Erratics Cricket Club Erratics v Denbury on Sun 23 May 2010 at 14.30
Erratics Cricket Club Lost by 8 runs

Match report [This Archive Report says 16 May at the end, and 5 July at the beginning, and the book had no date, BUT it appears to be 23 May according to the Archive fixture list ... especially as we have another match report for 16 May and 5 July was a Monday.]

Match Report: by Ed Paleit

This was a great day to play cricket at Dunsford. The carpet of trees, still in its early spring foliage, climbed steeply beyond the river, the surrounding meadows were filled with flowers, and the ground swam in a treacly heat. Erratics were playing Denbury, a side transformed in recent years. A true but slow pitch beckoned invitingly to batsmen. Denbury obtained first use of it; Erratics, skin smothered in creams and oils, took their positions slowly, suspecting an arduous spell in the field. Their misgivings were duly rewarded. In the event the teams played a near-classic match, closer than anyone could have imagined half-way through.

The early passages of play established the rhythm of the game. Downhill there was movement away from the bat, the batsmen obliged by playing and missing, and Burrows bowled his eight overs out for 21 (in retrospect, amazing figures). Uphill and into the breeze the margin for error was smaller, with the short third-man boundary soon leaking fours from edges and cuts. Denbury’s openers left the stage quickly, but the tempo was good, and a large partnership developed for the third wicket, Eaton eventually scoring 63. The pitch proved unfriendly to deviation, the outfield much faster than its lushness suggested. Denbury’s upper order swung lustily through the line and a challenging total, of 220 or thereabouts, seemed in the making. Nine Erratics tried their hand at bowling, and none were altogether poor, but sustained pressure proved elusive.

At 167 for four, with ten overs remaining, one M. Hickey came into bat, a nineteen-year old left-hander who likes to drive the ball. Of the 109 runs scored between then and the end of the innings, he contributed an unbeaten ninety, off something like thirty-eight balls. He hit eight sixes, seven driven over the long boundaries, one picked up off his legs and into the Moretonhampstead road. In his first few deliveries he played and missed, to Prosser, and Pete Thomson later gallantly claimed there was a stumping chance off Rutherford, though this would have been the stumping of the season. Everyone else got the treatment. It was a good knock from a high-quality cricketer, even if it seemed somewhat like stealing candy from old men. A total surpassing 200 began to threaten 300, before closing at 276. A sun-frayed fielding side came in and picked glumly at their tea. Not very much was eaten. Rather little was said. The scorebook received surprisingly little interest and may have felt slightly excluded.

As our innings got under way, various strategies were discussed for responding to Denbury’s apparently unassailable total. After fifteen overs of resistance for the first wicket, skipper Thomson told the openers to aim for no wickets down at the end (i.e. for not many runs): a sort of Sunil Gavaskar-ish declaration of no intent. Dignity, not victory – and perhaps a bite-my-thumb at the opposition - was the priority. Denbury’s opening pair, who bowled straight through, were slow-medium stranglers. Their bad balls were smacked obligingly straight at the infielders, who dived about energetically in the way that fielders defending 276 tend to do. Unthreatened, unthreatening, Erratics floated along at under four an over under a rich late-afternoon sky. Up came the fifty partnership, then the century opening stand, then fifties for Rutherford and Ferro. Half the overs were gently erased. Then Ferro scraped at a ball which fell like a dead fly from the heavens, two more wickets went down, and the game seemed up.

But the narrative was changing. Rutherford was beginning to expand his game. Full length balls were whipped through midwicket, anything short cracked wristily through extra cover. The field spread, and seemed to dwindle in number. Under pressure, the run-saving went from impressive dives to ineffective foot-jabbing. Suddenly, with eight overs remaining, and without quite knowing how we had done it, we were past 200. Rutherford completed a magnificent century, graced by two sixes and sixteen fours. When a mistimed blow, his first real chance, was held in the outfield, Denbury squawked with relief, but the opportunity for something famous had arisen. Prosser, bristling defiance, and Malhotra took up the challenge. Forty-nine were needed from four overs; thirty-nine from three; eighteen from the last. We held our breath. Denbury quaked.

Miracles rarely happen, and didn’t here. We ended up nine short of a win and therefore, under the rules of limited-overs cricket, the losers. But it felt better than that. Only two of the older members of Denbury’s team retired with us to the pub, where we watched the sunset over Dartmoor turn Dunsford’s church tower gold.

Sunday 16th May
v Denbury @ Dunsford, 2:30pm

James Burrows
Phil Ellis
Chris Ferro
Jan Heaton
Armaan Malhotra
Paul Molins
John Nagle
Ed Paleit
Dominic Prosser
Nigel Rutherford
Peter Thomson

Denbury Batting
Player name RunsMB4s6sSR
1nb 16w 10b 3lb 
for 6 wickets
276 (0.0 overs)

Erratics Cricket Club Erratics Bowling

Player NameOversMaidensRunsWicketsAverageEconomy
James Burrows8.0121121.002.63
Nigel Rutherford8.0051151.006.38
Chris Ferro6.0034217.005.67
Paul Molins3.001900.006.33
John Nagle5.004200.008.40
Phil Ellis2.0017117.008.50
Dominic Prosser3.001500.005.00
Armaan Malhotra3.0043143.0014.33
Ed Paleit2.001600.008.00

Erratics Cricket Club Erratics Batting
Player Name RMB4s6sSRCatchesStumpingsRun outs
1nb 20w 8b 2lb 
for 5 wickets
Chris Ferro Stumped  55
Nigel Rutherford Caught  111
Ed Paleit Stumped  2
Paul Molins Caught  8
Jan Heaton Caught  18
Dominic Prosser Not Out  28
Armaan Malhotra Not Out  11
John Nagle  
Phil Ellis  
James Burrows  
Peter Thomson  

Denbury Bowling

Player nameOversMaidensRunsWicketsAverageEconomy
No records to display.