Canterbury take a healthy lead over Auckland

MATT RICHENS
Last updated 18:55 09/02/2014

Relevant offers

Cricket

Timely Amla ton keeps Proteas in the running Ravindra Jadeja fined for fracas with Anderson New Zealand Cricket names domestic contracts Hashim Amla, De Villiers dig in for South Africa Oram, Bell join White Ferns coaching staff Zimbabwe wield axe after Afghanistan draw Stead: Canterbury cricket contracts mostly local Cricket bosses turn down Games invite Jayawardene hits ton to help Sri Lanka recovery Scott Styris ponders Northern Knights future

Canterbury will head into the final day of their Plunket Shield cricket match with Auckland tomorrow with a lead of 323 and six second innings wickets in hand.

After Auckland declared their first innings closed at 300-7 shortly after lunch today, Canterbury raced to 295-4 in just 59 overs.

Auckland bowled part-timers to try and advance the game and it worked, Canterbury will now have an opportunity to set a target tomorrow morning and all three results remain a real possibility.

Dean Brownlie was stumped just two shy of what would have been the least rewarding of his eight first-class centuries while Shanan Stewart and Rob Nicol will resume tomorrow having already put on 123 for the fifth wicket from just 100 balls.

Stewart reached his 35th first-class half century from just 26 balls and will resume tomorrow on 88no while Nicol recorded his second half century of the match and reached stumps unbeaten on 52.

Auckland used nine bowlers with only wicket-keeping skipper Gareth Hopkins and former test spinner Bruce Martin not appearing at the crease.

While Martin Guptill went at nines and Craig Cachopa for more than 11s, Anaru Kitchen was the best of the visitors, taking 1-10 from seven overs. 

Ad Feedback

- Fairfax Media

Comments

Special offers
Opinion poll

Was a life ban from cricket a fair punishment for Lou Vincent?

Yes, he's admitted to match-fixing and deserves his punishment

It doesn't go far enough in my opinion

No, it's only going to deter whistle blowers in the future

It's too harsh. A two-year ban would have been fair

Vote Result

Related story: (See story)

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content