It was a funny old day at the County Ground today, one that ebbed and flowed but ended once again with Derbyshire up against it, despite the best efforts of Mark Footitt. He fully justified his selection with five wickets as Sussex ended the day on 328-8, a lead of 105 runs.Starting the day on 158-6, we hoped for 250 but fell some way short, though Richard Johnson justified his recall and Jonathan Clare hit well for a while. Again though, it is unfair to lump expectation on the lower order to succeed where the top order fail, handy though it is when they do so.
Sussex came out to take on the fastest gun in the west - aka Mark Footitt (left) - like an aging boxer keen to make one last impression, standing toe to toe and trading blows. His first three overs went for 30, but there were two wickets. Footitt was expensive, his twenty overs costing 104 runs, but five wickets kept us in the match and that's what happens with express bowlers. Those of you who can think back to Devon Malcolm will recall days when the radar was locked on to fine leg, rather than the stumps and he was carted round the park. Yet when it clicks, it is wonderful to watch and Mark deserves full credit for his efforts today, just as for his wickets against New Zealand last week.
He also took a blinding catch from Jonathan Clare, but the latter and debutant Ally Evans were expensive and the visitors scored at not far short of five an over. Ed Joyce had to return home for a family emergency and was missing today, possibly for the rest of the match, but Mike Yardy made the most of a life in the forties and ended the day unbeaten on 121. His stand with Chris Jordan possibly took the game away from us, but we will find out more about that tomorrow.
There was a lop-sided look to Derbyshire's bowling here. If Dan Redfern bowls ahead of Ross Whiteley we must assume that the latter is injured in some way, especially when he doesn't bowl at all. That being the case, I'm not sure his current batting form justifies selection and he might be better getting it back in the seconds. That would allow Hughes to drop to his preferred middle order slot and let Ben Slater, a man in prime form, into the side to open. Hughes didn't bowl either, so again one assumes he is carrying an injury.
Such niggles were largely averted last year, but they are starting to mount up for us and we can ill afford to lose too many players. Wes Durston was missed for his bowling today too and it will be a backs to the wall effort tomorrow to turn this game around.
It can be done. If Chanderpaul strikes top form and the rest chip in, Sussex may not fancy chasing 250 in the last innings. But we need more than the skipper to score runs and if ever there was a time to show their true mettle, the next couple of days are as good as any to do it.
There are big innings for a few players tomorrow. I'm sure we all hope that they come up with the goods.
Ben slater derseves a shot, in the first team, sometimes young players play with-out fear.
ReplyDeletepaul.
Chesney's fractured a finger if his Twitter comments refer to himself.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I share the view on the equation of the rate of runs conceded against wickets taken as far as Mark Footitt is concerned. What it's helped to achieve is Sussex scoring so fast that there is now plenty of time in the game for them to win comfortably even if we bat a lot better second time round.
ReplyDeleteThe Devon Malcolm comparison isn't particularly valid as he was usually bowling as part of an attack that could otherwise be relied on to make runs hard to come by, and therefore was a luxury that could be afforded.
Nothing about the selection of this bowling side suggested a similar balance for Footitt, as Evans is untested, and Clare never very economical even when at his best. Quite simply for me, regardless of whether a wicket looks as if it will help a spinner, Wainwright must play in every game to provide a defensive option - and particularly so when Durston isn't playing.
The original 13 selected for this game looked odd - what circumstances could we envisage needing five seam bowlers unless there were unreported injury concerns - and the final selection even odder. Even if the decision had been made that four specialist quick bowlers were needed, what was the logic in calling up Whiteley to replace Durston when Wainwright's batting has been more effective, Whiteley's bowling wasn't likely to be used with four other quick bowlers in the side, and Durston's spin option wasn't going to be available?
The weather will save us again, fear not. How many times are we going to keep saying " time for a few big innings today" Peakfan. Nobody is impressing with the bat bar maybe Madsen who is steadily improving. I reckon we'll be shot out for around 200 again, then the rain saves us.
ReplyDeleteGood comments gents, largely responded to in my next piece! Thank you...
ReplyDeleteThe day that slipped away would be my summing up. We really should have finished them off for around 150-175,certainly for a total below our own,which in a roundabout way leads me to some of the points made by Notoveryet who,through no fault of his own,may soon have to consider a change of name.
ReplyDeleteI also have some issues with some of our team selections that have certainly left me scratching my head at times. For instance, we select Whiteley for the first game and then leave him out for the following one. Hughes played two,batted too low down then was dropped only to be reinstated one game later. Whitely continues to be in and out,depending on circumstances. From the time we first signed him I have always felt Chanderpaul should be opening. He,s done it countless times in the past and we need him in that position. He has the experience and would be.far more influential than when he comes in at four.
On the bowling front there is little point in dwelling on the earlier games but against Yorkshire we gained nothing by omitting Footitt and including Wainwright. I know it didn,t help losing Palladino, but even he,s been struggling to make any sort of impact.
I have to disagree with you slightly,Notoveryet when talking about Wainwright and Footitt. There are times when Wainwright should play, possibly the majority of matches, but not all. Bowlers are there to take wickets and unless the pitch is helpful to spin, then I think Wainwright,s presence has to be classed as a luxury. On a side note, his batting has at times been dogged and he has produced a handful of useful innings, but not anywhere near enough to tilt the selection balance in his favour by citing his batting as something we cannot do without. I don,t dislike Wainwright in the slightest but I do feel he has sometimes been selected when other bowling options may have been more suited to the circumstances.
In the current game we have omitted Turner and played Evans instead. With the best will in the world I fail to see any merit in playing a rookie in a match we need to win,when we have a perfectly viable alternative. Turner must be fit,if not then why name him in the squad?. Like Footitt he can prove expensive at times but in both cases they are likely to take wickets. At the moment,far more likely than Evans or Waimwright.
328 isn,t an outrageous score,even if it was achieved at a much faster rate than we may have liked. As I said earlier,we really should have had them out, but.even this sort of total highlights our real problem;namely we just can,t score enough runs. Whilst Krikken may have made some unforced errors of judgement during the season, he,s made nowhere near as many as those who have been entrusted to carry out the duties they get paid for.
We are not quite at the point where the season can be written off but it,s getting closer with every game that fails to produce a win. The players have to take full responsibility for the mess we are in. If they think they are good enough then it,s high time they proved it. Perhaps some of them aren.t good enough, but that's for another day.