Lancashire 131 and 25-6 (a recovery from 7-6), Essex 107. In comparison
to Chelmsford, the Aegeas Bowl almost sounds like a batting paradise:
Kent 165 and 20-3 (two of them nightwatchmen), Hampshire 57.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 7:48:26 PM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> Lancashire 131 and 25-6 (a recovery from 7-6), Essex 107. In comparison
> to Chelmsford, the Aegeas Bowl almost sounds like a batting paradise:
> Kent 165 and 20-3 (two of them nightwatchmen), Hampshire 57.
> --
> John Hall
> "Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
> But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
> Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

Most pf the wickets were taken by pace bowlers not spinners so the idea that Essex had doctored the pitch to suit Harmer does not stand up RH

In message <9c07a279-891e-4f5f-a367-7bb81944f189n@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes
>On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 7:48:26 PM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
>> Lancashire 131 and 25-6 (a recovery from 7-6), Essex 107. In comparison
>> to Chelmsford, the Aegeas Bowl almost sounds like a batting paradise:
>> Kent 165 and 20-3 (two of them nightwatchmen), Hampshire 57.
>
>Most pf the wickets were taken by pace bowlers not spinners so the idea
>that Essex had doctored the pitch to suit Harmer does not stand up RH

I didn't suggest that they had. He did take 5 wickets in 11.5 overs in
Lancashire's first innings, but given the success that the seamers have
had it looks like the wicket was giving them plenty of help too.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 20:24:05 +0100, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <9c07a279-891e-4f5f-a367-7bb81944f189n@googlegroups.com>,
>Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes
>>On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 7:48:26 PM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
>>> Lancashire 131 and 25-6 (a recovery from 7-6), Essex 107. In comparison
>>> to Chelmsford, the Aegeas Bowl almost sounds like a batting paradise:
>>> Kent 165 and 20-3 (two of them nightwatchmen), Hampshire 57.
>>
>>Most pf the wickets were taken by pace bowlers not spinners so the idea
>>that Essex had doctored the pitch to suit Harmer does not stand up RH
>
>I didn't suggest that they had. He did take 5 wickets in 11.5 overs in
>Lancashire's first innings, but given the success that the seamers have
>had it looks like the wicket was giving them plenty of help too.

Who had " the idea that Essex had doctored the pitch to suit Harmer"?
I don't do much CC observation, I keep an eye on Sussex scorecards to
see how Jack Carson is getting on.
Has there been an allegation of pitch witchery?

max.it

In message <us9kih1nrqbahqpcdph53n3g70no7nucgc@4ax.com>, max. it
<max@tea.time> writes
>On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 20:24:05 +0100, John Hall
><john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <9c07a279-891e-4f5f-a367-7bb81944f189n@googlegroups.com>,
>>Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes
>>>On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 7:48:26 PM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
>>>> Lancashire 131 and 25-6 (a recovery from 7-6), Essex 107. In comparison
>>>> to Chelmsford, the Aegeas Bowl almost sounds like a batting paradise:
>>>> Kent 165 and 20-3 (two of them nightwatchmen), Hampshire 57.
>>>
>>>Most pf the wickets were taken by pace bowlers not spinners so the idea
>>>that Essex had doctored the pitch to suit Harmer does not stand up RH
>>
>>I didn't suggest that they had. He did take 5 wickets in 11.5 overs in
>>Lancashire's first innings, but given the success that the seamers have
>>had it looks like the wicket was giving them plenty of help too.
>
>Who had " the idea that Essex had doctored the pitch to suit Harmer"?
>I don't do much CC observation, I keep an eye on Sussex scorecards to
>see how Jack Carson is getting on.
>Has there been an allegation of pitch witchery?
>
>max.it

Not as far as I know.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 21:55:53 +0100, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 20:24:05 +0100, John Hall
><john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <9c07a279-891e-4f5f-a367-7bb81944f189n@googlegroups.com>,
>>Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes
>>>On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 7:48:26 PM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
>>>> Lancashire 131 and 25-6 (a recovery from 7-6), Essex 107. In comparison
>>>> to Chelmsford, the Aegeas Bowl almost sounds like a batting paradise:
>>>> Kent 165 and 20-3 (two of them nightwatchmen), Hampshire 57.
>>>
>>>Most pf the wickets were taken by pace bowlers not spinners so the idea
>>>that Essex had doctored the pitch to suit Harmer does not stand up RH
>>
>>I didn't suggest that they had. He did take 5 wickets in 11.5 overs in
>>Lancashire's first innings, but given the success that the seamers have
>>had it looks like the wicket was giving them plenty of help too.
>
>Who had " the idea that Essex had doctored the pitch to suit Harmer"?

Given the conversation we've been shown, that appears to be the
village idiot's invention. I know he's keen on 1950s practices, but
that's one we could happily do without reviving.

>I don't do much CC observation, I keep an eye on Sussex scorecards to
>see how Jack Carson is getting on.
>Has there been an allegation of pitch witchery?

No. But I will be unsurprised to learn that the home side will get
docked points for a poor pitch.

Cheers,

Mike

On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 22:03:05 +0100, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 21:55:53 +0100, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 20:24:05 +0100, John Hall
>><john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <9c07a279-891e-4f5f-a367-7bb81944f189n@googlegroups.com>,
>>>Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes
>>>>On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 7:48:26 PM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
>>>>> Lancashire 131 and 25-6 (a recovery from 7-6), Essex 107. In comparison
>>>>> to Chelmsford, the Aegeas Bowl almost sounds like a batting paradise:
>>>>> Kent 165 and 20-3 (two of them nightwatchmen), Hampshire 57.
>>>>
>>>>Most pf the wickets were taken by pace bowlers not spinners so the idea
>>>>that Essex had doctored the pitch to suit Harmer does not stand up RH
>>>
>>>I didn't suggest that they had. He did take 5 wickets in 11.5 overs in
>>>Lancashire's first innings, but given the success that the seamers have
>>>had it looks like the wicket was giving them plenty of help too.
>>
>>Who had " the idea that Essex had doctored the pitch to suit Harmer"?
>
>Given the conversation we've been shown, that appears to be the
>village idiot's invention. I know he's keen on 1950s practices, but
>that's one we could happily do without reviving.
>
>>I don't do much CC observation, I keep an eye on Sussex scorecards to
>>see how Jack Carson is getting on.
>>Has there been an allegation of pitch witchery?
>
>No. But I will be unsurprised to learn that the home side will get
>docked points for a poor pitch.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike

I thought I had missed some kind of scandal. I love a good scandal.

max.it

On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 8:28:27 PM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> In message <9c07a279-891e-4f5f...@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
> >On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 7:48:26 PM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> >> Lancashire 131 and 25-6 (a recovery from 7-6), Essex 107. In comparison
> >> to Chelmsford, the Aegeas Bowl almost sounds like a batting paradise:
> >> Kent 165 and 20-3 (two of them nightwatchmen), Hampshire 57.
> >
> >Most pf the wickets were taken by pace bowlers not spinners so the idea
> >that Essex had doctored the pitch to suit Harmer does not stand up RH
> I didn't suggest that they had. He did take 5 wickets in 11.5 overs in
> Lancashire's first innings, but given the success that the seamers have
> had it looks like the wicket was giving them plenty of help too.
> --
> John Hall
> "Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
> But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
> Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

I wasn't directing the comment at you John but at the widespread suspicion Essex have been producing spinning pitches for Harmer. RH

On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 10:23:25 PM UTC+1, max.it wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 22:03:05 +0100, Mike Holmans <sp...@jackalope.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 21:55:53 +0100, max.it <m...@tea.time> wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 20:24:05 +0100, John Hall
> >><john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>>In message <9c07a279-891e-4f5f...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>>Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
> >>>>On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 7:48:26 PM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> >>>>> Lancashire 131 and 25-6 (a recovery from 7-6), Essex 107. In comparison
> >>>>> to Chelmsford, the Aegeas Bowl almost sounds like a batting paradise:
> >>>>> Kent 165 and 20-3 (two of them nightwatchmen), Hampshire 57.
> >>>>
> >>>>Most pf the wickets were taken by pace bowlers not spinners so the idea
> >>>>that Essex had doctored the pitch to suit Harmer does not stand up RH
> >>>
> >>>I didn't suggest that they had. He did take 5 wickets in 11.5 overs in
> >>>Lancashire's first innings, but given the success that the seamers have
> >>>had it looks like the wicket was giving them plenty of help too.
> >>
> >>Who had " the idea that Essex had doctored the pitch to suit Harmer"?
> >
> >Given the conversation we've been shown, that appears to be the
> >village idiot's invention. I know he's keen on 1950s practices, but
> >that's one we could happily do without reviving.
> >
> >>I don't do much CC observation, I keep an eye on Sussex scorecards to
> >>see how Jack Carson is getting on.
> >>Has there been an allegation of pitch witchery?
> >
> >No. But I will be unsurprised to learn that the home side will get
> >docked points for a poor pitch.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Mike
> I thought I had missed some kind of scandal. I love a good scandal.
>
> max.it

Like your desperate attention seeking about having only a short time to live, eh, Lazarus... RH

On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 10:03:08 PM UTC+1, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 21:55:53 +0100, max.it <m...@tea.time> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 20:24:05 +0100, John Hall
> ><john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>In message <9c07a279-891e-4f5f...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
> >>>On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 7:48:26 PM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> >>>> Lancashire 131 and 25-6 (a recovery from 7-6), Essex 107. In comparison
> >>>> to Chelmsford, the Aegeas Bowl almost sounds like a batting paradise:
> >>>> Kent 165 and 20-3 (two of them nightwatchmen), Hampshire 57.
> >>>
> >>>Most pf the wickets were taken by pace bowlers not spinners so the idea
> >>>that Essex had doctored the pitch to suit Harmer does not stand up RH
> >>
> >>I didn't suggest that they had. He did take 5 wickets in 11.5 overs in
> >>Lancashire's first innings, but given the success that the seamers have
> >>had it looks like the wicket was giving them plenty of help too.
> >

yes and essex got wiped out by a couple of junior medium pacers
chasing just 98 to win, so whatever the intentions it backfired.

> >Who had " the idea that Essex had doctored the pitch to suit Harmer"?
> Given the conversation we've been shown, that appears to be the
> village idiot's invention. I know he's keen on 1950s practices, but
> that's one we could happily do without reviving.

i remember a few seasons back that somerset were in trouble for
this sort of thing after they had Leach open the bowling. and then they got
done again a while later making a pitch extra bouncy for overton. i dont
remember the details but they got docked a lot of points.

> >I don't do much CC observation, I keep an eye on Sussex scorecards to
> >see how Jack Carson is getting on.
> >Has there been an allegation of pitch witchery?
> No. But I will be unsurprised to learn that the home side will get
> docked points for a poor pitch.
>

quite a few collapses elsewhere. its not surprising at this late stage in
the season that the pitches are difficult to bat on after such a dry summer.
After all 30 wkts fell at the oval in the test in just 2 days. But chelmsford
seems rather extreme.

mike

In message <17e64b7c-3b08-42dd-aaeb-96be5885932fn@googlegroups.com>,
mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>quite a few collapses elsewhere. its not surprising at this late stage
>in the season that the pitches are difficult to bat on after such a dry
>summer. After all 30 wkts fell at the oval in the test in just 2 days.
>But chelmsford seems rather extreme.

It does, and I'd be surprised if the ECB doesn't dock Essex some points.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 12:42:56 AM UTC+1, mike wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 10:03:08 PM UTC+1, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 21:55:53 +0100, max.it <m...@tea.time> wrote:
> >
> > >On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 20:24:05 +0100, John Hall
> > ><john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > >>In message <9c07a279-891e-4f5f...@googlegroups.com>,
> > >>Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
> > >>>On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 7:48:26 PM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> > >>>> Lancashire 131 and 25-6 (a recovery from 7-6), Essex 107. In comparison
> > >>>> to Chelmsford, the Aegeas Bowl almost sounds like a batting paradise:
> > >>>> Kent 165 and 20-3 (two of them nightwatchmen), Hampshire 57.
> > >>>
> > >>>Most pf the wickets were taken by pace bowlers not spinners so the idea
> > >>>that Essex had doctored the pitch to suit Harmer does not stand up RH
> > >>
> > >>I didn't suggest that they had. He did take 5 wickets in 11.5 overs in
> > >>Lancashire's first innings, but given the success that the seamers have
> > >>had it looks like the wicket was giving them plenty of help too.
> > >
> yes and essex got wiped out by a couple of junior medium pacers
> chasing just 98 to win, so whatever the intentions it backfired.
> > >Who had " the idea that Essex had doctored the pitch to suit Harmer"?
> > Given the conversation we've been shown, that appears to be the
> > village idiot's invention. I know he's keen on 1950s practices, but
> > that's one we could happily do without reviving.
> i remember a few seasons back that somerset were in trouble for
> this sort of thing after they had Leach open the bowling. and then they got
> done again a while later making a pitch extra bouncy for overton. i dont
> remember the details but they got docked a lot of points.
> > >I don't do much CC observation, I keep an eye on Sussex scorecards to
> > >see how Jack Carson is getting on.
> > >Has there been an allegation of pitch witchery?
> > No. But I will be unsurprised to learn that the home side will get
> > docked points for a poor pitch.
> >
> quite a few collapses elsewhere. its not surprising at this late stage in
> the season that the pitches are difficult to bat on after such a dry summer.
> After all 30 wkts fell at the oval in the test in just 2 days. But chelmsford
> seems rather extreme.
>
> mike

A lack of batting technique and mentality to fight through difficult conditions ... RH

In message <8be1f989-5041-453e-a1ab-b84b6edec7efn@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes
>On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 12:42:56 AM UTC+1, mike wrote:
>> >
>> quite a few collapses elsewhere. its not surprising at this late stage in
>> the season that the pitches are difficult to bat on after such a dry summer.
>> After all 30 wkts fell at the oval in the test in just 2 days. But
>>chelmsford
>> seems rather extreme.
>>
>> mike

In total contrast, David Lloyd of Glamorgan made 313*, which apparently
is the highest score ever made by a Welshman.

>
>A lack of batting technique and mentality to fight through difficult
>conditions ... RH

Scores tended to be very low in the 1950s too. Perhaps batsmen back then
also lacked the batting technique and mentality to fight through
difficult conditions? You will no doubt say that the standard of bowling
was higher in the 1950s, but that is more an article of faith with you
than something capable of objective proof.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 9:09:03 AM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> In message <8be1f989-5041-453e...@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
> >On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 12:42:56 AM UTC+1, mike wrote:
> >> >
> >> quite a few collapses elsewhere. its not surprising at this late stage in
> >> the season that the pitches are difficult to bat on after such a dry summer.
> >> After all 30 wkts fell at the oval in the test in just 2 days. But
> >>chelmsford
> >> seems rather extreme.
> >>
> >> mike
> In total contrast, David Lloyd of Glamorgan made 313*, which apparently
> is the highest score ever made by a Welshman.
> >
> >A lack of batting technique and mentality to fight through difficult
> >conditions ... RH
> Scores tended to be very low in the 1950s too. Perhaps batsmen back then
> also lacked the batting technique and mentality to fight through
> difficult conditions? You will no doubt say that the standard of bowling
> was higher in the 1950s, but that is more an article of faith with you
> than something capable of objective proof.
> --
> John Hall
> "Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
> But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
> Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

NB I have just done this from memory so the lists of players, batting and bowling, are meant to be illustrative not comprehensive, RH

1. Wickets in the 1950s were uncovered and there was no ECB regulation of how pitches were prepared.
2.These great batsmen thrived in the 1950s:

Graveney, Cowdrey, Compton, Bill Edrich, John Edrich, J May, Barrington, Dexter, Sheppard ,Hutton,

To them were these of second rank

Peter Richardson, Doug Insole, Cyril Washbrook, Jack Roberson, Joe Hardstaff jnr , Willie Watson,

To the third rank are those who averaged over 30

Arnold Hamer , AJ Watkins, DM Young , J Gray, Cyril Poole Bernard Constable, Tom Clark

The of bowlers they had to face

Fast: Trueman, Statham, Tysom, Loader, Harold, Rhodes, Fred Ridgeway, Alan Moss, Jack Flavell

Fast Medium; Bedser, Bailey, Gladwin,, LesJackson, Ken Higgs, Terry Spencer, Ian Thomson, Jack Bannister, Len Coldwell

Ofspin: Edwin Smith, David Mortimer, David Allen, Jim McConnon, Don Shepherd, Roy Tattersall, Fred Titumus, Brian Langford. Laker, Robin Marlar, Appleyard, Ray Illingworth,
SLA Cecil Cook, Malcolm Hilton, Tony Lock, Ron Howorth, Johnny Wardle,

LBG Doug Wright, Freddie Brown, Eric Hollies, Roly Jenkins, Johnny Lawrence, Tommy Greenhough.

RH