“Shocking…terrible”
– Paul Newman of the Daily Mail.
“Dreadful”
– Scyld Berry of the Daily Telegraph.
Representative
reactions from the British media about the pitch at the Cake Tin for the third
ODI between New Zealand and England (both offered at an early stage of the
contest). Yet this apparent travesty of a surface produced a wonderful game of
cricket, tested different skills and thinking from the usual, and begat one of
the finest one-day innings that it has been my pleasure to witness.
The
pitch was different, certainly. Initial examination intimated that it had
recently staged a performance of Riverdance,
and the dust and dirt that sprang from it in the early overs suggested—one for
the older reader here—that Wilson, Keppel and Betty would have been reasonable
selections.
At
some point during the 1967 blogging I wrote that it would be interesting to see
players like Joe Root and Jonny Bairstow on the pitches of that era, and that I
thought they would be successful by taking a more attacking approach. This very
pair came together early in the England innings and it occurred to me that I
was getting my wish: cricket getting into the De Lorean and going back in time.
What happened was that, on the whole, class triumphed and the inadequate were
exposed. It was brilliant.
New
Zealand won the toss and put England in. Kane Williamson was back from injury,
but Ross Taylor was out with a hip problem. Ish Sodhi came back for Lockie
Ferguson. Mark Wood replaced David Willey for the visitors.
The
first couple of overs did not reassure the batsmen. A couple from Southee went
like leg breaks and Boult got one to rear like an unbroken stallion. It was
surprising that England got as far as the eighth over before losing a wicket,
Roy caught at slip by Guptill off Boult.
Root
came in and from the start timed the ball better than anybody else, Williamson
apart, all day. It was at this point in my notes that I wrote “this is
fascinating”, an observation that I could have made over and over again as the
day went on.
The
pitch got Root soon enough, when he went down the pitch to de Grandhomme and
was caught at mid on by Sodhi. Bairstow was bowled by a Sodhi googly and it
seemed that 1967 was having its revenge. The modern-day players were
disappearing from the photo.
Now
Morgan and Stokes came together. Both found it difficult to get going, but had
the sense and skill to adjust and compromise as only the best players can. Stokes
will never take 73 balls to score 39 again, but will play many higher scoring
innings of less value and craft.
What
do we think of Stokes (who bears the modern mark of shame—a plain bat bereft of
sponsor’s logo)? For me, a drunken brawl with idiots at 3 am should have less
bearing on his status as an international cricketer than mocking a severely
disabled young person does.
New
Zealand bowled well in this period, giving England few loose balls, just as
well as one of the few that was delivered Morgan put in the stand. But Morgan
and Stokes didn’t get out until the 36th over, by which time they
had put on 71 and the score was 139 for four, making achievable what they had
identified as a decent target.
The
remaining six wickets added only 96 runs in the last 14 overs, showing how
difficult acceleration was. But everybody chipped in. All of the top nine
reached double figures, whereas only three of New Zealand’s did. The home side
remains too reliant on a couple of players doing really well in lieu of a team
effort, which means crossing the ravine on a tightrope instead of a bridge.
De
Grandhomme was the best bowler, with one for 24 off ten. His little dobbers contain
more skill and guile than is at apparent. I thought that Williamson persevered
for too long with Munro’s very slow-medium. He was taken for almost six an over
with little risk to the batsmen, an advantage to England in the circumstances.
Santner never returned after conceding 12 from two overs, even though he was
turning it. That seemed a mistake at the time, more so as the spinners had such
an impact on the New Zealand innings.
New
Zealand’s target was 235, a decent target on a 1967 pitch. Guptill went in the
same manner as Root had earlier, bringing Doc Brown aka Kane Williamson to the
middle.
At
the other end Colin Munro was playing an innings as grotesque as I have seen in
many a long day. He began by refusing to adapt his usual gung ho approach to
the occasion, and came close to being out pretty much every ball, twice on one
occasion, when he set off on a suicidal run as a decent lbw decision was turned
down. He has a first-class average of 50, but forgets. When he started playing
properly he was as adept as Williamson at nudging the singles. He didn’t
deserve 50, but did merit 49, which is what he got.
Mark
Chapman was next in. A few weeks ago I watched him make 117 from 104 balls for
Auckland against Wellington, including some of the finest driving through the
offside that I have seen for quite some time. Since then, Chapman has been part
of the T20 team. In one match Ross Taylor, veteran of 360-plus international
appearances, came to the wicket with Chapman already there. Chapman met him
halfway and proceeded to lecture him on how to go about his task, which was
generally thought to be endearing. Ah, the confidence of youth! But too often it
eclipses judgement, as here. He was perhaps the only person in the ground who
couldn’t see the inevitable outcome of charging down the pitch at just about
everything. He’d put the lot on the 100-1 outsider.
Nicholls
and Latham both went lbw for ducks. Good balls, and not terrible shots, but
both perhaps halfway out in their minds before they got to the crease.
Next,
de Grandhomme. At this point it would be as well to be clear that my earlier
remarks about his skill and guile apply exclusively to his bowling. Where
cunning and dexterity are called for, the bat in his hands is as an iPad in
those of a caveman. To nobody’s surprise he holed out at long on for three.
Moeen
Ali took three of the wickets as New Zealand subsided. He has been foolishly
written off by some after his disappointing tour of Australia, but has too much
class to be cast aside. As usual, he provided an intelligent, articulate
analysis of his performance after the game.
With
six down and 132 more needed, Santner joined Williamson. Santer had stepped up
a level in the first match of the series, in Hamilton. There, he had looked at
sea at first, struggling to score at all. But he kept his head, picked the
right ball to hit, and got more power from his slender frame than it looked
capable of offering.
Here,
he showed the same qualities in even more testing conditions. He began carefully, waiting 15 balls before
picking the right ball to attack, successfully. That was how he went on,
resourceful enough to keep the singles going and with the judgement and
patience to wait his moment—just twice more—to find the boundary.
So we
come now to Kane Williamson, who played one of the finest against-the-odds,
difficult-conditions innings I have ever seen. Of those present, only Joe Root
might have matched him, as it was an innings that could be played only by a
batsman of extraordinary talent, judgement and resolve. Williamson reduced risk
without disregarding opportunity. Because he is so strong all around the field
it was impossible for England, well as they bowled, to constrain him. Some said
that the pitch eased in this period, but it just appeared that way with
Williamson at the crease.
From
resignation the mood of the crowd slid towards hope, then confidence. Ripples
of applause for singles became rivers, boundaries were acclaimed. The fifty
partnership came up in the 36th over. With seven to go, 49 were
needed. It was gripping.
For
the first time, New Zealand moved ahead of the Duckworth-Lewis par score. With
29 balls left, 36 were needed. Williamson hit the ball hard back down the pitch
in the air. Woakes changed direction just quickly enough to get a fingertip on
the ball. It was hit so straight that it barely needed deflection to break the
stumps with Santner stranded. He had scored 149 runs in the series at that
point, and it was his first dismissal.
Tim
Southee hit one four, but was caught trying a repeat. Twenty-two were needed
from twelve balls. Williamson reached a hundred with a four from the first of
these and was acclaimed. He was perhaps the least excited person in the ground
at that moment, but these landmarks do tend to disrupt the flow and only three
came from the rest of Tom Curran’s over.
Fifteen
were needed from the last over. A six from the third ball left seven from
three. A two followed, but the full toss that was the fifth ball went to
straight to mid off. A couple of metres wide or high and the scores would have
been level. An edge from the last ball would have tied the game, but no contact
was made, so England took a two-one lead in the series.
None
of the critics of the Cake Tin pitch have made the connection between calling
it “dreadful” and “terrible” with the lamentable performances of the England A
team in the Caribbean. As long as English cricket takes such a narrow view of
what constitutes a good pitch, its teams will continue to be exposed overseas
and its players will not develop as fully as they otherwise might. I read just
a few days ago that Somerset are pulling back from their recent practice of
producing turning pitches under threat of a points fine, a change that would
further constrain the learning of young cricketers, and make the game less
interesting.
Most
of the critics mentioned that the Cake Tin pitch is a drop-in, something seen
as a southern hemisphere aberration. In fact, the problem with drop-ins
(drops-in?) is their sameness, a tendency to the bland and slow, seen at its worst
at Melbourne in the Boxing Day test. How refreshing for a drop-in that has its
own character.
ODIs
are played in series. Ideally, each venue should present a different challenge:
one fast, one slow, one road, one that seams and one like this one.
More
“terrible” and “shocking” pitches please.
