Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Thursday, 4th December 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Matlock Mercury site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Dales sides edged out of Winston finals day



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 24 July 2008
LAST weekend was all about qualification for finals day in the Winston Cup 20/20 competition, and Ridgeway managed it in a tight finish at Grindleford.
Both sides had dispensed with Youlgreave Lodge with ease in their first game.

Grindleford bowled out Lodge for just 15 in eight overs, a total which Ollie Brown knocked off on his own in the first over, and then Ridgeway kept them to 49-2 to win by nine wickets.

In the final game, Ridgeway’s 96-7 looked gettable, but the run rate crept up for Grindleford and eventually was too much as they fell just three short.

Holmesfield look favourites now to win the competition. They set an impressive 169-6 from their 20 overs which Hathersage couldn’t match, closing on 124-7.

Game two was a more low scoring affair with Walkley managing 71-7 and Hathersage easing to victory.

Walkley then set Holmesfield 103 for victory, which they got with just three wickets down thanks to an unbeaten 67 from Crapper.

Whittington Wanderers are turning this season into one to remember as they moved into finals day with two comprehensive victories.

Firstly they bowled out Sheffield Transport for 56 and won by six wickets.

Transport then set Zingari 132 to win, but they could only manage 30.

Wanderers then showed little mercy as they shot out Zingari for just 37 and won by eight wickets.

The final place in the semis was between Stanton, De La Salle or Chesterfield Barbarians, who met at Pilhough Lane.

With Huw Lloyd’s 4-15 helping to skittle out De La Salle for 88, Stanton looked well set.

But they were stifled enough to close on 80-7, nine runs short, due largley to Tony Flatley’s bowling display, which returned figures of 5-23.

Stanton had three men on 11 -–Lloyd, David Hadfield and David Rosling – but no one else in double figures.

Stanton then set themselves back on track with a thumping 100-run over Barbarians.

Hadfield clonked 54 and Lee Tann 43 in a total of 129-2.

Mick Clark, with 3-6, and David Rosling, with an even more impressive 3-3, bowled out Barbs for just 29.

Barbarians put up a better fight against De La Salle, posting 84-5, but the Sheffield side eased past that total to 89-2 and a place in the finals.

Two league games also took place with Millhouses seconds taking on Baslow firsts in Division Three’s top of the table clash and Youlgreave Lodge seconds taking on Weston Park Hospital seconds in Division Five.

Millhouses ran into the in-form Jim Ferguson, who took 6-46 as the Sheffield side slumped to 82 all out.

Ferguson then made a significant contribution with the bat of 42 not out to see Baslow home by nine wickets and cut the gap at the top to just seven points.

An injury to Youlgreave Lodge’s Andrew Parnell led them to declare their innings on 57-4.

WPH made light work of the run chase, losing only one wicket.

Results from Saturday July 19

Winston Cup Round two

Group A

Youlgreave Lodge 15, Grindleford 16-0. Youlgreave Lodge 49-2, Ridgeway 50-0. Ridgeway 96-7, Grindleford 93-9. (Ridgeway progress).

Group B

Holmesfield 169-6, Hathersage 124-7.

The full article contains 563 words and appears in Matlock Mercury newspaper.
Page 1 of 2

  • Last Updated: 21 July 2008 2:44 PM
  • Source: Matlock Mercury
  • Location: Matlock
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.