Scotland v Nottinghamshire, CB40 Group B, Edinburgh May 7, 2012

Scotland claim Nottinghamshire scalp

  shares 6

Scotland 108 for 0 (MacLeod 58*) beat Nottinghamshire 219 for 7 (Read 59) by 18 runs (D/L method)
Scorecard

Scotland claimed a comfortable 18-run win over Nottinghamshire on the Duckworth/Lewis method in the Clydesdale Bank 40 Group B clash in Edinburgh.

Nottinghamshire were put into bat and posted 219 for 7 at the Grange, with captain and wicketkeeper Chris Read top-scoring with 59 and Josh Davey and Majid Haq taking two wickets apiece.

The Saltires, seeking to respond from yesterday's rain-affected loss to Surrey, this time came out in credit after the weather forced a revision of the target.

The visitors made a circumspect start before losing wickets in successive overs. Alex Hales was bowled for 18 by Matthew Parker in the sixth over and Riki Wessels followed in the seventh for one, caught by Calum MacLeod off the bowling of Evans, to leave Nottinghamshire 25 for 2.

Samit Patel joined Michael Lumb to restore some stability, but in the 14th over the opener perished, caught behind off the bowling of Richie Berrington for 26. James Taylor and Patel took the visitors into three figures before Patel was out for 36 from 43 balls, caught by MacLeod to become Haq's first victim.

Read and Taylor set about the Scottish attack and built a useful partnership which came to an end when the latter attempted to up the ante further. Again MacLeod was the catcher off Haq's bowling, Taylor departing in the 32nd over having made 34 runs off 56 balls.

Steven Mullaney then provided able support to Read, who fell four overs from the end, caught by Ryan Flannigan off the bowling of Davey. Davey claimed his second wicket in his next over as Paul Franks fell, MacLeod again claiming the catch.

The visitors survived the remaining nine balls unscathed, but their total soon looked short as MacLeod and Davey made a fast start, powering along to 73 without loss after 15 overs.

MacLeod reached a 57-ball half-century, with six fours and a six, before the partnership reached three figures in the 21st over. They had advanced to 108 from 23 before rain halted play, 18 runs ahead of the D/L par, with MacLeod on 58 and Davey 44.

Patel and Mullaney were economical among a struggling bowling attack which proved unable to make any inroads into the hosts' line-up.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on May 8, 2012, 21:08 GMT

    Someone who was there for Surrey match said Scotland were getting 500 or so, but the weather was terrible (hail stopped play at one point)

  • JG2704 on May 8, 2012, 18:13 GMT

    @Mark-Aberdeen - Understand where you're coming from but DL has to make a calculation of runs needed/combined with overs remaining combined with wickets remaining. I think it would have been a tough ask for Scotland had it gone the distance but DL can't start complicating things further by trying to add a tier depending on who the team is that's chasing. Had it been Notts chasing and they were no wickets down needing a similar total off similar overs you'd definitely back them

  • on May 8, 2012, 10:50 GMT

    I wouldn't call Notts a weak county side. The team looks quite strong on paper.

    Still they shouldn't be losing to Scotland. Would be good to see Scotland enjoy some success in this competition. And also would be great to see some local support building. Anyone know what kind of crowds they get up in Scotland for these matches?

  • Mark-Aberdeen on May 8, 2012, 9:49 GMT

    D-L seems to be very generous with the allowance for wickets in hand.

    Would Scotland have got 112 off 17 overs - almost 7 an over?

    Even more amazed that they could have been 91-0 after 23 overs and still have won (129 off 17 - almost 8 an over)!

  • RandyOZ on May 8, 2012, 9:48 GMT

    Scotland beating another weak county side? Oh dear.

  • TheReverseDoosra_K on May 8, 2012, 4:06 GMT

    This team contrary to NETH, relies on homegrown players. Good to see them winning.

  • on May 8, 2012, 21:08 GMT

    Someone who was there for Surrey match said Scotland were getting 500 or so, but the weather was terrible (hail stopped play at one point)

  • JG2704 on May 8, 2012, 18:13 GMT

    @Mark-Aberdeen - Understand where you're coming from but DL has to make a calculation of runs needed/combined with overs remaining combined with wickets remaining. I think it would have been a tough ask for Scotland had it gone the distance but DL can't start complicating things further by trying to add a tier depending on who the team is that's chasing. Had it been Notts chasing and they were no wickets down needing a similar total off similar overs you'd definitely back them

  • on May 8, 2012, 10:50 GMT

    I wouldn't call Notts a weak county side. The team looks quite strong on paper.

    Still they shouldn't be losing to Scotland. Would be good to see Scotland enjoy some success in this competition. And also would be great to see some local support building. Anyone know what kind of crowds they get up in Scotland for these matches?

  • Mark-Aberdeen on May 8, 2012, 9:49 GMT

    D-L seems to be very generous with the allowance for wickets in hand.

    Would Scotland have got 112 off 17 overs - almost 7 an over?

    Even more amazed that they could have been 91-0 after 23 overs and still have won (129 off 17 - almost 8 an over)!

  • RandyOZ on May 8, 2012, 9:48 GMT

    Scotland beating another weak county side? Oh dear.

  • TheReverseDoosra_K on May 8, 2012, 4:06 GMT

    This team contrary to NETH, relies on homegrown players. Good to see them winning.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • TheReverseDoosra_K on May 8, 2012, 4:06 GMT

    This team contrary to NETH, relies on homegrown players. Good to see them winning.

  • RandyOZ on May 8, 2012, 9:48 GMT

    Scotland beating another weak county side? Oh dear.

  • Mark-Aberdeen on May 8, 2012, 9:49 GMT

    D-L seems to be very generous with the allowance for wickets in hand.

    Would Scotland have got 112 off 17 overs - almost 7 an over?

    Even more amazed that they could have been 91-0 after 23 overs and still have won (129 off 17 - almost 8 an over)!

  • on May 8, 2012, 10:50 GMT

    I wouldn't call Notts a weak county side. The team looks quite strong on paper.

    Still they shouldn't be losing to Scotland. Would be good to see Scotland enjoy some success in this competition. And also would be great to see some local support building. Anyone know what kind of crowds they get up in Scotland for these matches?

  • JG2704 on May 8, 2012, 18:13 GMT

    @Mark-Aberdeen - Understand where you're coming from but DL has to make a calculation of runs needed/combined with overs remaining combined with wickets remaining. I think it would have been a tough ask for Scotland had it gone the distance but DL can't start complicating things further by trying to add a tier depending on who the team is that's chasing. Had it been Notts chasing and they were no wickets down needing a similar total off similar overs you'd definitely back them

  • on May 8, 2012, 21:08 GMT

    Someone who was there for Surrey match said Scotland were getting 500 or so, but the weather was terrible (hail stopped play at one point)