Max'imum Gravetty Holds Down The Win
- Admin
- Aug 5, 2018
- 2 min read

On yet another hot day, Seaford 3s made the short trip to Willingdon 2s shorn of a full team due to a late withdrawal. Willingdon won the toss and elected to field, unusually due to the fact the home captain wanted to see the football on TV.....er cricket season !!!
After the early fall of last weeks high scorer Mark McCaughan for a duck, Jamie Cogdale (28) and Rob Gravett (69) began scoring for fun, with mainly Gravett once again crashing the ball to all parts, helped in no means by some poor catching by the home side. The hundred came up in the 14th over, and when Gravett finally fell at 114-2 a big score looked more than possible. However, a long tail and some tight bowling from Willingdon including the excellent E Jefferson, returning figures of 1-9 off 7 overs, and L.Pavey, 2-10 off 6, dragged the home team back into it. Seaford were bowled out for 161 in 37.2 overs. A score that looked touch and go whether it was enough on a tricky wicket.
In reply Willingdon got off to a steady start and were 32-1 off the first 8 overs. Seaford's opening bowlers Jon Milham (1-29) and the miserly Steve Hearsey (2-12) then conceded just 10 runs off the bat in the next 10 overs and at the halfway stage Willingdon had reached 60-3. Seaford's Captain unusually held back leading wicket taker Simon Pitts to allow Max Wright to bowl, and was rewarded with the excellent figures of 4-19 off his 9 overs, reducing Willingdon to 86-8. Sam Mullett (1-16) impressed immensely and fully earned his wicket.
With the run rate required now up through the roof Willingdon reached the hundred in the 35th over and just a last wicket partnership of 28 between L.Pavey (20no) and J.Hurst (17) delayed the inevitlable. Simon Pitts (1-16) patience was rewarded, he got the last wicket off the final ball of the 40th over to end the innings on 135. Extras top scored with 25.
A good win with a weakened team, indebted to Rob Gravett's runs. Had Willingdon been able to catch in the early overs Seaford surely would not have won.
Comments