ClaretTony wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2024 10:29 am
I was at Burnley when Tyrone Greenidge played when Brett Matthews was the Burnley pro. Greenidge batted number 10 for Colne that day and Matthews at number 9 for Burnley. Neither, based on batting ability, was too low in the order either alhough, on that occasion Greenidge scored 19 and Matthews 39 and neither of them were out. Eighteen wickets fell and the two pros got a total of three of them.
Ridiculously late finish too, based on the fact that Greenidge was taking so damn long to bowl each over.
I suspect that as the game has got slower and slower, he wouldn't stand out as being particularly slow nowadays.
Back in the fifties, there was a game at Burnley (time cricket then, of course) when Colne looked like winning (!) and Burnley were wasting time. Their time wasting was so obvious that (according to the Colne Times) they were booed off the field by their own supporters. They had bowled only 6 overs in the last half hour, but as they were 8-ball overs those days, that's the equivalent of 16 6-ball overs per hour.
So then, 16 overs per hour was so slow as to be worth booing. Now it's considered a target to aim for. If they went back to say 20 overs per hour, then games would take 5 hours + the tea interval and be over by 6.30.
(Colne and Great Harwood yesterday finished at 8 pm because both sides were taking far too long over field placement and changing at the end of each over. I would be surprised if Colne, at least, don't lose a point for slow bowling, but time spent on drinks break and lost balls might - at a pinch - keep them safe. But still, another win for the mighty Colne!)