The end of the cricket season is usually a melancholic affair. The realisation that it will be six full months before we see our favourites once again treading the green sward suddenly hits hard.
Yet this year is different as most of us are still euphoric - mildly or otherwise - after an end to a season that was beyond our wildest dreams. Although I suggested a promotion challenge back in March, my expectation was for third place, maybe fourth. A season petering out after initial promise, but encouraging nonetheless.
Instead we go up as champions, having won more matches than any other team. Matches we won by bowling out the opposition twice, not winning contrived finishes like our northerly neighbours and nearest rivals.
So we start to think about next summer and who/what we need. A few fans will have thought about a player such as James Harris, who moved to Middlesex today. Such a move would have been way beyond our compass, I'm afraid, as we simply cannot compete on a level financial playing field. I understand that Chris Rogers added a considerable percentage to his salary when he moved to Lords, despite being on a good deal at Derbyshire.
It amuses me to still read comments on the Forum, which I looked at for the first time in a while today, with regard to our needing that "landmark signing" for next season. Live with it guys and gals, as it will simply not happen. Players of that stature don't need the county game. Instead they will play Test cricket and their pick of T20s around the globe for figures that dwarf those available in the county game.
There will still be good professionals available, but the likelihood of seeing Kallis, Ponting, de Villiers, Amla or Gayle on the county circuit is akin to that of seeing me win Miss World next year. Derbyshire and other counties will face the challenge of finding one or more players to give them the edge on their rivals, players who can ideally do the full summer, or at least share responsibilities well, as Martin Guptill and Usman Khawaja did this year. I don't envy them the job and there's fewer players to choose from, with the ICC Trophy to contend with. You might see some keep their powder dry for one of several gifted South Africans who won't make their party, but with that comes a risk that you might be left with serious competition for those who are keen, as well as missing out on players whose availability is intimated earlier.
Similarly, logic suggests that you're unlikely to see big name, big salary domestic players at Derbyshire too. Think about it for a minute. From this year we have lost only Gary Park and Matt Lineker from what was presumably a fully utilised playing budget. There may be additional money from increased sponsorship activity, but you can't spend what you don't have. Basic, but undeniable economics...
Protestations that "we need experience" don't work on that basis. We will stand or fall next summer on a young side, a strong work ethic, an outstanding team spirit and the improvements in the games of individual players. I have no doubt there will be new young players with reputations to make.
And no doubt that we won't lie over and wave the white flag for anyone.
The "landmark signing" was an unfortunate phrase used by Mr Grant. Maybe the intention was there,but all it accomplished in the end was to raise people,s hopes. Falsely,as it turned out. I certainly don,t see it happening now,unless the future overseas player can be deemed as such.
ReplyDeleteIt is, perhaps, the only mistake Mr Grant has made, one used in the euphoria of becoming chairman without perhaps full knowledge of the congested international cricket calendar.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, he's done nothing else wrong, has he?
As someone I know has said - "...perhaps Chris Grant himself was the landmark signing by Derbyshire County Cricket Club!" In the view of this contributor he has not done a lot wrong, but has done an awful lot right.
ReplyDeleteUltimately the majority of the credit has to go to a fine bunch of players, but all at the club, and certainly Chris Grant as Chairman has played a vital part in changing the direction of the club, and stimulating that vital unity and accord within it. Long may that continue, and when you have players saying that "they would run through a brick wall for him" that surely must say something.
Good comment Alan - and great to hear from you!
ReplyDeleteIf, as Peakfan says, good overseas players are likely to be at a premium next year that we can't compete for, why not forget it and use the same budget on a proven top quality home-based player who would otherwise be beyond our means. I don't for a minute think he would have been a serious candidate, but if we had added our overseas player budget to what we have for recruiting an English player, could we have competed for James Harris? Working the other way round, if we had added our budget for an English player to our overseas budget, could we have competed with Middlesex for Chris Rogers?
ReplyDeleteI don't pretend to know enough about cricket player economics, or to understand the dressing room dynamics of differential pay, but there's no mystical quality in having an overseas player. If we can find an experienced English player who can do for us what a good overseas player can do, why shouldn't we pay above the odds, as long as the contract is explicit about the connection between performance and renewal? I don't suggest this as a solution for this year, but if the market for overseas players is so limited, why not think about this in future years.