London Erratics Cricket Club

Founded 1974 for recreation and refreshment


Sunday 23 July 2006
London Erratics v Withered Lilies
at Magdalen College, Oxford

Silliness

Click on (Þ) symbol for photo images

LONDON ERRATICS batting 4s  6s 
Head 25 for 0 in 5 overs 2   
Stephenson 41 for 4 in 5 overs 4  3 
Andrews 27 for 1 in 4 overs 5   
*† Bush 21 for 1 in 3 overs 1  1 
Davie 10 for 2 in 3 overs    
Berrigan 24 for 1 in 3 overs 2  1 
Green J 17 for 2 in 3 overs 3   
Eltringham 13 for 0 in 2 overs 1   
Towers 9 for 3 in 2 overs 1   
  187 for 14 in 30 overs = 13 runs   
With the Withered Lilies struggling for players, this game was always going to be an eight-a-side knockabout at best. A horrendous traffic jam getting into Oxford rendered even this modest ambition impossible. With more than half the Erratics (including skipper Bill Bush) still not arrived half an hour after the scheduled start, the Lilies skipper recommended that the game got under way with those present, following special rules apparently devised by Mike Goldacre (a one-off Erratic in 1999) — with the rules settling down as the final players arrived. A 30 overs match. Batsmen would bat singly, each facing up to 5 overs, regardless of how many times they were out. The total runs scored in the 30 overs would be divided by the total number of wickets lost. Eventually there were ten Erratics and five Lilies, so James Rivington became a Lily to make it nine versus six. Confused? — we were!
It did work out in its own way: when everyone was there, we were able to have eleven in the field, two umpires, one batsman, and one padding up. We used a short boundary, apparently defined for a recent match between Americans. An inexperienced but game female scorer simply recorded the total number of runs and wickets in each batsman’s ‘innings’, so batsmen’s scores include any extras.
Jim Head benefited from the lack of fielders at the start, but had to face a good fast bowler who (though not a full Blue) had played for Oxford University. Michael Stephenson relished the idea of not being able to be out and heaved at everything. He participated in one very special over: six, six, caught, bowled, caught, six. He would later be caught and bowled by James. Bill had the satisfaction of hitting John Redwood for six, but was then bowled by James. Brian Berrigan also hit a six, but had the honour of being bowled by Redwood. Jonathan Green batted well against the returning quick, but was caught by James off Redwood.

WITHERED LILIES batting
1   18 for 1 in 5 overs 2   
2   6 for 1 in 5 overs    
3 Rivington  30 for 1 in 5 overs 3   
4   45 for 1 in 5 overs 4  2 
5   16 for 2 in 5 overs 2   
6   61 for 0 in 5 overs 12   
  176 for 6 in 30 overs = 29 runs   
When the Lilies came to bat (Þ) , both sides had worked out that wickets were more important than runs. Alex Towers bowled fierily, but could only bowl the first Lily bat (Þ) . The second Lily bat was a rabbit who should have yielded a hatful of wickets, but only Matthew Eltringham got through his prodding defence. James had the pleasure of facing Michael and Jim: Michael got his own back, bowling James with a beautiful away-swinger. Jim was knocked out of the attack by the University player batting at No. 4, who was finally bowled by the returning Matthew. Redwood couldn’t keep out Michael, and was also run out by a direct hit from keeper Bill.
The Erratics, who hadn’t clung on to the chances that had come their way, needed a minimum of three wickets when the Lilies skipper came in: but instead of getting out, he knocked the ball around, giving the Lilies a comfortable win (Þ) .
There had been some discussion during the match about an alternative scoring system, whereby each batsman’s outs would reduce only his own runs, rather than the whole team’s: the Lilies would have won under this format too. Anyway, thank goodness scorer Robert Waller wasn’t present — he would have hated it all. Needless to say, the game doesn’t count towards the averages.

Erratics lost by 16 runs

Withered Lilies | 2006 Season | HomePage