Any observer of the game of cricket is welcome to comment on the ambiguous way victories are recorded. They are either by RUNS, i.e. the side batting first “won by x number of runs”, (the difference between the 2 totals of the side batting first who have the higher total and the side batting second who have the lower one). This makes sense.

Alternatively, victories may be recorded by WICKETS, i.e. the side batting second have overhauled the target with x number of wickets IN-HAND or UNTAKEN. Because a cricket team would normally comprise 11 players, (meaning 10 wickets), that scoreline usually records the margin as 10 less the number of wickets already taken. Confused yet?

When a weak Reed Second XI lost on Sunday, they had taken 4 wickets. Result? – a defeat by 6 wickets. However, Roxbourne, the visiting victors, had only 10 players at the match, so theoretically had only a maximum 5 wickets left to be taken, NOT six. The margin of victory therefore is debatably 5 wickets.

When one considers that one of those Roxbourne players was playing (probably watching) his first ever game of cricket, then Reed could have needed only FOUR further wickets PLUS one straight delivery to secure a win. Unfortunately not.

The highlights were Will Heald weilding a broad bat to score 25 early-on in the Reed innings. He was supported down the order by Sam Brown, on a welcome return to the fold with 20, (he also made two well-judged catches), and the ambidextrous Tim Martin with 24. Fergus Martin was also going-well, but was run-out in his prime for 12. Reed ended on 149 all-out.

Roxbourne skipper, Nick Lawson, top-scored in the chase, as he remained undefeated on 46 at close of play. Adrian Green battled it out for a while to score 41 and P Read had hit-out for 39 as the visitors picked-off sufficient runs to reach their target within 35 overs. David Hill, Neal Haslam, Will Heald and Fergus Martin each took a wicket for Reed, but their sustained effort, supported by some fine fielding, was not enough to prevent defeat.