Sunday 2 June 2013

Derbyshire v Surrey day 4

At the risk of suggesting that I have acquired Mystic Meg-like talents, today's game ended in the draw that looked nailed on from lunch time on day three. Indeed, it couldn't have looked more obviously so had it taken out national newspaper adverts, perimeter ads on the boundary hoardings and a fifty-foot high neon sign at the entrance to the ground that said 'THIS IS A DRAW'.

The wicket rendered it so, for reasons that I explained last night. No doubt a track more conducive to wicket-taking was prepared, but you can't legislate for the rain that meant we had to switch. Some might say we should have had it covered better, but I don't accept that as fair comment when you're playing the night before for the benefit of the TV cameras.

The only surprise to me was that Karl Krikken didn't take the opportunity with the game dying on its feet to give Ben Slater another bat at the County Ground. With Seconds' games played away from home, it would have been useful experience for the lad and neither Madsen nor Chanderpaul really needed another knock after their first innings. Odd one that, when one assumes he will retain his place for a decent run.

He should open against Durham MCCU, a game that offers a number of batsmen an opportunity to find form. Godleman, Redfern, Durston and Whiteley should all play and we may see an Academy player or two, maybe even Tony Palladino if he is nearing fitness.

Time for replies to last night's comments - Mark: come on mate, get the gloomy glasses off! This would have been a good eight-day match and only a Steyn or Warne would perhaps have changed that. We need to get the wickets right from here and trust to the players to out-perform their opponents. To suggest that the bowlers were at fault on this track is just daft mate.

As you'll read in my next Cricinfo piece over the next couple of days, another £300K in our playing budget would have helped a bit, but we're doing the best we can with players who, realistically, are in some cases looking short of top level standard. That may be because it has come too soon for them, or it may be because, like a good Championship goal-scorer who doesn't make the step up, they are just short of the next jump in quality. Time will tell, but we'll keep working and see if some can prove early judgements to be incorrect.

Notoveryet is correct in his assertion that pointing out the failings of winter signings after the event is not especially realistic. Sure, had we the money to sign Denly, Ballance and Brooks this winter we would have done better. But were they available? Brooks was, but Yorkshire paid top dollar that we can't afford. Denly and Ballance weren't available, so fans need to be realistic. Surrey paid big money for Vikram Solanki, who averages 34 - OK, but maybe not enough bang for the buck. They did the same for Gary Keedy, who has 2 wickets at 121. Somerset paid big money for Gemaal Hussain a couple of years back after a good year at Gloucestershire, but 2 wickets at 63 this year suggest he's short of this level too. It ain't easy folks and the solution takes time.

Mind you, notoveryet...I did get that result right. I don't know about signs of wear, but this game needed at least two more days for a positive result.

Finally tonight, let's hear it for Martin Guptill. His superb innings today highlighted once more what a class act he is. We can only hope that he's back at the County Ground before too long, but I don't think it will be for the T20. I think he will opt for the Caribbean version, a good shop window for the IPL - and, let's face it, better weather...

Hope I'm wrong though and that Messr Grant and Krikken have got a good plan B up their sleeves.

7 comments:

  1. While everyone is focusing on our batting line up at the moment, I think the hindrance to our survival in D1 is likely to be our bowling.

    With Chanderpaul beginning to look like a world top-10 batsmen, Madsen in good form, Chesney making great strides forward, Johnson taking advantage of his opportunity in the first team, a great opportunity for Slater to establish himself, and Redfern about to hit form (no - I don't have any evidence for this last one - but please forgive me a touch of over-optimism) - we should be able to make competitive totals against lower half teams. As we did against Yorkshire and Surrey.

    What worried me about the Surrey game is that the 8 wickets we took were 5 to spinners and 3 run outs. Tremlett took 8 wickets on his own. And here is a big problem for us I think - most D1 counties have a go-to international class pace/swing/seam bowler who can get wickets even on a good pitch. We seem to be lacking that at the moment. Fingers crossed Palladino and Clare can change this when they return. Groenewald's 10-519 this season are looking well short of the money.

    P.S. Wonderful from Guptill.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tim, Chesterfield2 June 2013 at 22:12

    Agreed. Lack of new ball penetration has been our downfall. I think we all expected more from our players who were so successful last season. The step up is bigger than I expected & I think or two at the club have been taken by suprise too.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cannot argue gents! Thanks for your comments as always

    ReplyDelete
  4. Come on, Peakfan. Admit you had a little palpitation when the third wicket went shortly after tea. Of course we shouldn't have lost from that position, but neither should we have lost to Yorkshire or collapsed to Middlesex. The same fragility was clearly in Surrey's mind from the way they pushed on this morning and after lunch. I thought they declared a little early and should have aimed for a 150 lead with fewer overs to bowl us out in. Their declaration left us with two escape routes - bat out time or score enough runs - and Hughes might not have played with such freedom (and been more vulnerable)if batting out time was the only target.

    It's a disappointment that we haven't beaten a team that didn't seem to be in much better shape than we are (at least before Ponting's arrival) but at least we haven't lost much ground.

    ReplyDelete
  5. No mate. No palpitations this time. Never any doubt on that track and in that timescale that it would be a draw. My club side would have got a draw in that position on that wicket!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Any signs of Godleman improving yet?. One of our worst signings in recent history. How come he keeps getting games?.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think they are fair points regarding the bowlers. Up to mow most of us have been looking at the batting and citing that as our main downfall. The batting has been our Achillea heel for some considerable time but the bowling stats also make uncomfortable reading.

    Last season we almost took it for granted we could bowl sides out and on many occasions the seamers were our saviors and not just with the ball. I knew we would find it harder this season for various reasons. With the exception of Footitt on a couple of occasions we have really struggled to take wickets. It's true we have spilled far too many catches and whilst that is a factor I have rarely felt a wicket is around the corner this season.

    Even early season we largely failed to exploit some helpful bowling conditions,in stark contrast to the helpful conditions they enjoyed most of last season. They have all suffered to a lesser or greater extent but none more than Wainwright. He just doesn't look anything like the bowler who first appeared on the scene. It may be a lack of confidence or the result of this back problem or something else entirely, but he isn't the bowler he used to be. Even last season there were times he struggled to take wickets and times when I questioned his selection ahead of an additional seamer.

    It may be argued by some that he keeps a measure of control but even his economy rate is nothing to write home about. There were several occasions last season where Durston was far more effective than Wainwright.I hope he can recover some of his early form but I think we may be fast approaching the stage where Burgoyne or Knight might be better wicket taking options. It would be asking much of two youngsters and it might not work out but unless we can take 20 wickets we will struggle to win matches. It could be that the bowlers are not good enough. There's no doubting their credentials in division 2 but is that as far as they can go?.

    ReplyDelete

Please remember to add your name. Avoid personal comment at all times. Thanks!