|
Game Comments
|
Maverick
5/05/2006 8:40:06 am
Good effort all and sundry.
Who cocked up the number of players? But anyway...
Tough ask against a team with Matthew Bell in their side but he was pretty average batting, but did run Kath out (the cad!).
Unlucky for Kath to be robbed of the 5/7 of the back net - I think we would have sealed it then and there if that was the case.
Pete - not your best night on the back net. Maybe your mind was on other things ;-)
I did enjoy stumping/running out far too many of their players though (but butchered a couple as well - quiet G).
Good pickup in the fielding effort for the 2nd and 3rd partnership but we could have done better in the first and last partnerships. Ah well.
Have a good weekend!
Callum
5/05/2006 9:04:15 am
Bugger!
On the whole, we played reasonably well. We did miss several chances in the field. From where I was sitting, it sounded a bit quiet out there in patches - not enough calling for when to throw (and to which end) and when not to.
Should I have an opportunity to bowl to Mr Bell, I suspect I'll bowl right arm around, at his legs. It's as good as conceding 2 a ball, but he's good enough to take more if bowled straight to.
Our batting wasn't too bad, though I got the impression that Damo and Pete were trying a bit hard to hit boundaries, and Phil and Katene need to vocalize their telepathic calling.
Dixon and Greg carved with 46. Notably, there was one boundary and one wicket - which evens itself out. It was the lack of dot balls, and ability to find the sidenets that racked up that total.
Nonetheless, Greg is getting the ducky for the fielding effort that allowed the 5 which was moving at about 5kph. The judge's decision is final, and no correspondence will be entered into.
Katene
5/05/2006 9:28:52 am
Maybe this is the non-cricketer in me but... who is/which one was Matthew Bell?
|
|
|
