat design and manufacture. It is, however, difficult to disentangle all these differences (which also vary regionally and irregularly – the choice of Duke or Kookaburra balls being another modern example). Therefore, generally cricket statistics and records are cited across the entire history of Test cricket. However, the outcome of run chases has been examined in three eras; up to the end of the English summer season of 1979 (after which all pitches were fully covered); the remainder of the 20th century; and, the 21st century.
The results against targets of up to 300 runs are shown in Tables 9 and 10. Teams have been better in the 21st century at chasing these scores; winning significantly more games (throughout significance is tested at the 5% level) against targets of 200 to 299 runs. Perhaps surprisingly, chasing teams performed similarly or better in the early period of Tests than in the 1980s and 1990s.
Outcomes against higher targets are shown in the next two tables. Against these totals 21st century teams no longer show a better performance. In fact, although winning a little more, they have fought to a draw less often (Table 11); perhaps justifying fuddy-duddies harrumphing about the lack of tenacity among the work-shy youth of today! Indeed, given the significantly lower rate of escape compared to that in the 1980s and 1990s, those harrumphs may be issuing from the merely middle-aged.
Securing draws against especially daunting totals has been similar across the history of Test cricket.
Home and Away
Chasing at home is consistently more successful than chasing away until targets become large. Figure 8 depicts the incidence of losses home and away and Table 13 contains the statistics. Throughout this section, Pakistan’s Tests in UAE are counted among their home games.
Overall, teams win significantly more and lose significantly fewer games when chasing at home than when chasing away. That overall effect is created by greater success when chasing targets less than 300. There’s little difference between chases home and away when set 300 runs or more; the daunting size of the target becoming more important than familiarity with conditions and home-spectator support. The incidence of draws is not significantly different – perhaps some sides are sustained away from home by bloody-minded defiance in the face of joyously expectant home crowds.
These results really are no surprise, but there are variations between teams even though all of them chase better at home than abroad. The statistics are summarised in Table 14. Pakistan lose a significantly lower proportion of games at home than other hosts. Other than that, no team chases at home significantly better than the others. England, India, New Zealand and Pakistan all chase significantly better at home than away, as do the West Indies but in terms of wins only. (Bangladesh and Zimbabwe have too few chases to test for significance but their chases are included in the totals on the bottom line of the Table and in Table 15)
Australia’s chases are not dissimilar home and away. This is not because of any flaws at home, but because of excellent results chasing as tourists. Australia are the only team to chase overall significantly better than others away from home. Against targets of 300-449, Australia win more often away (6 of 24) than at home (3 of 28). Half of those away wins have come in the 21st century (3 from 10 chases), the last in 2011; another high-tension encounter with South Africa. The First Test at Cape Town was won by the hosts after a bizarre second day which began with Australia’s last two wickets adding 70 runs to take them to 284 all out and ended with South Africa on 81 for 1 – in their second innings. In between the home side were dismissed for 96 but then silenced Australian celebrations by shooting out the visitors for 47.
The Second Test saw South Africa set Australia 310 runs to win. The tourists were lifted from 215 for 6 by a partnership of 72 from Brad Haddin and Mitchell Johnson, but two quick wickets brought to the crease Pat Cummins, who had accumulated a mere 27 runs in first-class and one-day cricket, with 18 runs still needed. The 18 year old Cummins was making his debut but had risen to the occasion. His last stint in the field ended with 6 for 79 in South Africa’s second innings. Cummins struggled a little against Dale Steyn and the new ball (and many will sympathise). A fierce drive offered Steyn a sharp caught-and-bowled chance when nine runs were needed but the ball ran away to the boundary where Imran Tahir misfielded. In the next over the youngster rubbed salt into the wound by latching on to a short googly from Tahir and smashing it to mid-wicket for the winning runs. Cummins left with the man-of-the-match award; the players and spectators with evident disappointment that the administrative “suits”, whores for the money of T20 cricket, had seen fit to arrange only a two-Test series.
Pat Cummins belying his meagre run-getting history (AFP)
In contrast to Australia’s excellent record as tourists, New Zealand and India win significantly fewer chases away than other touring teams. New Zealand’s highest successful run chase came at Chittagong in October 2008, but it was a close thing and for much of the match Bangladesh were firmly in the driving seat and favourites to win. The tourists were steered to victory by a match-winning night-watchman innings of 76 over more than four hours from Daniel Vettori; the last time a captain has chosen himself to be the sacrifice. Prior to that, New Zealand’s best effort was to chase down 164 at Perth in 1985 to clinch the series; the first time they had done so against their Antipodean rivals in 7 attempts.
New Zealand have been set a target of 200 to 299 nine times away from home and have never won. Other tourists would, on average, have won 4 of them (32 from 77). Only once did the Kiwis come close to winning, and that came courtesy of a sporting declaration in Bulawayo in 1997 a game which ended in an exciting draw where the verdict could have gone either way. Other than that New Zealand have been nowhere near winning.
Two months after that the tension in Zimbabwe, their hearts were fluttering in Hobart when they lost three wickets in 10 minutes leaving their last wicket pair in a parlous situation. However, Simon Doull and Shayne O’Connor batted out the last 11 overs to secure a draw and deny Australia a clean-sweep. Their other draw, against Sri Lanka in March 1984 also required heroics. Martin Crowe was suffering from food poisoning and a broken thumb (after hitting the chef?) but batted for 220 minutes for an unbeaten 19.
The other six chases have resulted in losses, and usually by heavy margins. Most recently, at Lord’s in May 2013 England (232 and 213) set New Zealand (207) a target of 239 runs to win; a chase the Kiwis began an hour before lunch on the fourth day. Five wickets in six overs from Stuart Broad left the tourists chewing over the meagre fare of 29 for six. This was the second time in 2013 New Zealand had lost their first six wickets for fewer than 30 runs. In the afternoon at Lord’s they finally succumbed for 68, which was a pretty healthy advance on the 45 all out at Cape Town.
How do tourists fare in run chases in different countries? Table 15 shows the outcomes of chases by the hosts and tourists in the eight longer-lived Test playing nations (the records of the hosts at home is a repeat of the first part of Table 14). The results are listed in decreasing success by touring teams.
Australia, Pakistan, England, India (in terms of wins only) and Sri Lanka (wins only) chase targets significantly better than their touring opposition. However, only Australia is a significantly more hostile environment for tourists chasing targets than elsewhere. Across the Tasman Sea is much friendlier. Visitors to New Zealand chase significantly better than touring sides elsewhere and, indeed, out-perform their hosts.
A peculiarity in New Zealand is that no team faced with a target of 150 – 249 has lost. The norm is for chasing teams to fail about a third of the time. New Zealand is the only country in which no team has failed. The target has been attained 13 times in New Zealand – 7 times out of 8 by the hosts (the remaining one, the stumble to 48 for 8 mentioned above, ending in a draw) and 6 times out of 6 for touring teams.
Further, only one of those 13 successful chases involved alarms. Set 213 to win by India at Wellington in December 1998, New Zealand fell to 74 for 4 – effectively five, as Nathan Astle had retired with fractures in his hand – on the evening of the fourth day. (Wisden) “The night-watchman went to the fifth ball of the last day – but that was the nearest India got to winning. Their heads dropped as McMillan and Cairns settled. Careful but positive, they too added 137 and were two runs from victory when Cairns ladled what he intended as the winning hit down cover’s throat. Nash hit the next ball to the boundary.”
Visitors to Sri Lanka escape with significantly more draws, most notably sides have escaped 7 times (from 15) when faced with a target of 300 to 449 (twice the rate other tourists manage). Some of those draws have been terribly close to being home wins for Sri Lanka.
Twice in a little over a week England denied the hosts victory in December 2003. The First Test at Galle was summarised by Wisden; “drawn Test matches rarely set the pulse racing. This one nearly induced several coronaries. At tea on the final day, Sri Lanka were three wickets away from completing a sixth successive victory at Galle. Instead, England’s tail-enders launched one of the most improbable rear-guards in Test history.” Emerging from tea, England were 170 for 7 in fond pursuit of 323. Gareth Batty and Ashley Giles scrapped for almost an hour until their good work was undone by Batty’s agricultural heave across a straight one from Murali. Joining his middle stump on the ground, Batty stayed on his knees awhile repentant. Richard Johnson blocked stoically for 40 minutes but then ironically played on attempting to leave a delivery from Murali. Matthew Hoggard was left to come in, doubtless casting aspersions on the parentage of “recognised” batsmen, and held out under darkening skies until the umpires offered the light with the score on 210 for nine with 4 overs to go. Accepting with alacrity, no-one could remember seeing Giles move so fast as he sought the safety of the pavilion, despite having expended much energy batting with great resolve for 101 minutes.
Captain Cool: Michael Vaughan at Kandy (Getty Images)
What Wisden called “a second great escape” came in the next Test at Kandy after England were faced with scoring 368 runs to win or surviving for four sessions. Captain Michael Vaughan, in what he described as the finest innings of his career, anchored the effort serenely, scoring 105 in 448 minutes. However, his slight misjudgement against Murali left England on 239 for seven with 25 overs remaining. Batty joined Chris Reed but this time left his rural proclivities at the boundary edge. Murali bowled 56 overs in the innings (for 4-64) but wasn’t able to shift this pair as they saw out the last 90 minutes. Those efforts seemingly drained the tourists and Sri Lanka’s superiority was affirmed in the final Test to the tune of an innings and 215 runs. This was England’s third heaviest defeat in 127 years of Test match cricket.
South Africa visited Sri Lanka in August and September 1993. The opening Test at Moratuwa saw Sri Lanka set a target of 365. “Sri Lanka seemed to have their inaugural Test with South Africa sewn up on the final afternoon, when the tourists slipped to 138 for six – with three hours left. But Jonty Rhodes transcended his earlier unconvincing form to play the innings of his life. With staunch support from the tail only one more wicket fell … Rhodes countered the spinners with nimble footwork and pad play, supported by Pat Symcox for 76 minutes and then [debutant] Clive Eksteen, who defended solidly for an hour and a half. Rhodes was still unbeaten after four and a quarter hours and 101 runs (Wisden).”
In their most recent tour of Sri Lanka in July 2014, South Africa won the First Test and in the Second faced a target of 369, or surviving three and a half sessions, to take (another) two-test series. More importantly for them a draw would propel them to the top of the Test rankings. They lost their last recognised batsman on 130 for 7 with 20 overs left. With all the fielders surrounding the bat, Dale Steyn edged behind with 10 overs to go. Vernon Philander, who had batted calmly for 75 minutes, was joined by Imran Tahir; not the most propitious arrival at the crease. However, he proceeded with exaggerated defence. As close of play neared Tahir collapsed complaining of cramp – prompting comments about footballers faking injury. After his histrionics were over, the implacable Philander peacefully kept out the last six balls and walked off, bat tucked under his arm.
Results of Tests played in October to December 2015 are not covered by the statistics presented here, but have highlighted the difficulty of touring Asia. Pakistan beat England 2-0 by large margins in three Tests, Sri Lanka swept the West Indies 2-0 and India thrashed South Africa three times in four Tests (and were seemingly prevented from doing so in the other only by bad weather).
Only one team has chased successfully more than 300 runs in India – the hosts; 387 against England in Chennai in December 2008;
The West Indies (chasing down 276) and England (207) are the only teams apart from India to have won in India when set more than 200 – India have done that 7 times.
Sides have escaped with draws against targets of more than 350 runs ten times in India – India have achieved 5 of those draws.
India’s form when set targets of 200 to 299 has been remarkable in the 21st century. As noted previously (Table 4) it is usual for teams to win as many of these chases as they lose. India have won five and drawn one. Four of the wins were by comfortable margins; 203 for 4, 207 for 3, 262 for 5, 275 for 5. However, the other win was decidedly uncomfortable, and the draw was thrilling – and ought to have ended in an Indian win.
In October 2010 at Mohali, Ricky Ponting was hoping for his first win in India and, when India slumped to 124 for 8 aiming at 216, hope was transformed to expectation. Ishant Sharma had other ideas. Having batted for 75 minutes as night-watchman in the first innings to get India off to a decent start, he now set about taking them to a wonderful finish. In almost two hours he added 81 with VVS Laxman and then, to his horror, was given out LBW to a ball easily missing leg stump. Ishant was doubly unlucky; such a decision would have been almost inconceivable in earlier years (before neutral umpires) or in later ones (assuming India opted for DRS). Australia, suddenly revived, threw everything at Pragyan Ojha and, with 6 runs needed, a fervent appeal for leg-before at the umpire. The appeal, though strong, was denied and, in the commotion, Pragyan wandered out of his crease. Steve Smith at gully had a clear chance to run him out and win the game, but his shy was wide. Lifting the crime to a felony the ball ran away to gift India four overthrows. Two balls later Pragyan manufactured two leg byes, to unleash pandemonium. Laxman, who was injured early in the Test and went in at No. 10 in the first innings, batted for three hours in the second innings with a runner, compiling an unbeaten 73. He was, naturally, unable to escape being mobbed by his team-mates.
VVS congratulated (AFP)
A year later India welcomed the West Indies, rather brutally actually, winning the First Test by five wickets and the next by an innings. Seeking their first 3-0 victory since beating Sri Lanka in 1993-4, the hosts were seemingly thwarted by the West Indies’ first innings total of 590. However, they fought hard to concede only a 108-run deficit, and then the Indian spinners, Pragyan Ojha and Ravichandran Ashwin, ran through the tourists for 134. India were in control in their pursuit of 243 but on 224 for 6 Virat Kohli, going well on 63, slashed the leggie Devendra Bishoo straight to Darren Sammy at short third man. Invigorated, Ravi Rampaul got rid of Dhoni and Ishant Sharma with 4 runs still required. Wisden felt India should still have won from there:
“Ashwin, a veteran of three Tests, was left to see India home. He had stroked a 117-ball hundred in the first innings, but – with the debutant Varun Aaron, at No. 10, for company – it was Ashwin’s error of judgment that probably cost India a 3-0 series sweep. Having allowed Aaron a single off the last ball of the penultimate over, Ashwin had to watch as Aaron either swung and missed, or picked out a fielder. By the time he did finally sneak a single, India needed two from two balls from Fidel Edwards. The first was inside-edged on to the pads, with the fielders closing in quickly enough to prevent a run. It meant that India, eight down, could not lose. Ashwin then thumped the final ball to long-on. But he was slow to set off and, as Aaron galloped back to the bowler’s end, Ramdin – on as a substitute – threw to the wicketkeeper. Ashwin was well short, and Sammy and his West Indies team celebrated as though they had won.”
Sometimes draws feel like wins: Darren Sammy and Carlton Baugh full of grins (AFP)
So much for India’s exploits in India. The picture is eerily similar across the partition, where Pakistan’s home form in Pakistan is also significantly better than their touring opposition;
Only one team has chased successfully more than 300 runs in Pakistan – the hosts; 314 against Australia in Karachi in September 1994;
Sri Lanka (chasing down 220) and England (208) are the only teams apart from Pakistan to have won in Pakistan when set more than 200 – Pakistan have done that 5 times.
Sides have escaped with draws against targets of more than 350 runs five times in Pakistan – Pakistan have achieved 3 of those draws.
At home Pakistan have chased targets between 200 and 250 four times and have never lost; winning three (easily) and drawing one. Pakistan’s two wins when chasing larger targets have been rather fraught.
In the First Test at Karachi in September 1994, Australia, largely in the shape of Shane Warne, steadily reduced Pakistan to 258 for 9, still 56 runs from victory. Surveying the prospects, Inzamam-ul-Haq can hardly have been comforted by the sight of the bubbly Mushtaq Ahmed trotting towards the crease – doubtless a delightful dinner partner, but hardly the first choice wearing whites and bearing willow. In Pakistan’s previous Test, a month before, Inzamam had seen the irrepressible Mushie run out first ball after being sent in as a night-watchman. What followed, in what is regarded as one of the finest Tests, is described by Wisden:
“What looked like their first Test victory in Pakistan for 35 years was turned into a home triumph by the bold batting of Inzamam-ul-Haq and Mushtaq Ahmed on a slow, low pitch. Coming together at 258 for nine with the awesome task of averting Pakistan’s first ever defeat at the National Stadium, Inzamam and Mushtaq added 57 on a worn pitch against the redoubtable leg-spin of Warne. To the unrestrained delight of a crowd which steadily grew in number and chanted Allah-O-Akbar (God is great), they accomplished their goal in 8.1 overs … Healy, blamed himself for the defeat: Pakistan gained the winning runs from four leg-byes when Inzamam was out of his ground attacking Warne.” Coach Intikhab Alam described the victory as the country’s finest ever.
Healy misses the stumping off Warne … (Getty Images)
… and leg-byes win the match (Getty Images)
Nine years later at Multan, Inzamam was subjected to more excitement and demonstrated once more his tenacity. In the quest for 261 to sweep a series against Bangladesh, Pakistan fell to 205 for 8. Umar Gul, however, responded marvellously and over the next 100 minutes helped, to the tune of 5 runs, to add 52. Inzamam then temporarily lost his judgement and ran out the redoubtable Gul with a bad call for a single.
“Four runs were now needed, five balls remained in the over and the No. 11 coming to the striker’s end was Yasir Ali – a 17-year-old on first-class debut, with only a handful of junior games and a hurried lunchtime batting lesson from Javed Miandad, the Pakistan coach, behind him. But Yasir kept out three balls and then tickled a single into the leg side. Off the last delivery of the over, Inzamam flicked the winning boundary. Ramiz Raja, the former Test batsman, now chief executive of the PCB, called it “one of the best Test innings of modern times”. That might have been a little overblown, but Inzamam’s concentration had been steely and his hitting authoritative. Supporters rushed on to the field to hug their local hero … Inzamam-ul-Haq played one of the innings of his life to save Pakistan from humiliation and break Bangladeshi hearts … he stood firm for five hours 17 minutes, and his unbeaten 138 guided Pakistan home. It was only the tenth one-wicket win in Test history (Wisden).” Since this match in 2003 there have been two more one-wicket wins; the victory by India described above and the other, the highest total of them all, 352 for nine by Sri Lanka against South Africa in July 2006.
Inzi to the rescue again (AFP)
Pakistan’s dominance in run chases compared to their visitors is even more complete in the UAE. Pakistan have never lost in a run chase, and on the two occasions they were faced with targets over 300 have emerged with a win and a draw (as summarised in Table 7). Tourists to UAE, on the other hand, have been set targets 6 times and have won only once, when Sri Lanka chased down 137 in January 2014.
The most ignominious failure came in January 2012. England, newly top of the Test rankings, had received a drubbing in the First Test; their hapless batting twice failing to reach 200. In hindsight, those turned out to be riches as in the Second Test, faced with a target of 145 runs to win they managed only 72;
“England, paralysed with fear and uncertainty, never gained momentum. Struggling to pick the length because of the remarkable pace of Pakistan’s spinners, and wary of missing anything on their stumps on another sluggish pitch, they remained rooted to the crease. Thus encouraged, the bowlers exerted a suffocating grip: Cook’s seven occupied 15 overs before he gifted a leading edge back to the off-spin of Mohammad Hafeez, opening the bowling and evidently a specialist against the lefthanders; Strauss’s 32 took 29 overs. When he was fifth out, at 56, the end was nigh. Already gone were Bell, deceived for the third time in the series by Ajmal’s doosra, plus Pietersen and Morgan, both beaten by Rehman deliveries that skidded on. Trott, batting down the order because of a stomach bug, and Broad were soon defeated by the acute turn of Rehman, who wrapped things up when Anderson swung to deep midwicket. The last five wickets had tumbled in 11 balls. Seven batsmen failed to score more than a single in England’s final collapse, matching the team’s humiliation at Kingston in February 2009 [where they were dismissed for 51], their first Test with Strauss and Flower in charge, and only one short of the Test record of eight, when England dismissed New Zealand for 26 at Auckland in 1954-55. No wonder Strauss said it was ‘a struggle to think of a loss that has hurt more.’” (Wisden)
Abdur Rehman completes the skittling of England (Getty Images)
The outcome of chases by tourists in India and Pakistan, compared to those of the hosts is shown in Figure 9.
Summary
Australia have won consistently more games than other Test-playing nations when set 250 to 450 runs to win. They also have had significantly more successful chases (9 from 52) against targets in excess of 300 runs.
Australia are excellent chasers abroad. The outcome of their away chases (won 60% lost 36%) is in fact similar to the average home form (won 56% lost 34%) and is significantly better than the other Test-playing nations achieve as tourists (won 34% lost 51%).
Australia is also more hostile for tourists than anywhere else. Touring teams chase significantly less well (winning 24% and losing 66%) there than elsewhere (winning 43% and losing 43% in other venues).
Neighbours New Zealand offer a friendlier welcome. Visitors there chase significantly better (winning 65% and losing 26%) than touring teams at other venues and, indeed, out-perform the Kiwi hosts (who win 51% and lose 36%).
A peculiarity in New Zealand is that no team faced with a target of 150 to 249 has lost (13 chases resulting in 12 wins and one draw).
England have the best results when pursuing 200-299 runs to win, but the lowest proportion of wins (3 from 72 chases) against higher targets.
Set 450 or more runs to win, Pakistan have been the most tenacious, fighting to a draw three times in 10 occasions. Remarkably all three escapes have come in the 21st century as have two of Pakistan’s three victories when chasing 300 or more.
South Africa have also secured three draws (from 11 chases) against targets of more than 450 and two of those came in the 21st century; one of them, however, drew jeers from their supporters.
Only the West Indies have always won when set a target of fewer than 200 runs. Moreover, never in those 51 chases have they been in any danger of losing.
Sources
Cricinfo
Cricket Archive
Wisden Cricketers’ Almanack
Vasser Stats website: Z-test for significance of difference between two independent proportions, copyright Richard Lowry, 2001-2015.
Border, Allan, Beyond Ten Thousand, Souvenir Press, 1994.
Vaughan, Michael, Time to Declare – My Autobiography, Hodder & Stoughton, 2011.
Warne, Shane, My Autobiography, Hodder & Stoughton, 2001.
Frank Batson Playing out time in an awkward light 1901 (Notts CCC)
Reading cricketing memoirs a few years ago prompted memories of listening to the radio on a cold winter’s night as Derek Underwood battled as nightwatchman in the Caribbean. Pat Pocock was given the job against the West Indian pace quartets that terrorised English batsmen in 1976 and 1984 – one can imagine there not being a particularly long queue at the Labour Exchange for the vacancy. Pat Pocock describes the work:
“Nightwatchman is the absolute arse end of cricket. Generally the bowlers have had their feet up all day and are fresh; they know they have only got to bowl five overs at you and have a new ball in their hands. It is a tail gunner’s job, the worst job in the world.”
David Tossell, “Grovel! The Story and Legacy of the Summer of 1976” Know the Score Books Ltd, 2007
Pat Pocock at the Arse End evading Malcolm Marshall
So began some research to learn more about these sacrificial lambs. Nightwatchmen have been identified by examining close of play scores and batting orders; CricketArchive, Wisden and contemporary press reports being the main sources. Lower-order batsmen are promoted for other reasons: knocking off the last few runs to win; seeing out the final minutes in a match destined for a draw; throwing the bat to set up an imminent declaration; to fill a gap left by an injury and (in the old days) to consume time while rain-affected wickets dried out. These are all ignored. Here’s how often nightwatchmen have been used up to May 2022.
A nightwatchman is successful if he reaches the close of play, whether or not his wicket remains intact. The irrepressible Ian Peebles recalled being seconded by the debutant-captain Douglas Jardine against New Zealand in 1931:
“I fear I was not very successful in the first mission he entrusted to me. This was to go in number seven as night watchman. I got myself stumped for nought; a feat which caused the rest of the side great joy and hilarity in which the captain could hardly be expected to join”.
Ian Peebles, “Spinner’s Yarn” Collins, 1977
Nevertheless, Peebles was successful as time was called when his wicket fell, thus preventing the recognised batsman in the pavilion, Gubby Allen (who scored a century the following day), from being exposed to the bowling that evening.
Although a nightwatchmen usually has not got the batting skills to farm the strike, he is expected to take as much of it as possible. Needlessly exposing the recognised batsman at the other end who is then dismissed is failing to do the job. Wisden laments an example:
“Murphy, the nightwatchman, facing the last scheduled over of the day, called Andy Flower for a single. It was against all common sense, and two balls later it cost the captain his wicket.” (England v. Zimbabwe, First Test Lord’s May 2000).
How are players chosen to serve as nightwatchmen? Michael Atherton gave an insight when remembering the Ashes Test at Perth in February 1995:
“I prepared to face a torrid hour from Australia’s opening bowlers, but before doing so I needed to find a nightwatchman, should the situation arise. I looked around the room. [Chris] Lewis and [Philip] DeFreitas were too valuable to lose and [Devon] Malcolm was a walking wicket. Angus Fraser, dripping with sweat, saw me looking at him. Without a word, but with a disgusted look on his face, he wearily removed his heavy bowling boots and replaced them with lighter batting shoes.”
Michael Atherton, “Opening Up” Coronet Books Hodder & Stoughton, 2003
Such fine calculations proved to be of no avail. An hour later Atherton remained unbeaten, but the other four of the top order and nightwatchman Fraser were all back in the pavilion as England closed on 27 for five. Some nightwatchmen elect themselves; Derek Underwood being the model. Early in his career Underwood made his (then) highest first-class score, 47, when serving as a nightwatchman for Kent in front of the England captain. Two years later, he sealed his fate as he repeated the feat, raising his best to 80 against Lancashire while a different England captain watched. Over his Test career, Underwood reprised the role for England 13 times, failing only once. The player with the most appearances in the evening gloom is James Anderson; 23.
The Morning After: James Anderson wakes up South Africa (Getty Images)
The players with the most successful appearances as nightwatchman in Tests are listed here. Altogether 23 players have done the job successfully 6 or more times. The Top 10 (and ties) are shown in the table. More details, with a summary, are in a pdf here.
Three of James Anderson’s failures come from needlessly exposing the recognised batsman at the other end – the only cases of reckless endangerment in the table.
India v England, Mohali, December 2008. James Anderson took a single to preserve his (then-alive) record of not being dismissed for a duck in 44 Test innings.
“Anderson exposed Flintoff to the last three balls, and he [Flintoff] was caught at short leg off the third.” (Wisden). “Flintoff, senselessly put back on strike by a recalcitrant nightwatchman, James Anderson, was brilliantly caught, bat-pad, by Gautam Gambhir at short leg” (Guardian).
England v Australia, Leeds, August 2009. Anderson, on strike, called Alastair Cook for a leg bye off the first ball of an over. Cook only just survived the next ball which kept low but was dismissed later in the over. The commentators observed:
“Odd that Anderson would take one there. Isn’t the nightwatchman supposed to protect the recognised batsman? … you have to wonder about the sense of a nightwatchman if he’s not going to take the strike.” (Cricinfo)
Australia v England, Perth, December 2010. Paul Collingwood, who had been in terrible form and was under a great deal of pressure to produce a decent score, faced the last over of the day. He nudged the fifth ball behind square and called for an easy single. Anderson refused, leaving Collingwood to face the last ball of the day, which he edged to third slip.
“in the final over, … off the penultimate ball James Anderson declined a single even though as nightwatchman it was his job to protect his partner, Paul Collingwood. The Australian fielders let him know what they thought of his timidity even before Collingwood was out to the next delivery. Amid their celebrations, they gave Anderson heaps more. Collingwood’s furious kick at the turf told its own tale.” (Sunday Times)
Anderson at the wrong end seeing the end of Collingwood’s Test career (Getty Images)
Restraint and doggedness seem to be the hallmarks of a good nightwatchman. Mushtaq Ahmed, a delightful bundle of energy, could hardly be less qualified. Yet, he was chosen as Pakistan’s nightwatchman six times. His first three shifts were failures, all ending in ducks (two golden and the other a run out). Mushtaq got off the mark on his fourth try but failed again. Inzamam, for whom he had been sent in as nightwatchman, trudged through shadows to the crease perhaps finding Pakistan’s persistence hard to believe. Pakistan’s hope continued to triumph over experience: Mushtaq Ahmed was given a fifth stint four months later – again for Inzamam – at Rawalpindi against New Zealand. Whether Inzamam instinctively moved closer to the pavilion door for the seemingly inevitable walk to the wicket is not recorded. However, this time Mushtaq repaid Pakistan’s faith – seeing out play and going on to shine the following day with a Test-best score of 42.
By shining the morning after the nightwatchman can give his team a psychological lift. Ralph Dellor, applauding Anil Kumble’s innings against England at Mohali in December 2001, describes the idea;
“Kumble did a splendid job as nightwatchman, doing exactly what India wanted. He remained throughout the first hour, sapping the energy of the bowlers, seeing the shine and hardness of the ball diminish, as well as adding useful runs to the total.”
Anil Kumble, nightwatchman exemplar, giving England a rough morning (AFP)
Sometimes a nightwatchman can help win or save the game, and examples will be described. Occasionally, he can be unwelcome. Sent in as nightwatchman in a Sheffield Shield game Bill “Mike” Hunt told his New South Wales skipper Alan Kippax shortly into the morning session the day after:
“If that’s the best their bowlers can throw up I may make fifty myself today.” Kippax: “Now don’t spoil everything, Mike. You know the crowd have come to watch Bradman.”
Ray Robinson, “On Top Down Under: Australia’s Cricket Captains” Cassell Australia, 1975
Rarely glory beckons. Jonathan Agnew, nine not out at close of play as nightwatchman at Scarborough in August 1987, progressed sweetly the next day. He had scored the bulk of the 79 added that morning, moving into the eighties, when his captain Peter Willey came in to join him.
“Now then Will”, Agnew said, “just look for ones and give me the strike. I’m in a bit of nick out here you know.”
Jonathan Agnew, “Eight Days a Week” Ringpress Books, 1988
Sadly, Agnew fell short of a maiden first-class century, dismissed for 90, from 68 balls. It remained his highest first-class score. The first nightwatchman to score a century in Tests was Nasim-ul-Ghani at Lord’s in 1962 – which was also the first Pakistan century in Tests in England. There have been five in total (Mr Gillespie will be saved until later).
Tony Mann’s only other first-class century came as a nightwatchman against a touring Test team, also at Perth – Ray Illingworth’s England side in December 1970. Not many batsmen can have deposited three different Yorkshire bowlers over the boundary in the same innings. Tony Mann did during his innings of 110. Admittedly, one bowler was the occasional trundler, Geoff Boycott, despatched over long on. Don Wilson was clouted over the flags at square leg. Then, Ray Illingworth had the anguish of seeing a delicately flighted ball smashed straight back over his head. The ball cleared the boundary by 12 feet. However, it hit the sightscreen on the full and rebounded onto the pitch, so it counted only as a four. Perhaps Explainer-in-Chief Illingworth was heard to say: “Tha knoows ah booled rownd th’wicket so he had t’move sightscreen there”.
Tony Mann down the track against India at Perth (Melbourne Age)
Syed Kirmani’s century came at the end of a series against Australia in which he appeared as nightwatchman three times, in total scoring 188 runs and batting for more than ten hours. Syed is one of seven Test nightwatchmen who have done the job successfully more than 6 times and whose efforts, in the opinion of their peers and contemporaries, have been decisive – winning or saving Test matches – at least twice. Syed’s appearances are described in this pdf.
Mark Boucher celebrates his second nightwatchman century (Getty Images)
Mark Boucher scored centuries in successive nightwatchman appearances: the first, against a unfortunate Zimbabwe team suffering on and off the field; the second, against England also in the doldrums but entirely of their own making as they languished at the bottom of the ICC rankings table.
There have been several near-misses; all by Englishmen.
Harold Larwood was undone by his first tentative shot and an unexpectedly brilliant piece of fielding; Eddie Hemmings felt sawn-off; Jack Russell succumbed to a shot he confessed was “horrible”; and Alex Tudor was stopped only by a team-mate.
Alex Tudor does a convincing impersonation of Sir Vivian Richards in the sun at Birmingham (AFP)
Jack Russell’s innings against the West Indies in April 1990 should have been enough to save the match in the opinion of his colleagues and contemporary commentators, but was wasted by his team-mates.
Other nightwatchmen’s efforts have similarly been regarded as being good enough to decide a Test but were spurned by the rest of the side. These spurned efforts are included in the lists of decisive nightwatchman innings – perhaps controversially, but then a chap cannot be responsible for the profligacy of his team-mates. The most recent nightwatchman to threaten a century is Amit Mishra of India. Amit notched his maiden Test fifty as a nightwatchman, and at the Oval in 2011 made a fluent 84. Like Jack Russell’s innings in the West Indies, Amit’s at the Oval was considered good enough to have enabled India to draw, but the rest of his side spurned the opportunity.
Amit Mishra glances sweetly at the Oval (Getty Images)
(Bangladesh and Zimbabwe have too few chases to test for significance but their chases are included in the totals on the bottom line of the Table and in Table 15)
An Occasional Cricket Statistician 