Hampset vs Venturers, Wednesday August 11th

Hampset 192, Venturers 164-8

Thirty-five yards really isn't very far. One Hampset batsman, playing a ball from Santha firmly and straight to Ian, that far from the bat at square leg, called "No!" loudly. Although partly a tribute to Ian's arm, it was definitely the right call. There would have been an easy single if Ian had been ten yards deeper, though; and he would have been, if he hadn't been on the boundary already.

That goes a long way to explaining the absurdly high scoring in this match, and the seven lost balls (Hampset 5 Venturers 2). Chris's classical cover drive, for example, though beautiful, would ordinarily have brought him four rather than six; and there were miscued pulls and sweeps that would have been simple catches to a normally positioned midwicket but were six instead, and little nudges for one off the quicker bowlers that went for four. On the opposite side the ground slopes down, so pushes often ran for four that way too.

It doesn't explain it all, though. The straight boundaries are not remarkably short. Beyond one of them is a car park, from which Chris hastily removed his car once he saw what was going on. Beyond the other is a wall, a garden, and a large house. On the house there is a chimney pot, and on the chimney pot there is usually a seagull. Adam, whose bowling can be very devastating when he gets it right and very hittable when he gets it wrong, got it wrong. So did the batsman, really. If he had hit it a little less hard he would have picked off the seagull, and earned himself a place on the front page of the Bath Chronicle (CITY HERO SPORTSMAN TACKLES MENACE) and a personal commendation from the mayor. As it was he simply hit it clean over the house. It would have been comfortably six on any ground in the world. Another Hampset batsman hit the house, giving a triumphant Black Power salute (batting gloves limit the range of available salutes) when he heard the crash. For us, Rich gave as good as we got, monopolising the strike to such an extent that he made fifty out of 56 in six overs, during which time Ian faced seven balls and Rob three.

We had, at least, bowled them out. Until the last three wickets, one a run-out, went down in three balls from Santha we had chipped expensively away, most batsmen contributing a couple of sixes and a lost ball before getting bowled. One exception was the sole left-hander, who was threatening the short boundary from the other end but was splendidly stumped by Roger off one from Gregory that turned sharply. Another was the opener, who was dropped soon after the episode of the seagull but retired on reaching fifty. He returned near the end but Santha bowled him immediately. Stuart escaped relatively lightly because of his steep bounce and having the short boundary at cover: Tom and Gregory, at the other end, didn't bowl badly but were very expensive all the same. Some of the Hampset batsmen also received coaching and advice about what the bowler was doing in Hindi from the umpire, who seemed surprised to find that some of us could understand him and more so when Santha asked him to stop it.

The informal spirit of the match was also apparent when Hampset fielded. Most of them tried their hand at bowling and at least one of their batsman bowled better than their bowlers did. We kept up with the requisite nine and a half an over for quite a long time, but apart from Ian, who was out early, and Rich we didn't have really big hitters. It was hinted to Rich that he, too, ought to retire on reaching fifty, but he got out instead, and from around the twelfth over our run rate sagged, especially when the bowling was from the seagull end and the short boundary therefore at cover. All things considered, we didn't do badly.

Fixtures & Results 2010