London Erratics Cricket Club

LONDON ERRATICS — bowling

Stephenson

Thirty years of recreation and refreshment, 1974–2004

Sunday 11 July 2004
London Erratics v Great Milton
at Great Milton

Crocks

GREAT MILTON — batting
1	c Green T	b Towers	7
2	not out		101
3		b Towers	83
4	not out		25
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
241 for 2 dec
Fall of wickets: 1–16, 2–199

A sadder but a wiser skipper writes:

In a changing world, with standards falling everywhere, the Erratics founding principles have stood the test of the time. Enthusiasm matters more than skill, the ability to turn up is more important than troubling the scorer, the hunger for tea should always be greater than the hunger for runs.

But the game against Great Milton showed conclusively that traditional values need to be placed in a modern setting. The Erratic bowling was just about adequate, the fielding and batting just about non-existent.

The problem was obvious early on. Skipper Bill Bush had failed to recruit a middle order, and turning up without any of Khawaja, Berrigan, Truscott, Ward, Richards or Poulter meant that the team was fatally flawed. Winning the toss and inserting the opposition was his only success.

Great Milton set off cautiously, with new recruit Alex Towers looking lively and Tim Green moving the ball off a damp pitch. A short ball from Alex was fended off to Tim at square leg for an early wicket, but for two hours and 180 runs that was about it, as Great Milton steadily and then rapidly dealt with an Erratics attack that found it hard to find the right length. Chances were few and far between, and far too many runs were gifted by a field that was immobile even by Erratics standards. (Honourable exceptions: Jim Head kept well to an erratic Erratic attack, Alex and Tim showed that in the field as in life there is no substitute for skill and youth, and James Rivington was his reliable self.) [Bill has modestly omitted mention of his own tireless running in the field. — Ed] But all the batsmen had to do was wait for the four-ball. All the bowlers struggled to find the best length, worrying about dropping short on a slow pitch. As a result there were too many full tosses and full length deliveries that were despatched by two batsmen who clearly knew their stuff. Alex took the only two wickets to fall and had to be brought back to close out the innings as defence became the only option.

In two weeks the Erratics have taken 6 wickets while conceding 512 runs. Nuff said.

LONDON ERRATICS — batting				4s	6s
	Andrews	bowled	22	2
	Heller	caught	20	2
†	Head	lbw	1
	Rivington	bowled	0
	Stephenson	caught	18	3	1
	Dunabin	caught	10	1
	Green J	caught	0
	Towers	caught	10	2
*	Bush	caught	1
	Green T	NOT OUT	0
	Padmore G	bowled	1
102 all out
Fall of wickets: 1–47, 2–51, 3–53, 4–59, 5–76, 6–80, 7–97, 8–100, 9–101

The skipper writes:

Great Milton’s bowlers knew how to deal with the pitch. They kept a tighter off-stump line, and by bowling just short of a length they exploited a bit of variable bounce. Mysteriously they also seemed to get much more movement in the air. Richard Heller opened, more to get away early than to lay claim to the number 1 slot, and accumulated a rapid 20. Jim looked solid for a while before a shortish ball that for moment looked like it was going to be pullable actually kept a bit low and hit him on the knee. Peter Andrews looked comfortable but failed to accumulate the kind of score we needed. James got one that came in off the pitch and kept low. However, the departure of the Great Milton off spinner had removed the scoring opportunities and we were well behind the required rate. Nevertheless the draw was obviously well within our reach, provided we were sensible. Another Erratic principle is of course that we are not sensible, and we subsided pathetically with batsmen wafting themselves to destruction. Michael Stephenson thumped a couple of satisfying blows including a big straight six, Alex hung around with some long-legged defence but apart from that it was a sorry, dispirited procession.

Everyone — including most of the Great Milton side — would have had a better day out if the Erratics team had had a better balance. So, next time, a bit less principle and a bit more pragmatism. Talent, even for the Erratics, has its place. [BB]

Erratics lost by 139 runs

2004 Season

Erratics HomePage