By Mark Gilkes
Cricket report 24th June 2001 – Eversheds
BIG PHIL ALMOST WINS IT
Eversheds Social Club 179 for 9
Salmagundi Gardeners 171 all out (“all” being 9 wickets – more of later)
No tension about this report, Salmagundi lost – but the finish was tense, with the last few wickets falling quickly just when Phil Sessions, with a thundering 85 not out, had almost seen the team home.
So let’s just focus on the highlights of Mr Sessions’s innings: 5 sixes and 11 fours. Each six seemed to go higher than the last and each six resulted in a lost ball (even one of the fours resulted in this), so that not only was he seeing it like the proverbial football, but that with every ball they brought on as a replacement being dispatched like the last, whether new and shiny or soggy and old, the likelihood grew that they’d perhaps have to resort to a football, or start fetching those on the pool table. They could have bowled at him with anything and it would still have disappeared back over their heads.
It was almost a game of “our champion against yours”. Eversheds had their own high scorer, who opened and made 113 – being caught brilliantly by Adam Wood, off Tom Monahan, at deep square leg. However, the Salmagundis did not leave it completely to Phil, with Jim and Tom Monahan sharing a 44 run partnership just prior to Mr Sessions’s arrival at the crease. Even the score of 6 by Joe Fox played a part as he held down an end, and featured in a fifty partnership, while Sessions chased the total.
A lot of hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing ensued at the end as the Gardeners sought to find an answer for their failure to see home the chase, but most significant must be the fact Salmagundi played with only ten men. The few runs an extra fielder might have saved, the extra man at the other end to give Sessions just a few more balls to hit those winning runs (Salmagundi only used 32 of their 35 overs in the chase, so were well on target) might have made the difference.
The blame lies firmly and squarely on the individual who cried off on the Sunday, the man who put his work before his team. It would be wrong to name Erik, or the company he works for, because clearly PriceWaterhouseCoopers have a more legitimate need for the kind of solid opening batsman that might have made all the difference. Let us simply say, as has often been said, in the very competitive games in which we play, many with exciting finishes such at this, to expect to beat eleven with ten is not cricket.
(Just in case anyone doesn’t get the tone of this, tribute is paid here to the dedicated and organised work undertaken by our skipper Erik Samuelson – you know, the one who couldn’t turn out on Sunday…)
Finally, to the more important matter of the tea. For the third week running tea has been provided without a vegetarian option. The vegetarians amongst us are getting very annoyed.
By “vegetarians” I actually mean “vegetarian.”
By “vegetarian” I actually mean “me.”
|M Fox 1||captaining for the day, promoted himself up the order and slashed wildly|
|C Packham 7||exhausted from his bowling was well caught by a diving wicket keeper|
|J Tait 3||uncharacteristically crap|
|J Monahan 19||some lovely shots but can never keep his head|
|T Monahan 31||played many fine shots also which didn’t score runs|
|P Sessions 85no||imperious, colossal|
|M Gilkes 0||consciously playing second fiddle, proved he is no musician|
|J Fox 6||a brave rearguard with some very attractive late cuts and glides|
|A Wood 0||sacrificed himself with a chancy run to the danger end|
|M Carter 2||hit a nice stroke for two and understandably had dreams of repeating it|
The bowling analysis is tainted by an apparent mix-up of the Monahans. Who took the wickets and who was smacked round the ground? What’s in the book can’t be trusted. Also, although there were two Foxes bowling, only one took himself off when the 113 man was amassing his score, and then brought himself back on when said man was out.
We play Eversheds again in August. Anyone want to be the eleventh man?