HWRCC vs Effingham 2xi (a) Match Report

HWRCC won the toss
Effingham 179-8 (52 overs) Soppitt 3-31, Hibberd 3-38
HWRCC 65-3 (19.3 overs) Hibberd 45*
Table
Abandoned

Another abandoned game – our fourth – descended into acrimony and accusations of sharp practice against Clark and Fudge. Effingham batted first and spent 38 overs under the cosh before cutting loose as the rain began and soaked the ball. The rain continued through tea. The Wick went out to bat, braving an initially skidding pitch. But the rain gradually increased in intensity over the next 90 minutes, the outfield became so wet that the ball would not go to the boundary, footing became at best precarious for all and eventually Clark, at square leg, felt the conditions were no longer playable.

There were protestations from the opposition captain and Hibberd, at least, was happy to stay out there. But then he was batting beautifully, the best on display from either side, and was a few away from a fifty. However – and this is a big however – there was no way we should have been playing. In no other summer other than this would you consider staying out that long in conditions which were unplayable.

Make no mistake this was no “drying wicket” in the old style, the sorts you hear that deadly Derek Underwood would bowl England to victory on. This was a wicket which was taking on more and more water. To say that the ball was not coming on would be an understatement. The opposition “leggy” confessed he was simply tossing it up and watching to see what the pitch would do. It alternated between slightly sticking in the surface and skating on.

And this, to those who did not understand the decision to come off, was where the crux lay. This was not a wicket which started dry for us, got wet, and then started to dry out. This was a wicket that started wet, became wetter and was becoming less playable by the moment. When the rain increased in intensity then so did any chance of us going through to the 38 overs that we would have to bat.

Which was giving a growing advantage to Effingham. They’d already decided to ring the boundary whenever Hibby was on strike (ironically he placed the ball better and scored more boundaries with this defensive field set, but the pattern was being established). They were fairly confident that unless the other bats went aerial and flat the most they would concede would be a two.

What so riled the opposition skipper was the timing of Clark’s decision. Coincidentally as far as Clark was concerned and controversially as far as opposkip was concerned we had received 19.3 overs which meant we were half an over short of a potential result. Perhaps he knew this. Perhaps he knew we were fractionally behind the rate? Clark did not (and actually didn’t understand the rules about 20 overs thinking an abandonment was an abandonment) and had decided that he should take the players off because the conditions were no longer playable and certainly not fair.

Accusations that Clark was cheating were way beyond the mark and unacceptable. But then they summed up the way that the opposition skipper played the game. Every single thing he did all day smacked of casual manipulation. He included a player – batting down the order but who scored a very competent and muscular 41 not out – the difference between a poor innings for Effingham and a decent target of 179 – who had a flight to catch. He left 10 or so overs into our reply. A substitute arrived at about 6 o’clock. This, of course, was the first mention of the player leaving or a substitute being introduced. He was surprised and vocally indignant when we didn’t allow the sub onto the field.

On the field he attempted to influence the umpires despite the umpires being members of our team rather than people who were being paid or who had volunteered. When Del didn’t give Clark LBW an orchestrated campaign of complaining and accusations of cheating began. Six of one and half a dozen of the other you might argue. But your correspondent thinks not. Your correspondent thinks this was a very shrewd character playing the laws to their limit of elasticity and exploiting the lack of umpires to try to heist the game. His frankly hysterical attempts at sledging from the boundary were stupid – referring to the fitness or lack of it of Charlie when he himself was about as mobile as a caravan in quicksand.

Call it sharp practice or experience but clearly we were being done over to a plan. Keep us out there long enough to get a legitimate game on the go and then when would we be allowed to come off? When we were ahead of the run rate? When he decided fielding conditions were unsafe or that the run ups? When he’d worked out they were safely ahead on run rate?

On to happier topics. Tom Robinson’s debut for the twos was a revelation. Hard work in winter nets and overs under the belt for the 3s have turned Tom into a very good prospect for the club. He bowled his 7 overs off the reel and for less than 10 runs. The ball swung away as his stock delivery beating the bat regularly and he also brought one or two back too to keep both the openers guessing. This was a mature performance from a very promising cricketer.

John Hill was no less impressive. 13-4-19-1 was a great return on what started as a good pitch to bat on. Opener Richardson became increasingly frustrated to the point that he tried to slog sweep Hill from outside off stump. Eventually it all became too much for him and he aimed a wild yahoo. The edge sped high to Clark’s right and a one handed catch was made to look easy.

Hibberd followed up his 20-20 hattrick with a 3 for, his slower ball deceiving a couple of bats. Soppitt, until the rain came, bowled with real control removing two of the top four in combination with Clark behind the stumps. Jimmy C and Kirky bowled good change spells, Kirky conning a muscular gentleman of limited footwork to pad up to one that would have removed at least two of the stumps.

The fielding was excellent in the main although there were too many byes. A worrying inability to catch is beginning to dog the team’s performances though. As last week where a spilled effort cost us five overs, three shelled this week probably cost us 50 runs and the ability to push for victory before the rain changed from barely miserable to a relentless downpour.

This was a good performance again from the Wick. It was a shame that the conditions were as they were allowing Effingham first to get out of gaol from about 100 for 6 to 179-8 and then to apply undue pressure and influence when they were in the filed.

On a brighter note this wettest of all seasons is approaching an exciting climax for the 2s. A win against Hazlemere next week would given us the championship and promotion. Anything less would take us into a nerve shredding final weekend if Lingfield and Merrow both win.

Old Suttonians did Merrow a huge favour this weekend by conceding their fixture. If I were in Lingfield’s shoes (now 3rd after being rained off at home to Merstham) I’d be spitting feathers. Good old Old Suttonians. Exactly what the Fullers Division 2 is all about eh?