PornstarsX Cricket Stats

Game Stats
Season 6: Round 6 vs Tradesman
Loss by 76 to 97 runs
Season 1 Season 2 Season 3 Season 4 Season 5 Season 6 Season 7 Season 8
Season 9 Season 10 Season 11 Season 12 Season 13 Season 14 Season 15 Season 16 Season 17
Season 18 Season 19 Season 20
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Round 7 Round 8
Round 9 Round 10 Round 11 Round 12 Round 13 Round 14 Round 15 Round 16
Game Result - Loss by 76 to 97 runs vs Tradesman
MVP for this game is Callum with a net contribution of 22 runs to the team, followed by Damo (2) and Gary (-1)
(MVP is calculated as Runs Scored minus Runs Conceded)

Click the scoresheet thumbnail to view the scoresheet for this game.

Have your say! Click here to comment on this game

Game Summary
Team Points Runs Scored Wickets Taken Extras Awarded Backnets Hit
Pornstars 1 76 18 34 10
Tradesman 7 97 19 32 9
Batting Figures
Player  Runs  Strike Rate  Outs  Backnets 4/5/7  Partnership
Chan 0 (13) 0 3 1/0/0 4
(12 extras)
OMG -8 (10) -80 3 1/0/0
Womble -5 (11) -45.45 4 0/0/1 9
(8 extras)
Gary 6 (13) 46.15 2 0/1/0
Steve 10 (12) 83.33 2 1/0/0 43
(6 extras)
Callum (c) 27 (13) 207.69 0 1/0/1
Damo 7 (14) 50 3 2/0/0 20
(8 extras)
Maverick 5 (11) 45.45 2 1/0/0
Totals 42 (97)   19 7/1/2 76
Averages 5.25 (12.13) 38.4 2.38   19
Bowling Figures
Player Runs Conceded Runs Conceded Adjusted Total Wickets Extras Bowled Catches Run Outs Stumpings BackNets
Callum (c) 5 (14) 5 (14) 4 2 0 2 2 0 2
OMG 31 (14) 31 (14) 0 10 0 0 0 0 1
Gary 7 (14) 7 (14) 3 6 1 1 1 0 0
Maverick 7 (14) 7 (14) 3 4 1 1 1 0 2
Damo 5 (14) 5 (14) 2 2 0 0 2 0 0
Chan 10 (14) 10 (14) 2 4 0 0 1 1 1
Womble 19 (14) 19 (14) 3 0 0 3 0 0 3
Steve (2.1) 13 (15) 12.13 (14) 1 4 0 0 0 1 0
Totals 97 (113)   18 32 2 7 7 2 9
Averages 12.13 (14.13) 12.02 (14) 2.25 4 0.25 0.88 0.88 0.25 1.13
Game Comments
22/08/2003 10:00:12 am

F#@k I need some serious bolwing practice, come to think of it my batting is far from good either, does anyone know Martin Crowes home number? I am willing to pay $$$. No Bart before you ask again I will not give you sexual favours for a one hour bowling lesson.

22/08/2003 10:04:12 am

That's the first time you've put a condition on your pleasure.
I don't get a lot out of it thanks Gatch ;)

Enjoyed bowling last night, btw and if you couldn't tell.

I was a bit annoyed that the guy didn't even feign an apology for putting the ball at shoulder height when I was batting though.

And the really good news - POSITIVE runs. I'm on my way back baby...

The A-Train
22/08/2003 10:14:51 am

Bart will have Martins number, but with Crowes track record he'll ask for sexual favours too.

25/08/2003 10:01:14 am

For those of you wondering why Chan's mind wasn't on the game - click here to see the reason....


Just some quick personal comments on my game the other night - I was a bit gutted with the bad luck while batting - first of all I hit a nice one to the back - only for it to get sandwiched between the net and the post and to be called DEAD ball.  So next ball up I think - "Well, we'll just do that again......OUT!" - crap.  There's about a 9 run turn-around.

Then later on a cracking 7 - only for it to be too cracking - straight back to the crapping fielder at the back and a nice easy run out for them (why couldn't the guy do what he did with Womble's 7 and miss from point-blank range?!).  A 12 run turn-around :'(

Then there was a run-out that was oh so close - sure I was out - but I'm just lamenting the chances here.....a 5 run turn-around again.

So do a bit of Chan math - add all those babies up and I should have really gotten about 30 runs - and that would have been just enough to give us a win!

But I think we can take some heart of the fact that had just a few things gone our way (which on another day would have) - we could have won that game - even though their first partnership scored about 59!!!  It was a great effort to contain the remaining 3 partnerships to only 30-odd runs - and we had them on the ropes right up until the last over - it still could have gone our way - so a good effort and it just goes to show that even when there appears to be no hope - there are always some more bunnies on the way!  So never give up in the field.


25/08/2003 4:11:34 pm

I lost the toss, and they elected to field first.

Well, not much to say, as the area of improvement is simple: Don't get out so often :-)

Each of the first two partnerships managed 6 outs each for totals of 4 and 9 respectively.  For Paul and Pete particularly, it was an abberation of prior form - both doing quite well in batting in the last handful of games they've played.  Gary was solid - though bowled twice, which is partly due to his softball background which makes his forward defensive about as straight as the Tower of Pisa.

Steve and I were able to graft out 43 for the third partnership.  With only three backnets, it was because we didn't get out often (twice) and had only 2 dot balls in the innings.

Damo and Bart showed some of their potential as a partnership, but as Damo discussed, left with a few less than might have been.  
Two things to add to Damo's comment:
1) When playing against a team with a top-notch backsticks fielder (eg Raiders X, Palliser Eagles), backnet shots should be more carefully selected.
2) Bart still runs like a hip-replacement candidate.

Shoutout to Steve for no dot-balls in his innings of 12 delivieries.

After a first over of 22 from your's truly, things could only get better.  After overs of 17 from Paul and Gary, the forecast had just darkened.  Bart's over provided the only wickets of this partnership, though they gave us a few chances which we failed to capitalise on.

Chasing just 76, and at 59 after four overs, the next partnership made 20 (getting out 4 times in the process).

Their third partnership weren't competent, but more importantly we finally started capitalising on chances.  This partnership would walk away with -10.

Needing only 8 runs from the last four overs is - in objective terms - a piece of piss.  However, it is also a tough spot to be in psychologically.  While they felt the pressure, they also dealt with it and with two overs to go looked a shoe-in.  Damo bowled a top over for minus one, including a textbook third strike run-out (Batsman misses three times, keeper throws to backsticks).

Shoutout to Bart for his bowling which was pretty fierce and conceded only overs of 3 and 4.  The first of these was against the partnership who scored 59.

Was very happy with my batting, which apart from an edge behind and the consecutive dot-balls was a safe innings.

I'm surprisingly not too pissed with conceding 22 off my first over.  Because I was bowling the first over to unknown batsmen from an unknown team I was guilty of bowling a line and length they loved.  I'll definitely change my line to the guy with the goatee (the keeper) who had an innings of 1,8,7,4,4,2,1,3,3,5

What I was pissed with was my fielding - had a Barry Crocker.  Pete felt the brunt of it with a dropped catch going for 7, and a basic error when I looked up before I gathered and the ball dribbled through to the boundary.  Urk.

We were hamstrung by our first two partnerships getting out so often, which led us to post a paltry 76.  Then we were hamstrung again by some ordinary bowling (led by myself) and fielding that took 8 overs to wake up.  We can ill afford to start that slowly again.

Given the first two innings scores, expecting to get quad-points for them was unrealistic.  We easily took the third quad (43 to -10), but surrendered the fourth quad (20 to 28) in what should have been a more tightly contested quad.

I'll try to remember to ask myself between innings, but if we're batting second and you're in the first partnership, ask the umpire to use the white placards to tell you the quad targets.

We can definitely beat those guys, though we will have to play better, as they will likely have a full team next time.