This is NOT a match report

I have tried to write a match report from Saturday's game against Horley, I truly have. I've drafted it, re-drafted it, and every time it becomes a manifestation of frustration, anger and distaste. I have therefore this week decided not to write a match report, although events will be alluded to in the following piece and the stats from the game can be found at the foot of the page.

Instead I have decided to indulge in a rant. This will probably seem to many, the bitter ramblings of man who is looking for excuses for the failings of his own sides' performance; and being brutally honest with myself there is an element of that, but please try and see past the timing, and understand the crux of my argument.

We got a losing draw on Saturday. What is a losing draw? If it you look it up in the dictionary it will probably read negative, frustrating, pointless cricket. By the time I found myself at the crease with Joe Ewen on Saturday, Horley had put themselves well and truly in the box seat - 80-8. They needed two wickets for the victory, whilst we had to survive 8 overs to deny them the full 20 points, which meant prodding and patting the ball back down the pitch, whilst gaining nothing from the situation oursleves. All the while Horley gave us the expected mumblings of discontent...

'they come out here and give it the Barry*, and they're not even willing to have a go at it. You wouldn't catch us doing that. It's just cowardly, pointless cricket'.

This was obviously to get in our heads, and they themselves admitted they would have done the same in our situation. I felt thoroughly disgusted to be playing cricket of that type, but realised that our hand was forced. [*Barry is cockney rhyming slang - Barry McGuigan - 'Giving it the biggun'. Nothing to do with Wigan, Goldie]

And this is my point. The way the Fullers League rules are set up makes for formulaic cricket. Bowl first, restrict, and then knock the runs off. There is no need for the side bowling first to really attack. Not one person I speak to who plays in the league likes the rules. As England cricket fans we all bemoan the lack on success the national side have on the international arena, but none of us have a true understanding of 50-50 cricket because we don't play it.

Why don't we play genuine limited overs cricket. I have spent many an evening contemplating our league rules, both alone and over a beer with team mates and opposition. I have tried to see how we can put a positive spin on the league and step out of the predictable way that sides play the game, and the cupboard I can honestly say is pretty bare.

Cricket is a test of skill, against many unpredictable elements; the pitch, umpiring decisions, climate conditions etc...

What the league has done by saying you can only win, when bowling second is by bowling the opposition out, means every one bowls first and if they get into trouble they are forced onto the defensive, and the game is effectively finished as a spectacle. Their is no dramatic comeback as there is such a vast gulf between the points for a victory and accumulative batting/bowling bonus points.

The Positives

As I said I have tried to see the positives and how we can think about the rules in a different way to our advantage. By giving sides control over how many overs they can bat should they lose the toss, they are trying to make the toss less of a deciding factor on uncovered pitches, and encourage captains and players to take risks and think tactically. As we all know this well-intentioned idea has produced the exact opposite outcome.

It also prevents teams stacking their side full of batting and bit part all-rounders, and means captains and selectors have to pick attacking bowlers in the hunt for 10 wickets. It gives priority to guys like Zammak and Joey, who although are expensive at times, are genuine attacking bowlers who make the game exciting as a spectacle and to play.

So how would Saturday's game have been different if it had been a 45 overs aside game?

Having got Horley 88/7 in around 38 overs, I believe we would have bowled them out for under 100 as they were forced to get a total in 45 overs. Instead they did very well counter punch their way to 147 off 51.1 overs. We need to look at oursleves and how we let this happen, but take nothing away from Horley they used the overs available and played well. But we should have been chasing a much lower total in an equal amount of overs, not having to force the run rate on a very slow, low pitch, because we only had 44 overs.

Horley indeed should have walked away from this game with the full 20 points, and both sides were probably most dissapointed about the result because we want to get out of this league first and foremost because of the rules themselves. I took no pleasure from batting out 8 dull pointless overs, where scoring became a no-no, and having to play exactly the form of cricket I have previously chastised other teams for doing. As we all recognise though, our hands are forced and we all do the same given the situation if we have any genuine desire to leave the Fullers League behind.

To the esteemed people who run the league, who do such wonderful work in the league, please consider changing the format. I recognise the rules were conceived in the best interest of the players but there is something intrinsically wrong when 22 cricketers walk off the field dispondently blaming the rules for a dull game of cricket rather than realising their own failings as players. We all love the game, so please lets make it a sporting spectacle in which everyone can enjoy participating, whether it be players, scorers or umpires.

Finally well played Horley, despite previous needle between the two sides, the game was played hard but in the right spirit. Thank you to the umpires - although we might not agree with all your decisions the game would not continue without you, and you have the most unenviable job on the pitch. And likewise to the scorers, who again perform a fairly thankless task for us all.

With regard to our own performance, well done to the bowling unit, who looked like they are moving towards their best. Great to see Zammak back and bowling well, and a warning to everyone in the league - if these boys start really firing they will be a very formidable unit. To our batting performance - The game situation and other factors contributed to our collapse, but we have keep working hard and realise that when we are playing well we can lessen the effect of variables such as the pitch, bowling etc.

Good luck for Saturday everyone. I won't be there but I am sure it will be a hard fought game of cricket, and go out and play positive hard cricket and the result will go our way.

Stats 1st Xl versus Horley on Saturday 2 June 2007.

Toss won by Hampton Wick Royal who chose to bowl

Horley claim winning draw

Horley Innings

L Tomkins ctJones+ Ewen 13

R Stevens ct & bowled Ford 14

E Long ct Jones+ Ford 12

P Norman lbw Raza 11

C Allen lbw Ford 11

H Chaudhary st Jones+ Tughral 28

S Macpherson * bowled Tughral 2

T Stevens bowled Tughral 0

C Roberts + ct Jones+ Ewen 25

J Barnett ct Ewen Raza 20

A Bunce not out 3

extras 15

total 154

Wick Bowlers O M R W nb wi

J Ewen 12 2 32 2 1 5

D Ford 17 5 52 3 0 2

K Raza 11.1 5 26 2 0 0

Z Tughral 9 2 27 3 0 1

R Cole 2 0 11 0 0 0

HWRCC Innings

S McArthur lbw Barnett 6

A Jackson ct Roberts+ Stevens 1

M Davies * bowled Stevens 23

K Raza ct Bunce Stevens 9

A Mahoney ct R Stevens Chaudhary 15

P Hibberd lbw Chaudhary 0

R Cole bowled Chaudhary 0

Z Tughral ct Tomkins Stevens 12

G Jones + not out 4

J Ewen not out 0

D Ford did not bat

extras 20

total 90

Horley Bowlers O M R W nb wi

J Barnett 9 3 24 1 0 3

R Stevens 12 4 20 4 0 2

A Bunce 4 1 11 0 0 0

S Macpherson 8 3 14 0 0 2

H Chaudhary 11 5 12 3 0 0