keithd Posted 27 May, 2010 Posted 27 May, 2010 Yorkshire not keen on a sporting declaration then and are happy to bat out a draw, clearly. Unless they reckon they can knock us over in and hour and 45
RonManager Posted 27 May, 2010 Posted 27 May, 2010 292-5 dec. 357 needed in 22 overs - soon chase that down:rolleyes:
chrisobee Posted 27 May, 2010 Posted 27 May, 2010 So in the end it's not going to make a scrap of difference that we should have batted first or whether we should have declared 9 down or not! Early finish looms.
RonManager Posted 27 May, 2010 Posted 27 May, 2010 So in the end it's not going to make a scrap of difference that we should have batted first or whether we should have declared 9 down or not! Early finish looms. I think they should seriously up the amount of points for a win.
chrisobee Posted 27 May, 2010 Posted 27 May, 2010 I think they should seriously up the amount of points for a win. They did, this season and reduced the points for a draw though years ago you got nothing for a draw which (in)famously robbed Hants of the CC in 1974 when their final game was rained off totally and they got no points. Worcs meanwhile ( who Hants had thrashed a few weeks earlier) managed to play and win and pipped us by a few points.
chrisobee Posted 27 May, 2010 Posted 27 May, 2010 Draw. Hants raced to 12-0 off 14 overs! Good practice for the 20/20
RonManager Posted 27 May, 2010 Posted 27 May, 2010 They did, this season and reduced the points for a draw though years ago you got nothing for a draw which (in)famously robbed Hants of the CC in 1974 when their final game was rained off totally and they got no points. Worcs meanwhile ( who Hants had thrashed a few weeks earlier) managed to play and win and pipped us by a few points. Sadly I remember that all too clearly. 229 to 227 IIRC.
chrisobee Posted 27 May, 2010 Posted 27 May, 2010 Sadly I remember that all too clearly. 229 to 227 IIRC. Sounds right. 3 flipping days at Bournemouth watching the rain fall, all we needed was a couple of batting or bowling points.
Weston Saint Posted 27 May, 2010 Author Posted 27 May, 2010 Boring Yorkshire refused to set a target. Reason for their declaration was that they were carrying over a -2 over rate from the first innings whch would have meant a 2 point penalty. Opened the bowling with their 2 spinners to get it back to 0 which they did. Hour delay did not help but Yorkshire never loooked up for it. Good match for David Balcolme. Bowled well and looked a genuine number 8 batting.
corsacar saint Posted 27 May, 2010 Posted 27 May, 2010 I presume maybe the captains could not reach an agreement on the target,or Yorkshire were not prepared to lose their second championship game in a week,by setting a gettable target. Either way what a diabolical advert for championship cricket. A third scenario is that they have not forgiven Dimi for not declaring at Headingly either last year or the year before. I am sure Weston Saint will probably know the answer.
Dangerous Albert Posted 27 May, 2010 Posted 27 May, 2010 Yorkshire didn't set a target because the pitch was just too benign. It was too easy to survive on which Hants would have done if their chase had faltered early. Hants would have done the same if the roles had been reversed. 9pts that puts you back to the top was the sensible albeit the safe option. Some games turn out like this unfotunately. Hope for a better game at Scarborough in August .
chrisobee Posted 27 May, 2010 Posted 27 May, 2010 Yes, I can remember Essex setting Hants 400+ some years back, we cruised it !
Dangerous Albert Posted 27 May, 2010 Posted 27 May, 2010 Yes, I can remember Essex setting Hants 400+ some years back, we cruised it ! Yes,I can imagine it "some years back" !!
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