In a first for MTWD (and in the probable absence of an on-site reporter), in house futurologist Ged Ladd is publishing the match report for the televised match from the Rose Bowl ahead of the start of the match. This report might well prove to be a useful template for all T20 match reports for the rest of the season. Delete where applicable and move the paragraphs into requirewd sequence.
Middlesex Panthers [won the toss/lost the toss] and [elected to bat/elected to field/were asked to bat/were asked to field].
Batting proved hard work for the Panthers, with wickets falling regularly and that fickle friend momentum never quite rearing its head.
Missing You Already
Bowling proved hard work for the Panthers, with several Hawks batsmen making the bowlers pay for the fairly regular stray deliveries.
The [Panthers score was never going to be enough to challenge the Hawks/Hawks score was always going to prove too much for the Panthers] despite [occasional wickets/occasional boundaries].
Missing U2.
Still, the home crowd seemed to enjoy the evening, however one-sided it might have felt.
IPL or ICC World Twenty20 it wasn't, but a crowd was entertained under lights and the Sky TV commentators were able to trawl out some tired cliches about mighty fallen, how easy it is to slip from heroes to zeroes and all that sort of thing.
So, until Friday, when you might anticipate another dose of something similar, it is cheerio from your dilligent match reporter here at MTWD.
I was at the ground Ged. Assumed you had this covered. Probably the best day weatherwise, of the year to date. Not a cloud in the sky, and as in other respects, the game to a degree, mirrored the corresponding fixture as Uxers, in weather and result. The main difference between the sides, looked to be the fielding and their 'at the death'bowling'. Theirs was excellent, whilst our was...well. Chasing an improbable 184, the home punters were a little concerned until the 14 over mark when Billy showing a welcome return to form, departed for 57. A couple of good overs from Ervine had slowed the rate, and this was followed up by Tremlett doing likewise at the death. I agree with Shaggy's summation on the Sky interview: our fielding was sloppy and without exaggeration, added, as he said, 25 to 30 leaked runs to the total. The batting at least, for the first time looked like a 20/20 line-up: fielding: nuff said. The bowling was so/so. The figures suggest Berg,Hendo and Malan had the best evening's work, which from observation,I would agree. As at Uxbridge, Hampshire's last five overs garnered too many: 51 at Uxers, 54 at RB. That is where they won both games. Ace batted well until he, like Eoin, Hendo lost their wickets under runrate pressure. Crowd looked to be circa 7.5 to 8000.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:06:24:12:37:14 by Seaxe_Man.
i watched the match on sky and from the commentary with nick knight? and gus it seemed as though middlesex at the halfway stage couls actuallt pull this off!!,billy playing some lovely shots..and in partnership with ace it didnt seem to unrealistic to imagine breaking the "duck" for tis seasons 20x20..but some poor fielding and maybe loss of concentration(ney belief?) we started to crumble after biily went and then ace succumbed...nevertheless im not a doom monger and i think the positives were a much better start(sorry dex) and a real fighting spirit at least until half/3/4 way thru the match and maybe now the last few games we can salvage some pride and win 3 games!!?
In the futurology department, btw, I was disappointed that I omitted to state that pressure from the Hawks made our fielding look sloppy whereas when we batted our batsmen seemed to pick out their fielders with regularity. When I thought up the idea I had those phrases in mind but simply omitted them in my rush to put up the piece between getting in from work and the start of the game.
However, on the positive side I was very pleased with my foresight on the "heroes to zeroes" phrase, as the post match chat grabbed that phrase and it was used more than once!! Predictable or what?
Poddy: fair comment. Scores above 170 are very hard to chase down. Ours was 9+ per over, against a good bowling side backed up by tigerish or probably I should say hawkish fielding, as they pretty well swooped on everything. We did well to keep in the hunt until the 15th over. We were up against a fielding side, whose work on the 30 yard circle was outstanding. Not a lot got past them and we were forced to hit over the top to their deep fielders, as runrate pressure mounted. They held all their catches bar one which at the death was unimportant.I enjoyed the game if not the result.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment.
We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals.
We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards.
If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing
abuse@sportnetwork.net
Digg
Delicious
Facebook
Reddit
Stumbleupon