I was a fresh faced fourteen year old then and remember Peter West (bought a copy of his autobiography from a charity shop in Scarborough the following year). Flannelled Fool and Muddied Oaf was the title. Cricket has always been my favourite game - the sound of leather on willow is bliss!
How rimes have changes. At 102-3 in the Warwks innings the commentator remarks “it could have been a very big score”. 103 in 32 overs is a four day score these days. At the same rate the outcome would be about 170.
But the batting side would expect to score quicker towards the end. I preferred one-day cricket then, no 'PowerPlay' nonsense and batsmen had to work for their runs.and counties could still score quickly. A year later, Warwickshire scored 110 off the last 10 overs of a Natwest game v Surrey.
OK Mr. Illingworth, what do you consider a very big score indeed? Even back then, I would say anything north of 300 would classify which would mean 8 or 9 an over for the remaining 25 overs. Impossible with the batsmen they had.
4 in 40 minutes of batting. In a one day game. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 unless of course the other batsman made 40! Probably why it took 30+ overs to creep up to 100, at least 70 to 80 short of today's expected number of runs.
So what, better matches then. In the 1980's, exactly half the finals finished in yhe last over, how nany people can remember finals from the last 10 years. Not only that, all the Test players played so we got a better standard. These days, bowlers are just fodder and it is too dull to see batsmen being helped to score more snz quicker.
