Once again it was a nervy finish to the game from Derbyshire, but their resolute team spirit saw them across the line and within eight days cricket of promotion, or the title.
It would be hard to say that we played well today, although when Wes Durston and Dan Redfern were together there was a brief period when a late charge for victory looked on. Yet our old fallibility in chasing a total came to the fore as three wickets fell quickly, leaving the final overs a tense battle for survival. Again we were indebted to the resolute concentration of Ross Whiteley, while Tony Palladino will have been pleased to have been in at the end against his old county, after earlier taking his fiftieth championship wicket of the summer, a notable feat.
Meanwhile at Grace Road, Leicestershire were lying down to die against Kent, thus enabling next week's opponents to rekindle their own promotion ambitions, moving up to third above Hampshire. Further north, in Scarborough, Gloucestershire were committing cricket hara-kiri with a most generous declaration that set Yorkshire, the best batting side in the division, 316 in 83 overs, a target they managed for the loss of eight wickets.
I will make several points about this. First, I am not buying into a conspiracy theory, or paranoia that they're all against us, but it gave Yorkshire, a side that had to win to stay in contention, every opportunity to do so. I wrote this morning that they would chase anything and that 340 in 65 overs might have been realistic, giving the visitors every chance of a rare win with an attack that is on the average side of poor.
I wasn't too far wide of the mark, but then the ground there is small and quick scoring is the norm for a decent batting side. I wouldn't have backed Derbyshire to score those runs, as we're not an especially good batting side right now, but Yorkshire always looked on target and in doing so have resurrected their promotion dreams.
At the end of it all there are two games to go and we are still 19 points clear of second-placed Yorkshire, 23 clear of Kent. Both of those sides have still to play Glamorgan as one of their remaining games, with Yorkshire also due to go to Essex, where I have a feeling they will struggle to pick up 24 points against a good side who should have been higher in the promotion mix themselves.
In short? A long way from perfect, but we're still in there, ahead of the pack. Two games to go and perhaps next week we can talk about "promoted Derbyshire".
Let's hope so...
But yet again, woeful batting in both innings lets us down for the umpteenth time. Khawaja has been a massive disappointment apart from that one ton, no way will we be inviting him back next season. It really is squeaky bum time now as they say, surely we can't blow it this late on, surely.
ReplyDeleteSolid performance I thought and another game crossed off. It wasn't the most generous declaration from Essex - thought they would have given themselves more time to bowl us out as they had to win this game. Two draws will pretty much confirm promotion barring a strange turn of events as that will ensure Kent and Hampshire won't win both their games. We would have snapped anyones hands off to be in this position before the season started so can't complain against about anything - Touch wood this time next week we will be that much closer
ReplyDeleteAt this stage these are the options that will guaranteee promotion:
ReplyDelete1) Two wins.
2) One win and one draw.
3) One win, one defeat and nine bonus points (194 points).
4) Two draws and six bonus points (181 points).
Anything else depends on results in other matches - although clearly some alternatives give us a much better chance of going up than others.
As stated by Gary the number of points required is less for the two draws route as it removes the possibility of Kent or Hampshire winning two games. (However, I don't think playing for two draws would be a good strategy!).
Also, from a different angle, if Derbyshire score more points than both Kent and Hampshire in the next game then we will be promoted before the last match begins. Being optimistic let's hope things turn out that way.
SR.
With regard to Yorkshire - some points that need making:
ReplyDelete1) When they crossed the line, there were only two overs left to get the necessary runs, in gloomy light that would in other circumstances have seen the players come off half an hour earlier.
2) Had Anthony McGrath been taken off a tough caught and bowled by Ireland after 72 overs, Yorkshire would undoubtedly have lost - so it wasn't by any means the foregone conclusion you imply that they would win or draw
3) The pitch was acting up after sweating for two days - it was two-paced, with uneven bounce. Anything over 300 was never going to be a foregone conclusion.
4) It made an exciting last day - a really tense last hour, in particular - out of what was otherwise a dead game. Due respect to Derbyshire's promotion hopes, but isn't that the point of the championship?
Speaking as a disappointed Gloucestershire supporter, I thought Gale and Marshall judged the target absolutely perfectly, and I was only gutted that McGrath and Jaques were just fractionally better than the bowling they were facing. It was of course missing two first choice pacemen in Payne and Saxelby.
And in any case, it's hard to see any side catching Derbyshire this season unless you slip up horrendously in your last two matches - the way the schedule plays out, two draws should be ample, and you lot have a healthy habit of winning at the moment. So I'll be mightily surprised if you are not Div 2 champions and back in Div 1 next year. I'll be cheering you on!
(Incidentally, one minor point about this blog - you always write about Gloucestershire as on the average side of poor. Might I remind you they are the only side to have beaten Derbyshire so far this season? You did it last season as well when you wrote that Gloucestershire "were a very poor side and candidates for the wooden spoon" while they were thrashing Derby - we were challenging for promotion almost to the end and finished comfortably ahead of you. I think, with the best will in the world, you could give other sides a bit more credit at times for their own strengths and be a bit more realistic about their weaknesses.)
Good points by all! Doctor Huw, your comments about the Scarborough game are fair, (Scarborough fair...has to be a song there...) and I accept that it would have been a good day's cricket, especially on such a special ground.
ReplyDeleteHowever, my point was more that it was a game that Gloucs SHOULD have won. It was doubtless an agreement between the skippers, but the target could have been 340-350 which would have given you a better chance of a win. Yorkshire were going to chase, whatever you set, so why not maximise the win possibilities?
Apologies re my comments on Gloucs. You are the only team to beat us in a game where we didn't turn up and had got ahead of ourselves. By the same token, the table doesn't lie and you are currently bottom. Last year you played above yourselves and there were a lot of new, "impact" players, who people know more about now, hence this summer's dip.
Mind you, we'd take Will Gidman from you and wouldn't say no to Kane Williamson another summer!
Thanks for getting in touch mate and for reading the blog. Hopefully we can have a chat when our two sides next meet.
Yes, I admit, we've had a poor season: although we would in all likelihood have won three of the games we drew because of rain (even ahead of Essex, we've had a nightmare with the weather) we've lost far too often. But that's about our batting, not our bowling. On the two occasions our batting clicked - against you and against Hampshire - and the weather held off, we've won quite comfortably.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, there was no reason to think Yorkshire would chase whatever we set - indeed, Gillespie was apparently anxious to bat on and try and get the 5 batting points plus four for a draw, and he wasn't in a minority. It had to be a realistic target (which 340 was not) or it would be a draw. Moreover, a weakened attack does need time to bowl sides out! As it was, it was a thriller.
Anyway, and I very much hope -good though it would be to meet - that Derbyshire and Gloucestershire do not meet until the year after next, when we're both in the first division!
We are 19 points clear and still favourites. It remains our title to lose. I still think we will cross the line in pole position,even though our engine is seriously misfiring.
ReplyDeleteI have never been one to dwell on statistics,but looking at our last half dozen Championship games makes uncomfortable reading.
The first fact is we have only won one of those games and then only by the skin of our teeth. The second point to note is we have batted second in all these games.
Batting second is not necessarily a problem,but it has been for us. Irrespective of how well or not we have bowled,the fact is the batting has consistently let us down,in terms of allowing us to establish a winning position.
People will,quite rightly,point to some excellent rearguard batting which has saved our bacon on several occasions. However, runs from the tail enders should be seen as a bonus,whereas in our case they have quite simply been a necessity.
Looking at the Essex games is for me the perfect illustration of why we shouldn,t be batting first. The weather forecast on day one was set fair,but day two was looking poor. Before I continue,it is worth remembering the weather has,in our case,been far more of a help than a hindrance. Indeed,it,s probably in the running for player of the year.
So day one was good weather and we chose to field. The bowling was satisfactory,but the down side to that was,once again,we subjected our early batsmen to a no win last hour situation,having been in the field all day. This is by no means the first time we have faced this senario. Masters is a fine bowler who I would suggest most batsmen want to see as little of as possible.
the fact there was no play on day two was a massive advantage to ourselves. But had the weather been even slightly better we would have had a day of frequent stoppages. That would have kept the bowlers fit and quite likely seen Masters bowling virtually non stop. It didn,t happen,but that was pure luck. We made a big enough pig,s ear of the first innings as it was,but it could have been much worse.
The other downside to fielding first is obviously the fact you will be batting last,quite likely on the fourth day. With two wicket taking spinners in the side,I would have thought it a wise move to have them operating in the fourth innings to maximise their effectiveness.
The second innings run chase never got much beyond a steady canter. Once again we were hampered by the loss of early wickets which,once again,saw us on the back foot. Durston offered some hope,but once he departed winning was an unlikely outcome. In the end we were hanging on for the draw. Another dozen or so overs and even that might have been beyond us.
In saying all this we are still top,but I firmly believe we have made the job much harder than it should have been,through our own miscalculations. I just hope we have enough gas left in the tank to complete the job. It would be a tradgedy if we were to fail at the final hurdle. We must remain positive.
Was meant to read why we SHOULD be batting first. Sorry.
ReplyDeleteGood and fair comments Marc - Doctor Huw - agreed! See you in division one...I hope!
ReplyDelete