I gave a little thought to the opening of tonight's blog and have decided to focus on the cricket to start with.
No, I'm not going to suggest that Derbyshire can win this game. Given that we have only twice in over 140 years made 350 in the fourth innings of a match, we are unlikely to set a precedent by making 400 tomorrow. By the same token, if we reach the close at 108-7, I will be a very happy man.
Runs don't matter at all and the only thing that does is that we have at least one wicket in hand at the end of the day. The team - no, the club - are hurting tonight as you can read in Karl Krikken's comments on Cricinfo.
The best way to get back at the incompetents that make decisions pertaining to this great game of cricket is to get a draw - one that will almost guarantee promotion. It won't be easy, but look at this way. By general consensus Derbyshire have a good attack, yet today they were rendered impotent by the Kent batsmen and the wicket, which seemed to play pretty well. Unless it takes a turn for the worse overnight, which is unlikely, the batsmen need to play straight, leave anything wide alone and just stay in there. They have shown on a number of occasions this summer that the team is perhaps greater than the sum of the parts and tomorrow would be the time to illustrate that once more.
If Kent win tomorrow, I would suggest them best placed of the likely top three, with an away game to Glamorgan to come. I still think Yorkshire will struggle to bowl out Essex twice and it will then come down to what we do against Hampshire, whose promotion hopes are gone unless they produce an extraordinary display at Chelmsford tomorrow. If we hold out for a draw, we will need just two points from the Hampshire game to go up, as we have won more matches than our rivals.
That's what it all comes down to. Months of hard graft becomes one day of playing down the line and boring the pants off everyone.
Maybe we could make our cause easier with an early morning call to the ECB.
"Hello, ECB, Karl Krikken here. I just wanted to make a tweak to our side under the 'exceptional circumstances' ruling. These are pretty exceptional, I'll admit..."
"What's that then Karl?"
"When Usman Khawaja is out tomorrow - sorry, IF Usman Khawaja is out - we'd like to swap Turner, M for Guptill, M. "
"You can't do that Karl. Khawaja is your overseas player and you're only allowed one...I think"
"Ah, but if/when Khawaja is out, he's no longer in the match, therefore we technically don't have an overseas player. I take it that's OK? Martin's travelled all night to get here and he's ready to go..."
They might say yes. Heck, they'll probably say yes and no. They might even say yes if we introduce H. Amla from our club academy for the Hampshire game... formerly known as Hamza Siddique. Yes, of course he went to Repton and is only 21...this summer has aged all of our lads...
The most telling words on today's situation were those of David Lloyd earlier on Cricinfo, when he wrote:
"The regulations make it clear that a player made available by England
can participate in a championship match provided there are two full
days remaining, but the paragraph starts with the proviso “in
exceptional circumstances”.
So does the fact that Kent are challenging to go up, and playing
against promotion rivals, on a pitch taking some turn and they would
rather have a 30-year-old spinner in their side than a 20-year-old
rookie constitute exceptional circumstances?
I don't blame Kent for asking the question and if we were talking Derbyshire and Wainwright here my feelings would be the same. But when Krikken says that Derbyshire have an e mail stating that Tredwell was precluded from playing if he played at Trent Bridge, that should have been the end of it. What happens if we had won the toss and made a decision to bat or bowl based on his assumed absence? The regulation is, and has been for some time, a joke. If a player is released from England duty and his county replacement has either batted or bowled in the game that should be the end of it. Tredwell's replacement, Riley, had done both and the switch should not have been allowed. End of story. Exceptional circumstances should be when half your squad is down with dysentery and three of the fit ones are stuck in traffic. Nothing less.
A county could then go in either a batsman or bowler short with a twelfth man, but take that risk, if they were prepared to do so. You might see Bopara not bat till number eight, or Bresnan have to bowl with the old ball, but them's the breaks. You shouldn't see eleven players take on twelve and when the ruling body of the game give you two different answers to one question it is a sad indictment on them.
Months of hard work could stand or fall on that decision but I would make two points here. One is that we should not build Tredwell up into a mystery spinner. He's a decent bowler, but not, for me, a world-beater. Second is that I would reiterate - block it out, take the draw points and then extend your first two digits in the approximate direction of Lords, lads...
I will admit that Kent have outplayed us in this game and in Sam Northeast have a batsman of genuine talent. I will concede that on the balance of play so far they probably deserve to win the match. I also hope that if we lose tomorrow we don't have a succession of moaners on here decrying the efforts of a side that has only lost one game all season.
But most of all, like the majority of you, I hope that we can get a draw.
Let's pray for a draw then, no matter how slow and boring tomorrow may be. Or a shower of biblical proportions ruining the outfield, would do just nicely. Good luck tomorrow lads.
ReplyDeleteNothing short of outright cheating Peakfan. I am disgusted and appalled at the ECB for allowing this. Disgraceful.
ReplyDeleteI left a a few comments relating to the Trdewell incident on your posting of yesterday but having read Karl Krikken's comments on Cricinfo, I was unaware that clarification had already been given by ECB as to the circumstances under which JT would be able to play in the game. It seems that there is a delicate balance of politics here in respect of the counties and Team England which hasn't worked out entirely as those of us who sign up to the principle of the Sprit of Cricket might have desired.
ReplyDeleteI listened this afternoon to Jamie Clifford the Kent CEO on the radio and was reassured on the basis that JT's name was on the original team sheet with Riley as 12th Man. Now it appears Derby sought clarification before the match started and were satisfied that once JT had stepped out onto the Trent Bridge outfield, he was excluded. I don't think Clifford was aware of that when he spoke.
The fault in all this lies , as ever, with the ECB but I have to say that if Krikken sought and was given clarification as he says in the Cricinfo piece, he has every right to be miffed if not perhaps with Kent.
By way of reassurance, may I draw to everybody's attention that James Tredwell has secured only 16 first class wickets this year at an average of 41. Hardly the boggeyman and, as I said in my first contribution to this thread, the wickets at St Lawrence are either slow and sticky or slow and flat depending on whether the strip is at the top or bottom of the square. This one is at the top and is of the slow and flat variety and it has already flattened out.
My concern, is that Kent have set too many and probably batted Derby out of the game. A more tempting target (perhaps 50 runs less) might have obliged Derby to make an attempt and, as we all know, it is often easier to pries out batsmen who are trying to score than those only intent upon survival.
Very interesting comments Martin and I'm sure all fans are grateful for your considered thoughts from the "other side".
ReplyDeleteYour comments on Tredwell reinforce my point - he is no world-beater, perhaps better when people are trying to get after him - yet he is better than Riley at this stage and, we seem to agree, should not be involved in this game.
Whether he turns it or not, it will be a gripping season home finale for you tomorrow.
Thanks again!
My previous comment seems to have disappeared into the ether so apologies if two appear saying much the same thing.
ReplyDeleteI'm not altogether giving up hope that another extraordinary backs to the wall effort could rescue a draw, but if it doesn't happen, let's have no "we was robbed by the ECB" even if Tredwell takes 9 wickets before lunch. Foolish, unfair, possibly malevolent decision though it was to allow him into the game, we were given an advantage in this game by his selection for England and have still benefited from his absence over the first two days.
The real reason our promotion chances hang in the balance is our execrable batting since the Yorkshire game in mid-July. Marc said last night that we've been second best for the past 4 months, but I think he's being charitable. I haven't done the arithmetic, but I'd guess we have been the worst in points terms in the division since July. We've taken less than half the points available in our matches since then, and probably most critically, well under half the bonus points available. We've passed 300 only once since mid May, and in almost every innings have been 130-6 or worse. Our front line batsmen must have one of the worst records in the division for getting out in single figures since July - Khawaja 5 out of 9 completed innings, Redfern 5 out of 8, Wainwright 5 out of 7, and Madsen 4 out of 9. Only Poynton and Groenewald (!) have shown any degree of consistency in recent matches, with no-one else managing to sustain even moderate performances for more than a couple of inings. Most have managed one significant innings at some stage, but if you take their highest score out of the equation, only Poynton averages over 30. Even going back to the darkest days of the early 2000's and 1970's, I don't think I can remember such a dire run of batting performances.
All that's kept us in the race for so long has been the fighting rearguard actions that have prevented us losing (but we used to be good at that too when we were finishing bottom), the bowling (although that too has faded badly) and the inability of our rivals to win matches. I wrote a couple of weeks ago that promotion was at risk if they finally started to win games, and that's exactly what has happened.
Perhaps fortunately, Hampshire are as vulnerable as they are dangerous, but batting as we are, I won't be betting anything on us beating even a vulnerable Hampshire, and God help us if the dangerous Hampshire turns up next week.
It might also help us tomorrow if Kent return to their old ways and can't finish us off. I don't agree with Peakfan, though, that our approach has to be attritional and crease-occupying. We are not going to survive 100 overs with Tredwell bowling to a pack of close fielders, and need to be positive and keep the catchers at a distance. Perhaps tethering Khawaja and Borrington's feet to the stumps will stop the insane sashays down the wicket they tried against Essex last week.
The likelihood is though that we will have to beat Hampshire to have a chance (and even then could lose out if we don't get enough batting points and Kent and Yorkshire win their last matches). There is nothing about our batting that suggests we will be able to do this, and I'll repeat again something I said a few weeks ago. Chesney Hughes may not be the answer, but we can no longer risk him being the question - what if Hughes had played? His possible risk of failure cannot be any greater than the proven likelihood of failure by almost any other batsman in the team with the possible exception of Borrington and Durston. The fact that he has not been scoring heavily in second XI games is neither here nor there - no-one else is either. What we do know is that he can play match winning innings even in runs of poor form. Playing him is no longer a risk, but a chance of breaking the inevitable pattern of failure that has settled on the batting since July.
Good stuff notoveryet and you're right - having said my piece on the ECB decision, any defeat won't be covered by my moaning about Tredwell's presence. We now have to bat against whoever bowls, his involvement having been ratified.
ReplyDeleteYes, batsmen have to hit bad balls for four, but they don't need to take ANY risks, chase wide ones or force it, which is how we lost several first innings wickets when you watch the club's Youtube stream.
It will need a massive effort...
The only way we can save this game is if Borrington or Khawaja can bat all day. I know that Peakfan is a big supporter of Bozza because of his ability to bat time, and today above all days he really needs to show it
ReplyDeleteAlways good to hear your views,Notoveryet and not for the frst time,I find myself nodding in agreement with just about everything you have said.
ReplyDeleteI felt at the time we were losing most of our T20 and CB40 games there was a serious danger the habit of losing,or not winning may carry over to the Championship. Those fears have,unfortunately, proved correct.
One reason was the departure of Guptill,who if not our physical leader,was certainly our spiritual one. His replacement Khawaja is a pale shadow of the New Zealander and has,quite frankly,batted every bit as badly as most of those he is supposed to set an example to.
We have become "all or nothing" as far as batting is concerned. Most of the front line batsmen have made some big scores at some point,but have tended to follow such an event with a string of low ones.
I partially exonerate Redfern who has still made progress in the right direction,but even he remains frustratingly inconsistent. Looking down the runs scored column gives the impression Madsen has had a reasonable season. Closer inspection reveals four or five big innings and precious little in between.
Lineker has been released after Krikken gave him a fair chance to prove himself,but the step from local/second X1 cricket to the real thing,proved a step too far. I know Peakfan wont agree,but for my money,Borrington is in exactly the same boat. He will grind out the odd score every now and then,but his entertainment factor is zero and his effectiveness,in real terms,is only slightly higher.
Durston has done ok,but not enjoyed the same level of success he had last season. Whiteley has been a disaster. It,s as sad to say it as it has been to see it,but facts speak for themselves. I have suggested it might be worth sticking him in at 3,given no one else has scored many runs there and his record at number 6 has only a place in the dustbin.
The tail should be put forward for the Queen,s medal for gallantry. They have performed far beyond the call of duty and whilst their efforts have somehow kept us afloat,it underlines just how poorly the batsmen have performed as a unit.
The decision not to give Hughes a chance is,to say the very least,mystifying. He has to play in the last game,but then if he does and he comes off there will be even more questions asked as to why he hasn,t been selected before.
The tactic of fielding first has backfired spectacularly. This match has followed a similar pattern to most of the others and once again we have started both our innings at the back end of the day. Some may argue this to be a something of a negative tactic in any case and smacks of a safety first policy,rather than attacking and trying to win the game. What we can say,without fear of contradiction,is it hasn,t worked.
We have also made glaring errors with our bowling resources,both in terms of selection and use of during games. Some matches have cried out for an extra seamer or maybe an extra batsman to be selected,but misreading of the pitch has often meant we have spurned the opportunity.
It seems somewhat bizarre to be talking like this when we could still go up as champions,but the fact is we should have had this wrapped up and put to bed some time ago.
If I were a Kent supporter I would be asking Key why he batted so long against a side that usually only sees 300 through a high powered telescope. Had he declared shortly after lunch,kent would in all likelyhood have been well on their way to winning by now.
So what do we do now?. Sitting on the splice all day is not an option. Winning is theoretically possible at this stage and that has to be our aim. I would rather we go down fighting that meekly surrender to eight bat/pad catches and a couple of LBW,s.
Our minds are already turning to Hampshire and all the possibilities that holds. There is no doubt it will be an exciting and nerve jangling time. I would far rather it meant nothing and we could coast through the game and pick up the trophy at the end. But doing things the easy way has never really applied to Derbyshire,has it?.
Well what a complete pigs ear we've made of today. As I've said a million and one times before, Derbyshire as a batting unit are simply dreadful.I think we've blown promotion now as I can't trust this side to get the runs against any attack nowadays. Back to the drawing board for Krikken now and to acquire some decent batsmen this winter.
ReplyDeletenow, what were you saying about having 'far greater appeal as a division 1 side' Peakfan ????
ReplyDeleteSome very good comments on here, very well constructed and thought out.
ReplyDeleteAs for Anon - sadly posted as we lost - I made the comment that if we go up, more players would be interested in joining us than if we remain in division two. Don't tell me you're arguing a fact like that? Or are you just one of the moaners?
More on the blog later..
I think we have to face facts here and say that if the weather had been fine all summer then Derbyshire would have been nowhere near the top of this division. It has saved us big time. Our form was on the wane from June and has sadly continued. Hands up, who can honestly see us beating Hampshire starting on Tuesday.
ReplyDeleteAs they say up here Mark, mebbe aye, mebbe naw...you can only play when the weather allows it and in that time we got to the top. Others didn't, so you take the breaks as you get them.
ReplyDelete