Canterbury end CD's Plunket Shield chances

MATT RICHENS
Last updated 17:13 19/02/2014

Relevant offers

Cricket

Timely Amla century keeps SA 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 and Central Districts have played out a tame draw in their penultimate domestic first class cricket match, ending CD's chances of winning the Plunket Shield this season.

After Canterbury scored 346 in the first innings, having been sent in, CD reached 483-8 before pulling out.

They needed to roll Canterbury quickly if they were to keep their chances of winning the title alive, but on the Rangiora featherbed that is Mainpower Oval, that was always going to be tricky.

A watchful Canterbury were 193-3 when stumps were drawn early. Dean Brownlie scored 60 while George Worker batted more than five hours for his unbeaten 52 - his first first-class half century of the summer.

Canterbury and Auckland remain the only teams able to win the Plunket Shield and if Auckland can't beat Otago in Dunedin today, Canterbury will claim the title with a round remaining.

Scoreboard

Canterbury

First innings 346

Second innings

S Keen c van Wyk b Rance 8

G Worker not out 52

D Brownlie lbw Nethula 60

H Nicholls c How b Nethula 40

B Cachopa not out 15

Extras (4b, 2lb, 12nb) 18

Total (for three wickets, 74 overs) 193

Fall of wickets: 8, 105, 161

Bowling: S Rance 19-8-32-1, C Gaylard 11-5-20-0, R Badenhorst 18-8-39-0 (1nb), T Nethula 23-2-79-2(11nb), G Hay 3-0-17-0.

Central Districts

First innings 483-8dec

Math drawn

Ad Feedback

- Fairfax Media

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