Twenty20 Cup ; Sussex v Kent, Match Thread

[Wardy]

Have to say that Kent were playing against the DL score and not Sussex's score. They were content with staying ahead of the DL score. But like others have said that is always a dangerous game to play because a couple of wickets or tight overs and you suddenly find yourself behind the needed score.

 

[the viscount]

Kent knew what score they would need after each over. That's why they chose to bat 2nd, so I'd say they f***ed it up bigtime

Quite agree Kent what was going on at the toss when re the floodlightds not working so they only have them selves to blame.

 

[the viscount]

Sussex beat Kent!

:yahoo::yahoo::yahoo::yahoo::yahoo:

 

[the viscount]

Kent knew the situation from the off, they won the toss, they choose to bat second, if they were unhappy at the time they should have spoke to the umpires beforehand, when like I said, they knew that situation could have happened...

On another note, DR Smith netted me another £50, 5/1 for top team batsman was a ridiculous price and it's the second time in a row it's come in! (They only do top team batsman on televised games)

HERO

ICE creams on u trigger at the Aussies game then

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Complete cock up by Kent. Ok, the situation was not good for anyone, embarrassing for the club (presumably) - especially as it's not the first time. Was it last season one of the floodlights caught fire when Sky were there ? The fans only saw 3/4 of a match with no cliff-edge ending.

I just don't understand why, having got to 5 overs ahead of the D/L score, they didn't just throw the bat a bit. Even if they lost a couple of wickets and the target went up, they would have got a few boundaries and been well ahead.

Still, not compaining though, 2 points for us and a reasonable chance of making the 1/4 finals.

 

[keaton]

It should have been made a 12/12 match, but Kent can't complain at all. the d/l score they had to get was pretty low the whole time, they chose to bat second and must have known we'd bring on pace as soon as we were ahead

 

[Trigger]

ICE creams on u trigger at the Aussies game then

Ha ha... I'm so tight you didn't even notice me peeling that orange in my pocket last night.

 

[CHAPPERS]

Nobody to blame here. Kent's fault they lost, simple as that. You can't underestimate the captaincy of Yardy last night though, not to mention his actual performance with bat and ball. He is looking like an inspired choice and clearly loves to win games. That over (that was full of chat) that he bowled at the end was as good as I've seen.

 

[westsussexseagulls]

Was a pretty tense last 3 overs the crowd seemed to know what was going on,even the paraletic ones,i cant understand why kent just didnt blast away but hey ho they buggered it up big time,good chance of getting through to the quarters now so well done lads n sir dawayne

We didnt have a clue in our area, no one knew what was happening, was a complete joke

 

[Moshe Gariani]

£1.5M matched on betfair.....£1.46M on Kent!!!!

Kent 1/3

Sussex 5/2

that is quite funny... a few "shrewdies" were obviously in the know about the floodlight failure and tried to make money off people who were betting on a normal runchase situation - with a lot of money resting on what at one stage appeared to be a sure thing they must have been a little frustrated by the Kent tactics and the final outcome...!!!

 

[Uncle Buck]

ICE creams on u trigger at the Aussies game then

Not good enough...

 

[Trigger]

Not good enough...

Where did we get David Brookes from, he looks like an 80's YUPPIE.

 

[Uncle Buck]

Where did we get David Brookes from, he looks like an 80's YUPPIE.

Pass

 

[the viscount]

Where did we get David Brookes from, he looks like an 80's YUPPIE.

from the berkshire countryside

 

[the viscount]

Just to clarify a couple of points made so far -

1) The ECB were appraised of the situation by the match umpires before the toss. I understand a proposal was put to the Board of reducing the match to an even number of overs per side - I believe 10-13 was mentioned, but that was declined. The rules do allow for a shortening of the match to allow for the minimum requirement for a match to be met before conditions preclude any more play (in this case that would be 5 overs into the second innings), but as there is always the chance of a generator being fixed, there remains the chance of playing the match to the full distance.
The rules were changed this year because of a floodlit match at Canterbury last year that was abandoned because of high winds, and the light was unplayable before the minimum for a match could be reached. Last night, 5 overs into the second innings would have taken until approx 9pm, which made a result possible, so no reduction was deemed necessary.

2) On the matter of bad light, this is the second year of new regulations whereby players have no input into decisions relating to fitness of light and conditions. I think by making the umpires solely responsible for the decision, it does take away any perceived thought of disadvantaging one side or other.

In defence of the umpires, they are now so hamstrung by having to play everything by the book, and often being unable to exercise common sense, that they have a hell of a job - and I think the umps last night did fantastically well in getting 31 overs of cricket played.

Simon Dyke SCCC
SCCC Admin
SCCC Admin

 

[Was not Was]

This was a really compelling match to watch on TV - edge of seat stuff once Kent got to five overs. Every ball counted. Like watching the last half hour of a championship match when we just need to take one more wicket ...

It must have been v odd though if you'd been there and not understood the D/L situation.

Kent have no-one to blame but themselves frankly - I didn't think Sussex had a chance in the circumstances.

Sadly, though, to anyone seeing the result only, it looks embarrassing for the Club that the lights didn't work, and it looks like a flukey victory for the team ...

 

[Papa Lazarou]

This was a really compelling match to watch on TV - edge of seat stuff once Kent got to five overs. Every ball counted. Like watching the last half hour of a championship match when we just need to take one more wicket ...

It must have been v odd though if you'd been there and not understood the D/L situation.

Kent have no-one to blame but themselves frankly - I didn't think Sussex had a chance in the circumstances.

Sadly, though, to anyone seeing the result only, it looks embarrassing for the Club that the lights didn't work, and it looks like a flukey victory for the team ...

Indeed. On the last point, the BBC report describes Kent as 'luckless', which seems odd as they made a choice to bat 2nd and take advantage of the conditions... after all 26 off 5 overs (28 if they had lost 1 wicket) hardly seems difficult under d/l.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/counties/8065894.stm

the report also gives the impression that Kent were cruising to victory, when all of a sudden the floodlights failed

Floodlight failure robbed Kent at Hove to gift Sussex an unlikely two-run Duckworth/Lewis victory.