Boring...

The way to play cricket

As Birmingham were playing Surrey in the first semi yesterday, I thought they'd got things absolutely spot on. Ian Bell, 38 from 17 balls, Ricky Clarke 35 from 24. Not about 'going on from a start' to a fifty from sixty or seventy or more balls, not about wickets in hand at the end (that count for nothing), but about scoring, and scoring effectively, efficiently, and quickly. 81, Porterfield, from 45 balls.

Slow, competitive test cricket can be fascinating, but isn't going to convert any non-aficionado to the game.

But most of all, test cricket is for test cricketers, the best players in the world. The best bowlers containing the best bats with the best concentration and the utmost patience.

We're a long way removed from those stellar levels. Yet too often we play like Tavare opening with Boycott, on one of their slower days. Too often we do that in 40-over or similar games where we can't afford too many dot balls, let alone too many maiden overs, and we hand the game to our opponents simply by not playing with one eye on the scoreboard and the overs remaining and the need to get on with it. And we don't even lose the game, we surrender it. Slowly and painfully and boringly. And what do we get from that?

The answer that's occurring to me, more and more frequently, is “less than the square root of bugger all”.

There was a joke doing the rounds, long ago, when Chris Tavare was boring everyone senseless scoring at a rate that made Boycott look like Viv Richards.

“They found a survivor on the Mary Rose.”

“No kiddin'? What did he say?”

“Is Tavare off the mark yet?”

Most of our opponents score at about a run a ball, between five and six runs an over. That means for every dot ball our bats need to score a two. Every two consecutive dots need a four and three of 'em need a six to compensate. If the best you can hope for from the get-go is a long drawn-out draw.