Essex 313 and 181 for 6 (Cook 90) lead Kent 182 by 312 runs
“It’s déjà vu all over again,” wailed a Kent fan as Essex ground out a stodgy 85 runs in 30 overs before lunch to extend their lead to 216. Your correspondent could sympathise as we were both at Beckenham precisely a week ago when Surrey crawled their way to a substantial lead against the same opponents.
The only real difference between these two turgid Groundhog Days was the weather. At Beckenham a snoozy crowd was at least able to bask in warm spring sunshine and punctuate the longueurs with regular trips to the ice-cream van. At Chelmsford a windswept crowd huddled close together like Emperor penguins in search of warmth.
Once again, as with Surrey last week, no blame could be attached to the batting side. Essex began the day with a lead of 131 and had first to ensure they didn’t let Kent back into the game on a pitch that, unlike the one at Beckenham, is offering something to the seamers.
Alastair Cook, fresh from a hundred in the first innings is a pretty good insurance policy to have in situations like these and so it proved as he unfurled a trademark innings full of trademark shots and trademark leaves.
In a match in which only Cook and Ravi Bopara have exceeded 60, the former England captain’s contribution of 215 runs has quite comprehensively proved to be the difference between the two sides. One might think that he would use the twilight years of his career to indulge himself with the odd slog, or unveil a new shot that he had denied himself through his years of sacrifice with England, but there was no evidence of that here.
We saw the cut, the nudge off the hip, the very occasional pull (the bowlers seldom pitched short) and the work into the leg side. And the leave. It was what his team needed and it removed any hint of jeopardy in the day’s proceedings.
With not much to excite and enthuse on the field of play, the press box decided to amuse itself. Tales of gnarled old journalists in the dim and distant past teasing cub reporters, or ignoring them altogether, helped wile away the time as we awaited the inevitable declaration.
Briefly talk of the superiority or otherwise of pork pies over chicken tikka masala as a lunch option was interrupted by a sudden brace of wickets. Podmore got one to lift at Daniel Lawrence and fly to Zak Crawley followed the very next ball by a spectacular catch at third slip, again by Crawley to dismiss Bopara.
As befitted a day of on-field frustration, the hat-trick ball was delayed by the arrival of drizzle. So the press box hurriedly went in search of previous Kent hat-tricks and debated the validity or otherwise of hat-tricks taken over the course of two innings. (For the avoidance of doubt, across two innings is valid. Across two matches is very much not valid.)
The players emerged after 25 minutes and Podmore promptly flung his hat-trick ball three feet outside off stump. Cook left it. Thereafter the main point of interest was whether Cook could reach a century for the second time in the match. This feat has so far eluded him in his career. He’s been close three times before, managing a century and a 90-plus score against Warwickshire in 2005, West Indies in 2009 and Sri Lanka in 2011.
Might we be about to witness some kind of history, and might he even oblige us further by getting run out for a second time to establish a unique double? Of course not. It wasn’t that kind of day. Instead he edged Wiaan Mulder to Sean Dickson at first slip for 90. That was pretty much the last meaningful action of the day; a day that ultimately frustrated Essex and will give credible hope to Kent that they can repeat last week’s trick and get out of the match with a draw.
Soon after, the rain came in earnest, but with two hours of play still scheduled the press box had to hang around amusing itself further with such fiendish conundrums as “which football league team in England doesn’t contain the letters of the world ‘mackerel’ in its name?” And, for that matter, “which London underground station also doesn’t contain the letters of the word ‘mackerel’ in its title?” There is one of each, by the way. Unlike the players in this match, all of whom have names containing at least one letter of the word ‘mackerel’. Yes it really was one of those days.
Source: ESPN Crickinfo