Melbourn lost 8-15

The last month of the season promises to be make or break time for the 2nds. The team had had a week off for the spring half-term, which was a time to examine our league position. This had us fourth in the table, despite being on a Division 3 best record of 10 wins from 12 matches – this was because too many of the matches recently had ended up as wins by three strings to two; we had won seven in a row, but had gradually lost ground during that as all but the first of these had been by the narrowest margin. Some might argue all those 3-2s shows we are at the right level in Division 3 and the ambition to go up was not necessarily well founded… but that was what the team had decided to try and pursue. One has to have ambition.

All those pyrrhic victories meant that Melbourn needed direct head-to-head wins against the sides just above them in the league. Fortunately, we had those opponents still to play; Stamford (top), Hunts County (2nd)… and Cambridge 3, who sat just above us and hosted us for this match. They were also the last side to beat us, winning 18-7 (4 strings to 1) at Melbourn back in the autumn. Lots of motivation, then.

The first matches on court saw Will Bradshaw (5) take on Toni Coppolaro and Melbourn skipper Colm O’Gorman (2) face off with Toby Harris. Lets be traditional and start with the fifth string, especially as this one showcased a superb performance from teenager Will, whose ability to fly around the court really undermined Toni’s game – and Toni is well known on the Cambs County circuit for his ability to break up play and find winners. However, whatever he tried in the first Will was retrieving it, and whilst Toni made adjustments in the next two which resulted in closer game scores, Will always looked in command as he rounded off an impressive 15-11, 15-8, 15-12 victory.

Meanwhile, next door, things were not going so well for Colm against Toby. The first was an early turning point as Colm had his nose just in front towards the end of the game, but got caught pushing for the line. That saw Toby take it to a breaker and though the home player butchered a forehand drop shot to win it 16-14, he took the next two points to claim the game. Colm had been a little out-of-sorts in the first game and this mounted thereafter as he tried to attack a player who was solid in defence and happy to counter-punch. These tactics didn’t work, Colm falling to a 15-17, 8-15, 9-15 loss.

Next on court was Moises Estrelles Navarro (4) against Peter Connaughton. The first game saw home advantage really at play as Peter lobbed it up into the dark spaces in the rafters of the Churchill College courts, Moises not coping with the volleys called for. Game two saw Moises take an approach of trying the same thing… and discovering that Peter was lobbing it up because he was aware that is what he would least want to face as well. That saw Moises level up, but maintaining a style of play that is not his natural one was a challenge and mistakes in execution cost him the third. The match was on a knife-edge towards the end of the fourth, with both players knowing it was all or nothing – if Moises could force it to a decider then Peter looked like he might run out of gas, but could Moises find the kills to do so? He had a definite chance at 14-13, but couldn’t get his balance to pull the trigger, and then fell 15-14 behind. The next rally ended in controversy and chaos; Moises was out of position and initially went the wrong way, stepping towards the front backhand corner, but Peter mis-timed his drive and pulled it a bit towards himself. Moises adjusted and hustled to the ball… but was his racket up in time to play a shot? If it was, Peter hadn’t cleared the ball and was in the swing plane making it a stroke, but if he wasn’t then it was no let and match over. Plus who created the interference as well? Peter for not clearing or Moises for dog-legging his line? Or both. To complicate matters the call was very black-and-white; it was either a “No Let” or a “Stroke”. The call from the marker was “No Let” which went down very badly with Moises, who was disconsolate to lose 10-15, 15-5, 9-15, 14-16.

Whilst all this palaver was happening, Matt Walker (3) was taking the court a bit gingerly as he tried to play on a somewhat suspect ankle. What he needed was a nice, calm, slow game. What he got was maybe the fittest and fastest opponent in the Cambs League, Gift Nuka. So anything but calm and slow. The opening game saw Matt attempting to rush things, leading to errors, however a chat between games advising patience and setting up his preferred attacking opportunities seemed to have the effect – the logic being that if Gift had a game of high accuracy, he wouldn’t be playing in Div.3 given his outstanding movement. Maintaining the pinpoint precision on the volley drops is not always straightforward, as is holding off one that is nearly-but-not-quite in the slot, but when Matt managed that (games two and four) he dominated… and game three was just good enough to wrap up a 9-15, 15-4, 16-14, 15-6 win. What injured ankle?

That meant it all went down to the top strings, where Jan Brynjolffssen (1) took on Daniyal Jafree. This proved to be a competitive match, and also one played in a good spirit with both players calling things against themselves that hadn’t been spotted by the marker. The first two games were close, but always tipping Daniyal’s way as he was more effective from the back of the court, repeatedly catching Jan a quarter of a step out by straightening shots when he didn’t seem to have space to do so. Teammate advice was Jan needed to both straighten up his lines as Daniyal was hovering to pounce on crosscourts, and also go for it more as trading from the back corners was simply a route to death by a thousand cuts. So he tried, looking to attack on his volleys into the front nicks. Let’s say this worked, as pretty well every one hit the target. Back in it now, could Jan maintain it? Sadly not, both because he didn’t truly believe and also because Daniyal had clearly decided he had seen enough volley kills and kept the ball down in game four. The end result was a 9-15, 10-15, 15-7, 4-15 loss for Jan.

And so we had another 3-2, but this time a losing effort. It turns out that winning 3-2, whilst not ideal, is much more fun. Let’s go back to doing that, shall we? Also, taking one match at a time from here on out is probably a good idea.