Saviour?
Floods at the Rosebowl - Hampshire under lights
Saviour?
By Grockle
May 18 2007
A crucial night in our early one day season after quite a long lay off for May. Can the bowlers make up for a low score in the first innings? Has Ian Blackwell pulled the irons out of the fire? Matt Wood and Wes Durston make the trip but don't get the nod - we may very well need fireworks from Caddy tonight!
Saviour?
May 18 2007
A crucial night in our early one day season after quite a long lay off for May. Can the bowlers make up for a low score in the first innings? Has Ian Blackwell pulled the irons out of the fire? Matt Wood and Wes Durston make the trip but don't get the nod - we may very well need fireworks from Caddy tonight!
v Hampshire FPT(S) @ The Rosebowl Friday 18 May 2007
Two games in 3 days that will decide our fate in this competition after the loss to Sussex that should have gone another way. Both away from home and the second one in points thirsty Bristol! We have to put our best one day feet forward this weekend.
With that in mind and with little cricket in the last week, Langer has gone with the men making names at the moment and a full seam line-up (where the hell is Phillips?). Matt Wood still can find no way into a first class side and the medium pace of Parsons is preferred to the spin of Durston. We go in with;
Trescothick, Langer, White, Hildreth, Blackwell, Parsons, Keiswetter, Trego, Jones, Caddick and Willoughby
Hampshire win the toss and see something in the pitch so they put us in and Dimitiri Mascarenhas provides Warne with exactly what he wants as both openers go to him clean bowled with very little on the board. 27 runs is not a good start with two down and it gets no better as Hildreth is castled by Tremlett before we reach 50 with almost half the overs gone.
Parsons then shows half the reason why he is there acting as the anchor while first White and then Blackwell put together partnerships that pull us up into some kind of contention. 49 with Cameron 52 is followed by 52 with Ian to get the score over 150 before he too perishesleaving the support job to Trigger who helps Ian over 50 and the total up towards 200. When Blackie is caught and bowled by Ervine at 181 it is left to Peter and Craig Keiswetter to help Somerset make a semi-competitive score of 220 at the end of the 50 overs.
Humble Opinion
It isn't enough and we need a great bowling performance and 10 wickets to win this one. Trego hasn't started at all well going for 8.5 per over in his first 2 and Hampshire are 34 for no wicket at the end of the 8th.
The Reply
Well they had 59 up before we decreased their numbers as Jones had Benham caught and they'd passed 100 before we got the second when Lumb plonked one of Blackwell's into the waiting hands of Hildreth. From Bicknoller Heights, this one looked gone. The ball had been moving about during our innings. Nick Smyth(I think) sent me a text from the ground stating that the first three of our wickets went to defensive shots!! We were relying on our spinners and Pete Trego - number one bowler so far was removed fromthe attackafter 4 had gone for nearly 30!! There wasn't exactly hope on the internet scorecard.
However, when Carberry was Blackwell's second victim at 124, everything went up a gear. Willow took out Crawley at 141, Pothas was caught behind off Parsons at 144 and Mascarenhas (our real problem in the past) was run out without adding to the score and then...always joy of joys....Warney was caught by Langy of the bowling of Willowy with only 4 more added. Now we had a bit of a game on...even on the desktop.
The trouble was that the amount of runs needed was far outweighed by the amount of balls remaining to get them in and Udal and Ervine set themselves to win the game with a 50+ partnership. Caddick got into the wickets with only 14 needed by sending Udal packing and Jonah did what we all like Jonah doing and castled Ervine in the last over with 4 needed off 3 balls. They managed only 3 and we tied the game!!
Good result? Well it's better than losing. A couple of people better situated for a comment were;
Botham..who didn't seem to see much
"Hants won the toss and put us in in humid conditions. The ball swung and seamed and we did well to miss on many occasions. It was really hard work and the bowlers bowled very well. Highlights were a solid innings from Cam plus a whirlwind knock from Blackie, who took on the Aussies. At one stage they had four fielders on the leg side boundary, very close together! Parsy also batted well and Craig and Trigger made useful late contributions. The fielding was excellent.
Our bowlers started in exactly the opposite way from Hants. We bowled too many short, wide balls and Hants took full advantage. We got back into the game thanks to fine spells from Parsy and Blackie, who appeared to tie them down.
I can't remember too much more detail as I was gassing to various Somerset supporters and officials. Good to see Richard Gould offering his support. I suggested he buy a sat-nav to avoid unnecessarily long journeys! "
Doc Hennessey...who I'm not sure was there or not but an interesting point that I missed
"On the last ball of the Somerset innings, with the score on 219, Craig K was facing. He worked the ball into the backward point area. As you can imagine Trigger was backing up a long way and was almost on him, shouting for two. CK duly scampered off at a rate of knots and they got back for the second run, just. The scoreboard rotates to show : Somerset total 221
Then the signal from the umpire : one of them didn't ground his bat. Somerset total reverts to 220."
Nick S summed it up in his text at about 3:50
"...Looks like a bad toss to lose. Ball seaming around...sun breaking through so should get easier later..."
We batted in the worst conditions (they bowled 9 wides and 2 no balls!!) and we bowled in the worst conditions (we bowled 4of the wide variety, 2 to the luckless Trigger - not your night PT) and we tied a game that we probably should have lost. We needed more runs and all credit to them for not letting us get them but we then defended a target with good spells from Jones who did what we pay him for and broke the winning partnership in sight of the finishing line. Willoughby who took his wickets in the vital middle part of the innings and mucked up their rhythm and especially Blackie who, after keeping us in the game by taking on Warne and smacking 57 off 31 balls bowled 9 overs for 27 and got two of the home side. Saved our bacon tonight Ian thanks a lot.
If you want to read Hampshire's view of the game then here we go - thanks to the forum posters
On to Bristol!!
Bookmark or share this story with:
Digg
Delicious
Facebook
Reddit
StumbleuponRelated Articles:
Floods at the Rosebowl - Hampshire under lights
Posted by: Grockles.com (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 17:51
Floods at the Rosebowl - Hampshire under lights
Re: Floods at the Rosebowl - Hampshire under lights
Posted by: Congar (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 18:05
What does this mean?
Re: Floods at the Rosebowl - Hampshire under lights
Posted by: Botham (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 22:04
An excellent battling performance, but i fear we're missing Ben Phillips.
Re: Floods at the Rosebowl - Hampshire under lights
Posted by: Congar (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2007 04:31
Floods?
Re: Floods at the Rosebowl - Hampshire under lights
Posted by: AGod2 (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2007 06:39
as in short-hand for flood-lights
Re: Floods at the Rosebowl - Hampshire under lights
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2007 11:18
Thanks AG...at least it wasn't floods of tears as we let one slip away!!
Re: Floods at the Rosebowl - Hampshire under lights
Posted by: mama mia. (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2007 15:51
What excellent floodlights at the rosebowl, as for the cricket as they say"catches win Matches',but I enjoyed it. PS Well done Yeovil, as for the Gas what can I say, there is a god and he wears blue.
Re: Floods at the Rosebowl - Hampshire under lights
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2007 16:15
I've enjoyed the football play-offs immensely,superb entertainment.
I'm refusing to watch the over paid prima-donna's playing at Wembley this afternoon but according to the radio it is a quite desperate affair.
Give me the "lower"division stuff every week,that's proper football for you.
I'm refusing to watch the over paid prima-donna's playing at Wembley this afternoon but according to the radio it is a quite desperate affair.
Give me the "lower"division stuff every week,that's proper football for you.
Re: Floods at the Rosebowl - Hampshire under lights
Posted by: Congar (IP Logged)
Date: 20/05/2007 01:52
Whatever happens to the Gas and Yeovil now, it's been a great season for both although Ive been saying that about the boys in blue since they beat the City.
Oh yes, let me add congrats to the City on winning promotion, it must have been a major incentive to know that you will not have to play Rovers next season.
To all Yeovil fans and of course gas heads enjoy your trips to Wembley and let's make it a hat trick (not that debate again) for the West Country,
Oh yes, let me add congrats to the City on winning promotion, it must have been a major incentive to know that you will not have to play Rovers next season.
To all Yeovil fans and of course gas heads enjoy your trips to Wembley and let's make it a hat trick (not that debate again) for the West Country,
Re: Floods at the Rosebowl - Hampshire under lights
Posted by: samaithai (IP Logged)
Date: 20/05/2007 08:46
Dont forget my hme town Swindon Town as well.Just about west country.
Re: Floods at the Rosebowl - Hampshire under lights
Posted by: Somerset Wolfie (IP Logged)
Date: 20/05/2007 09:24
............and what about Bath City!!!! The City Slickers easily won the Southern League ( and their student tenants came second before running out of steam in the play offs).
Pity about the Bath Rugby boyz though.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007:05:20:09:26:03 by Somerset Wolfie.
Pity about the Bath Rugby boyz though.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007:05:20:09:26:03 by Somerset Wolfie.
Re: Floods at the Rosebowl - Hampshire under lights
Posted by: mama mia (IP Logged)
Date: 20/05/2007 21:45
Sorry forgot about Swindon amd Bath, and bad luck Exeter interesting match next season against The Gulls, has the cup final ended yet yawn.Not a good performance today we seemed very flat on the field and that was reflected in our batting. Well back to throwing the phone out of the window or kicking the computer in an attempt to get tickets for saturday.......
Re: Floods at the Rosebowl - Hampshire under lights
Posted by: mama mia. (IP Logged)
Date: 21/05/2007 09:33
At last I have tickets for the Gas match, all I need is for Somerset to beat the glos in three days.
Re: Floods at the Rosebowl - Hampshire under lights
Posted by: Botham (IP Logged)
Date: 21/05/2007 09:57
If we do, I won't be going on Saturday!
Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Mike BOS (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2007 20:24
According to the official site Matt Wood is included in the squad at the Rose Bowl.
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2007 23:24
But who do you drop?
Not Marcus or Justin.
Hildreth is doing well, White was down to play against the Windies and then didn't.
Not Blackie unless your playing another spinner so there's only Neil Edwards and what has he done wrong? Either they are going to rotate people or we have an injury.
Or Matt is simply along for the ride.
Not Marcus or Justin.
Hildreth is doing well, White was down to play against the Windies and then didn't.
Not Blackie unless your playing another spinner so there's only Neil Edwards and what has he done wrong? Either they are going to rotate people or we have an injury.
Or Matt is simply along for the ride.
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: everhopefull (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 00:27
Neil Edwards not included in 13.
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Blub (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 06:01
Neil has not played a One Dayer all season has he? Perhaps they are just giving hom a 12/13th man break?
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Blub (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 07:33
I would be very surprised if Wes and Matt are not the two who miss out today!
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: AGod2 (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 07:58
Perhaps Rosie has decided that it might be in our interests to split the Banger/Langer opening partnership so there's less of a batting contest out there?
Realistically, we've probably had one specialist bowler too many in some of the earlier games. For instance, Turner bowled all of five overs against Sussex.
Having Wood to open, as he's a good one-day player would seem to make more sense than having a bowler bowl just 5 overs? Especially when you consider that Turner did not bowl at all badly but was still only given 5 overs.
Furthermore, one other factor that might be worth mentioning is that I believe Wood made the highest score of the match in a one-day game at the Rose Bowl last year (I forget if it was a 50 or 40 over game).
Realistically, we've probably had one specialist bowler too many in some of the earlier games. For instance, Turner bowled all of five overs against Sussex.
Having Wood to open, as he's a good one-day player would seem to make more sense than having a bowler bowl just 5 overs? Especially when you consider that Turner did not bowl at all badly but was still only given 5 overs.
Furthermore, one other factor that might be worth mentioning is that I believe Wood made the highest score of the match in a one-day game at the Rose Bowl last year (I forget if it was a 50 or 40 over game).
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Somerset Wolfie (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 08:42
AG2
Matt scored 77 not out from a score of 157-4 in 38.3 overs.
Perhaps we are going to play all our batters and then try to defend a 600 score!!!
By the way, weather is overcast at the moment and a bit windy.
Matt scored 77 not out from a score of 157-4 in 38.3 overs.
Perhaps we are going to play all our batters and then try to defend a 600 score!!!
By the way, weather is overcast at the moment and a bit windy.
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Botham (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 08:46
I agree about Edwards, he's clearly not in the one day plans.
It's sunny in Dorchester and hopefully will be in Southampton.
It's sunny in Dorchester and hopefully will be in Southampton.
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: A God2 (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 09:13
It's also possible that Parsie might conceivably be stood down. He's yet to really fire, especially with the bat, so that might be something that Rosie/Langer are considering?
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 09:37
It would also useful if I actually replied to posts when awake and realsing that we were talking about a one day instead of a four day game....Duhhhhh!
Neil has never been really part of a one day plan and wouldn't be included would he? These shoulder pills are REALLY good!!
Neil has never been really part of a one day plan and wouldn't be included would he? These shoulder pills are REALLY good!!
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Blub (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 10:04
AG, you are correct Matt batted through the innings last year to help us chase down a lowish score, which we managed with some difficulty.
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Somerset Wolfie (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 13:53
Cider Boyz batting 1-0 after 1 wide ball. Matt and wes not playing.
Hope they all have their thermals on.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007:05:18:13:54:07 by Somerset Wolfie.
Hope they all have their thermals on.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007:05:18:13:54:07 by Somerset Wolfie.
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: edinburghbil (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 14:08
Bet they wish Wood was playing now. 27/2 with Langer and Banger out :-(
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: AGod2 (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 14:15
Anyone that has access to a TV, please tell me the wicket is a mine-field and likely to stay that way!!??
Otherwise, it's looking like an extremely up-hill battle, already.
It's not just the wickets, it's the slovenly run-rate which will mean a need to accelerate just as Warnie comes on, which is just what we don't need.
Otherwise, it's looking like an extremely up-hill battle, already.
It's not just the wickets, it's the slovenly run-rate which will mean a need to accelerate just as Warnie comes on, which is just what we don't need.
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Sloop John B (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 14:17
Out to that well known latin-american dance - the Mascarenhas!
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: edinburghbil (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 15:23
Gosh this looks like hard work. All most Test Match like.
81/3 off nearly 28 overs :-(
81/3 off nearly 28 overs :-(
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: AGod2 (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 15:26
Hants have an excellent attack.
Even so, with the batsmen that we have you'd expect a higher scoring rate than this, unless conditions are really tough for batting. Perhaps the pitch is insufferably slow? And the outfield could be like-wise?
Someone must be watching on TV!!??
Please log in and tell us what conditions are like??
Even so, with the batsmen that we have you'd expect a higher scoring rate than this, unless conditions are really tough for batting. Perhaps the pitch is insufferably slow? And the outfield could be like-wise?
Someone must be watching on TV!!??
Please log in and tell us what conditions are like??
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: MisterMurph (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 15:26
"It's the pitch, it's the pitch..." - come on, somebody, blame the pitch...
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: MisterMurph (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 15:27
Brilliant AG2, as I was typing as well...
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: AGod2 (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 15:38
disaster. Warnie removes Cam.
And it does look as though we will be a batsman light, as I had feared we might be.
And it does look as though we will be a batsman light, as I had feared we might be.
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Mike BOS (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 16:12
As Corporal Jones would say Don’t Panic Don’t Panic
The first 3 wickets were bowled; it might say something about the conditions.
The first 3 wickets were bowled; it might say something about the conditions.
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: AGod2 (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 16:15
The fact that Ian is the only one to be able to score at any kind of rate makes me think that my original supposition was probably correct - that the pitch is monumentally slow.
It is usually a characteristic of such surfaces that only those batsman who possess gargantuan brute force and power are able to score rapidly. Those who are relying on any kind of help from the pitch in terms of the ball coming onto the bat (the overhwhelming majority of batsmen) are liable to struggle on such surfaces, IMO.
It is usually a characteristic of such surfaces that only those batsman who possess gargantuan brute force and power are able to score rapidly. Those who are relying on any kind of help from the pitch in terms of the ball coming onto the bat (the overhwhelming majority of batsmen) are liable to struggle on such surfaces, IMO.
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Mike BOS (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 16:18
5 down Blackwell still in, we could get over 200 if Trego stays with him.
My guess 210
My guess 210
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Mike BOS (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 16:50
Well done team that’s a good effort after the dodgy start.
Now Caddick and the rest of the bowlers it’s up to you.
Now Caddick and the rest of the bowlers it’s up to you.
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 16:53
I suspect it could be a very close contest (but I hope it isn't and that we bowl them all out in minutes).
LoL
LoL
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 16:56
They've done well to get to 220. It's enough to give the bowlers hope
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 18:20
I think the cricket is giving way to Yeovil at the City Ground
LoL
LoL
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Somerset Wolfie (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 18:32
We have a wicket but at 66-1 after 14.3 overs, we do need a miracle. By the way, Steffan got the wicket.
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Congar (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 18:45
Yes I spoke too soon LoL, I've lost the commentary and Yeovil is only available in UK.
I suppose I shall have to do some work now.
I suppose I shall have to do some work now.
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: samaithai (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 18:56
Work Congar.Swearing not allowed on this site. Dont give up yet every body. A lot of cricket left in this match.
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 19:06
Timely breakthrough by Blackwell - it's all over now.
AND Yeovil have scored already.
LoL
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007:05:18:19:08:38 by Loyal of Lhasa..
AND Yeovil have scored already.
LoL
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007:05:18:19:08:38 by Loyal of Lhasa..
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Mike BOS (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 19:51
147 for 6 off 35 overs
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Mike BOS (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 19:56
151 for 7 keep going Somerset
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 20:01
I had to let my son use the computer for a while and during that time five wickets fell. I think I'd better let him use it for the rest of the summer.
LoL
Come back son - take the computer. Since I've resumed following the match Somerset has taken no wickets and Yeovil has scored three goals.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007:05:18:21:04:28 by Loyal of Lhasa..
LoL
Come back son - take the computer. Since I've resumed following the match Somerset has taken no wickets and Yeovil has scored three goals.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007:05:18:21:04:28 by Loyal of Lhasa..
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 21:02
What an epic!
I presume that means one point each, which I think will place us third. We would have been first if only ...
LoL
I presume that means one point each, which I think will place us third. We would have been first if only ...
LoL
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Mike BOS (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 21:05
well done Steff Jones bowling the last over
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 21:06
We are fourth and certainly not out of things yet.
LoL
And Yeovil are in the lead. What a night.
LoL
And Yeovil are in the lead. What a night.
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Mike BOS (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 21:13
The tables
[www.ecb.co.uk]
[www.ecb.co.uk]
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Somerset Wolfie (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 21:16
Can somebody please explain why Steffan bowled the last over when Charl had been bowling from that end up until then; was more economical and still had one over left?
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 21:16
And well done Yeovil.
LoL
LoL
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Grizzzly (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 21:20
Quote from LOL at 17.53:
"I suspect it could be a very close contest".
You should do the lottery this weekend LOL !
Grizzzly
"I suspect it could be a very close contest".
You should do the lottery this weekend LOL !
Grizzzly
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Mike BOS (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 21:34
S F
And Ian Blackwell was the most economic bowler and still had one over left.
And Ian Blackwell was the most economic bowler and still had one over left.
Re: Hampshire v Somerset - just got back
Posted by: Botham (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 22:01
A brief match report.
Managed to park in a good position for a quick getaway, in a bid to avoid the 1 hour congestion in the car park, which we endured last season!
The game wasn't on tv, as the Test match was being covered by Sky, but Meridian were there for some highlights, but I guess they left early due to frostbite!
Hants won the toss and put us in in humid conditions. The ball swung and seamed and we did well to miss on many occasions. It was really hard work and the bowlers bowled very well. Highlights were a soild innings from Cam plus a whirlwind knock from Blackie, who took on the Aussies. At one stage they had four fielders on the leg side boundary, very close together! Parsy also batted well and Craig and Trigger made useful late contributions. The fielding was excellent.
Our bowlers started in exactly the opposite way from Hants. We bowled too many short, wide balls and Hants took full advantage. We got back into the game thanks to fine spells from Parsy and Blackie, who appeared to tie them down.
I can't remember too much more detail as I was gassing to various Somerset supporters and officials. Good to see Richard Gould offering his support. I suggested he buy a sat-nav to avoid unnecessarily long journeys!
Left early and listened to remainder on radio, but alas I lost the signal with 1 over to go! Had to wait for result until I got home!
Managed to park in a good position for a quick getaway, in a bid to avoid the 1 hour congestion in the car park, which we endured last season!
The game wasn't on tv, as the Test match was being covered by Sky, but Meridian were there for some highlights, but I guess they left early due to frostbite!
Hants won the toss and put us in in humid conditions. The ball swung and seamed and we did well to miss on many occasions. It was really hard work and the bowlers bowled very well. Highlights were a soild innings from Cam plus a whirlwind knock from Blackie, who took on the Aussies. At one stage they had four fielders on the leg side boundary, very close together! Parsy also batted well and Craig and Trigger made useful late contributions. The fielding was excellent.
Our bowlers started in exactly the opposite way from Hants. We bowled too many short, wide balls and Hants took full advantage. We got back into the game thanks to fine spells from Parsy and Blackie, who appeared to tie them down.
I can't remember too much more detail as I was gassing to various Somerset supporters and officials. Good to see Richard Gould offering his support. I suggested he buy a sat-nav to avoid unnecessarily long journeys!
Left early and listened to remainder on radio, but alas I lost the signal with 1 over to go! Had to wait for result until I got home!
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: doc hennessy (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 23:27
On the last ball of the Somerset innings, with the score on 219, Craig K was facing. He worked the ball into the backward point area. As you can imagine Trigger was backing up a long way and was almost on him, shouting for two. CK duly scampered off at a rate of knots and they got back for the second run, just. The scoreboard rotates to show : Somerset total 221
Then the signal from the umpire : one of them didn't ground his bat. Somerset total reverts to 220.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007:05:18:23:29:58 by doc hennessy.
Then the signal from the umpire : one of them didn't ground his bat. Somerset total reverts to 220.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007:05:18:23:29:58 by doc hennessy.
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: AGod2 (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 23:35
Whilst some say that iam an inveterate pessimist, i do not necessarily agree!
Bottom line: Ian was magnificent! by far the best cricketer on view and anyone that seriously wants to dispute that, bring it on!!
Ian is and was superb!!
This was one of those games where we lost the toss and were inserted against many very good players. No shame. We lost relatively narrowly against probably the best player since King Viv. (shane)
At the same time, i'm not going to suggest that we create a stink for no reason. I suggest we now target CC and 20-20
Bottom line: Ian was magnificent! by far the best cricketer on view and anyone that seriously wants to dispute that, bring it on!!
Ian is and was superb!!
This was one of those games where we lost the toss and were inserted against many very good players. No shame. We lost relatively narrowly against probably the best player since King Viv. (shane)
At the same time, i'm not going to suggest that we create a stink for no reason. I suggest we now target CC and 20-20
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: AGod2 (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 23:43
er.... when I left the pub... but we got a result. Magnificent. Slightly embarrassed now!!!
Still superb by Ian!!!
Still competitive in this compo!!!
Our two southpaws were tremendous!!
Still superb by Ian!!!
Still competitive in this compo!!!
Our two southpaws were tremendous!!
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: AGod2 (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 23:48
indeed, LoL, bring on Yeovil!!! I watched the tie with a Yeovil fan and was jolly good of the result!!
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: AGod2 (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2007 23:51
and agnew can shove it where the sun does not shine.
This game featured Banger, Langer, Clark and Shane... but Ian was the best.. by far.... so there.
This game featured Banger, Langer, Clark and Shane... but Ian was the best.. by far.... so there.
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Congar (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2007 04:30
AG has a tendency to jump to conclusions,short term (about the current match) and medium term (about the season) which tend to distract from otherwise very good posts.
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2007 05:02
I'd say he'd had a few.
Very funny.
Very funny.
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: AGod2 (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2007 06:30
I should say to, too, Jim!!!
I should like to apologise for my coarseness!*
I'm pretty sure that when i left the pub, Hants needed about 20 off 6 overs with that big partnership still going. Not entirely unreasonable to assume a home win.. delighted assumption was wrong.
Only thing I can offer in mitigation is the 7 pints of fizzy apple juice that were downed whilst watching the footy with a good friend and life-long Yeovil fan. And what a tremendous evening it was.
* I do not, however, apologise from the overall sentiment vs Mr Agnew. If he watched any county cricket at all, he would know that Ian is a considerable cricketer (and not only of girth!). You don't dominate a game against people like Warnie and Clark, unless you are one heckuva player.
I should like to apologise for my coarseness!*
I'm pretty sure that when i left the pub, Hants needed about 20 off 6 overs with that big partnership still going. Not entirely unreasonable to assume a home win.. delighted assumption was wrong.
Only thing I can offer in mitigation is the 7 pints of fizzy apple juice that were downed whilst watching the footy with a good friend and life-long Yeovil fan. And what a tremendous evening it was.
* I do not, however, apologise from the overall sentiment vs Mr Agnew. If he watched any county cricket at all, he would know that Ian is a considerable cricketer (and not only of girth!). You don't dominate a game against people like Warnie and Clark, unless you are one heckuva player.
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Botham (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2007 07:39
Good point about the '1 short run', doc.
My abiding memory was that apart from Blackie's knock, it was another dour game in cold, inhospitable conditions.
Also paying £7 to park and £2.70 for a pint. Give me Taunton anyday!
My abiding memory was that apart from Blackie's knock, it was another dour game in cold, inhospitable conditions.
Also paying £7 to park and £2.70 for a pint. Give me Taunton anyday!
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: AGod2 (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2007 08:08
One more drunken observation;
SCCC bowlers bowled 4 wides.
Hants' international attack sent down 14 wides.
Well done those SCCC bowlers!!
As perverse as it may sound, I think this game vs Hants represents an infinitely better performance than in the win vs a poor Glamorgan side. It really seems as if we both batted and bowled sensibly and as a unit. The same couldn't really be said of the batting in either of the first two games.
As to the big picture?
it's awfully tight at the top, isn't it!?
Very hard to say who is likely to emerge from our group.
SCCC bowlers bowled 4 wides.
Hants' international attack sent down 14 wides.
Well done those SCCC bowlers!!
As perverse as it may sound, I think this game vs Hants represents an infinitely better performance than in the win vs a poor Glamorgan side. It really seems as if we both batted and bowled sensibly and as a unit. The same couldn't really be said of the batting in either of the first two games.
As to the big picture?
it's awfully tight at the top, isn't it!?
Very hard to say who is likely to emerge from our group.
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Botham (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2007 08:51
Good point, AG. Our bowling is so much improved on last season, as is the fielding, as is the batting. What a pleasure to say that.
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Bobstan (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2007 09:19
What's that about awfully tight, AG?
A great evening for Blackie of Somerset and Marcus of Yeovil.
A great evening for Blackie of Somerset and Marcus of Yeovil.
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Somerset Wolfie (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2007 09:22
May I be permitted to raise the subject of the old chestnut of a 'short run'. To a simple mind like mine, I have never understood how it is permitable for the umpire to call one short run and still count the return run as a legitimate run. Logic says that if the first run is deemed as short then the second run must also be short. On that basis, no run should count.
Allied to this, on a close call, the fielding side could feel aggrieved as the batsman returned to his creased when if he had completed the first run properly, he could have been run out trying to complete the second run.
Allied to this, on a close call, the fielding side could feel aggrieved as the batsman returned to his creased when if he had completed the first run properly, he could have been run out trying to complete the second run.
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: AGod2 (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2007 09:49
indeed it was, Bobstan!!!
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Mike BOS (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2007 10:16
Hampshire’s match report on the game.
[www.rosebowlplc.com]
Trescothick looks like he was walking down the wicket.
There is also the Daily Echo report at the bottom of that page.
PS
It was nice to be able to get on the Hampshire official site and read the reports, without having to register first to get past the home page.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007:05:19:10:22:44 by Mike BOS.
[www.rosebowlplc.com]
Trescothick looks like he was walking down the wicket.
There is also the Daily Echo report at the bottom of that page.
PS
It was nice to be able to get on the Hampshire official site and read the reports, without having to register first to get past the home page.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007:05:19:10:22:44 by Mike BOS.
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2007 10:57
Grizzzly quotes from my posting at 17.53: "I suspect it could be a very close contest". and writes: "You should do the lottery this weekend LOL !"
I'll let you know today's winning numbers later this evening.
Somersetwolfie makes an interesting point about "one short". What is the difference between what happened on the last ball of our innings yesterday and two batsmen meeting in the middle of the pitch, just passing each other and then returning to their respective creases, in the interests perhaps of one of them keeping the strike?
LoL
I'll let you know today's winning numbers later this evening.
Somersetwolfie makes an interesting point about "one short". What is the difference between what happened on the last ball of our innings yesterday and two batsmen meeting in the middle of the pitch, just passing each other and then returning to their respective creases, in the interests perhaps of one of them keeping the strike?
LoL
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: everhopefull (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2007 13:29
MB said
"Trescothick looks like he was walking down the wicket"
He has been accussed many a time of not using his feet.
"Trescothick looks like he was walking down the wicket"
He has been accussed many a time of not using his feet.
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: doc hennessy (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2007 17:12
Totally agree about the exorbitant parking prices Both, but totally disagree about the game. I thoroughly enjoyed my visit to the Rosebowl- decent facilities, good view and a great game of cricket- and left with that strange mixture of elation and disappointment. The road to the ground is well known as an appalling bottleneck, and impossible to get away from quickly at the end, but that’s at ODIs when the ground is full. I stayed right to the end and had no problem getting away this time. Even if I had it would have been worth it.
Without doubt it was a great toss to win; damp, low cloud, ball swinging and seaming all over the place. With biggish boundaries and a slow outfield, it always looked like being a low scoring game- if only for the first innings! The only person to clear the boundary in the whole game was our illustrious erstwhile skipper, hitting high over long on boundary and the waiting fielder. What a great game he had and great to see him returning to his magnificent best.
Looks like Warnie might have a bigger fanbase in Somerset than in Hampshire this morning. His bowling figures tell the story: he bowled too near the death and at least one over too many. Hampshire supporters near us : “huh, bowls great for Australia and rubbish for us”. Worse still was his batting. First ball was a risky slap over the bowler’s head, and after a few agricultural heaves he was, unsurprisingly, caught at mid-off. Cue lots of head shaking from said Hants supporters. Hardly a captain’s innings! With the required rate around 5, four wickets in hand, all he had to do was rotate the strike to get them home. I guess this self-belief stuff can work against you sometimes.
Without doubt it was a great toss to win; damp, low cloud, ball swinging and seaming all over the place. With biggish boundaries and a slow outfield, it always looked like being a low scoring game- if only for the first innings! The only person to clear the boundary in the whole game was our illustrious erstwhile skipper, hitting high over long on boundary and the waiting fielder. What a great game he had and great to see him returning to his magnificent best.
Looks like Warnie might have a bigger fanbase in Somerset than in Hampshire this morning. His bowling figures tell the story: he bowled too near the death and at least one over too many. Hampshire supporters near us : “huh, bowls great for Australia and rubbish for us”. Worse still was his batting. First ball was a risky slap over the bowler’s head, and after a few agricultural heaves he was, unsurprisingly, caught at mid-off. Cue lots of head shaking from said Hants supporters. Hardly a captain’s innings! With the required rate around 5, four wickets in hand, all he had to do was rotate the strike to get them home. I guess this self-belief stuff can work against you sometimes.
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Will the Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 20/05/2007 06:53
Great match. This was the first time I had seen the "new" team in action and was very impressed. Didn't get there until over 35 so missed the crucial part of play. The end of the somerset innings went particularly well with Blackwell and Parsons batting sensibley and then increasing the rate. Trego tried to hit the cover off the ball as soon as he came in and missed more than he hit but settled down and hit some good runs. Very very impressed with the new wicky batsman who played very well.
Pity about the one short. It did get very dark about 5ish, before they had had the collection to fund the lights. The lights did come on for the last few overs of the Somerset innings and this gave quite an improvement but they still had to play through the dark period.
Not a good start to the Hampshire innings as the batters took advantage of some short bowling from PT and the fielding restrictions. Gradually began to pull it back with Parsons (back to his good old best) and Blackwell eventually tightenening the screw. Ervine played well and got good support from Udal. Fielding and body language very good a couple of half chances went begging. But the enthusiasm showed through till the end. Langer changed the bowling round well and Jones was the right person to bowl the last over as Ervine was getting used to Willo. Throughly enjoyable match despite the cold (which was bitter) The bitter (Courage best and Directors were both good) and only took us 10 mins to out the Car Park (a PB that)
Apolagies for not posting earlier but went to a very good beer festival yesterday. I am assuming it was very good as I cant remember it being bad
Pity about the one short. It did get very dark about 5ish, before they had had the collection to fund the lights. The lights did come on for the last few overs of the Somerset innings and this gave quite an improvement but they still had to play through the dark period.
Not a good start to the Hampshire innings as the batters took advantage of some short bowling from PT and the fielding restrictions. Gradually began to pull it back with Parsons (back to his good old best) and Blackwell eventually tightenening the screw. Ervine played well and got good support from Udal. Fielding and body language very good a couple of half chances went begging. But the enthusiasm showed through till the end. Langer changed the bowling round well and Jones was the right person to bowl the last over as Ervine was getting used to Willo. Throughly enjoyable match despite the cold (which was bitter) The bitter (Courage best and Directors were both good) and only took us 10 mins to out the Car Park (a PB that)
Apolagies for not posting earlier but went to a very good beer festival yesterday. I am assuming it was very good as I cant remember it being bad
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Blub (IP Logged)
Date: 20/05/2007 08:26
Thanks Will.
Just a thought - do "bad" Beer Festivals exist?
Just a thought - do "bad" Beer Festivals exist?
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: MisterMurph (IP Logged)
Date: 21/05/2007 10:42
But remember SW, only one batsman has run "one short" (the other has run two legitimate pitch lengths). If both batsmen fail to make their ground, then yes, presumably no runs are scored.
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Somerset Wolfie (IP Logged)
Date: 21/05/2007 12:04
MM
Both batsmen must run full legitimate runs in order for the batsman at the receiving end to be credited with the runs. If one batsman has run 'one short' one way, he must by definition have also run 'one short' on the return run and therefore failed to achieve any legitimate runs.
The fact that his partner has run two legitimate runs is surely irrevelant. In the past, I have seen an umpire rule that the non strike batsman had run 'one short' resulting in the batsman facing only being credited with one run. I won't add to my intrigue by saying that I then thought the wrong batsman faced the next ball!!
Both batsmen must run full legitimate runs in order for the batsman at the receiving end to be credited with the runs. If one batsman has run 'one short' one way, he must by definition have also run 'one short' on the return run and therefore failed to achieve any legitimate runs.
The fact that his partner has run two legitimate runs is surely irrevelant. In the past, I have seen an umpire rule that the non strike batsman had run 'one short' resulting in the batsman facing only being credited with one run. I won't add to my intrigue by saying that I then thought the wrong batsman faced the next ball!!
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: MisterMurph (IP Logged)
Date: 21/05/2007 14:00
But if one batsman has run 2 legitimate runs, and the other has run two "shortened" runs (i.e. no runs), then they have between them run an average of one legitimate run. Which is exactly what the scorebook says.
Makes perfect sense to me...
Makes perfect sense to me...
Re: Hampshire v Somerset
Posted by: Somerset Wolfie (IP Logged)
Date: 21/05/2007 14:08
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
