County Championship 2022. Division 1. Essex v Somerset. 25^th, 26^th, 27^th and 28^th July. Chelmsford.

Josh Davey, Sonny Baker and Ned Leonard were unavailable due to injury.

Somerset. M.T. Renshaw, T.A. Lammonby, T.B. Abell (c), G.A. Bartlett, L.P. Goldsworthy, J.E.K. Rew (w), L. Gregory, K.L. Aldridge, C. Overton, P.M. Siddle, M.J. Leach.

Essex. N.L.J. Browne, Sir A.N. Cook, T. Westley (c), D.W. Lawrence, P.I. Walter, M.J.J. Critchley, A.M. Rossington (w), S.R. Harmer, A.P. Beard, S. Snater, J.A. Porter.

Overnight. Essex 505 for 8 dec. Somerset 99 for 1. Somerset trail by 406 runs.

Third day 27^th July – The drum beats on

On the third day, the rhythm of the drum to which this match was played beat more slowly still. There was no approaching declaration to drive the score along as had happened towards the end of the Essex innings on the second day. Somerset merely responded to Essex’s 505 with a relentless, grinding beat of their own. Essex had scored 281 for the loss of three wickets on the first day. On the third, facing the threat of Harmer, Somerset scored 20 runs less for the loss of two wickets, only one of them, the slightly more adventurous Bartlett, to Harmer. It might have been a long watch for the neutral observer. For the Somerset supporter, needing evidence that the top order batting was able to continue the form it had begun to develop over the last two matches, it was at least a day, if a gruelling one, of affirmation and slowly burgeoning hope that a corner might be being turned.

Renshaw and Abell had forged ahead at the end of the second day against some off-colour Essex bowling. By the third morning the bowlers had rediscovered their form and the Somerset batters responded accordingly. It was hard, toe-to-toe cricket of the old sort, although it might have attracted a slow handclap in days gone by. Perhaps though not the sort of cricket that the modern Championship needs if it is to retain its historic position as the premier county competition. Hard cricket can be played with more thought for the paying spectator if the pitch gives more encouragement to both bowlers and batters than this one did. Skill was needed here, but the main requirement of both bowlers and batters seemed to be patience. Two and three quarter runs an over for the day for the loss of two wickets was a good performance from Somerset on this pitch and in the context of the match situation, but is an insufficient return if new blood is to be attracted to the stands of the Championship.

Thirty-nine runs and two boundaries, Renshaw lofting Harmer back over his head to the River End sight screen and Abell cutting Beard through backward point, both for four, were scored in the first 20 overs of the morning. A leg before wicket appeal from Harmer against Renshaw from a ball which drifted nicely and turned slowly but did not offer any bounce, and Abell being beaten once and playing and missing once against Snater the only encouragement for the bowlers which my notes record. The thing that most held the attention was the knowledge that one mistake from either batter might open up Somerset’s more fragile middle order. Encouraging from a Somerset perspective was that Renshaw gave the impression of a home-grown Somerset player. He seemed to be at one with himself and Abell as they battled into the second hour of the morning.

As Somerset edged forward and the ball softened, Essex reverted to their second-line bowlers in Critchley and Walter, the latter barely bowling above medium pace, and a deep-set defensive run-saving field. Somerset had lost only one wicket, but the Essex lead was still in excess of 350 and it seemed incongruous to witness such a relaxation of pressure on batters under the threat of relegation. Renshaw responded by finding the boundary twice in successive overs, once lofting Critchley back over his head to the Hayes Close End. But otherwise, the dozen or so overs to lunch consisted of a four guided through backward point by Abell off Beard, a desultory pair of twos and singles mainly pushed wide of the inner ring or lazily run as boundary fielders ambled in a few yards to scoop a softly struck ball off the grass. At lunch, with only five sessions of the match remaining, Somerset had reached 186 for 1, still 319 behind, with Renshaw on 79 and Abell on 71, their respective fifties having passed by almost unnoticed as the slow caravan of the Somerset innings crawled forward to the endless beat of that drum.

The first over after lunch, bowled by Beard from the Hayes Close End, brought a boundary from each of Renshaw, a square cut to the boundary opposite the Pavilion, and Abell, pulled to long leg. For anyone hoping for batting fireworks it was a false dawn. In the next 13 overs a single boundary was struck, by Abell driving Beard square through the off to the semi-permanent marquee next to the Pavilion. Other than a two driven off Beard by Renshaw through midwicket the remainder of the scoring consisted of singles, mostly ‘agreed’ between the batters and fielders, and mostly fading into the fabric of the second seemingly interminable innings of the match. Somerset though were building a score, and after the despair among supporters of the first half of the season this was another building block in the recovery begun at Southport. It continued in the match against Yorkshire at Taunton that Somerset might so easily have won but for the intervention of the rain. Here, Renshaw reached his century by pushing Critchley into the leg side, almost inevitably for a single. At the end of the 13 overs Somerset had reached 225 for 1, but still trailed Essex by 280 with all but half the afternoon session gone. Cricket of this sort eats playing time.

Harmer was back in the attack, and he did seem to be turning the ball more, but the turn was as slow as it had been all match and the bounce provided no threat. It was as if we were watching a re-run of the first day with different actors playing the same characters and working to the same script. Renshaw and Abell for Browne and Walter and Harmer for Leach, whose performance grew in stature as Harmer failed to make any impact. Harmer was a whisker more containing than Leach, or the Somerset batters, under the pressure of responding to a total beyond 500 were even more circumspect than the Essex ones had been. With everything happening in slow motion to that endless metronomic beat it was impossible to tell, but Somerset were matching Essex.

And then suddenly, Abell and Renshaw, as if the weight on the metronome had slipped, set off with intent for two. Abell pulled up at the end of the second run and play was halted while a physio appeared. Abell was clearly suffering discomfort in his leg sufficient for an obvious limp. Eventually he left the field with 90 runs against his name. It was an anxiety fuelled moment for Somerset supporters. Nothing seemed to have been standing in the way of a century for Abell. His departure also opened a door for Essex through no action of their own. If cricket supporters were attached to blood pressure monitors, the ones on Somerset arms would have seen the rate rise.

Enter George Bartlett, out of form until his 88 against Yorkshire, and out of the team for most of this season. He never looked, secure, but attempted to introduce a change of tempo, guiding his first ball from Critchley to the fine leg boundary. Harmer was driven through the covers for four more, and in his next over, struck straight back over his head to the River End for six with the next ball being driven through the covers for two. That was in the 80^th over. At the start of the 81^st Essex took the new ball and gave it to Porter and Harmer who looked more threatening with it than he had with the old. Bartlett, who had already survived a huge appeal for a catch at short leg, now survived another for caught behind, both off Harmer. Harmer was achieving more turn with the new ball, although it remained gentle and within the batter’s compass to control. Soon enough though, Harmer struck. Bartlett attempted the reverse sweep, but the ball merely looped to Browne at short leg and Somerset were 268 for 2. Bartlett 24 in a little over half an hour.

Enter Goldsworthy, batting hero of Southport, and with a developing history of fighting innings for Somerset. There was another here as, with Somerset still 237 behind and Abell hors de combat, he and Renshaw dug in as the match resumed its steady rhythm which Renshaw had maintained during Bartlett’s attacking flurry. They took Somerset to tea, another edge, this time from Renshaw off Harmer, falling short of slip, but otherwise the eight overs after the departure of Bartlett were negotiated with no alarums. Goldsworthy drove Porter through the covers for four to the Pavilion and pulled him square to the open seating on the other side of the ground. Renshaw pulled a rare loose ball from Harmer to the same place, but otherwise it was the diet of stubborn defence and lazy singles which had become the leitmotif for this match. Somerset reached tea on 288 for 2 with Renshaw on 124 and Goldsworthy on 10. The Somerset innings had taken 92 overs with 99 of the runs having come off the first 27 on the previous evening. With four sessions remaining in the match, Somerset were still 217 runs behind Essex. In eight sessions 11 wickets had fallen, three of those in Essex’s short declaration charge at the end of their innings.

Although there was more turn for the spinners now, it was so slow there was no indication that a result might be remotely possible short of a sudden, all-engulfing, collapse by one side or the other. Neither was there any indication, Bartlett’s foray apart, of that being likely. The tempo of the game slowed even further as, ahead of the over rate because of the continual bowling of Harmer, Essex bowled only 31 overs in the final session even though 23 of them were bowled by spinners. Watching such cricket felt like the beat of that drum was barely fast enough for one marching foot to pass in front of the other. Cricket of the old sort, tough and uncompromising from both sides, but with no result possible, and no assistance for bat or ball, it was an act of endurance to watch to the end.

Only occasionally was the tedium breached. Snater bounced Goldsworthy, but the pitch could not lift the ball to its full height and Goldsworthy ducked into it. He was hit on the side of the helmet but the mandatory concussion test left him at the wicket to continue his dogged vigil. An attempted stumping off Harmer by the substitute wicketkeeper, William Buttleman, Rossington being absent the whole day, had the replay being showed three times, but it showed Goldsworthy well behind his crease when the bails came off. Goldsworthy also edged a ball from Harmer, but like so many in this match it fell short of the fielder, this time at short leg.

The only other occurrence of note was the wicket of Renshaw whose own vigil came to an end after six and a half hours and 313 balls. He had added three boundaries since tea towards his final tally of 17, all three pulled or guided into the area behind square on the leg side, Snater and Beard the bowlers. As so often after an innings of that length the end came as a surprise in one of the more innocuous ways in which a batter can be dismissed. Renshaw had just batted three balls back down the pitch to Harmer before driving him into the covers to retain the strike. Beard promptly bounced him from around the wicket and Renshaw, swaying slightly away from the ball, attempted a gentle guided hook behind square. The connection was too fine, and Buttleman took the catch moving sharply to his right. Renshaw had made 146, Somerset were 324 for 3 and, with just over half the session left, still 181 runs behind Essex. With Abell still injured and with such a deficit there was little alternative for Somerset but to continue doggedly along the road to parity.

James Rew, the other batting hero of Southport joined Goldsworthy. They added 35 runs in the 19 overs to the close, less than two an over, and the deficit was still 146 as the pair walked off. During those 19 overs, Goldsworthy did not find the boundary once, his intent to keep Somerset at the crease and away from risk clear from the intensity with which he defended, against Harmer in particular. Rew was a little more assertive, but none the less intent for that. My notes do not record him being beaten, or even troubled for that matter, although he was not averse to employing the reverse sweep. Four times, he found the boundary as Somerset calmly negotiated their way to the close. Once he drove Beard backward of square with an angled bat towards the end of the old Felsted Stand. Twice he reverse-swept Critchley, both times keeping the ball down. Once, he swept Lawrence fine just beyond the reach of Buttleman. He finished on 22 from 19 overs, an indication, given 16 of those came in boundaries, of the discipline with which he batted. It belied his 18 years.

After three days, 11 wickets had fallen, three in a declaration dash, for 864 runs, an indication of the lumbering pace of the match and of the virtual impregnability of the pitch to the wiles of even a bowler of Harmer’s skills and familiarity with it. Predicting cricket is a fool’s game, but no-one with a penny to spare would wager it on there being a positive result in this match, even with Somerset’s propensity to collapse. This match was not a spectator spectacle, but it had been a testing ground for the Somerset batting, a test which it seemed they would pass without too much by way of alarm.

Close. Essex 505 for 8 dec (N.L.J. Browne 234*, P.I. Walter 86, Sir A.N. Cook 44, T.A. Lammonby 3-35). Somerset 359 for 3. Somerset trail by 146 runs with seven first innings wickets standing.