Fantasy stuff

Here's a couple of posers for you in your (imaginary) job as Derbyshire's cricket supremo.

You are coming to the end of the season and have two 23 year old players. Both are technically very good and are strong mentally, though not powerful physically at this stage of their careers.

Player A has played 7 games, 11 innings, 133 runs average 12.09

Player B has played 26 games, 42 innings, 1109 runs average 29.97

Resources mean you have to sack one of them, but you can give a three-year contract to the other. Who do you sack? Player A, presumably?

Having sorted that one, next you have two 21 year old players to consider. Both are 'flair players' with a lot of natural ability that can see them perceived as a bit rash or careless at times.

Player A has played 58 games, 82 innings, 1606 runs average 22.30

Player B has played 39 games, 64 innings, 1740 runs average 29.00

Again, you have to sack one player and give the other a three-year contract. Once again, I would suggest on record you would sack player A.

Congratulations. In the first example above, you have just sacked Chris Rogers and given a three-year deal to Paul Borrington. In the second, you sacked Kim Barnett and gave Dan Redfern a three-year deal...

That's young cricketers for you and why I feel too many give them a raw deal. If you want more examples:

At the age of 24, Chris Adams was averaging 27
At the age of 22, John Morris was averaging 27
At the age of 23. Eddie Barlow was averaging 28
At the same age, Peter Bowler was averaging 25. So was Martin Guptill.
At the age of 24, Greg Smith was averaging 22
At the age of 22, one of our greatest batsmen, Denis Smith, was averaging just 13...

If you want to go outside the county, Graham Gooch averaged 24 when he was 23 and Mark Butcher 23 when he was 22. Yet still we moan about under-achievement!

Reading about Ross Whiteley's (pictured) knock for the Seconds yesterday (65 not out from 37 balls against a decent Lancashire attack with first team experience) heightened my feeling that he is potentially our most destructive young player since Ian Blackwell. At 22 his first team statistics are not overly impressive (17 average with the bat and just one wicket) but I have always been impressed by his clean hitting and feel his bowling can come on still further. He has a tendency to drop one down leg side regularly, but that's just a case of grooving the action a little more. He can swing it and with experience will gain in confidence.

Others, like Ben Slater, Hamza Siddique and Tom Poynton are showing enough flashes of talent to warrant genuine optimism, Poynton batting four and aggressively for the Seconds and keeping wicket with great style (and no little vocal talent!)

But you can't expect perpetual brilliance from kids. Why, Dean Jones only averaged 33 when he was 21, and Michael di Venuto 34 when he was 22. They were/are exceptional players, yet in average not massively ahead of Redfern and Borrington at a comparable stage.

It makes no sense whatsoever, on any level, to cut ties with young players of that age. They make money for the club on each appearance until they are 26 and if they've not done it by then, fair enough. Socially, emotionally, physically and technically few are really cutting it before 23 or 24 anyway. Playing cricket for your livelihood is massively different to playing with your mates at the weekend and when some of those on the boundary edge go into print saying you're a waste of space (or worse) it can't be easy. I've had bad days in my working life, but no one has ever gone onto a web site that evening and told the world about it. That's a crucial difference.

A contributor the other night suggested that the players were well rewarded. I understand that the young summer contract players at Derbyshire are on around £1,000 for playing in July and August, after their University commitments. Throw in their gear and its a good deal for a student - a world better than slaving away in a fast food outlet, but not exactly Rockefeller standard. Ross Whiteley is probably on less than £5K for his summer deal and will have earned that back for the club from his appearances this summer. Borrington and Redfern will probably be on less than £20K is my guess, but next year, with under 22s likely to attract £2,500 per game and under-26s earning the club £2,000 per appearance I expect both to feature heavily.

Returning to the early theme of this post, what would you do? Pay Greg Smith £70-80K to keep him at Derbyshire? We've already invested a lot of money in Smith and he's still technically an overseas player costing us more each time he plays. Critics would suggest he's only had two really good summers and that if he was going to re-sign he would have done so by now. They might also suggest that the player has used Derbyshire as a convenience, retaining his South African citizenship despite opportunities to qualify much more quickly.

Or do we accept that he's going and invest time, opportunity and much less money in Ross Whiteley, giving him a three-year deal and encouraging him to go out there, confident that his place is secure to play his natural game? During that time he will bring in money each time he steps onto the pitch. I'm genuinely confident that the lad could take that number six berth and make it his own, just as I am that Poynton will be a very good wicket-keeper batsman for Derbyshire for years when Luke Sutton takes a step back.

From a purely financial angle, playing Hughes, Redfern, Borrington, Knight/Needham, Whiteley and (maybe) Poynton next year would bring in enough money to finance a top overseas player. You could notionally go with this side

Madsen, Borrington, Hughes, Durston, Redfern, Whiteley, Sutton/Poynton, Clare, Groenewald, Palladino, Knight/Needham

You'll note that side includes Tim Groenewald, who I think will stay, and doesn't include an overseas player. The identity and skills of that person are as yet unknown, so there's no point putting someone in for the sake of it.

A young side? Yes, but improving. Last year we came bottom with an experienced one AND lost £180K. How we do with this one is open to conjecture, but we wouldn't do worse - and would at least balance the books.

For me, as Chris Grant is poised to unveil his plans to the Derbyshire committee, it is the way forward. Karl Krikken, responsible for the emergence of these youngsters, would play a major part in the future too, working alongside an overseas player/coach. He knows the players, they respect him to a man, there's experience and exciting talent side by side and this would prepare us for cricket in the long term, as a club run to an effective business model that would be one for others to emulate.

It's the way forward all right. The DERBYSHIRE way.