Moribund tracks will kill the game

I'm taking advantage of a day off to wash the cars... theoretically. As it is, the rain is pelting down (call it a pre-wash if you will) and I'll not be out there until it stops.

There's little Derbyshire news at present. Geoff Miller has done a little coaching in at the club and has imparted some of his knowledge on Jake Needham and Dan Redfern. No bad thing, as we'd settle for a Geoff Miller in the middle order these days. Redfern currently strikes me as a batsman who can bowl, Needham as a bowler who can bat. Both have the potential and enough time on their side to become genuine all-rounders. A thought that crossed my mind when reading the article was "where's Greg Smith"? Does his absence from the photo mean he's going to revert to seam again, or was he just not around? I suspect the latter, as his versatility is useful to the club, just as long as a jack of all trades ends up mastering one of them.

Chris Rogers has now passed a thousand runs in the Sheffield Shield this winter at an average of just under 75. It augurs well for the coming season, though Rogers' satisfaction of a job well done will have been tempered by the success of Phil Hughes in South Africa, making two centuries in only his second Test. He must now have cemented a place in the England tour party and therefore have eliminated Rogers from discussions. Their loss is our gain and his success only emphasises the depth of batting talent in Australia.

I got an e mail from someone who disagreed with a recent post in which I criticised Middlesex for signing Hughes ahead of the Ashes tour and effectively giving him a "net", while at the same time advocating we sign a top batsman - maybe an Aussie - for the 20/20. My answer was simple. Hughes has never experienced English conditions and could have been found out on our tracks, whereas we'd be signing an experienced player who knew what things were like here. There's no comparison between a 20-over slog and Test cricket anyway, whereas Hughes will get some long stints in the middle in the Championship. Very short sighted signing in my humble opinion and nothing will change that.

For what its worth, I understand that Rogers has signed for the full season this year, with no planned break for the 20/20. You may see this as a good or bad thing, as Rogers the one-day bat isn't the beast that dominates four day cricket. His presence at the top of the order should, however, guarantee the pre-requisite for that form of the game in that someone bats out the innings. If Rogers scored 50-60 in each match and the rest thrashed around him, one would hope we'd post scores around 140-150, which wins more games than not. He's not a huge hitter, but we've plenty who are and hopefully a little more nous at the top of the innings might see us more competitive.

Rogers good winter form is encouraging, but I'm saddened by the moribund nature of tracks around the world this winter. In their most recent game, Victoria posted 806-8having bowled out Queensland for 302, with the match petering to a tame draw. Its all the Vics wanted before the game, but does nothing for the appeal of the game. Its the same with Test cricket this winter. The tracks in the Caribbean have been hopelessly in favour of batting (first Test apart) and the wickets for the recent Pakistan/Sri Lanka series were the same.

Whenever I talk cricket to people who say they don't understand it, their biggest problem is how a game can be a draw after 4 or 5 days. I relate to that and feel that there are a lot of modern batsman basking in the glory of decent averages on featherbeds. With covered wickets, small seams on balls, lbw rules and increasingly docile tracks, batsmen have never had it so good. You watch the averages this year. There will be 20-30 players averaging over 50 with the bat, maybe 3-4 under 23 with the ball.

What would you sooner watch this season at Derby? Us posting 575, our opponents 550 and then a tame last day? Or a game of 200-300 scores - maybe even less - with a battle on the last day for runs as bowlers made use of conditions that offered something for them? The problem is, once wickets tumble on an opening day the pitch inspectors are twitching their noses and jumping into cars with the home club wondering if they'll be docked points. I'm not advocating that pitches should be minefields and those where there's irregular and dangerous bounce need to be frowned upon. Yet pitches with a little green top, offering lateral movement and help to those prepared to bend their backs must be encouraged.

If I had a son who was a potential county cricketer, I'd encourage his batting ahead of his bowling. These days, the bowler who can come through a season with an average under thirty is a rare breed and it is the new benchmark. Batting should be more challenging. A hard-fought 60 can be of greater value in a match than 150 in the next fixture ever could be, yet there are players around - and I'm not referring to Derbyshire- who cash in on the feather beds and don't try too hard when things are against them.

Maybe it is time that the adminstrators started to address the imbalance in the game and we tried uncovered pitches for a season, or bigger seams on balls. I suspect that a few inflated batting egos around the game would be pricked as a consequence and the game as a whole would be more entertaining as a result.