Report by Daniel Mortlock:
A quick glance at the above score might suggest that we were thrashed: kept to just a run a ball while batting; then able to dismiss just a single opposition batter while they cantered to a nine-wicket win. It might sound churlish to offer up the cliche associated with a sporting loss ("We should have won!"), so how about a variation on that hackneyed theme: we actually did win.
This apparent paradox can trace its way back to the assurances of TK, GEANT's cricket organiser and captain, that they had a very weak side, an implicit plea for something between mercy and leniency. And to be fair, it was clear that this was at heart true: only half the GEANT players had whites; TK instructed those who weren't familiar with the game to just let the ball through rather than risk injury; and one player didn't even realise that the white boundary line had significance in this regard, at one point chasing the ball over the line and then enthusiastically throwing it back into play. Indeed, the first ball of the game - elegantly clipped for two by James Robinson - yielded its first injury substitution as one of the GEANT fielders slipped in pursuit of the ball and had to hobble off with an injured back.
It was thus inevitable that we all relaxed, shedding the usual competitive grit that marks even the friendliest of games, an approach which was fatally extended to the umpiring as well. In the first over a big (two-run) wide yielded two byes, after which the return crashed into the wicket-keeper's spare helmet. We were all bellowing for the madness of nine wides (surely a Remnants first) and even TK pointed this out but the penalty runs weren't signalled. Similarly, a subsequent over by one of GEANT's non-cricketer included several deliveries technically on the cut strip - but only because it had been prepared for the weekend, two pitches across from the one we were using this evening. The urge to not repeatedly call a youngster doing their best for wides was understandable, but we weren't re-bowling such deliveries, so the net result was some dot balls that were genuinely impossible to score off.
Initially none of this seemed very likely to matter, as James and John Moore were able to find the boundary with regularity. James even got some bonus deliveries, as the retirement score of 40 hadn't been programmed into the scoring app, and so was eventually called in manually for 45* (off 45 balls). But this somehow took the wind out of our sails, and rather than a traditional acceleration we once again got a mid-innings lull, the bane of our batting this season. John got a bit stuck before getting to matching his highest Remnants score of 26* (off 37 balls), meaning just one more scoring stroke would yield a personal best . . . but TK's leggies proved too much, and John was bowled for 26 off 41 balls. The problem was that nobody other than James and John made more than 7, and it was hard not to feel nervous about our final total of 120/4 (especially as it was really 129/4).
These feelings were confirmed as GEANT's two openers proved to be very solid batters - even though neither apparently plays regularly, and one was wearing jeans, it was clear that both had some serious cricket experience, in particular because they always seemed to have time to spare. After both retired we did start to claw our way back into the game as Dian Weerakonda (0/13) was brilliantly tight and Gaurav Patil (1/22) ensured that we weren't going to suffer a 10-wicket defeat. With two overs to go GEANT was 97/1 and needed 24 from the final 16 balls, but with one of their non-cricketers, C. Volp, decidedly stuck on 5* off 19 balls we were maybe even ahead.
But when Volp was retired and TK headed out that didn't seem so plausible, and we couldn't keep him off strike. Daniel Mortlock (0/15) started the final over well, conceding just 3 runs off the first 4 balls, meaning 7 needed off 4. But TK was up to the task, tieing the scores with 2 balls left and then hitting the winning run off the penultimate delivery. (But with our 9 missing extras this should actually have decided the game in the opposite way, as there would have been 7 needed to tie the game off the one unbowled ball.)