Author Topic: Kent at Canterbury  (Read 1082 times)

Offline aztec

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 228
Kent at Canterbury
« on: August 23, 2019, 03:24:39 PM »
What an up-and-down match this was but the right result came our way thanks to some magnificent bowling from Sam Cook, 5-42 in the 1st innings and 7-23 in the second to give him his best bowling figures and his first "10 in a match".

Mohammad Amir, with his 28 runs in the first innings, achieved his best First Class batting for Essex and he also took 4-48 in the Kent 1st innings.

The Kent 2nd innings total of 40 was the lowest between the two Counties since the 43 scored at Southend in 1925.

Earlier in the season Simon Harmer scored 1000 First Class runs for Essex and in this game he passed 1000 County Championship runs when he had scored 20 in the 2nd innings.

On Day 3 26 wickets fell for 275 runs in approximately 90 overs. It was, I understand, nothing to do with the pitch but rather that batsmen were still in T20 mode and played accordingly. Playing with a straight bat was, apparently, the answer according to the Umpires.

Offline Andy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6922
Re: Kent at Canterbury
« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2019, 03:44:55 PM »
Aztec.  Thanks for this.  I've trying to find out if the 26 wickets is a record for a day's 1st class cricket.  I know of matches where one side gets bowled out twice but never 26!

Offline stewyww

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 420
Re: Kent at Canterbury
« Reply #2 on: August 23, 2019, 04:19:59 PM »
Andy, it is not even a record for a game involving Essex.
In 1995 we played a 4 day game against Northamptonshire at Wardown Park in Luton.

We batted first on a damp pitch and were bowled out for 127. In reply we bowled out Northants in just over 20 overs for 46 (shades of Tuesday). Mark Ilott had the remarkable figures of 9-19.

We then batted again, this time succumbing to 107 all out. No double ducks though.

There was still time for Northants to start the fourth innings of the day, finishing on 1-0.

There was no happy ending however, as Northants reached their target on day two for the loss of eight wickets.
So 30 wickets on day 1

The other interesting statistic that season was that we finished 5th out of 18 teams in the county championship, but lost more games than we won! We actually won 8 and lost 9, and drew none.


Offline Andy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6922
Re: Kent at Canterbury
« Reply #3 on: August 23, 2019, 04:54:18 PM »
Thanks Stewyww, I had forgotten about that match!  didn't think quite so many wickets fell, but those were the joys of festival cricket. 

The fact that we lost more than half our matches reflects the Fletcher-like view of the glory days of 3 day cricket i.e. better to lose trying to win than close down for a draw. However, whereas Fletch had a massively talented batting and seam bowling line-up, the class of 1995 relied too heavily upon an ageing Gooch, our overseas bat plus a couple of seamers with dodgy knees/backs. 

Arguably, the era of 2 day CC cricket has seen us win matches and championships in just that same cavalier style.  However I'm not sure that it's helped the Test team...

Offline Perov

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1344
Re: Kent at Canterbury
« Reply #4 on: August 23, 2019, 04:59:00 PM »
In 1956. Northants v  Essex at Peterborough, 30 wickets fell in a day.

But still not a record.
In 1958. Derby v Hampshire at Burton, 39 wickets fell in a day.

Offline oldhasbeen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1105
Re: Kent at Canterbury
« Reply #5 on: August 24, 2019, 05:06:22 PM »
It's not a record but I saw 29 wickets in a day against Northants at Leyton in about 1975, then 24 wickets in a day against Warwicks at the same venue a year later.

I don't think there was much first class cricket at Leyton after that.

Offline Andy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6922
Re: Kent at Canterbury
« Reply #6 on: August 24, 2019, 07:07:26 PM »
Pitch inspectors wouldn't be able to cope with festival cricket back in those days. No wonder our national team was so useless.