County Championship 2024. Division 1. Warwickshire v Somerset 22^nd, 23^rd, 24^th and 25^th August. Edgbaston.

Lewis Gregory was unavailable due to a groin injury. Craig Overton captained the Somerset side.

Warwickshire. R.M. Yates, A.L. Davies (c), W.M.H. Rhodes, H. Shaikh, J.G. Bethell, E.G. Barnard, D.R. Mousley, M.G.K. Burgess (w), M.D. Rae, C. Rushworth, O.J. Hannon-Dalby.

Somerset. T. Kohler-Cadmore, A.R.I. Umeed, T. A. Lammonby, T.B. Abell, T. Banton, J.E.K. Rew (w), K.L. Aldridge, C. Overton (c), M. Pretorius, M.J. Leach, J.T. Ball. 

Overnight. Warwickshire 337 and 175  for 5. Somerset. Warwickshire lead by 273 runs with five second innings wickets standing.

Final day 25^th August – Frustration

This was a day of hopes, dreams and frustration. In the end, consistent with Somerset’s long history of pursuing the County Championship, frustration won out. In truth, the County Championship had probably already been put out of Somerset’s, and everyone’s, reach by Surrey. Six wins in nine games coming into this round of matches, seven in ten going out of it, is hard to argue with. But hope is a persistent siren. It envelopes the soul and blinds the mind to rational thought. In short, throughout this match, Somerset supporters still hoped, even though Surrey led their team by 27 points at the start, and bowled Lancashire out twice in the space of 120 overs before the finish, barely breaking sweat in the process. “If we could win here, and beat Surrey at Taunton, and … and … and …” was a consistent refrain.

As to the Somerset team, they never gave up, no matter how much the scoreboard and the weather swung against them. Warwickshire were bowled out just before lunch, setting Somerset 369 in 68 overs. That was difficult enough, but the loss of ten overs immediately after lunch stretched the bounds of hope into realms that would have tested the author of the most far-fetched fairy tale. It increased the required run rate from an already unlikely 5.4 runs an over to 6.4 across 56 overs. And yet, Somerset supporters still hoped, and Somerset still tried, and not without some, if faint, hope of success. On the final morning, the overriding sense was of Warwickshire being as cautious as they had been on the third afternoon. Whether that was caused, or helped, by a rejuvenated Jack Leach is an unanswered question. It is beyond doubt though that, whether emboldened by Warwickshire’s tactics or not, Leach produced his best spell of the season on what appeared to be an unresponsive pitch.

At lunchtime, with Warwickshire finally all out after another less than adventurous session with the bat, a Warwickshire supporter, on seeing my Somerset lanyard, approached me to ask if I could explain Warwickshire’s tactics. Seeing the overnight score, he had brought his son to his first Championship match. He had expected a positive approach, a declaration well before lunch, and a close finish as Somerset attacked a target. I couldn’t speak for the rationale for Warwickshire’s tactics but said that Somerset successfully chasing 400 against Warwickshire at Taunton in the last Championship match, lack of confidence from not having won a single Championship match all season and the prospect of eight points for a draw when relegation threatened might all have been factors. He was not assuaged, and when I later told a friend watching with me, he reported that he had heard similar complaints from Warwickshire supporters in the Wyatt Stand bar.

As to the morning’s play, for Somerset, Leach was on early, from the Pavilion End, and his impact was immediate. Alex Davies, on 131, had just shown signs of acceleration. The ball before he was out, he had swept fine for four. Then, brilliantly deceived in the flight, he had shaped to come forward, found himself driven sharply back, bat flailing, and was bowled. Warwickshire 218 for 6. Lead 316. Dan Mousley, on one after 35 balls, immediately attacked. Aldridge was driven through the on side to the Barnes Stand boundary twice off successive balls. “You bears,” the shout. An off drive off Leach reached the Pavilion boundary, but again, the prowling Leach struck. Mousley advanced down the pitch to drive, Leach, perhaps sensing him coming and pitched wide. Mousley chased the ball, missed and was stumped by a clear yard, easily visible from my seat, square, in the Hollies Stand. Warwickshire 243 for 7. Mousley 37. Lead 341. Leach in such form must give batters flashbacks at three in the morning.

Watching Leach weave his spells were me, about a dozen spectators spread across the 5,900-seat expanse of the Hollies Stand, and perhaps 400 more in the rest of the ground, many of them behind glass, for a chill wind gripped those in the open stands. In the middle, Michael Rae, who had scored 28 from 22 balls in the first innings, was immediately entangled in Leach’s web. A gargantuan second-ball slog-sweep left his off stump lying flat across the back of the stumps and him desperately trying not to fall flat with it. Apparently, there was no deviation off the pitch. Deceived in the flight. Genius. And glorious if you were a Somerset supporter. Warwickshire 243 for 7. Rae 0. Lead 341.

As Leach advanced, the mind was turning to what equation Somerset might face when they came to bat. Allowing for the change of innings, there were 77 overs remaining. That would mean Somerset scoring at nearly four and a half runs an over if a declaration came immediately. That was more than the 4.2 an over Somerset had needed when they scored 400 to win at Taunton. But Warwickshire, now eight wickets down, showed no sign of declaring, and returned to ploughing warily on, although Burgess drove successive balls from Aldridge to the Barnes Stand boundary. Curiously, for all the caution, Burgess did not attempt to protect Oliver Hannon-Dalby.

That left an opportunity which Leach did not pass up. This time the ball hinted at turn, Hannon-Dalby attempted to sweep and Rew took the catch. Warwickshire 261 for 9. Hannon-Dalby 3. Lead 359. Hannon-Dalby had survived 18 balls and the overs remaining to Somerset’s batters had fallen to 74. From there they would need to bat at 4.9 runs an over, the equation sharpening by the over. A huge straight six off Leach from Burgess which landed in the second tier of the Pavilion apart, Warwickshire now appeared to be batting with the sole aim of shortening Somerset’s time at the crease, three runs coming in four overs. By the time Burgess, on 29, had miscued a cut to Tom Lammonby at cover to give Leach five wickets in the innings, the required rate had increased to 5.4.

And so, with two overs to face before lunch, Somerset faced an unlikely target of 369 in 68 overs. The 400 they had chased at Taunton had been over 96 overs. Any doubt that they would attempt such a target was swept away in the first over when Andy Umeed twice drove Hannon-Dalby over and through the covers to the Hollies Stand boundary. Somerset were 13 for 0 at lunch, with 356 still needed from 66 overs, an equation that became significantly more difficult when the players walked out after lunch. I was just emerging from the tunnel under the Pavilion at the end of my circumnavigation as the players reached the middle. There they hesitated, the umpires consulted, and everyone walked back to the Pavilion. “Rain,” someone said as I felt the first spots. I collected my bag from my seat and climbed higher into the covered part of the Hollies Stand. From there I could see drizzle driving hard across the face of the trees beyond the Raglan Stand opposite.

Ten overs were lost, leaving Somerset needing 356 from 56 overs. It seemed a virtual impossibility, the required rate having risen to 6.4 an over. In a Championship match with no bowling and fielding restrictions, it was a target from the land of dreams. But a supporter is allowed to dream, and so is a team it seems. After a cursory look at the post-lunch bowling, Umeed drove Rushworth through the covers to the Raglan Stand, and in his next over, pulled him high into the Hollies Stand. “That was an almighty hit!” said my old work colleague who had joined me for the afternoon. It was not a case of hit and hope either. Where the bowling demanded it, the bat pushed the ball back or let it pass. Two overs went by for three runs, but then, on Somerset charged, Tom Kohler-Cadmore steering Hannon-Dalby for four fine of backward point and driving him through extra cover for another boundary to a cry of, “Good shot!”.

Somerset’s intent was clearer still when Umeed pulled Rushworth for six into the fourth row of the Hollies Stand, “Another one,” a Warwickshire supporter in the next block to me said. But such an assault carried the usual risk. Umeed had already attempted to drive Rushworth towards the Pavilion, the ball had steepled, and Umeed looked certain to be caught before being dropped by the closing fielder. When Kohler-Cadmore attempted to hook Rae, he was not so lucky. The ball floated to Hamza Shaikh at deep midwicket who made no mistake. Somerset were 56 for 1. Kohler-Cadmore 18. Runs required 310 in 47 overs. Required rate now 6.5. “Would you have settled for that score at the start?” I asked my colleague. “I think I would,” he replied, “At the rate we have been scoring.” Three overs later, Umeed departed. He pulled Ed Barnard to deep midwicket immediately below our seats. Hannon-Dalby, fielding on the boundary, moved into position and took the catch, his foot firmly anchored a foot inside the boundary rope. Fine margins, but Somerset were 74 for 2. Umeed 38. Runs required 292 in 42 overs and the required rate had risen to 6.8. The jaws of reality were closing.

Enter Tom Abell to join Tom Lammonby. Abell is one of the best pacers of a chase in the Championship which kept a sliver of hope alive, but, it felt, this chase might be beyond even him. He drove his second ball through the on side to the Pavilion boundary, but from there he and Lammonby scored ten careful runs in four overs. Then, 18 runs came from the next three overs. Somerset 109 for 2, 260 needed. “You are moving nearer to the edge of your seat,” I said to my colleague. And so was I. At which point the players left the field. “Oh no! Tea!” said my colleague, “Just as we were gaining momentum.” I calculated the required run rate, “We need 7.4 an over for 35 overs.” “That is asking a lot,” the reply, “And we don’t have the time to build the long stabilising partnership that a run chase of this magnitude needs.”

The resumption left no doubt about Somerset’s continued intentions. Lammonby pulled the first ball, from Rae, through long leg to the Raglan Stand. Four balls later he pulled him over fine leg into the Wyatt Stand for six. But a pull, straight to Jacob Bethell at square leg again highlighted the risk of trying to score at over seven an over on a pitch that had produced wickets virtually every time a batter had launched an assault. Somerset 127 for 3. Lammonby 35. Runs required 242. Required rate still 7.4. “Time to shut up shop,” said my text. “I agree,” the reply. Somerset did not agree. Tom Banton pulled Barnard to deep midwicket and drove him through extra cover to the Hollies Stand, both for four. Bethell and Rae responded, keeping Somerset to 12 from three overs and the required rate rose to 7.9 with 221 needed from 28 overs. My colleague, having a very long drive into the farther reaches of the West Country concluded that a win was unlikely. After several attempts to leave ‘after one more over’, the bane of all cricket followers’ lives, he finally picked up his bag. Before he was halfway down the steps, Banton was caught behind hooking Rae. My colleague looked back, raised his arms, frowned in acceptance that Somerset’s chase must finally be over and went on his way. Somerset 148 for 4. Banton 12.

In addition to the pressure of needing 7.9 runs an over, heavy cloud was now closing in from over the Pavilion, the light was dropping and the floodlights were on. They were not conditions for a charge on the scale facing Somerset. In the gloom, Hannon-Dalby returned at the Birmingham End. Rew, facing the impossible, attacked. Five balls in succession were sent to the boundary, the first two were driven off an open face behind point, the next three through the covers or straight. When the umpires took out their light meters, the text said, “Only in cricket could five successive boundaries scored off the opposition’s main pace bowler trigger the use of light meters.”

It was clear though that the continuation of the match hung in the balance. Warwickshire replaced Rae with Bethell at the Pavilion End, whether to avoid a stoppage for bad light was impossible to tell from the 27^th row of the Hollies Stand, but on Somerset went. Abell fed Rew the strike and Rew swept and reverse swept Bethell for two more fours. Closer, ever closer, but darker, ever darker too. For the next over, Rob Yates, with his off spin, replaced Hannon-Dalby. Rew now knew no bounds. With three fielders around the bat, he drove with an open face fine of backward point to the West Stand for four.

Off the next ball, Rew slog-swept a mountainous six into the Hollies Stand. When a six is being hit, if I do not immediately see the ball, I look straight towards the batter. If the ball is heading in my direction I see it early. I saw this one worryingly early. It was a fearsome hit, and the ball seemed to grow exponentially in diameter as it came towards me, a sure sign that I was Rew’s target. Fortunately, Rew’s aim was not quite as sure as it might have been. My mind was now turning rather faster than it had for some years, conducting a real-time risk assessment as the ball approached. The assessment determined that the ball was headed for the seat across the aisle from mine, a full six feet away. Probably not trusting me to move in the right direction, the assessment recommended I stay in my seat. The ball duly crashed into the concrete in front of the seat I had identified as the likely landing point, and bounced several rows further up the stand.

At that point, I observed a Warwickshire fielder climb the boundary board and start running up the stairs towards me. Intending to assist by returning the ball, I left my seat and tripped over my bag. It was of course a perfectly managed trip, for I tripped in the direction of the ball, fell up another three rows of steps and retrieved it. I can report that, on inspection, the ball was looking very sorry for itself after the repeated mauling it had received from bat and concrete. By the time I had completed my inspection, the fielder had run virtually the whole length of the steps and looked as if his pursuit of the ball had turned into a mercy mission. Not wishing to put him to any further inconvenience, I threw the ball to him when he was still at least five yards from me. I also asked him if he could ask James Rew if he could see his way clear to hitting his next six a couple of yards squarer so that it would come straight to me and save me the inconvenience of my getting out of my seat. At this point, the fielder turned and ran.

And then, another six, this time into the fourth row of the Hollies Stand. But after a one-bounce four to the Wyatt Stand from Abell off Yates, the umpires finally gave best to the light and took the players off. It was very dark now. The umpires stood in the middle for what seemed an age, Craig Overton coming out to speak to them at one point before they pulled up the stumps and ended Somerset’s pursuit. Rew had struck 55 from 24 balls, 46 from his last 11, and Somerset were 163 short with 23 overs remaining. The required rate had been reduced by Rew’s onslaught to 7.1.

Victory had suddenly seemed agonisingly possible if only the light had held. Until, in the centre of Birmingham, with the weather coming from the Edgbaston direction with about 20 minutes to go until play would have ended, the heavens emptied. It had been a tremendous effort from Leach in the morning and the batters in the afternoon. In the end though, frustration won out over hopes and dreams. With Surrey having beaten Lancashire, prospects of the Championship for Somerset, probably beyond reach even before this round of matches, were now remote indeed. At least, if his father had not taken him home, the son of the Warwickshire supporter I had spoken to at lunchtime might have witnessed something to entice him back.

Result. Warwickshire 337 (R.M. Yates 69, M.G.K. Burgess 69, J.G. Bethell 64, J.H. Davey 4-80, C. Overton 4-88) and 270 (A.L. Davies 131, M.J. Leach 5-77). Somerset 239 (K.L. Aldridge 84, J.E.K. Rew 49, T.A. Lammonby 49, E.G. Barnard 5-54, C. Rushworth 3-42 and 206 for 4 (J.E.K. Rew 55, M.D. Rae 3-39. Match drawn. Warwickshire 13 points. Somerset 11 points.