|
Game Comments
|
Callum
15/08/2003 4:52:44 pm
Ouch
Bowling:
Well, after 39 from their first two partnerships, things weren't looking too bad for us - indeed, no sign of things to come.
From here on in, things just go from bad to worse, so you may want to stop reading here.
If you're still reading, I must say you are a masochist. Their next partnership started off with a boundary, and it was the beginning of a messy end for us. Their third partnership made 34, which put them back on track. We didn't look particularly sharp in the field, and the bowling (excluding Troy, but including myself) looked pretty pedestrian. Similarly, when their fourth partnership came in, we were just there to make up numbers rather than make the play.
The only highlight of the innings was the fact we bowled only 24 in extras, though Paul's skiing must be noted as a contributing factor.
Shoutout to Troy for his four wickets giving him overs of -1 and 1.
Batting:
Chan and Greg had their first outing in a while, and perhaps they could have blamed it on that, except they're using the same excuse the rest of us are - there must be something in the water, right? Needing 18 to get the quad-point, and on 17 after two overs, the situation was far from dire. Sitting on 13 after the four overs, the game was rapidly slipping away. I'd be interested in hearing from Greg and Chan what they thought - I didn't notice any horrendous mixups in calling, so maybe worth continuing with the partnership for a few games at least?
Troy and Simon batted sensibly, but were crippled in the early overs, including a hatrick of outs from Willie Muriliduran.
Steve and I provided the top scoring partnership, though you wouldn't know it watching me. With two poorly placed/selected shots from the first two I faced resulting in runouts, I had just dug a hole which Steve managed to get us out of. When we went in, we were looking at getting the quad-point (needing 35) first and foremost, as the game was all but gone (being generous here, needed 100 from 8 overs).
Damo and Bart came in fourth, with zero chance of a win, but the hardest quad-point at stake (38). After the first over of 11, it looked possible, but an over of -4 from the Willie Ahktar sealed the deal. I could have sworn Bart said he had a shoulder injury, but he looked like a hip-replacement candidate after being the run-out batsman on every occasion.
Shoutout to Steve for his fine 22, and to Damo for his wicketless 15.
Personally:
I bowled too sweet a length for Gaz, who drove often and well - I think I need to develop a delivery that won't take wickets, but is just nigh impossible to do anything but block. Would be handy against batsmen who are clearly competent.
Of the four (count them, four!) outs I had, three of them were from poorly placed shots. In this case, the problem with the placement was that I placed them all towards their backnet fielder who refused to return the favour I'd made by missing a couple of run-out chances. The first two wickets were particularly galling, whereas the second two were more circumstantial (needing to swing to get a quad-point). It's a lesson I should bear in mind against other teams with top-quality backnet fielders, such as the Palliser Eagles.
Generally:
We got them out 8 times, they got us out 22 times. That's the bottom line. The difference in wickets was the difference in runs - we need to field sharper and cut out the wickets (running issues for some partnerships, more sensible batting required from myself).
Only two of their players hit any backnets, Gaz and Andy (the guys in the last two partnerships). Adjust your position in the field accordingly - move up for the dabbers, back for the hitters.
A shut-out loss, 8-0 in points. I repeat, ouch.
|
|
|
