1sts
Holy Cross 141ao
D. Russell 55, R. Bainbridge 30, R. Worsnop 27.
Fauldhouse 144-3
D.J. Allan 50odd.
partial scorecard here
For the 2nd successive occasion, the 1sts failed in their attempt to beat Fauldhouse with less than 2/3rds of the 1st team. After an early collapse, Dougie and Bainbro put together a fluent partnership of 60 odd and got us back into the game. But despite Robin's efforts, the absence of our usual batting depth meant we were unable to get the near a competitive total. Hopefully availability will pick up next week and beyond.
2nds
PVB reports that:
Holy Cross probably lost to Edinburgh Accies by 0.002 of a run. Holy Cross scored 188 all out; their run rate is 4.17778. Accies scored 117-5 after 27.4 overs; their run rate is 4.17857. By multiplying the Holy Cross run rate of 4.1778 by 28 overs you get 116.98.Ziggy will give his reaction at 3.17am.
Is the target 117 or is it 118 if Holy Cross' score is rounded up to 117? Can you win by 0.002 of a run? Your views please!
There was no argument after the game - it was played in the most sporting manner possible. It does highlight the fact the old rule of a game counting after 24/27/30 overs of a second innings was made when we had the draw - without the draw it is a win/lose situation and unfair.
3rds
Lost to Dalgety Bay by about 5 wickets - details below from Broonster.
Posts
As you can't score less than a whole number, a score in this situation should be rounded to the nearest whole number. 116.4999999 would be 116 and 116.5000001 would be 117.
ReplyDeleteThats my opinion on it anyways
surely a tie??
ReplyDeleteApart from the calculators, well done to Keith (82), some lusty blows by Amjid, fine bowling from Ian Astley (3 for) and a mean spell from Gerry who was down to one sweater today (3-11 I think) plus a great catch by Gavin.
ReplyDeleteclutching at Straws asusual
ReplyDeleteIt should be a tie without any doubt. Such a heartbreaking loss.
ReplyDeleteFor the record FFS, my accies playing friend, who played yesterday was pleased that the result was accepted so well.
ReplyDeleteTo me it's no suprise, there is never complaining at a game from the cross, people will debate the merits of the rule, but no one complains at the game.
I don't think that is something to attack, I think it's something to praise. It would be very easy for players to get grumpy at a game, but instead I am told by an independant source that they showed first class sportsmanship. Considering the number of players at various clubs who don't walk on clear edges or umpires who won't give them, I think it's good to see that some teams can play a great sport in the way it should be played at all levels, but especially this level.
where's Ziggy's report
ReplyDeleteWell said again Popster (first time I've said that). Rules are the rules for all teams and sometimes you get the breaks. For an even more interesting look at the calculation have a look at some of other results from yesterday and the debate on the ESCA site.
ReplyDeleteThe beauty of cricket is that it throws up some much debate, the important thing is to play the game in the right spirit according to the rules and debate the finer points later in the bar, something most clubs do and which makes playing all the more enjoyable.
At the end of the season the clubs vote for the fair play award in their division and I don't think it's any coincidence that we are always well represented year in year out.
8 comments already-haven't people got anthing better to do.
ReplyDelete'haven't people got anthing better to do.'
ReplyDeletewoof woof
Cheers Bainbro,
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, people debate points like this because they are interesting. If we never debated things then life would be very boring. No one makes you read the comments!
1) PVB exagerates, it was only 0.02 we were defeated by.
ReplyDelete2) The rain reduced points split is stupid. I made this point years ago in one of my complaints to the league about unsporting behaviour. When a game is so obviously finely balanced, awarding someone a win makes no sense. The 'win' points should be split up (or maybe 5 'draw' points each, and teams can also add their batting & bowling points to that point. Simples.
3) If indeed commenting on blogs means you have nothing better to do, making this point is twice as sad. Pointing that out, is three times as sad. Anyone able to raise me on how sad this post is?
4) If the cricketer who recently possessed me produces a square cut, I don't think the Saltires can ignore me for too much longer.
where's Ziggy's report?
ReplyDeletePVB exagerates, it was only 0.02 we were defeated by,
ReplyDeleteActually our runrate was 4.1777
Accies was 4.1786
Subtract one from the other and I think we lost by 0.0009 of a run!! Cricket Scotland limit runrate to two decimal places which would have seen us equal on 4.18.
Gadzooks. My calculator even confirms this. Not for the first or last time, I stand corrected. Can anyone make the losing margin even finer?
ReplyDeleteIf The Redactor himself doesnt know where Ziggys report has gone, how many bleedin levels of censorship do we have? I thought the t'internet was a free for all slag fest!!!!
ReplyDeleteThe use of the word slag better be ok in this context. I recall whilst under the employ of BG, an email including a menu with Cock-a-leekie soup in it was impounded. Is Admins hand behind such Communist practices??? Less regulation, less regulation, less regulation....
I missed Ziggy's post-what was so bad about it??
ReplyDelete"a menu with Cock-a-leekie soup in it was impounded."
ReplyDeleteThe c0ckspur cup was a problem on cricket sites especially if your team was called Scunthorpe or Lightwater valley!
Anonymous
ReplyDeleteI'll let you tell everyone!
I'm the real Anonymous-the other guy's an imposture
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm Anonymous!!
ReplyDeleteNo I'm anoonymous and so's my wife!
ReplyDeletethis is getting silly
ReplyDeletestop impersinating me idiot
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking of becoming anonymous as well, is it any good?
ReplyDeleteNah Bainbro, don't bother-just stick to calling yourself ffs
ReplyDelete27 comments! -a club blog record I believe..
ReplyDeletewhat do you mean we should value quality over quantity....