Championship v Warwickshire 25th-28th July 2023

[Paul W]

Richard Johnson has done something I didn't think he'd do. He's left out Pieter Malan-

https://www.middlesexccc.com/news/2023/07/squad-preview-warwickshire-v-middlesex-county-championship

I wonder if some sort of diplomatic way will be found for him to leave early.

Roland-Jones (c), Andersson, Bamber, Cracknell, Cullen, Davies, De Caires, Eskinazi, Helm, Higgins, Holden, Murtagh, Robson, Simpson (wk), Stoneman.

[MIDDLE EXILE]

Piet remains an essential member of the squad and the suggestion we pay him off following a recent lack of runs I find rather harsh and unnecessary. He's had the worst of luck and fallen to some unplayable deliveries, and understandably his confidence is low. With no championship cricket now until September, it would be foolish to try and dispense with him now. The upcoming 50-over competition will give him the opportunity to regain his form and get scores without pressure and prove he's still the quality player we need. Crackers is deserving of a gig and I reckon he'll be opening up with Rocky at The Edge tomorrow.

[Paul W]

Pieter Malan deserves credit for his 93 in the final game of last season, which was a key component in us getting the bonus points required to secure promotion.

I have said on other match threads that many of his dismissals this season have been to good deliveries- but however you cut it, an average just below 15 from the overseas isn't good enough.

It would be handy if his wife was expecting a baby (well, that's how we dispatched Handscomb early).

That's a joke by the way, and not to be taken seriously.

[Jonathan Winsky]

As has already been said on other threads, Pieter Malan would have probably lost his place in Middlesex’s side had he been a domestic player. I assume that he has been dropped as opposed to injured, as he seemed to be on the field the vast majority (if not the whole) of the time Surrey batted in the previous match. If only he spent more time on the field (or - more specifically - at the crease) when we batted! The fact that he has been our only overseas player this season makes it disappointing that he hasn’t quite hit the heights everyone at the club would have liked, all the more so considering many of our opponents this season have often included two overseas players and/or have got a great output from their overseas player or players.

Will Jack Davies get another opportunity? Will Stevie Eskinazi come back in (although his County Championship performances this season don’t really merit him denying an opportunity for someone else)? Will Tim Murtagh play after taking only one first innings wicket (albeit at a good economy) and not bowling in the second innings v Surrey? Will captain Toby Roland-Jones come back in? Will any of Martin Andersson, Joe Cracknell and Blake Cullen get a go?

Warwickshire have named a 13-man squad for this match (https://edgbaston.com/fixtures/first-xi/warwickshire-vs-middlesex-25-july-2023/#match-match-previews) consisting of Will Rhodes (c), Ed Barnard, Jacob Bethell, Danny Briggs, Henry Brookes, Michael Burgess, Alex Davies, Sam Hain, Mir Hamza, Olly Hannon-Dalby, Manraj Johal, Dan Mousley and Rob Yates. They will be without Chris Rushworth due to a calf injury, although it is not like he is the only bowling threat on Warwickshire's books.

[MIDDLE EXILE]

Eski is in for Piet, and Tobes is back for Murts.We win toss and bowl on a surface tinged with a bit of green. Forecast set fair with the odd chance of showers.

[Paul W]

Blimy!

I think this is what's called a result pitch.

Green and overcast, and 17-5

And for once we have the perfect attack for the conditions.

[adelaide]

I'm worried about our over rate...

I'm more worried about how our batting is going to cope. It's green with a bit of bounce but it should not be a 60 all out pitch (and I very much doubt that it is a points deduction pitch); very good bowling and some poor batting technique, methinks. If we get a batting point I'll choke on my sandwich. I wouldn't even take a first innings lead for granted.

(Typed as a true Middlesex supporter...)

[Erskine]

Another failure for Eski and Cracknell should have been selected instead

[Paul W]

Jack Davies a lucky lad not to be given run out early on (replay showed he hadn't made his ground).

Hopefully he can capitalise on his good fortune.

I'm not counting any chickens just yet, and my match prediction of 1,006 runs is looking a trifle optimistic!

[John (Fingers) Fingleton]

Jack Davies a lucky lad not to be given run out early on (replay showed he hadn't made his ground).

Hopefully he can capitalise on his good fortune.

I'm not counting any chickens just yet, and my match prediction of 1,006 runs is looking a trifle optimistic!

Perhaps by 800 or so ... Pitch inspection? (Do they have those automatically after 14 weeks on the first day any more?)

Mind you, at 77/6 at least we have a 1st innings lead!

The Simpson decision looked dreadful - missing by a mile - or at least an inch!

[Sillypoint]

Action packed so far. Higgins and JDC nice little partnership before tea has been good! Top order still flakey.... Real shame they didn't play Cracknell after doing so well for the 2s. What's the point if it's not to demonstrate you are ready

[MIDDLE EXILE]

Crackers was close to selection, but who do you leave out, Jack Davies hardly deserves to be left out after just one game, and with Piet already not selected can you afford to omit another established batter.?

[Sillypoint]

Crackers was close to selection, but who do you leave out, Jack Davies hardly deserves to be left out after just one game, and with Piet already not selected can you afford to omit another established batter.?

I wouldn't have played Eski tbh. Established but underperformed the whole season. I think it sends a good message. Cracknell in form so merit.

That Rojo dismissal was bizarre and irritating! He looked good for a few more.

[MIDDLE EXILE]

If I'm reading Law.35 correctly there is no way Tobes should have been given out. I'm happy to be corrected and welcome anything in the law and its subsections that justifies the umpire's decision.

[Paul W]

I would say TRJ's dismissal was on a par with Bairstow's dozy dismissal in the test, or a fielder not having the ball fully under control before dropping a 'catch'

He wasn't in control of his bat, or he wouldn't have done it, so to that extent it was still part of his shot (even though the ball had long since been hit for 'six'.)

Apparently the ball is 'live' until it hits the ground (not the moment it crosses the boundary) so like Bairstow, not a dead ball at the moment he hit his wicket.

I wish I could be more confident about the outcome of this match. Yes, we're in the better position, but we'll still end up having a target to chase.

[Jonathan Winsky]

As much as I would have liked Middlesex to have followed up bowling Warwickshire out for 60 by scoring 300+, it would have been cruel of me to ask for today to have gone any better for us. Considering we entered this match with an average first innings score of 208 and our opponents had just been bowled out for 60, I was worried that we would also be bowled out cheaply and not actually be in a great position in the match, especially when we were 11-3 and 77-6. Therefore, it feels like an achievement to reach 199 (would it also have been cruel of me had I asked for some batting points?) and to ensure that our target will be 138 less than whatever Warwickshire score in their second innings. And we took two wickets before the close!

An article on Wisden’s website (https://wisden.com/series-stories/county-championship-2023/records-tumble-middlesex-roll-over-warwickshire-60-all-out-county-championship-2023) says that in first-class matches, this was the lowest score a team has scored v Middlesex since Glamorgan scored 31 in 1997 (the now joint-lowest score v Middlesex in the 21st century was also scored by Glamorgan when they scored 60 in 2007), while this was Warwickshire’s lowest score since their 43 v Sussex in 1981 and is their lowest score in the 21st century (their previous lowest was 69 v Yorkshire in 2015). It was also Warwickshire’s second-lowest total v Middlesex, with the lowest remaining their 55 in 1956, although it is their lowest both in modern times and away from Lord’s.

I have been thinking all day that I would not put it past Middlesex to lose from this position, but at least we have got ourselves in a great position in the first place.

After Ethan Bamber bowled really well v Surrey at Lord’s without it being reflected on the scorecard, I am glad that he took six wickets today.

Hopefully, the dismissal of Toby Roland-Jones will not end up costing us in this match, which is something it could well do if this match comes down to fine margins. I wasn’t really concentrating on the match when the wicket took place, but the period when Ryan Higgins, Josh de Caires, TRJ and Tom Helm batted yielded important runs (not to mention the top four scores in our innings) and must have given us hope of a batting point, in which case TRJ’s wicket could cost us in the context of the season, if not the match.

Hopefully, tomorrow will be another good day for us, as opposed to being a day when Warwickshire fight their way back into the match.

[MIDDLE EXILE]

where in the law does it say anything about ''being in control of your bat''He had completed his shot, nor was he attempting a run, and nothing whatsoever to do with the ball being alive or dead, purely accidental, Not Out!! and not the only error the umpires made today.

[Paul W]

Well, you have to be in control.

Think of a batter who has played his shot, but then can't keep his balance and either treads on, or falls over the stumps. That still counts as the act of playing the shot, even if it's a second or two later. That's how I see this incident. Unusual, because it was more like four seconds later, but like Bairstow going for a wander, he shouldn't have done it (as in- if in the opinion of the umpires he couldn't help himself- involuntary- it has to count as part of that delivery, therefore out. That's clearly how the umpires viewed it).

[adelaide]

where in the law does it say anything about ''being in control of your bat''He had completed his shot, nor was he attempting a run, and nothing whatsoever to do with the ball being alive or dead, purely accidental, Not Out!! and not the only error the umpires made today.

Indeed. There was the Davies run out and I thought the Simpson one brushed the pad, not the bat.

In defence of the umpires on TRJ, they do not have the benefit of multiple replays so wouldn't have known that it was nothing to do with the shot itself, nor indeed swishing the bat back as he admired his handiwork but the third movement of the bat. Nor (if it matters) the precise timings of the bails coming off and the ball landing in the stands. However, as they could not have known any of that, there should have been doubt in their minds and the benefit of the doubt usually foes to the batsman. No blame attached to Warwickshire. It's not like the Bairstow dismissal as Warwickshire did nothing to engineer the situation.

The pitch obviously eased and it could be hard work tomorrow. Being gifted the second wicket was helpful.

[MIDDLE EXILE]

If the umpires were watching the batter, which they weren't,they would not have given him out.Why did they have to discuss it subsequently, pure guesswork, and they got it wrong or at least misinterpreted the law

[adelaide]

If the umpires were watching the batter, which they weren't,they would not have given him out.Why did they have to discuss it subsequently, pure guesswork, and they got it wrong or at least misinterpreted the law

How long after a shot for six down the ground should the umpires be watching the batsman for? After all, the likelihood of dislodging the bails in the way that happened was so tiny that Toby should be awarded the cricketing equivalent of a Darwin award for contriving it.

When he realised what he had done, he looked apprehensive. I suspect he had little idea what the law was either.

A word for Jack Davies, by the way, as he stuck it out for a long time. His score may not look much but getting through to better conditions gave the lower order the chance to play.

[MIDDLE EXILE]

I'm not criticizing the umps for not watching the batter, why would they? What I do not understand is how they can give him out when neither saw exactly what happened nor do I blame them for missing the run-out or the alleged catch. In a Test Match, all these decisions would automatically have gone to DRS and technology would have clarified exactly what occurred. Without that, it's impossible to expect them to get it right every time, but the hit wicket is a matter of law rather than opinion, which is why I remain baffled by their ruling.

[Paul W]

In my view it has to be out. Even if you want to say it wasn't part of his shot, the fact remains by his own actions the bat dislodged the bails whilst the ball was still live.

It was the Warwickshire commentator who said the ball isn't dead until it hits the ground, and logically that has to be correct. With a 4 it's the moment it crosses the boundary. But, as we've seen with '6's' the ball can be 'over' the boundary, but provided a fielder is airborne, he can knock the ball back for a fielder inside the rope to take the catch. Therefore, all the time the ball is 'live' you shouldn't be dislodging the bails.

Anyway, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

As to the match situation, by lunch we will have had another 30 overs, meaning Warwickshire will probably have scored another hundred (maybe more if they think attack is the best form of defence on this track). So, will they be the equivilent of 20-2 at lunch, making them favourites, or 4, or 5 down (evens), or 6 or more (us on top). I have to factor in our fragile top order in to my calculations!

[wembleylion]

Presumably it is not a six until the umpire signals it at which point the ball is dead, so I think the decision was correct. I'm assuming they hadn't signalled it.

[James Mitchell]

I've looked at the replay (at about 4:00 in the video below) and it seems clearly out to me. A very careless swing of the bat after watching the ball fly over the boundary. It's a pity, but I expect it's a lesson learned!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4JCeiBVjDk

[Pindarus]

As our club umpire used to say in my playing days "If you don't believe it was out, look in the scorebook".
I actually now believe that Kent are more likely to go down than us due to their poor bowling, despite our flaky batting.

[adelaide]

I've looked at the replay (at about 4:00 in the video below) and it seems clearly out to me. A very careless swing of the bat after watching the ball fly over the boundary. It's a pity, but I expect it's a lesson learned!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4JCeiBVjDk

"After watching the ball fly over the boundary". Had the ball hit the ground by the time the bails were disturbed (for which replays would be required)? Is, as has been suggested, the ball only dead once the boundary signal has been given? I would have thought not, as umpires often seek clarification from the fielder before signalling four or six (though I suppose they may indicate that the ball is dead in some other way before doing that).

I think Toby knew he could be in trouble the moment it happened. As you say, though, definitely a lesson learnt. Pity, as Toby looked in the mood to add more.

[Paul W]

Can't believe Mousley fell for that.

Still, a much needed wicket.

[Jonathan Winsky]

From my scorecard view, this match appears to be honours even, as Warwickshire are in a position from which they ought to get their lead past 150, something which has traditionally been seen as a defendable score bowling last, depending on how the pitch plays. Before too long, their lead will have exceeded their first innings total of 60. Had Middlesex been higher in the table, maybe I would be more optimistic!

One positive about today is that, as is often the case with us, we were able to keep the scoring down despite the lack of wickets we took.

We will have the second new ball available 7.3 overs into tomorrow, so hopefully that will enable us to take some more wickets.

I will be off work until Tuesday to keep my mum company due to my dad going away, so I should be able to watch much of the remainder of this match on the stream and therefore be able to gauge for myself whether it is likely that we will find batting last on this pitch as difficult as Warwickshire found batting in their first innings, or whether the way Warwickshire’s second innings has so far gone suggests that the pitch will not actually be so difficult to bat on. Regardless of how the pitch plays, I imagine that Warwickshire will feel that their bowlers can defend the target they set us.

The weather forecast suggests that this match has seen rain for the last time.

[Paul W]

This morning's forecast (at the time of posting) suggests a 50% chance of rain at 1 & 2 pm, and grey cloud before and after (so bad light might be an issue).

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/forecast/gcqdkqnss#?date=2023-07-27

Hopefully a full day, but time might be lost.

Every day seems like the most important day of the season, but a win today, or tomorrow feels almost essential to keep up our hopes of avoiding relegation.

[Paul W]

Overnight rain and humidity seems to have caused some sweating under the covers, restoring the pitch to its day one condition.

We should be favourites to do this, but can't relax yet.

Battle!

[MIDDLE EXILE]

Outstanding bowling by all the chaps this morning, six stumps out of the ground by 12.15 must be some sort of a record.I feel extremely relaxed!

[Jonathan Winsky]

I was expecting Warwickshire to have made it difficult for Middlesex to take the final six wickets. I would like to say that I am delighted about us achieving this objective within just over an hour of the delayed start, but of course, we will now have to go out and bat on this pitch, with our target of 94 being more than 1.5 times that of Warwickshire’s first innings score.

The fact that we took two wickets just before the new ball became available felt like a bonus, and it certainly got the day off to a great start for us.

Well done to Ethan Bamber on taking nine wickets in this match.

Hopefully, I will not later find myself seeing statistics popping up about instances of teams winning after achieving a low first innings total and/or having a low amount of runs to defend.

[John (Fingers) Fingleton]

Wow ... We've won one ...

[Jonathan Winsky]

Well done to everyone who contributed to a much-needed and possibly crucial win for Middlesex. We will find out in two months’ time how crucial this win actually is.

As I have expressed pessimism throughout this match, I doubt that anyone would be surprised to know that I anticipated that we would find our run chase difficult. Indeed, I had fears that our chase would be unsuccessful! Thankfully, Mark Stoneman’s 52*, Sam Robson and Stevie Eskinazi scoring at nearly a-run-a-ball and Jack Davies’ 18* prevented any nerves on my part, and probably on the part of many other people involved with the club.

[Paul W]

Excellent!

Bambino 9-91 match figures.

We had the best of the conditions, but due a bit of luck.

A bit early to say for certain how many points our relegation contenders will get this round. Northants and Kent may end up drawing their matches- but declarations might give them a chance of victory.

[adelaide]

Excellent!

Bambino 9-91 match figures.

We had the best of the conditions, but due a bit of luck.

A bit early to say for certain how many points our relegation contenders will get this round. Northants and Kent may end up drawing their matches- but declarations might give them a chance of victory.

Notts may think they are a bit too close to the bottom two and may not wish to repeat their Lord's experience by giving Kent a chance. They are also a bowler down.

Conditions didn't look particularly awkward this morning so the collapse was both unexpected and welcome. Once Josh had got the main man (Hain) the Warwickshire batsmen failed to defend their stumps properly against full straight bowling (though Middlesex kept the pressure om, and the run rate down, better than Warwickshire). "You miss, I hit" as they say. Then again, commentators often say "too straight" when a ball is worked off middle stump to leg!

Ten Warwickshire batsmen were clean bowled, compared with two Middlesex. Unusual but not as unusual as the first innings bowling figures for Warwickshire - 3-49, 3-49, 3-49 and 1-49!

[Paul W]

There doesn't seem any way Northants can beat Lancashire, and the best they can hope for tomorrow is a draw.

With a couple of overs still to go tonight Northants 342 Lancashire 457-4, so Lanky will hope to declare and get Northants out in two sessions.

Nottinghamshire 350 & 110-0 against Kent 316, so Notts might declare and set Kent a target.

Edit- at close of play Lancashire 498-7 and Nottinghamshire 176-1

[MIDDLE EXILE]

Notts will certainly declare,whether a win for them or a drawn game suits us best is debatable. Northants have been cast adrift, sinking fast and without the proverbial paddle.

[adelaide]

Notts will certainly declare,whether a win for them or a drawn game suits us best is debatable. Northants have been cast adrift, sinking fast and without the proverbial paddle.

Hsving seen the rate at which Notts are scoring, they obviously will declare. The question is whether they will want to use that declaration to give Kent a realistic chance or just to have a go at bowling them out. I would have thought that a Notts win would suit us better than a draw, as our job is to finish above Northants and Kent. I can't really see Notts getting drawn into it.

[MIDDLE EXILE]

Well I believe Notts are very much involved whatever the result tomorrow. They meet Kent again in their next fixture and after playing Lancashire away their final match is against Middlesex at Trent Bridge,a match which could well decide who else goes down with Northants.

[MIDDLE EXILE]

Kent crumble, all out in 21 overs, and fall 3 points behind us having played a game more. Looking a far weaker outfit than ourselves at present and making us strong favorites for another season in the top flight.

[Paul W]

Our next game is against Essex, starting on 4th September.

That is the round of matches Kent miss, so after the Essex game we will both have completed 11 matches. We need to do better than a 3 bowling point loss to widen that lead in to something meaningful.