1989 Refuge Assurance Cup

The 1989 Refuge Assurance Cup was the second competing of the Refuge Assurance Cup, for the most successful teams in the Sunday League. It was an English limited overs county cricket tournament which was held between 6 and 17 September 1989. The tournament was won by Essex County Cricket Club who defeated Nottinghamshire County Cricket Club by 5 runs in the final at Edgbaston, Birmingham.

1989 Refuge Assurance Cup
Administrator(s)Test and County Cricket Board
Cricket formatLimited overs cricket
(40 overs per innings)
Tournament format(s)Knockout
ChampionsEssex (1st title)
Participants4
Matches played3
Most runs139 Paul Prichard (Essex)
Most wickets5 Derek Pringle (Essex)/Graham Gooch (Essex)/Andy Pick (Notts)

Format

The cup was an end-of-season affair. The counties finishing in the top four of the 1989 Refuge Assurance League competed in the semi-finals. The top two teams were drawn at home. Winners from the semi-finals then went on to the final at Edgbaston which was held on 17 September 1989.

Semi-finals

6 September 1989
(scorecard)
Lancashire
187/9 (40 overs)
v
Nottinghamshire
188/5 (39.2 overs)
Neil Fairbrother 59
Andy Pick 4/25 (8 overs)
Chris Broad 49
Wasim Akram 1/28 (8 overs)
Nottinghamshire won by 5 wickets
Old Trafford, Manchester
Umpires: John Harris and Roy Palmer
Player of the match: Wasim Akram (Lancashire)

6 September 1989
(scorecard)
Essex
211/7 (40 overs)
v
Worcestershire
110 all out (34.1 overs)
Paul Prichard 82 *
Neal Radford 2/40 (8 overs)
Phil Neale 22
Graham Gooch 3/13 (6 overs)
Essex won by 101 runs
New Road, Worcester
Umpires: David Constant & Kevin Lyons
Player of the match: Paul Prichard (Essex)

Final

17 September 1989
(scorecard)
Essex
160/5 (40 overs)
v
Nottinghamshire
155 all out (39.4 overs)
Paul Prichard 57
Eddie Hemmings 1/24 (8 overs)
Chris Broad 39
Derek Pringle 4/20 (7.4 overs)
Essex won by 5 runs
Edgbaston, Birmingham
Umpires: John Holder & Barry Meyer
Player of the match: Paul Prichard (Essex)

The attendance at the final was approximately 8,000.[1]

gollark: Tesla have some sort of awful part lock-in thing going on.
gollark: As far as I can tell, yes, random webpages agree that fossil fuel plants are 35%ish efficient mostly.
gollark: Fine, I'll check more random webpages.
gollark: A random webpage says coal plants are about 35% efficient.
gollark: Why should it be the other way round? If one of those options is actually substantially better, shouldn't that just be used in both places?

References

  1. Wisden Cricketers' Almanack, 1990
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.