Lions v Yorkshire, CLT20, Group B, Johannesburg

Symes puts Lions in semis after tense chase

The Report by Abhishek Purohit

October 20, 2012

Comments: 36 | Text size: A | A

Lions 134 for 5 (De Kock 32, Symes 27*, Patterson 2-21) beat Yorkshire 131 for 7 (Jaques 31, Phangiso 2-23, Tanvir 2-25) by five wickets
Scorecard and ball-by-ball details


Jean Symes and Thami Tsolekile after the Lions' victory, Lions v Yorkshire, Champions League T20, Group B, Johannesburg, October 20, 2012
Jean Symes, with one stroke, knocked out three teams © Getty Images
Enlarge
Related Links
Players/Officials: Jean Symes
Series/Tournaments: Champions League Twenty20

You need 43 off 43 with seven wickets remaining to make the semi-finals and knock three competing teams out. What do you do? If you are a South African side, you nearly choke. The ingredients were all there. Commanding position in a crunch game, the threat of rain, Duckworth-Lewis calculations.

And Jean Symes took the Lions fans through the full range of emotions at their home ground. He allowed the asking-rate, which had started at around six-and-a-half, to touch ten after the 18th over. Even as the familiar word started doing the rounds, Symes, on 6 off 16, slammed four of his next six deliveries for boundaries to carry Lions to the knockouts of the Champions League Twenty20, and with one final blow down the ground, sent Chennai Super Kings, Mumbai Indians and Yorkshire out of the tournament.

It had been Lions' game to lose after their bowlers had not allowed the Yorkshire run-rate to approach seven at any stage in keeping them to 131. Yorkshire had begun their defence well in sending back the Lions openers with 31 on the board but Quinton de Kock had steadied the chase as he hit boundaries just when Yorkshire managed to build some semblance of pressure.

De Kock's wicket, a top-edge ending in the wicketkeeper's gloves off the last ball of the 13th over, was to precipitate the drama. Symes, having taken Lions home against Chennai Super Kings in the last over as well with a counter-attacking blitz, struggled to get the ball off the square. The 14th and 15th overs produced a run each and suddenly, the asking-rate was above eight.

Azeem Rafiq, with a spell of 4-0-14-1, was largely responsible for the urgency in Yorkshire captain Andrew Gale's manner now. But his decision to give the next over to Adil Rashid was to even matters again. Rashid, having gone for 22 in two overs, was taken for 14 more in the 16th by Dwaine Pretorius, playing ahead of the veteran Zander de Bruyn.

Yorkshire refused to give up, though. Steven Patterson had Pretorius caught in the deep for 25 off 14. Iain Wardlaw, playing only because Yorkshire's two first-choice quicks - Ryan Sidebottom and Moin Ashraf - were injured, conceded just three in the 18th over. Oliver Hannon-Dalby, the second replacement playing his first T20 game, kept Thami Tsolekile to a single off the first two balls of the 19th but Symes now decided it was time.

With 19 neeed off 10, Symes made room and lofted over sweeper cover for six, and smashed the next delivery down the ground for four. He lifted the second ball of the 20th over mid-on to finish the job that Lions' bowlers had started so well.

Yorkshire's batsmen, heaving and flailing, had found the combination of a fast Wanderers pitch and a balanced Lions attack too much to handle. Left-arm spinner Aaron Phangiso impressed again, Lions captain Alviro Petersen got Yorkshire's top-scorer Phil Jaques, but it was the home side's four quick bowlers who used the pace and bounce in the pitch to tie down Yorkshire all through.

Andrew Gale and Jaques did add 54 upfront, but that partnership never looked in control, with numerous swings-and-misses, especially from Gale. Nevertheless, Jaques managed to pull and cut for a few fours, and with Gale also hacking away some runs, Lions did have a base. It was the introduction of the fourth fast bowler, Pretorius, that ended Gale's scratchy effort, as the Yorkshire captain top-edged a slog to the wicketkeeper.

Joe Root came out looking to hit every ball, and Phangiso soon had him sweeping straight to deep square leg. The expected rain arrived to force a 15-minute interruption after which the part-timer Petersen, giving himself a second over of offspin, bowled Jaques after the batsman missed a slog-sweep.

Gary Ballance looked the man most likely to lift Yorkshire out of their stupor, but he thick-edged a slog off Phangiso to short third man to depart for 17. Yorkshire's lack of depth meant Rashid, with a highest T20 score of 36, was in at No. 6 and when Adam Lyth swung Chris Morris to deep square leg in the 17th over, Yorkshire's any realistic chance of a late charge was over.

Their inexperienced attack gave Lions a real scare, but this time, there was to be no choking for a South African team.

Innings Dot balls 4s 6s Powerplay (0-6) 16-20 overs NB/Wides
Yorkshire 58 16 1 41-0 34-4 1/9
Lions 56 14 4 44-2 43-1 (19.2) 0/5

Abhishek Purohit is an editorial assistant at ESPNcricinfo

RSS Feeds: Abhishek Purohit

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by JG2704 on (October 23, 2012, 19:13 GMT)

@Harmony111 -Unbelieveable . Re MI - your post where you said they were beaten once was typed after they were beaten twice. I'm not blowing anyone's trumpet re Yorks - I'm not a Yorks fan but I still maintain with the squad they had they did well to do what they did out there. Yes I realise T+T were without several players and YM has already pointed out where they were but even so T+T on paper still had a much better side so to beat them was a great feat. Also Hants were poor but Yorks only lost one match heavily and with the squad they had out there I'd say that was a pretty good achievement but I guess that when Yorks lose a close game it's different from when an IPL side loses a close game. MI probably would have beaten Yorks but they still would not have qualified and if you care to read my comms on the thread I said that Gale would have been the happier captain after the game was rained off

Posted by yorkshirematt on (October 22, 2012, 19:38 GMT)

@Harmony111 Now you are getting confused. Why do you think T&T were missing their key players? Oh yes, because the IPL teams had taken them! And in their state, similar to us in terms of missing personnel, do you think they'd have done much better if they had got through? One of the commentators finally gradped the fact today that Yorkshire weren't a bad side and said something along the lines of it being similar an indian state team missing their best players.

Posted by Harmony111 on (October 22, 2012, 14:57 GMT)

@JG2704: Now you feigning ignorance!! Did you not know that MI were ALREADY out of CLT20 BEFORE they played CSK? I thought this was obvious. And just look at the way you give excuses for Yorkshire and Hampshire's shameful performances - that they were missing players and in the same vein you blow your trumpet that Yorkshire defeated T&T. Don't you know that T&T too were missing several top class players? Then how is Yorkshire beating T&T something special? And maybe you don't know this but in 2011 CLT20 Mumbai Indians were missing 7 players 4 of them being important and yet they went on to WIN 2011 CLT20. So don't give that excuse of Eng teams missing players. As for your jibe about rained off matches MI in particular paid a heavy price for their loss and couldn't make up cos their good game was rained off and MI were indeed in a very good position in that rained off game. If the home Titans couldn't chase 188 then the poor Yorkshire were never gonna score more than 120 either.

Posted by Harmony111 on (October 22, 2012, 9:36 GMT)

@hutchy321 / Graemo Ov Trablus: So you admit that without the foreign players your team made up of local talent is only this good !! Hmm - the cup of local talent surely is up to the brim. Regarding your point of a team missing key players and becoming handicapped as a result, Mumbai Indians were missing 7 players in 2011 CLT20, 4 of them were key players. What did MI do last year in CLT20? They WON it. And Hutchy, don't ever accuse me again of saying things without knowing the facts.

Posted by JG2704 on (October 22, 2012, 9:08 GMT)

@baghels.a on (October 21 2012, 10:04 AM GMT) Mate , my posts on this thread never even intimated that Indian sides are bad travellers. My point was to a poster who was saying "Eng Teams like Yorkshire have a lot to worry about" and my point was that Yorks were without one of their 2 overseas qualified players throughout the whole tournament (The in form Mitchell Starc) as he was playing for his Oz side and without the services of their 2 internationals due to ECB's narrow minds and in the final game were without their other overseas player Miller plus 2 of their 3 pacemen , making 6 out in total. My point was that there was little expectation with Yorks because of their depleted squad. Had they Mallinga,Pollard,Smith and Johnson in their side then maybe they would have more to worry about. Please publish this time. Nothing of offence and you posted my PS which makes less sense without this post

Posted by JG2704 on (October 22, 2012, 9:06 GMT)

@Harmony111 on (October 21 2012, 10:11 AM GMT) Not twisting anything here. Your original post did not specify the before CSK part did it? Unfortunately for MI they don't get points for rained off matches or for looking like they're going to win a match they end up losing. Maybe they could introduce a rule where a losing team gets bonus points if at some stage they look like they might be win the game? BTW in your post to YorkshireMatt you say about our champs not even qualifying. Not so much as Yorks but they were also depleted by the loss of Briggs (honeymoon) and Mckenzie (playing for Lions) and again they don't have the overseas talent the IPL sides are afforded. Again the shambolic Yorks beat T+T who you were saying should be there still fair and square. Please publish this time. Nothing untrue or of offence

Posted by   on (October 21, 2012, 21:40 GMT)

Yorkshire did very well for the players they had to pick from. Yorkshire knew as well as everyone else that with the squad they had they were going to be the whipping boys in the group. Andrew gale I thought should have dropped himself to number 3 and get root to open with Jaques. Then he should have moved rashid and balance up the order and drop Lyth to 6. I felt gale missed a trick during the match of using root more instead of allowing rashid to get taken for runs that Yorkshire couldn't afford. Dan Hodgson did well and will be interesting to see if he gets a run in the Yorkshire 1st team next season.

Posted by JG2704 on (October 21, 2012, 18:19 GMT)

@baghels.a on (October 21 2012, 10:04 AM GMT) PS , It's not a pro English team post but imagine if MI were without their best overseas players (Mallinga and Pollard) and were only allowed to field either Johnson or Smith. Then take away 2 of their Indian internationals - say Harbijan and Sharma and you'd get a similar situation to what Yorks find themselves in. The fact is that IPL sides have more overseas players than the other CLT20 sides and generally better quality overseas players so technically they should have that advantage before they start. You just have to look at the squads and see that none of the other CLT20 sides have even 2 overseas players with the quality of guys like Mallinga,Pollard,KP,Jaya,Morkel, Warner,Hussey etc

Posted by bobmartin on (October 21, 2012, 12:59 GMT)

I'm sure that with all the wonderful and inventive ideas that have been forthcoming on this thread as a result of the IPL teams' results in this years CLT20 competition, the BCCI can adapt some of them to ensure that one of its teams wins next year.

Posted by Harmony111 on (October 21, 2012, 11:11 GMT)

@JG2704: There you go again, deliberately twisting things to suit your arguments. MI were already out before they played CSK, you need to read more before commenting. And what was MI's record before that? Played 2, lost 1, NR 1. The NR game was the one where they were in a strong position in the 18th over. Their loss to CSK notwithstanding, MI were out of the contest due to their loss to Lions. And you may look at the final score and say it was a cakewalk but at one stage Lions needed 94 of 60, wasn't that a point when MI were on top? No where have I said Lions did not play well to win but from the PoV of MI they would look at that point and think they should have won it from there. MI lost 1 and their good match was rained off and they find themselves out. And don't even talk about the overseas players. That argument is completely misplaced. Ppl who use it have no idea what a team is and how a system is composed of elements.

Comments have now been closed for this article

TopTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Abhishek PurohitClose
Tournament Results
Lions v Syd Sixers at Johannesburg - Oct 28, 2012
Syd Sixers won by 10 wickets (with 45 balls remaining)
Syd Sixers v Titans at Centurion - Oct 26, 2012
Syd Sixers won by 2 wickets (with 0 balls remaining)
Daredevils v Lions at Durban - Oct 25, 2012
Lions won by 22 runs
Daredevils v Titans at Centurion - Oct 23, 2012
No result (abandoned with a toss)
Auckland v Scorchers at Centurion - Oct 23, 2012
Scorchers won by 16 runs
More results »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days