Harvey shines through a gloomy day
Worcestershire 149 Gloucestershire 150-3 Gloucestershire win by 7 wkts
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.If in doubt, it is safe to blame county cricket for most things, from the disasters that befall the England team to the crash in the stock market. It can only be a matter of days before some old trundler from the shires is fingered for the London power-cut.
Michael Vaughan, the England captain, was last week merely the latest in a long line stretching back 20 years to gouge the hand that once fed him. England's domestic first-class game, he said, bred weak cricketers. He should have been at the showpiece match of the county season yesterday gathering more evidence.
A low-scoring, one-sided, ultimately tedious C & G Trophy Final was the last thing county cricket needed after the most recent allegations of ineptitude. Worcestershire, lucky to be there after scraping through in the semi-final, resisted all chances to make the most, or indeed anything, of their good fortune.
They were dismissed in 46.3 overs for 149 and then fielded with the panache of a constipated bullock, losing by seven wickets to Gloucestershire, who knocked off the runs with 177 balls to spare. It meant that spectators, who paid £44 for a ticket, were deprived of almost 34 overs and a reasonable contest. Vaughan might have had a word with John Elliott, the Worcestershire chairman, who bridled bitterly at the England captain's criticism.
Ian Harvey, the Australian all-rounder who was one of three Gloucestershire players ineligible to play for England, was a clear man of the match. He took two wickets, threw himself about determinedly in the field and then threw the bat with similar robustness, supplying the most vibrant batting of the day in making 61 from 36 balls.
It was Gloucestershire's third success in the competition in the past five years, and their sixth one-day triumph in all in that period. If Worcestershire, the slight favourites, were overcome by the occasion - it was nine years since they had reached a Lord's final - then Gloucestershire were clearly comfortable to be renewing acquaintance with the old place.
Gloucestershire's fielders were well prepared, well drilled and perpetually hungry. Indeed, the clear impression was that Vaughan, coach Duncan Fletcher and the England side could learn much from the way the Glosters deported themselves. Their coach, John Bracewell, is off to his native New Zealand to coach the national team at the end of this season: they will not be found wanting in the matter of saving and stopping runs.
It is odd, on reflection, to consider that the start of Worcestershire's innings augured well. They had been put in on a decent pitch under moody skies. Vikram Solanki and Anurag Singh went about their business with a brisk approach. Solanki is a fitful but glorious performer who was obviously warming to his task, and a century similar to that he made for England in a one-day international earlier in the summer was distinctly possible. But in the 16th over he made a cardinal error; the match may have turned on this single incident.
He backed up ridiculously far as his partner squeezed one towards Jonty Rhodes in his customary position at backward point. As soon as the ball went on its way towards the legendary fielder it was possible to tell that Solanki was in trouble. Big trouble. He turned to make his ground but it was too late. Rhodes had pounced for the zillionth time in his career, and his aim was true.
Worcestershire never recovered and never looked like doing so. Singh edged an away-swinger shortly after, the potential match-winning centurion Graeme Hick quickly holed out low to cover for nought, and although four other players reached double figures, nobody threatened a big innings. They were too easily subdued by disciplined bowling, and further undermined by majestically disciplined fielding.
There was a further run-out, three slip catches for Martyn Ball, one of them especially smart, and a leg-side stumping for Jack Russell, which would have been sensational for anybody else but was routine for him. There is no need to hold a debate on who is the best 40-year-old wicketkeeper in England.
Gloucestershire's strategy is built on Russell's ability to be an offensive 'keeper, standing up to the seam bowlers. As soon as Solanki started taking liberties by dancing down the pitch to Mike Smith (who limped off soon afterwards) Russell scampered to the wicket. Whoever wears the gloves for the Kiwis in future had better learn this skill quickly. But Russell is supplemented by Rhodes, the nonpareil, and Ball is one of the slickest slip catchers around. How England could do with him in that role.
There was only one winner. The lowest first-innings total to win in a Lord's final is 168, and that was made by Sussex in 1963, in the first knock-out final. The Glosters came out swinging, and when Craig Spearman perished that way, Harvey arrived to play some rasping, perfectly legitimate attacking strokes. He took five fours in an over from Gareth Batty, the off-spinner, who is expected to be named in England's Test squad today. He and Philip Weston, who once played for Worcestershire, both departed, but only the sense of occasion, not the result, was in question.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments