There's a bit of a gulf between Derbyshire as a four-day and as a one-day side at the moment, as was amply illustrated in today's game at Headingley, where our batting failed for the second time in successive games.
Failed? Well, we did score 219 in 40 overs, but when par in a T20 these days is 150-160, that was probably at least 40 short of par. When the admirable Martin Guptill and revitalised Chesney Hughes had led off with 137 by the 25th over, the platform had been set for 250, without doubt. Seven an over in the last fifteen is not really that tough a task, yet somehow the wheels came off and those last overs saw only 82 runs for seven wickets.
Hughes did pretty well, despite not being at his punishing best. He has precious few runs in the bank this summer and got a duck in the Premier League yesterday, while Paul Borrington scored 94 and Matt Lineker 69. This should at least have given him a little confidence and, as all cricketers know, form can only be one innings away. Meanwhile, Guptill deserves the highest praise for going out time after time and leading from the front. He is an admirable cricketer and man.
You have to give credit to the Yorkshire bowlers for their comeback, but one of the issues with a young batting side is that sometimes the need to score runs quickly leads to the playing of too many big shots too soon. As the top one day batsmen show time and again, rotating the strike, timing the ball into gaps for two and hitting the odd bad ball for four is more likely to pay dividends than big shots every time.
Its also easier in many ways to chase than to set a target. OK, if we'd posted 280, Yorkshire would have been in trouble and pressured into expansive shots themselves, but 220 in 40 overs shouldn't worry many sides on a wicket that is very much in favour of the batting side. With Gary Ballance, a player I would love to see back at Derbyshire sometime, in prime form, it never looked like being enough.
Derbyshire didn't bowl badly, but simply didn't have enough runs to play with. Only 32 runs came in the nine overs after Wes Durston's dismissal in the 27th over and it is something for us to look at in the many one day matches ahead. At the time an innings should be accelerating, ours simply ran out of gas.
We've not turned into a bad side because of these last two defeats. We're a young, competitive side with lots to learn and a willingness to do so. But a little work needs to go into the one-day gameplan before the next match.
More important is the Essex game on Wednesday. I'll write about that tomorrow.
The difference between our 1 day game and our 4 game is is we are up against better teams with better attacks. we shouldnt get carried away with our 4 day game and start talking about promotion because we have beaten glammorgan twice and a poor nothants side.
ReplyDeletechris.
Yes,we fell well short of target again. We couldn,t have asked for a much better start and the platform was laid for at least 250,which should have been attained with some ease.
ReplyDeleteI would have sent Whiteley in at number 3. In theory it was set up perfectly for him. Old ball,opposition on the back foot,time to have a bit of a look and then floor the accelerator. He might have perished cheaply,as he did,but i think it was worth a gamble.
Unless we turn it round pretty quickly,our hame games in this competition will become meaningless and we don,t want that. Last week we gave them the benefit of the doubt,but no such luxury this time. We need to get back on the rails. One day cricket is a major part of the season and we need to be more competetive.
We were lacking the extra bowler.it is ridiculous to try and get 8 overs out of redfern,park and ches. That was our undoing. As it was wes did well to get through 7 relatively unscathed.what was up with clare?injured?overlooked?
ReplyDeleteat the game on sunday and agree with comment above. We were a bowler short. You can't expect ches and park to come on and go for 5 an over. Guptill was great and set us up for a big total.
ReplyDelete