Leicestersaint Posted 23 September, 2009 Posted 23 September, 2009 Last game of the season - always a bit sad as winter draws on. I am sure we are safe but it would be nice to do well and maybe end with a win. There is some prize money worth having.
Hatch Posted 23 September, 2009 Posted 23 September, 2009 Yorkshire: Rudolph, Sayers, Lyth, A McGrath ©, A Gale, Bairstow, Brophy (W), Shahzad, Wainwright, Hoggard, Kruis Hampshire: Adams, Dawson, Lumb, Tomlinson, Benham, Pothas (W), Ervine, Mascarenhas ©, Cork, Griffiths, Briggs
Weston Saint Posted 23 September, 2009 Posted 23 September, 2009 (edited) Hampshire lost the toss. Yorkshire have put us in but bad light has delayed the start Edit Looking at the Hampshire side it looks like they have made a decision today to replace Vince with Tomlinson to bolster the bowling attack. They must have looked at the wicket and decided it was good for bowlers. Losing the toss and being inserted is not in our favour but with the need of only 3 points we should be fine. Edited 23 September, 2009 by Weston Saint
Leicestersaint Posted 23 September, 2009 Author Posted 23 September, 2009 "Start delayed due to bad light" - what is going on in Leeds? The sun is beating down 100 miles south with excellent light!
Doctoroncall Posted 23 September, 2009 Posted 23 September, 2009 Nottinghamshire: 94-2 (33.2 overs) v Sussex Lancashire v Warwickshire: 74-6 (30.5 overs) Yorkshire v Hampshire: 16-0 (6.0 overs)
Leicestersaint Posted 23 September, 2009 Author Posted 23 September, 2009 32 for 0 off 16 - slow scoring!
Doctoroncall Posted 23 September, 2009 Posted 23 September, 2009 Lancashire: 2-0 (2.0 overs) Warwickshire: 148 (44.4 overs) Nottinghamshire: 137-3 (46.0 overs) Sussex: Yorkshire: Hampshire: 57-0 (24.4 overs)
Leicestersaint Posted 23 September, 2009 Author Posted 23 September, 2009 We are 90 for 0 off 31 - starting to look hopeful. Target - 400.
Doctoroncall Posted 23 September, 2009 Posted 23 September, 2009 Hampshire: 109-1 (38.0 overs) adams has his 50.
Doctoroncall Posted 23 September, 2009 Posted 23 September, 2009 Hampshire: 152-3 (55.1 overs) Lumb on 33 and looks set to get the run rate up.
Leicestersaint Posted 23 September, 2009 Author Posted 23 September, 2009 227 for 4 at stumps (off 75 overs). Not a bad start - let's hope the weather holds.
chrisobee Posted 23 September, 2009 Posted 23 September, 2009 That'll do me after being put in. 300+ should be fine, we're hardly likely to get no bowling bonus points! Notts- 294/8.
chrisobee Posted 23 September, 2009 Posted 23 September, 2009 "Start delayed due to bad light" - what is going on in Leeds? The sun is beating down 100 miles south with excellent light! The spectators were not happy ! http://www.cricinfo.com/countycricket2009/content/current/story/426195.html " at the scheduled start of play the light was very dismal, and it was announced that play would not begin until it improved. Over the next hour it did so gradually, and soon everybody seemed to think it was fit for play - except the umpires, Nigel Cowley and Martin Bodenham. The spectators grew increasingly restive and vociferous, and there were a couple of angry altercations with the umpires and other officials.Play started at one o'clock, when the light looked no different than it had more than an hour earlier. Once again, cricket's public relation skills were sadly missing and finicky umpires were responsible. When cricket is played late in September, it should be accepted that indifferent light is a regular natural hazard which needs to be endured at times. "
chrisobee Posted 23 September, 2009 Posted 23 September, 2009 227 for 4 at stumps (off 75 overs). Not a bad start - let's hope the weather holds. I predict more "bad light" !!
chrisobee Posted 23 September, 2009 Posted 23 September, 2009 Is the best we can finish 3rd or 4th? It's 3rd as Somerset in 2nd are 24 points ahead having finished their games.
John B Posted 24 September, 2009 Posted 24 September, 2009 Hampshire 300/6 (99.3 ov) another bonus point
keithd Posted 24 September, 2009 Posted 24 September, 2009 Now safe. We cannot get relegated thought we needed 4 points? by my rubbish calculations if we are bowled out for less than 350, they score 550 for 0, we then get bowled out for less than 199, then we'd lose the game. leaving us with 3 only.... and sussex win. ok...its unlikely...
chrisobee Posted 24 September, 2009 Posted 24 September, 2009 Now safe. We cannot get relegated Don't we need 4 points to be totally safe !? Sussex could still get to 161 which we are now on and then it's the complicated formula outlined on the Durham thread as they'll have 3 wins as we do. . That said either 350 or just one bowling point will definitely be good enough !!
chrisobee Posted 24 September, 2009 Posted 24 September, 2009 thought we needed 4 points? by my rubbish calculations if we are bowled out for less than 350, they score 550 for 0, we then get bowled out for less than 199, then we'd lose the game. leaving us with 3 only.... and sussex win. ok...its unlikely... See above lol
John B Posted 24 September, 2009 Posted 24 September, 2009 (edited) thought we needed 4 points? by my rubbish calculations if we are bowled out for less than 350, they score 550 for 0, we then get bowled out for less than 199, then we'd lose the game. leaving us with 3 only.... and sussex win. ok...its unlikely... Yes I thought we need another point now 320 for 7 Pothas out Edited 24 September, 2009 by John B
bungle Posted 24 September, 2009 Posted 24 September, 2009 I see that Tahir isn't playing for Titans.
chrisobee Posted 24 September, 2009 Posted 24 September, 2009 I see that Tahir isn't playing for Titans. I thought he missed our final game so he could play :smt102
Weston Saint Posted 24 September, 2009 Posted 24 September, 2009 We only needed 3 points as we were 19 ahead of Sussex. If they gained 22points and we only got three we would be on same points. Then it goes to games won. Still same but then on games lost. On the above senario we would have then lost 4 but Sussex have already lost 5. As I say, we were safe when we reached 300 and the 3rd bonus point
Weston Saint Posted 24 September, 2009 Posted 24 September, 2009 I see that Tahir isn't playing for Titans.Harris is their nationally contracted player and as he is not in the SA IOD squad it was always likely he would play. Tahir has been busy for Hampshire and only flew out on Monday. Always likely Titans would rest him. Spoke to him before he left. He hopes to come back for a short while next season to fill in when Mendis cannot be with us. Subject to negotiation he said. I asked him about his SA qualification and what were his chances. He said very positive feedback from SA National team. He is very hopeful of a full SA cap in the near future. Extremely nice quite man.
Leicestersaint Posted 24 September, 2009 Author Posted 24 September, 2009 346 for 9 - surely we can get that extra point?
chrisobee Posted 24 September, 2009 Posted 24 September, 2009 346 for 9 - surely we can get that extra point? We were 345/7!
John B Posted 24 September, 2009 Posted 24 September, 2009 (edited) We go to 351 for 9 with 4 byes Then all out next ball. I usually meet the Yorkshire Wicket Keepers father in law when I take the dog for a walk so I will thank him for the extra point Edited 24 September, 2009 by John B
chrisobee Posted 24 September, 2009 Posted 24 September, 2009 We go to 351 for 9 with 4 byes Lol, typical but who cares !!
chrisobee Posted 24 September, 2009 Posted 24 September, 2009 32 for 0 off 16 - slow scoring! Well Yorks are now 14/0 off 7, I suspect it might get rather tedious as they still need 3 points to be absolutely safe ( I think !) so have 120 overs to reach 300 !
Leicestersaint Posted 24 September, 2009 Author Posted 24 September, 2009 106 for 0 alas. Ervine has bowled 4 overs for 35 runs - nearly 9 an over! What is the matter with his bowling? Why has Briggs only had one over (for 3 runs). Why not more use of spin??? Why, oh why, oh why?!
chrisobee Posted 24 September, 2009 Posted 24 September, 2009 (edited) 106 for 0 alas. Ervine has bowled 4 overs for 35 runs - nearly 9 an over! What is the matter with his bowling? Why has Briggs only had one over (for 3 runs). Why not more use of spin??? Why, oh why, oh why?! I was just thinking exactly the same, even Tahir had to wait ages to bowl in recent games. Oh and it now 131/0 and still only 1 over from Briggs, quite bizarre frankly on what is reported to be a slow pitch. Edited 24 September, 2009 by chrisobee
keithd Posted 24 September, 2009 Posted 24 September, 2009 Extras (0b 3lb 6w 14nb) 23 its a four day game. 6 wides???!!! 14 no balls??!! WTF is going on?!
Dark Munster Posted 24 September, 2009 Posted 24 September, 2009 106 for 0 alas. Ervine has bowled 4 overs for 35 runs - nearly 9 an over! What is the matter with his bowling? Why has Briggs only had one over (for 3 runs). Why not more use of spin??? Why, oh why, oh why?! Maybe Hants and Yorks had a little "gentlemen's agreement" before the match started. ;-) Currently 131/0 off 37 overs, and already 23 extras and 18 4's! Sussex collapsing against Notts. They know it's all over.
Leicestersaint Posted 24 September, 2009 Author Posted 24 September, 2009 Ours not to reason why - asyou say, Briggs has only had one over and none from Dawson or even Adams etc. Strange but I suppose I'm not there!
chrisobee Posted 24 September, 2009 Posted 24 September, 2009 Extras (0b 3lb 6w 14nb) 23 its a four day game. 6 wides???!!! 14 no balls??!! WTF is going on?! Ervine bowled 4 no balls ! I like him as a player and he can take useful wickets but I've questioned his use/over use in the last 2/3 games.
chrisobee Posted 24 September, 2009 Posted 24 September, 2009 (edited) At least Sussex are really struggling, 243/9 in reply to Notts 328. Make that 243 all out which I think condemns them to relegation regardless ! Edited 24 September, 2009 by chrisobee
chrisobee Posted 24 September, 2009 Posted 24 September, 2009 Ours not to reason why - asyou say, Briggs has only had one over and none from Dawson or even Adams etc. Strange but I suppose I'm not there! Indeed but it is still a reasonable question I'd say v a team who are 139/0 !
chrisobee Posted 24 September, 2009 Posted 24 September, 2009 Maybe Hants and Yorks had a little "gentlemen's agreement" before the match started. ;-) That thought had crossed my mind Surely not!
Leicestersaint Posted 24 September, 2009 Author Posted 24 September, 2009 Surely not - I sincerely hope not anyway. At least Briggs is bowling now - and very economically. Sometimes i simply do not understand Dimi's bowling choices.
Leicestersaint Posted 24 September, 2009 Author Posted 24 September, 2009 169 for 1. Briggs - 7 overs, 1 wicket for 12 runs. Your honour, I rest my case.
chrisobee Posted 24 September, 2009 Posted 24 September, 2009 169 for 1. Briggs - 7 overs, 1 wicket for 12 runs. Your honour, I rest my case. Me too !
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now