The Art of Drawing – In Defence of Time Games

You win some and you lose some, as the old saying goes. Obviously, that’s not always the case in sport and often you can get a drawn game where the teams are even stevens with nothing to separate them. In cricket we’d call this a tie. But a draw in cricket is a rather odd concept compared to most sports because it denotes that neither team were able to do enough to win, though one might be much closer to doing so than the other. It’s more like a stalemate in chess.

On Sunday 26 May 2024, Anson recorded the 200^th drawn match in its history when we played Chigwell CC. Once a regular occurrence, the opportunities to get a draw are rare these days as we predominantly play limited over games. Draws can only be achieved in time games, and I was gutted not to be playing when this milestone was met because it’s a format of the game I love playing.

What I love about time games is that winning requires positive intent from both teams in the second innings. The batting team must surpass the total runs set in the first innings to win, and the bowling team must get all 10 wickets. Should neither side achieve their goal the match is drawn. For us, this is still done in one Sunday afternoon, but it’s the same concept as for test or first-class cricket played over several days.

Many non-cricketing fans (and possibly some cricket fans too) are incredulous at the notion of two teams pushing themselves for 5 days of intense sporting action only for it to end with no team winning. However, the possibility to draw a game can add a level of excitement, drama, and challenge. Anyone who remembers Michael Atherton and Jack Russell battling it out against South Africa in Johannesburg in 1995 will understand this all too well.

There are all sorts of ways for cricket to be exciting and whole range of emotions to be captured in thrilling victories and despairing defeats. You can get this in limited overs games of course, as well as exciting tied games, which are a real rarity.  But in the limited overs format, a game can practically be over very quickly in the second innings such as when the batting side have an early collapse or fall impossibly behind the run rate.

What I love about a time game is that with these sorts of impossible situations there is always the option to play for the draw and this keeps the game alive and more interesting for longer. The need to take all 10 wickets to win the game provides an additional challenge for the bowling team, and an interesting dynamic to the game overall. It is simply not enough to stop the batting team from scoring the necessary runs, which can practically be achieved well before the innings ends. Despite not being able to win, a team batting second can still provide an obdurate barrier to victory for the bowling side that may require a bit more from the captain in terms of bowling and fielding strategies.

With Anson, we’ve been on both sides of the situation, either seeking a way to secure victory, or holding on to a draw to save the game. If successful in the latter, Taggs would always describe it as a dishonourable draw. There have been plenty of bore draws along the way, but the format has also led to some memorable moments. The classic low scoring game against South Loughton (that Alf won) would probably be remembered less if that was a limited overs game because all the tension came from the desperation of breaking a stubborn lower order partnership as time was running out.

A time game is also an ideal format for making a good contest when two sides are quite unevenly matched, which was often the case with Anson being the weaker side in the late 90s and early 00s. For a long time, our strategy was to win the toss and bowl with the theory being that you can control the game in the second innings if you’re batting. What this meant was that we would set out to chase the 1^st innings runs down, but if Lee and Ian got out cheaply, we’d shut up shop and play for the draw.

For players of limited ability and few attacking shots, like myself, these sorts of scenarios were ideal, which is probably why I naturally enjoy these types of games more than anyone else. My first notable contributions to the club were probably made in these sorts of rearguard actions. One of the reasons I like these sorts of games is because they allow for unlikely heroes to be celebrated, whether a part time bowler coming on to break a partnership, or stubborn lower order partnerships, such as Pyscho and Simon Rowe on tour at Hemel Hempstead, or Taggs shepherding the tail against Great and Little Warley. This is true at the top level of the game and many of us remember Monty Panesar and James Anderson holding firm against the Australian attack at Cardiff in 2008 to earn a draw for England that felt like a defeat for the Aussies who would go on to lose the Ashes that year.

It did mean that other players might have had to play within their abilities (which isn’t always easy to do) and I remember Paul expertly seeing out a game against Waltham Cross Rosedale in 2002 when we were 8 wickets down. Paul faced the last over against a young quick bowler, who I think fancied himself as a bit of a Brett Lee. Paul diligently blocked out each of the first 5 balls to confirm that the game was saved before duly smashing the last ball of the game back over the bowler’s head for 6 to show everyone what he could really do.

Some teams did get frustrated with us (me) for not attacking enough, especially when they had played on Saturday and saw Sunday cricket as a knock about. But for us this was our one game of cricket a week and so we always approached the game like there was something to play for. We enjoyed winning, but if we couldn’t win, we’d look to hold on for the draw. Monky once told me that if we had fielded for two and half hours, he’d like to keep the opposition out there for as long as possible too. And yes, we’d been frustrated by being on the other end of teams blocking out from the start, but that’s all part of the game as far as I’m concerned and it was down to us as the bowling team to make something happen.

With the time games also came the marathon bowling spells. Without over limits it was possible for players to bowl much longer spells. It didn’t happen too often because it was still important to give everyone a game, but some players just had one of those days where it was difficult to bring them out of the attack. The last of these great spells that I can remember was Chris Zealey’s 7 for 22 off 14.3 overs against Hainault and Clayhall in 2013. It was a real fine moment for Chris who would often be a 3^rd or 4^th change bowler. Paul was perhaps less grateful for the opportunity in one game in the early 00s where I was a makeshift captain. The fact that I was a stand in captain meant there was a scarcity of players that weekend, and I had no other choice but to bowl Paul 17 overs straight from one end on one the hottest days on record, at that time.

After the 2005 season at the AGM, we decided to switch from time games to playing 40 over games when we were the home team. That season we had played 14 time games and 8 of them had ended up as draws and some people felt that it had lead to negative and unexciting cricket. It worked out well for the club the following year as we won 12 out of 19 games that season (including 8 on the bounce), with only one draw. As a club we were getting stronger with newer players, and we had more than just Lee and Ian who could score runs. We had the players now to give other teams a good game in 40 over cricket and 21 of the club’s top 25 record totals have been scored since we made the change.

I do enjoy the 40 over games and we’ve had a brilliant spell of nearly 20 years playing them. I’m sure that most people in the club prefer playing them and I suppose it means that when we do play a time game it’s something that is a bit more special. At least for people like me who like to reminisce. I’m sorry to have missed Billy’s 5 wickets in 15 overs against Chigwell and the lower order action when we batted. Following on Play Cricket it seemed like a close game up to the end and I hope that there was a sense of drama and tension for those who played.

I’m sure that we’ll still occasionally have these types of games and that I’ll see someone else bowl a long fruitful session. Now that I’m older and can’t hit the ball as far I hope that there will still be a time where my usual 12 runs off 42 balls will have some practical use to the team.

The case for the defensive block rests.