Had it not been for the loss of Martin Guptill just before stumps, Derbyshire would have been delighted with their first day's work against Northamptonshire.
As it is, they must be pleased to have bowled out the table-topping side for 267 in a season when tails have wagged more frequently than that of a dog who finds a bone with a healthy slab of meat still attached. If we can emulate that tomorrow - and there's plenty of batting left to do so - we can yet establish ascendancy in this match. Whatever else, if the weather stays out of it there is plenty of time for a positive result and we need that, one way or another. If we lose, so be it, but a chance of a win is worth going for.
I was delighted to see Mark Footitt back and firing with a fine mid-innings spell that tore open the visitors middle order. Without any risk of argument, if we had been able to field Footitt and Mark Turner this season we would have had the quickest attack in the County Championship, including the top division. Jon Clare is close to 90mph at times and Groenewald bowls a quick ball and on bouncy tracks batsmen don't like real pace - especially when it is accurate. If Turner and Footitt can work on their accuracy and fitness (in Footitt's case) over the winter our pace attack will be serious stuff in 2012.
There were a disturbing number of leg byes in the Northamptonshire innings, but four quick bowlers slightly off line, coupled with a short boundary, will do that. While the visitors will be happy with their recovery, Derbyshire are still in this game.
Martin Guptill hit a remarkable 13 fours in his 55 and had he remained for tomorrow we could have looked forward to a sizeable lead. As it is we need good contributions from young guns Redfern, Whiteley and Clare, together with a captain's knock from Luke Sutton. 350 is a long way off at present but not impossible and such a lead could be crucial in what is likely to be a low-scoring contest.
Incidentally, Middlesex's loss last night to Kent in the CB40 means Derbyshire could yet finish second in the CB40, which would be a remarkable effort. If it hadn't been for those Netherlands games...
Please let us get Scotland next year.
Footitt and Turner have both got pace,but like you say Peakfan,they both have to be more accurate. Should they appear in tandem and get it wrong we could be looking at a record number of runs in a day. On the other hand they have potential to be match winners. Credit to Footitt today,he looked dangerous and deserved his success.
ReplyDeleteOn the batting front we are precariously balanced. It could be 350 tomorrow,but i can,t help thinking it,s just as likely to be 150. I hope i,m wrong. We need parity at least or i fear the worst. To lose two wickets late on was disappointing.It might have been worse though had our visitors not spilled three catches.
Now, if Madsen had played, he'd have got back to form and we'd have been 110-1 and right in the game.
ReplyDeleteJoking aside, I tend towards Marc's view, that Northants have a stronger position. A couple of wickets first thing, and we're 130-6. The second half of the batting may come to the party yet again, but we can't constantly hope for it.
Even if two of the first five weren't in poor form, this batting order doesn't look right. Hughes doesn't convince as a one day opener, still less a 4 day opener, and the logic of promoting a batter struggling at 5 to 3 defies understanding to me - apart from letting Durston and Redfern bat where they have made runs, I can't see anything to recommend it.
However, I'd written off Footitt last night (but fortunately didn't write it) so perhaps I'll be wrong about the batting as well.
I can't share Peakfan's excitement at the thought of Turner and Footitt in the same team. I might be spoiled by the Hendrick / Mortensen years (and my own history as a medium pacer who treasured 2 runs an over far more than 5 wickets) but my sensibilites are offended by bowlers who for no particular reason leak runs like a sprung barrel or take a hatful of wickets. I don't think the comparison with Devon Malcolm is really valid - he was always expensive but rarely failed to take wickets at the same time, often in the same over. Neither are inexperienced bowlers and surely have worked out a method by now. Until and unless they do, I really don't think Derbyshire have the strengths elsewhere to carry the risks of one, never mind two in the same team.
I disagree on the pace notoveryet - every team needs a quick and it is one sure way to ensure tail enders don't hang around as we've found in recent seasons. I'd agree that both AS THEY ARE is a luxury - but if they tighten up, while retaining hostility, what's not to like?
ReplyDeleteTwo an over is fine, but to win 4 day games you need 20 wickets. Like you, I'd love to see a Les Jackson type figure emerge, but that might be a century away...
On the subject of the two quicks, overall I feel Footitt is the stronger performer - if he stays fit.
ReplyDeleteFootitt:
Ave: 32.93 SR: 51.40 Runs/Over: 3.84
Turner:
Ave: 39.47 SR: 65.58 Runs/Over: 4.03
With the normal trio of Palladino, Groenewald & Clare, I could envisage the two pacemen rotating in and out, although Footitt's different angle of attack adds another variation, which should not be under-estimated.