Lancashire v Nottinghamshire, FLt20 North Group, Old Trafford July 1, 2013

Hussey trumps McClenaghan five

  shares 4

Nottinghamshire 159 for 6 (Hussey 52, McClenaghan 5-29) beat Lancashire 155 for 6 (Croft 52) by four wickets
Scorecard

A blistering 52 off 28 balls from captain David Hussey helped Nottinghamshire end their Friends Life t20 hoodoo against Lancashire at Old Trafford. The Outlaws had lost the six previous meetings between the two sides at this venue but they chased down 156 with 14 balls to spare to win by four wickets thanks in the main to their Australian captain.

The 35-year-old is only one of three men to have scored over 5000 Twenty20 runs and he shared a crucial fourth-wicket stand of 78 in just 7.3 overs with opener Alex Hales, who made 49 off 37, to take the visitors within sight of victory.

Nottinghamshire even survived an historic performance from New Zealand fast bowler Mitchell McClenaghan, who claimed Lancashire's first ever five-wicket haul in this format. McClenaghan struck with his first ball on his home debut and later had Hussey and Hales caught with successive legitimate deliveries at the start of the 15th over to give them a glimmer of hope.

But it was too little too late as Nottinghamshire made it two from two in the early stages of their North Division campaign.

Lancashire recovered from the early losses of Stephen Moore and Ashwell Prince as they slipped to 22 for 2 in the fourth over after losing the toss. Moore was run out following a mix-up after just six balls and Prince caught in the deep off Ajmal Shahzad in the fourth over.

Steven Croft and Simon Katich, who added 52 and 48 respectively, then shared 93 in 11.2 overs for the third wicket to get their side back on track and up to 115 for two after 15 overs. But they lost four wickets in the last five overs to halt any momentum gained.

Nottinghamshire fielded superbly with five catches in the deep, the best of which came from diving New Zealander Ian Butler at long-off to get rid of Tom Smith at the end of the 18th over off the excellent Harry Gurney, who finished with 1 for 18.

Lancashire had their noses in front with the visitors at 50 for 3 in the seventh over of their chase but Hussey, in particular, and Hales took the game away from them. Having got Michael Lumb and Riki Wessels early, McClenaghan snared Hussey, Hales and Chris Read. The visitors weathered the storm, though.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY Andy876 on | July 2, 2013, 13:14 GMT

    As a Notts fan I was pleased with the result but felt Lancashire gifted it to us in the large part, the excellent McClenaghan aside. I thought Chapple's captaincy was poor - how many balls did the Notts batsmen play through the midwicket area for easy ones and twos? I couldn't understand why there was noone in close on the legside, even when Patel and Read were new at the crease. And then to bring his main strike bowler back when only 30 were needed seemed a bit like he was playing to a set plan. I thought McClenaghan batted off a difficult question in the interview when asked whether he could have been brought back earlier. You don't want to upset the captain in your first match and he was very diplomatic but I suspect he thought yes! Having said all that, Hussey was brilliant and the 20/20 format seems to have been just what Hales needed having had a wretched year prior to it starting.

  • POSTED BY ChrisKOTW on | July 2, 2013, 10:18 GMT

    With regards to the no ball - it wasn't for excessive height, it was because McClenaghan had already bowled a bouncer in that over (his "one for the over") with the first no ball, and thus the second bouncer was correctly a no ball as well. Even though he bowled really well I think Mitch could do with checking the rules!

  • POSTED BY lankymanky on | July 2, 2013, 8:28 GMT

    Mitch's habit is a great one and if it wasn't for him this game would have been an embarrassment for Lancs The other bowlers, especially once Notts were 50/3 was appalling. I have never seen Parry bowl so badly before, over half the deliveries were long hops. Gifting David Hussey 3 easy boundaries in his first 3 balls with chapple was shocking play and then shortly after Kabir Ali gifts 3 successive more. Yes you can say it was top batting but that is what you would expect from such a class act and like the Carberry yb40 effort against lancs you have to point a finger at the bowlers as a unit who got it totally wrong again. Maybe spending less time giving interviews about why they are so good at EOT and actually focus on the skills which meant they had a 6-0 home record against Notts, as looking at the two teams it will be 6-6 within a few years otherwise. Finally if Mitch's second slower bouncer was a no ball against Patel, why wasn't shahzad's against prince?

  • POSTED BY Zeyad68 on | July 2, 2013, 4:48 GMT

    This MacClenaghan has a great habit of taking wicket.Really I m impressed with his performance

  • POSTED BY Andy876 on | July 2, 2013, 13:14 GMT

    As a Notts fan I was pleased with the result but felt Lancashire gifted it to us in the large part, the excellent McClenaghan aside. I thought Chapple's captaincy was poor - how many balls did the Notts batsmen play through the midwicket area for easy ones and twos? I couldn't understand why there was noone in close on the legside, even when Patel and Read were new at the crease. And then to bring his main strike bowler back when only 30 were needed seemed a bit like he was playing to a set plan. I thought McClenaghan batted off a difficult question in the interview when asked whether he could have been brought back earlier. You don't want to upset the captain in your first match and he was very diplomatic but I suspect he thought yes! Having said all that, Hussey was brilliant and the 20/20 format seems to have been just what Hales needed having had a wretched year prior to it starting.

  • POSTED BY ChrisKOTW on | July 2, 2013, 10:18 GMT

    With regards to the no ball - it wasn't for excessive height, it was because McClenaghan had already bowled a bouncer in that over (his "one for the over") with the first no ball, and thus the second bouncer was correctly a no ball as well. Even though he bowled really well I think Mitch could do with checking the rules!

  • POSTED BY lankymanky on | July 2, 2013, 8:28 GMT

    Mitch's habit is a great one and if it wasn't for him this game would have been an embarrassment for Lancs The other bowlers, especially once Notts were 50/3 was appalling. I have never seen Parry bowl so badly before, over half the deliveries were long hops. Gifting David Hussey 3 easy boundaries in his first 3 balls with chapple was shocking play and then shortly after Kabir Ali gifts 3 successive more. Yes you can say it was top batting but that is what you would expect from such a class act and like the Carberry yb40 effort against lancs you have to point a finger at the bowlers as a unit who got it totally wrong again. Maybe spending less time giving interviews about why they are so good at EOT and actually focus on the skills which meant they had a 6-0 home record against Notts, as looking at the two teams it will be 6-6 within a few years otherwise. Finally if Mitch's second slower bouncer was a no ball against Patel, why wasn't shahzad's against prince?

  • POSTED BY Zeyad68 on | July 2, 2013, 4:48 GMT

    This MacClenaghan has a great habit of taking wicket.Really I m impressed with his performance

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • POSTED BY Zeyad68 on | July 2, 2013, 4:48 GMT

    This MacClenaghan has a great habit of taking wicket.Really I m impressed with his performance

  • POSTED BY lankymanky on | July 2, 2013, 8:28 GMT

    Mitch's habit is a great one and if it wasn't for him this game would have been an embarrassment for Lancs The other bowlers, especially once Notts were 50/3 was appalling. I have never seen Parry bowl so badly before, over half the deliveries were long hops. Gifting David Hussey 3 easy boundaries in his first 3 balls with chapple was shocking play and then shortly after Kabir Ali gifts 3 successive more. Yes you can say it was top batting but that is what you would expect from such a class act and like the Carberry yb40 effort against lancs you have to point a finger at the bowlers as a unit who got it totally wrong again. Maybe spending less time giving interviews about why they are so good at EOT and actually focus on the skills which meant they had a 6-0 home record against Notts, as looking at the two teams it will be 6-6 within a few years otherwise. Finally if Mitch's second slower bouncer was a no ball against Patel, why wasn't shahzad's against prince?

  • POSTED BY ChrisKOTW on | July 2, 2013, 10:18 GMT

    With regards to the no ball - it wasn't for excessive height, it was because McClenaghan had already bowled a bouncer in that over (his "one for the over") with the first no ball, and thus the second bouncer was correctly a no ball as well. Even though he bowled really well I think Mitch could do with checking the rules!

  • POSTED BY Andy876 on | July 2, 2013, 13:14 GMT

    As a Notts fan I was pleased with the result but felt Lancashire gifted it to us in the large part, the excellent McClenaghan aside. I thought Chapple's captaincy was poor - how many balls did the Notts batsmen play through the midwicket area for easy ones and twos? I couldn't understand why there was noone in close on the legside, even when Patel and Read were new at the crease. And then to bring his main strike bowler back when only 30 were needed seemed a bit like he was playing to a set plan. I thought McClenaghan batted off a difficult question in the interview when asked whether he could have been brought back earlier. You don't want to upset the captain in your first match and he was very diplomatic but I suspect he thought yes! Having said all that, Hussey was brilliant and the 20/20 format seems to have been just what Hales needed having had a wretched year prior to it starting.