Post by arf on Dec 1, 2013 8:01:07 GMT
“A dose of adversity is as needed as a dose of medicine” – Prov.
Time and distance have seen the frustration, anger and disappointment at the loss to Essex subside somewhat. The lack of match report coupled with the blunt email sent to the squad afterward was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction but understandable as, bar the default to Sussex at the end of what was a disastrous 2009-10 Cycle (P6 L6), the defeat was the largest your author has experienced in his tenure as 2nd team captain. It exceeded the two 5-11 defeats (Essex 2006-07 and Sussex 2009-10) and was the first double digit defeat since that loss to Sussex in 2009-10. For the record the following are the heaviest defeats Middlesex 2nd team has suffered:
1.5-18.5 vs. Kent II (Cycle: 1987-88; Captain: J. McVicar)
1.5-14.5 vs. Kent I (1990-91; A. Laurence – this one is a bit unfair as Middlesex II were playing in 1st Division so were playing the first teams of other counties competing for Shannon Trophy including Middlesex I so were on a hiding to nothing anyway!)
1.5-14.5 vs. Sussex (2001-02; Mrs. Z. Ryle)
The result does go into the Middlesex annals as the 10th equal defeat the 2nd team has suffered.
Middlesex losing though was not the issue after all no-one has the right to expect to win and win all the time; what hurt more was the manner of the defeat, 2 defaults on the day coupled with a weaker than expected team – 6 players graded u160 (thanks to you all for ensuring Middlesex fielded a full team). This puts the team under a great degree of pressure and players take a few more risks than is necessary to try and redress the deficit and secure the win Bob’s game exemplified this.
The frustration then was understandable because a tremendous amount of time and effort is devoted in building and sustaining a competitive squad / team and when things unravel you feel powerless to do anything but hopefully you still have the desire to plough on; as one of you put it, 'to be a match captain involves a degree of masochism!' Those of you who are or have been Match captain will empathise with the sentiment. So clearly the desire of your author to plough on has been sore tested.
The Essex match was the third successive one in which Middlesex has failed to exceed an average of 165:
2012-13 ECF QF vs. Devon (163);
2012-13 ECF SF vs. Cambridgeshire (162) and
2013-14 SCCU Rd1 vs. Essex (162)
Unsurprisingly 2 of these matches were lost as opponents get a fillip seeing a weak Middlesex line-up and this is effectively a point gained by them as Middlesex’s aura of invincibility is lost!
Middlesex fielding a weak team especially against their greatest SCCU rival in this division is a real surprise as after the grading review from 2009-10 they have consistently fielded teams with an average in excess of 165 thereby allowing your author in the main to enjoy the role of being a non-playing captain. In not playing for the County as regularly as he used to it has extended the time he which he would be expected to have made 100 appearances for the 2nd team – from the reinstatement of the 2nd team in 2001-02 he has appeared in 71 of their 85 matches to 2012-13. Since it has been a rarity to field unrepresentative teams over the past few seasons – 5 out of 26 to 2012-13 – a sure sign that things are awry is when author your has to play in the team and in this case even with him in it for the Essex match no significant difference was made to the teams overall strength. What was pleasing though was the depth of 170+ players the squad has.
Although fielding 3 consecutive teams below 165 cannot necessarily be considered a trend it has once again led your author to explore an idea he has been toying with on and off over the past few cycles. Namely, should the MCCA introduce an award for the best performing 2nd team player one that is along the lines of the Open team’s Martin Blaine Best Performance Cup? – foxyfiddler.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=middxteams&action=display&thread=187
The award was introduced in 1974-75 in order to ensure Middlesex fielded representative teams at all times especially for away matches. In short points are awarded for appearance and performance with the individual accumulating greatest number of points winning an award – trophy (and cash prize?) If so by name of award on reviewing Middlesex’s record books maybe it should be called the David Foley-Comer Best Performance Award in recognition of one Middlesex’s most successful Captains – he captained and achieved success for both the Open (4 titles) and 2nd team (3 titles) but most notably set an impressive Open record of 31 undefeated matches (+30 =1); perhaps he ought to be recognised for his achievement. Had an award been in place last year’s winner would have been David White 35points followed by Ian Calvert on 34pts. In fact the thought raises a further question as to whether MCCA should recognise county appearance and milestones. Tell me what you think. If either is worthwhile the idea will be raised with MCCA Committee. Certainly if they agree with the principle of ‘best performance award’ for 2nd team player they may have different ideas as to whom to name the award after as there are a number of other captains or committee members who merit an award named after them but maybe the principle could be extended and these could be awards for our lower teams or for other awards for 1st and/or 2nd team players.
Notwithstanding the Essex match (and the reflection generated) is firmly behind us and looking forward Middlesex will use the experience to make certain they endeavour to get their season back on track; they had the perfect opportunity to do so starting with a revenge match against Kent – the team who stole their trophy in 2012-13.
During his tenure as captain your author recognises matches against the county of his birth have been infrequent (7 out of a possible 12) as Kent have struggled to appoint 2nd team captains; however in Mike Wiltshire they seem to have achieved stability and proof of this is that they won the Montague-Jones Trophy in 2012-13 - their first title of any kind since the last of a hat-trick of SCCU wins in1995-96.
Going into the match Middlesex were able to finally field a team in line with their expected average but notwithstanding their strength they were determined to both avenge their lost title to Kent and get their season back on track. Unfortunately though, the match didn’t go their way as in losing 7-9 to the current SCCU Champions Middlesex incurred their third successive defeat. The last time Middlesex experienced three successive defeats under your author’s tenure as captain was in 200-11. If the unthinkable happens and Middlesex lose a fourth in their next match at home to Surrey then the cycle will begin to have an uncanny resemblance to the 2008-09/2009-10 cycles. Then Middlesex lost to Yorkshire in semi-final in the last u175 contest held before grading review and then went on to lose the first three in the new u180 competition.
Your author has been sitting on the bench for far too long as he wanted to give others a chance to play for the County – ‘The needs of the many outweighing the needs of the one or few!’ – but in struggling to field representative teams he has vowed to play more regularly for the County. The decision has mixed blessing as in the event he becomes involved in a protracted struggle, as he did in this game, he will be unable to pay as much attention to the games in play as he’d like so match reports may not be as detailed as previously thus do forgive the brevity of current and future match comments.
Of the games observed, George and Roger were involved in strategic games where their understanding bore fruit; Mateusz faced Syd Jacob and in playing him must be prepared for the tactical melees that ensue, Mateusz showed he was up to the job as despite losing the right to castle AND being significantly behind in development he did have sufficient compensation as he had exchanged his queen for a rook and 3 minor pieces! Needless to say it was just a matter of time before he organised his pieces and used them to crush his opponent. Your author’s game would appear turgid but post-match analysis showed that in many of the possible lines that were considered at the board discretion proved to be the better part of valour. However his opponent did make it a little bit hairy as he sacrificed piece for 3 pawns and was setting up mating nets. Your author played a captain’s innings to safely navigate the tricks and bring home the point to level the scores. Charlie (McAleenan) had managed to win a pawn but his opponent timed his sacrifice well to ensure he had a theoretically drawn K+R vs. K+R+B. If anyone can add extra details most appreciated.
When reviewing the results as they came in your author’s and Roger’s successive victories were the sole time Middlesex had managed to achieve the lead as in the main they were trailing in the match. Even though ahead at this time the remaining matches of Jonathan (White); Charlie (Nettleton) and Guy were all looking bleak and when all as expected lost the match was lost.
Unlucky guys!
Match details here - www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/match2.htm
With two games down and two to go Middlesex has given up any hopes of regaining the Montague-Jones Trophy this cycle but can still harbour hopes of lifting the National Title. In order to so however they have a mountain to climb as they must now win both of their remaining matches to ensure they secure the 3rd qualifying berth.
Prior to the Middlesex vs. Kent match Essex had already travelled to Sussex. When comparing Essex results of the past few cycles to those set by the teams of their past it could be argued that they were in the doldrums – Essex had dominated the division winning the SCCU title consecutively from 1996 to 2009 but the last 4 cycles had seen the title shared among Surrey, Essex, Middlesex and Kent indicating just how competitive the SCCU is. However they seem to be enjoying a new lease of life as they followed up their trouncing of Middlesex with a comprehensive 10.5-5.5 victory over Sussex thereby maintain a 100% record. With two comprehensive victories under their belt they can be confident of lifting the title once again and this could well be ratified in January when Surrey, who is known to be poor traveller, plays Essex in Wanstead. Sussex having lost both matches to date will need to win their remaining games – including Middlesex in March – however like Surrey they are known to be fragile on the road so in having to travel to Kent in January they will have to pull out all the stops to get a strong team out to maintain their chances. Thus even at this early stage it is safe to say that all the other teams are playing for 2nd and 3rd place!
League Table Round 2:
1. Essex 2/2 (22.5Game Points)
2. Surrey 1/1 (10.5)
3. Kent 1/1 (9)
4. Middlesex 0/2 (11)
4. Sussex 0/2 (11)
As usual there is an interruption to the County Competition as the London Classic takes precedence in December. Good luck to those of you who will be participating. The next match will therefore be in the New Year when Middlesex play Surrey on 22nd February 2014.
Go on the Middlesex!