Thursday 11 August 2011

Derbyshire v Gloucestershire day 2

As second days go, this one was up there with the best of them, as Derbyshire bowled out Glouceestershire, enforced the follow on and took a quick wicket in their second innings which closed with them still 186 short of making us bat again.

Much can happen in the next two days, possibly rain, but we are in a strong position that rekindles hopes of promotion. Outside ones they may be, but maximum points here will keep the teams above us with a wary eye on our progress.

There was fine bowling today by the seam quartet, who shared the wickets. There was an excellent tight and penetrative spell by Jon Clare and an inspired move by Luke Sutton in giving him the new ball in the second innings, one that saw him remove the dangerous Hamish Marshall. Although the Derbyshire innings petered out after yesterday's frolics, maximum batting points always gives you a chance and so it proved today in an excellent effort.

Although Greg Smith took a wicket, his short spell of five overs for me raised questions as to why he was preferred to the in-form Dan Redfern in this game. With four seamers (five if you count Ross Whiteley) plus Durston and Hughes to bowl spin, the selection was clear cut - pick the batsman in form.

Redfern's last 12 innings for Derbyshire have seen scores of 82, 41 not, 34, 29, 30, 53, 55, 15, 88, 7, 99 and 63. In some seasons I've seen over the years we'd have given him the freedom of the city for a run of scores like that. Instead, he is sent to Bristol, presumably to prove his fitness by fielding all day, which he did while Gloucestershire Seconds racked up 400 yesterday.

Thanks to Mike, who was at the game, I understand that Redfern today made an unbeaten 80-odd for the Seconds and looked the class act he is - a class act that should have been on display at Derby. There is merit in a player proving fitness in a one day game, but none whatsoever in having a player who has torn a hamstring running around in the field for nearly a hundred overs. He could have done that at home...

Paul Borrington got 60-odd for Derbyshire and Matt Lineker 30-odd as we closed a shortened day on 205-3. Bear in mind the runs that Marc highlighted under last night's post have been scored by Madsen, Hughes and Smith of late, there is no rational reason why Redfern should not have played at Derby, especially when his appearance in the side brings us in around £2K while Greg Smith's costs us that sort of sum. Sorry to bring the subject round to money again, but a county that lost £180K last year needs to consider such things.

I think Karl Krikken needs to consider not just the impact of what keeping out of touch players in the Firsts is doing to them, but also what it is saying to players scoring heavily in the Seconds. We've rarely had this luxury at Derbyshire over the years, but players need to know that hard work in the Seconds will be rewarded. Equally, players sometimes need to drop down, rediscover form and fight for/justify a place.

I firmly believe that Dan Redfern HAS to return at Chesterfield next week and that Matt Lineker should come in for Wayne Madsen. You will then have a firing batting line up and optimise the chances of a win.

Nowt but logic...as always, I look forward to your comments.

PS Sorry about the late blog, but tonight Peakfan and family went to see Harry Potter. Not in person, you understand, but it was truly...ahem...spell-binding...

8 comments:

  1. Peakfan, as Redfern has not played for a month we can hardly say that he is in form.
    Also, why the 'witch hunt' for Smith. If you have a look at the averages this season you will see that he is our third highest run scorer and has an average over over 37 and has the highest strike rate of any of our batsmen. Also only Redfern has scored more 50's. Only two of our bowlers have bowled more overs and he has a very good economy rate of less than 3 runs per over. His 20 odd wickets have come at an average of 36 runs apeice. On top of this he is a very good fielder and is our only bowler who can bowl seam or spin and he always gives is all. Basically, what more do you want?
    Ben

    ReplyDelete
  2. Peakfan has said it all. I could not have put it any better if i had written the article myself. We are playing players who should NOT be in the team. Madsen and Hughes are out of form,pure and simple. Both are good players,nobody is disputing that,but the fact remains that a place in the team,any team for that matter,has to be earned. Neither of these have done that in recent times.

    Given fair weather,we will probably win this game,and that,s great,but that alters nothing in my book. If we do then it,s thanks to others,not Smith,Madsen or Hughes.

    I have already said,on more than one occasion that Smith should not be in the team. He is going and we must look elsewhere. It is utterly pointless in playing him,even if he was the best player on the books,which he certainly isn,t. Why should he take someone,s place who may be here long after he is history?. There is no logical reason for playing him whatsoever.

    Madsen and Hughes have been given every oppotunity and they have not taken it. Both will come again,no doubt about that,but in the meantime others must be given a chance. A chance which,on form,they have earned. Redfern,Lineker and Borrington should all be in the current team,because they have done everything that could have been asked of them and that alone deserves some reward.

    They may not take their opportunity,but surely they have to be given it in the first place. I wish Hughes and Madsen were scoring runs,as both are well capable,but the fact is they are not and haven,t some for far too long. Krikken has got to see this and make changes. It,s all well and good showing loyalty to certain individuals,but in return they have to repay it. Some of our players are not doing that and in fairness to others,they have to be dropped.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Absolutely right Marc. Sorry Ben, this isn't a witch hunt against Smith, simply an acceptance that he has made 400 runs in his last 17 championship innings and, since he's not bowling much at present, doesn't justify a place as a batsman.
    In addition, he is under additional pressure to do so since he costs a club without many resources £2K a game.
    Finally, as we understand it at present, he's leaving. If you combined any two of these facts there's a decent argument for him to play. Combining all three, especially when there are in form players who will earn us money queueing up for his place, makes it all the more difficult to understand why he is in the side.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi!

    Long time reader of your blog - always an enjoyable read, so thanks!

    I'm torn with the Smith situation; on one hand, it's obvious that he'd rather his heart & employment status is elsewhere, and thus I'd put him gardening leave in order to stop any potential squad disruption. Saying that, with the plethora of players who have signed new deals in recent weeks, Smith's seemingly imminent departure doesn't appear to have disrupted his teammates too much and I do think he's a very useful cricketer to have in the side. I agree with the first poster (Anon.) who counter-argued that Redfearn isn't technically in form, although financially, and with the future in mind, it would perhaps be beneficial to have given him a run in the side and throw Smith to the dogs. Saying that, Smith has been a great servant at Derbyshire and I don't think heaving him out of the side, and the cut-throat style of such an act, would be appropriate or, ultimately, warranted. As long as he still gives us his all, then I - personally - don't begrudge him of wanting to try his hand elsewhere (although it's become fairly clear that clubs aren't fighting over him just yet...)

    As for giving some of the younger, potentially brilliant fringe players a chance - I couldn't agree more. I'd love to see Linekar and Borrington get a game (I used to play against Paul as a youngster when he was at Ticknall and you could tell he was going to make it in the game, so kudos to him!) but I can't help but worry that, at such a critical point in the season (we're still vying for promotion, kind of...), we don't want another Pyemont / Bryant situation (kids with great 2nd team and league form coming in and failing miserably from the word go). Maybe I'm just a pessimist, though? I do, however, see no point in Hughes batting at number 3 when he's quite obviously frail in two incredibly important top-order areas - patience, and technqiue. His century vs Glamorgan is evidence that he can apply himself, but it seldom happens and I think he needs some time in the seconds to get used to batting for long periods of time.

    Anyway, rant rant rant. Hopefully we can rattle Gloucs out for less than 300 after lunch!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am going to have to kind of defend Bryant, I thought he was finally hitting form when he got injured against Lancs taking a stunning catch.

    Pyemont however is undefendable

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Stephen
    Thanks for your excellent comments. You make some good points. The only thing I'd say about your Redfern one was that he wasn't technically out of form either and showed that at Bristol! For me he's a sure pick now, a class act who will surely kick on from here.

    ReplyDelete
  7. With all due respect Stephen,Smith,s "all" is simply not up to standard. Even if he was staying, his place should be seriously questioned. He just doesn,t produce the goods anywhere near often enough,either with bat or ball. You could just and i mean just get away with him as a bowler,but not as a top six batsman. He is a number eight and his stats from this season and previous years prove it. He has never fulfilled his potential and i don,t think he ever will.

    You also make the point about it being a critical time of the season. Promotion may be theoretically possible,though i don,t think it likely. If it is then surely we should be putting out players who are in form. Redfern,s omission from this current team is an absolute disgrace. To ignore Lineker and Borrington is,at best, very poor judgement in my book and smacks of favouritism.

    We don,t know how Borrington and Lineker will perform,no one does. All i will say is given the same opportunity that Madsen,Hughes and Smith have had,then my money is on them succeeding.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Just to get back to the actual game, I went to watch the second day and must say that John Clare bowled exceptionally well. I actually thought everyone did - I know Turner splits opinion but he too bowled well with pace - and that, Clare excepted, their figures didn't do them justice.

    THe last wicket stand by Gloucs was frustrationg though, but didn't take the shine off a good day for Derbyshire. Day 3 proved to be just as good, and roll on a victory today please!!

    Regarding selection, I'd keep Smith in, he offers the team a lot with both bat and ball. As for Chesney, I feel he needs to rediscover form away from the the firsts for a bit. Possibly the same with Madsen, but he has a bit of aura on the field, a calmness, that I feel is beneficial to the team. I'd certainly have Dan Redfern in at Chesterfield, whilst Borrington and Lineker must deserve a chance at some point.

    Still back to the game, well done Derbyshire! good day out.

    ReplyDelete

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