On a Saturday of alternating fair and foul weather, Kenley CC paid a visit to the Heath for a mid-table clash to determine if the RCC 2nd XI would continue their yearly march towards 3rd place in Division 1 of the formerly-named-Fullers League. Following a masterful call by stand-in captain Tyrone, Kenley were put into bowl on perhaps the greenest pitch that could have been found in Surrey this past weekend. When Dickens wrote of the best of times and the worst of times, he was surely inspired by premonition of the opening partnership of Stu and Tom. Whilst Tom began positively, kicking on to an aggressive 16 before being dismissed caught behind, Stu set out his stall early. He took until the 9th over of the game and his 28th ball to score his first run – this was described by one observer as ‘like watching a man try to egest a porcupine’. This should not however neglect that Stu in fact put together a creditable batting performance (including remarkably fewer edges down to third man than seasoned viewers of his batting might expect), continuing to bat until the very last ball of the innings to score a POTM-winning 73. At this point, he bravely decided to be run out, giving Kenley a 3rd bowling point (let us all hope that this doesn’t prove decisive at the end of the season). Around Stu’s dogged innings the story was quite different from the calm, measured tale heretofore relayed.

Following Tom’s dismissal, Rahul emerged to bat and promptly showed that he meant business, hitting his first runs in a huge six over cow corner – providing great entertainment to the waiting RCC batters (and umpires). He proceeded in this adventurous fashion to a well-hit 25 until the first controversial moment of the game (there were to be several) occurred. Following what seemed to the umpire (as well as the non-striker at the time, though he would subsequently deny it…) to be a fairly uncontroversial LBW decision, Rahul was given out. He disagreed with this decision, though Kenley were very pleased – has any bowler before tried to high-five the umpire after an LBW? For those wishing to know where Stu sat at this point of the innings, it was at 8*. Following this, Jamie emerged for a brief cameo before coming down the wicket and being stumped for 3. Joe Purnell then strode to the wicket and hit an altogether more attacking innings than was being compiled by Stu at the other end – at one point whilst Stu’s strike rate sat at 25, Joe’s sat at 400 after hitting his first ball for four with a delicious sweep. Joe then proceeded to a well-hit 40, constantly threatening to overtake Stu’s stately progress at the other end whilst never quite overtaking. Joe was eventually dismissed, bowled in the 30th over after having put on a strong stand of 79 for the 4th wicket. Tyrone then came to the wicket and was unlucky to be dismissed by an excellent catch on the boundary – in a display of fielding by Kenley that was a source of great hilarity to this author, including one ball being kicked over the boundary and several very catchable chances going to ground, this was the one instance when Kenley elected to field like panthers with the ball caught behind the head whilst running backwards – a very unfortunate end to what seemed a promising innings. At this point the umpires had been changed and the second controversial moment of the match occurred. After Tanguy had batted well to 7, he was struck and given LBW. Tanguy swore blind that he had hit the ball – some members of the team were of the opinion that Tanguy had in fact been given out in the mistaken belief that another blond-ish and young-ish head lay below the helmet – that which had given the first controversial LBW, though Rahul assured all that this was not the case. George then hit a good 9 before being bowled by an excellent ball which this author does not fully recall. The third controversial moment of the match then came as Aravinth stepped to the wicket and promptly stepped back to the broken chair on which he had been waiting for 37.5 overs, having been given LBW first ball, despite the notable lack of an appeal by Kenley. Stu and Dharmesh then put on a creditable 43 for the 9th wicket before Stu was run out off the last ball, saving one number 11 from having to try and add to his career average of 5.30, with the team finishing on 226-9

Following a team talk in which the reliable 2s talking point of trying to bowl the ball at the stumps made a useful appearance, as well as some vigorous philosophical discussion of when LBWs should be given (When the game situation allows? When they are plumb? When they are out at all? – all these were voiced and noted), the 2s took to the field to try and hold Kenley to under 227 and take the 20 points. Dickens’ famous revolutionary tale could also have been usefully deployed in the narrative to describe the relative fortunes and qualities of the two opening bowlers. Tanguy bowled very well, unfortunately having a very tough chance put down at square leg by his opening partner, to finish his spell with figures of 2-18. This should have been higher in a just world (earning him two votes for POTM). But alas, 2s cricket is not a just world. This brave author by contrast proceeded to begin his spell with two beamer-ish full tosses (which gave rise to humorous reminiscences by one Scot who shall remain nameless) followed by a rank long hop that was hit to mid off to be caught by the safe hands of Dharmesh, removed from the position of wicket-keeper by Rahul’s excellent performance behind the stumps. This set the tone for the opening spell as Tanguy’s unrewarded toil down the hill was accompanied by a bowling display that varied in length, line and quality from up the hill. This variable quality was nevertheless rewarded by a succession of wickets falling – batters grateful to have escaped Tanguy’s artful pace and bounce manged to hit this author’s less menacing efforts to a succession of fielders (including Tanguy himself, seemingly happy to forgive the earlier drop), who, in a performance previously unmatched in my eight years of playing for this club, took chance after chance to yield rewards of 5-32 (the fact that Tyrone attempted to bring this spell to an end with only four wickets taken, the last of these on the last ball of the last over has been entirely forgotten and forgiven). This fielding prowess should not be neglected – the only chances put down in our whole fielding innings were agreed by all to be difficult ones – with the performance a stark contrast to the rank display of Kenley. Some might argue that the good fortune involved in this supreme demonstration of the fact that “shit gets wickets” was a result of Karma accrued from a sporting judgement of LBW decisions reaping rewards from the cricketing gods. This author is happy to leave that decision to the reader. After the openers’ spells had both ended, Kenley sat at 56-7 with their chances of victory looking remote. Despite some good bowling from Aravinth and George (who finished with figures of 1-22 and 1-21 respectively) the tailenders stuck around for an irritatingly long amount of time given the heat and seemingly evident fact that the game had in fact been lost for Kenley , leading one sometime-Australian-passport-holder to wonder if Kenley had in fact misjudged who should make up their top order and tail. Dharmesh however came to the rescue of the teams weary feet by taking the last wicket by – what else – LBW in what was surely a reward by Kenley for RCC’s sporting interpretation of the LBW law during our innings.

With an excellent win by 122 runs securing a solid hold on the teams habitual abode of 3rd place in the league, all that remained was to choose the POTM and DOTD. Stu took a commanding win in the race for POTM for his doughty 73 (one does wonder perhaps that if he had scored a run before the 9th over, he might have been able to make it to three figures as well as feeling secure in not being run out of the last ball to instead secure his beloved red ink). DOTD was an altogether more controversial decision. In the end it came down to a contest of the three umpires who had given the LBWs that caused such consternation. It could have gone to the umpire who’s decision caused one member of the team to exclaim from the side-lines “what the fuck are we doing lads”. It could have gone to the umpire whose decision it was suggested in the team huddle had arisen from a misdirected attempt to revenge himself upon he who had given that umpire out. But in the end, it went to the umpire who committed that most mortal sin – giving someone out LBW who he earnestly believed was out (a decision with which, to reiterate, the non-striker was in total agreement). The fact that this umpire had volunteered to umpire for 20 overs in the baking sun was ignored, whilst the fact that he had taken what he himself described as perhaps the worst 5-fer (but still a league 5-fer!) he had ever seen was in fact noted as a contributory factor to this decision. It is left as an exercise to the reader to determine which of these miserable offenders truly deserved to be so shamed.

If any reader is aware of a similar occurrence in the annals of the game – of a bowler taking a 5-fer and still being named DOTD - the author would be glad to receive correspondence detailing. He would like to commiserate with this similarly wronged individual.

Despite this many thanks go to Tyrone for captaining the team in Ben’s absence and congratulations should go to all involved for a creditable team performance – the fielding was one of the better displays I have seen by an RCC team and showed commendable effort by all involved.