Tiddington - 7 July 2019
Tiddington v Gaieties 7 July 2019
We were 12, sometimes 13, men escaped from the city and employ, hungry for cricket. They were 11, very young, and not especially interested. It was always going to be close.
We took to the field hopeful; by the first drinks break our mood was wary. Their openers, one cagey, the other expansive, had treated our attack with a mix of respect and disregard: neither Daniel nor Tim, performing an impression of a seam bowler, could make a breakthrough. Rufus and Matthew, metronomic again, enjoyed no better fortune. After 20 overs, they had made a hundred: a large score seemed inevitable.
The big-hitting opener's decision to retire renewed, as well as baffled, our spirits. Hugo, playing his first game of the season, deceived their number 3 into a leading edge, Liam tumbling forward at midwicket to take an excellent catch. The other opener found some fluency - and some generously inept wicketkeeping - as Liam and Matt Bulmer, exhibiting an elegant one step run-up, settled into parsimonious spells. The wickets came at last, in a burst: from 190-1 they fell to 210-4, Liam taking two - including the opener, very well caught by a sprinting captain at mid on - and Matt one. The game entered a curious lull as both batters, no more than 16-years-old apiece, tried and mostly failed to score. Mike showed the wisdom of experience, winkling through four overs for practically nothing, very unfortunate not to take a wicket; Hugo, meanwhile, returned, fists pumping and jumper off, to claim a couple more, inducing the declaration. At 249-6 off 45 overs, it was a respectable score, whose potential we'd ably restrained. Just 60 came from the last 15 overs.
Our reply began badly - Tim was adjudged LBW in the second over - but, as at Oxted, Shomit and Mikhail settled into a productive, well-paced partnership, both especially quick to dispatch in high style anything short. After 10 overs, we had 38; after 20, 111. Though Mikhail fell soon after passing his fifty - another skilful innings - we reached the last hour with 8 wickets in hand, needing 130. For Shomit, visibly tired, the drinks break was welcome. He disappeared into the pavilion, splashed his face with water and called for his hat: the chase was on.
Shomit, who unfurled some sumptuous, expertly placed strokes, was joined by Tom, who looked immediately at ease, his drives in particular testimony to talent. The score rose, first steadily, then in jumps: with 12 overs left, we needed 63. Victory surely beckoned. Perhaps sensing its proximity, Tom perished. No matter: Rufus - also in his first game of the season - seemed undaunted, lifting the ball to the boundary twice without much effort, while Shomit, nearing a century, continued to score freely. When Rufus was bowled, bringing James to the crease, we needed 50 from the better part of nine overs. The pair kept up easily with the rate, taking 30 from the next five overs - punctuated by Shomit, in an innings both temperate and aggressive, reaching his hundred.
We needed 19 to win from 22 balls when James, who'd looked every inch the calm finisher, chipped to point. That became, after an aggravating over of near wides bowled to a phlegmatic Hugo, 14 from 12. What had been within grasp now felt very far away; the situation became tense, the air heavy. Singles only in the first four balls of the penultimate over left us needing 11 from 8: Hugo cut for four, then took a run. The equation was simple: 6 from 6. Single; dot; single; dot. Three from 2, Shomit on strike. He hit it powerfully out to the midwicket boundary, too powerfully: just one run. Two from the last ball: the bowler, a sloping youth, ran in. The ball was straight, a touch full. Hugo heaved away, but the contact was light; the ball snaked out to deep midwicket, no second run possible.
A tie. (Or, as the captain was at pains to emphasise, a draw with scores level.) Excitement, resignation, surprise, predictability: there was a lot to savour.
