Wednesday, 28 August 2013

News on Surrey

Good to see that I called the twelve for the Surrey game correctly last night and, while we're a fair bit below full strength, our hosts are too. They have lost Jade Dernbach to England duty (I'm still not convinced he's that good, but...) and Gary Wilson to Ireland commitments. So their squad lines up as follows:

Batty, Amla, Ansari, Burns, Curran, Davies, De Bruyn, Edwards, Harinath, Linley, Sibley, Solanki, Tremlett

There are some fine players in there, with Amla an obvious danger man, Solanki a frequent thorn in our sides and De Bruyn and Davies very good batsmen. Tremlett is also a fine bowler, but they have under-achieved this summer and we are the team on a roll at present.

Whisper it quietly, but I think we have the ability and the team spirit to win this and take a massive stride towards safety. We will need a massive effort from everyone and the absence of Tim Groenewald will be important, but we have the self-belief that is so important at this stage of the summer.

We now know that we can win games at this level and have beaten two of the best three sides in the country in our past two games. If we approach this game with the same attitude and don't take a statistically inferior side for granted, we could get to Sunday with a smile on our faces.

Somerset had a decent day today at Lords (how did Chawla get 50?) and we'll need to hope that we didn't knock too much confidence out of Middlesex in the last game. Time for 'Buck' Rogers to do us a favour, I think...

Like all of you, I will be keeping a very close eye on this one tomorrow.

Go and do us proud, lads. You know you can do it...

5 comments:

notoveryet said...

Interesting times. We're used to our chances hanging by a thread, but hanging by an umbilical cord (twice over) is new for us.

Contract note for the future - no unprotected sex for Derbyshire players between July and January to avoid paternity leave interfering with promotion or relegation chances.

The absence of Hughes and Groenewald apart, I'm prepared for disappointment now that expectations have started to rise. Despite the two wins on a bounce, it seems to me that everything has hinged on Wayne Madsen's astonishing run of form. Although others have chipped in with supporting parts, no other batsman has shown the kind of consistent form to give confidence that if Madsen fails, someone else will step up with the big innings that others can play around. Without the cushion of runs, the experienced bowlers strive for quick wickets and end up short and wide, and the inexperienced bowlers come under pressure from batsmen prepared to take some chances. It seems to me that the disciplined bowling performances of the last two matches have come from the relative security of runs on the board, and our dependency on Madsen means that we can't be secure that we'll have this again for this match. Some might think that it's just a matter of time before Chanderpaul plays another big innings, but I'll be surprised (very pleasantly) if it happens here.

Looking at Surrey's matches this year at the Oval, it points towards batting second if possible - the biggest scores have always been in the second innings - but Surrey's choice has always been to bat (unsuccessfully) first. If we follow this and bowl first, that points towards Palladino, Footit and Higginbottom all playing (although I don't think we could risk Hughes as a third seamer in any circumstances) with a final choice of two out of Wainwright, Burgoyne and Poynton. I'm not sure he deserves it after some very good performances this year, but with the batting of all three on a par, and Johnson playing anyway as a batsman, that points to Tom Poynton missing out. Given how the Oval flattens out, six bowlers gives us the widest range of options as well.

I think a draw looks the most likely outcome, and it won't be a huge blow to our chances of avoiding relegation, but if Madsen fails....

Marc said...

Our reliance upon Madsen is a source of concern,I agree. We can only hope he continues for a few more weeks. Even if he does we still need contributions from some of the others,significant ones at that. Allowing for a Madsen failure is one reason I would play an extra batsman. If we can,t dislodge Surrey with 4/5 bowlers,it is unlikely we will do it with 5/6.

I have a pal who watches Surrey on a semi regular basis and he reckons the Oval pitch is much deader this year with reduced bounce. I still think we should bat first as it allows you to play your innings without the added pressure of playing the scoreboard as well. It,s alright bowling first but by doing so you have to bowl the opposition out for under 300 or else you,re under real pressure for the remainder of the game and batting last on a wearing pitch is never easy. Obviously,the decision might not be ours to make.

We need a good first day,or at the very least,we must avoid having a bad one. I,m sure Krikken has prepared them as best he can but at the end of the day it boils down to those who take the field. Let us keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best.

Dave C said...

Can't understand the selection - no Palladino again? Especially with Groenewald out. And Johnson may as well have had the gloves, particularly considering Poynton's lack of batting form.

Anonymous said...

Don't like the balance of the bowling attack, peakfan. think Derbyshire should have added dino instead of poynton and had Johnson behind the stumps. it certainly doesn't look the best attack in the world.

john

Paul said...

Ok here goes. .... I will say what a lot of people have been thinking and/ or saying in a very round about way.

What the hell are Derbyshire doing letting 2 key players go on paternity leave during the two most critical matches of this and for that matter any recent season.

Before anyone goes on about paternity rights I am fully aware of the policy which states that paternity leave should be agreed and taken when mutually convenient for both employer and employee.

Hmm let's allow our best bowler to miss the most vital match of the season and leave ourselves with only 4 proper batsmen ( and that includes Slater and Borrington. This beggars belief and whilst the remaining players will make all the right noises for their colleagues I am sure deep down inside they are also aghast at this crass decision by the club.

BTW before I am accused of all sorts I have 3 children of my own and I took paternity leave when it was agreeable for all.

With a week off in September and SIX months over the winter surely a more practical solution could have been found.

As it is we now have a seam attack of Footitt Higginbottom and Hughes. Where is Palladino?

With this attack our only hope is for a massive turner and Surrey to bat as they did at Durham.

We desperately need another seamer which makes the decision to go in with only 4 batsmen but 2 wicket keepers all the more bizarre.

Come on Krilken sort it out and don't allow this good position to slip away especially with benevolent Muddlesex gifting Somerset a win.

Pity Rogers didn't stay with the hapless Aussies leaving Muddlesex with Voges.

Yours Grumpily

Paul