It's hard to know what to make of day one.
On the face of it, we have under-achieved and 219 is at least a hundred short of where we would have hoped to be after winning the toss, especially on a wicket where batting last is expected to be fraught with problems from spin bowling.
We now need to bowl exceptionally well tomorrow to stay in this game, but the way that Derbyshire had to graft for runs today suggested that it wouldn't be getting easier as the game goes on. Surrey will, of course, hope that the experience of the likes of Solanki, de Bruyn, Davies and especially Amla will put them out of sight before the third innings and much has been made already of the omission of Tony Palladino.
It was a brave decision, for sure. Time will tell if other words are more apposite, but I thought last night that the final choice would be between a seamer and one of the keepers, and so it transpired. Yet Tom Poynton, perhaps the most vulnerable after Richard Johnson's crucial runs against Middlesex, got second top score and got us past a batting bonus point.
No one would suggest the batting looks full of runs with four young players in the top six and we realistically needed either Madsen or Chanderpaul to make a big score. For once the skipper failed, while Shiv battled to top score before falling lbw to one that reportedly pitched outside leg stump.
Can we pull it back? We'll need early inroads tomorrow and the prompt removal of Amla is essential. Surrey's batting this season, for all its big names, has been no more reliable than ours and we must aim to apply pressure and take wickets regularly. It isn't over yet, by a long chalk and the one sure thing about this Derbyshire side is that they will battle.
It wasn't an especially good day all round. Middlesex seem traumatised by their demise at Derby and have had a horrid experience against Somerset, looking nothing like title challengers. Defeat is almost certain tomorrow and the battle to avoid relegation will run and run.
Let's just hope that Derbyshire manage to pull away at the finish, like a cricketing Mo Farah.
Finally tonight, there's been a few comments and e mails about the absence of Tim Groenewald and Chesney Hughes on paternity leave. As a Derbyshire fan, who wants to see our strongest side out as we approach a crucial point of the season, I can fully sympathise with the view of fans.
Yet as a father who attended the birth of both of his children (and wouldn't have missed it for anything) I can see the other side quite clearly too. Derbyshire as a club are an enlightened employer and employee rights - especially those of cricketers - are much different to a few years back.
I would welcome the thoughts of a regular correspondent who is a top employment lawyer though...
No point discussing paternity leave when the chaotic selection process (I won't dignify it with the word policy) that has bedevilled our season continues. Having manically and inexplicably changed teams all season, Krikken decides that continuity is needed at exactly the point that it defies all logic. I can understand the argument for leaving out anyone in this side from 5 down, except for the 12th man in this game. With 8 wickets taken by Surrey pace bowlers after Derbyshire won the toss and batted, we can only speculate what might have happened if Palladino had played in a four man pace attack and we had bowled.
ReplyDeleteWe are in exactly the position I predicted last night. Madsen fails and the others fail around him. Choose to bat first at the Oval and you are near certain to be well behind on first innings. Maybe Footitt and Higginbottom will tear out the Surrey top order tomorrow and make me look a fool, or Burgoyne and Wainwright will rip through Surrey in the last innings to overcome a big first innings deficit, but does anyone really expect this?
Unless there was some doubt about Palladino's fitness (in which case we should have had more than 12 in the squad) this selection decision crowns all of Krikken's inexplicable (and unexplained decisions).
Personally I'm puzzled that Tim G would want to miss this game as is presumably the case.
ReplyDeleteI think the omission of Psllsdino puzzling, but Krikken would have had reasons, sometimes as not obvious to those of us looking on. As I wrote above, the likely omission had he played (Poynton) did get second top score. The result will decide whether right or wrong, of course...
ReplyDeleteGroenewald? Again, I can only cite my own example, but the birth of a child brings such a swirl of emotions and turns your world upside down. A couple will usually want to be together to celebrate that and get into a routine afterwards and in 99% of cases paternity leave will happen at that time.
In Groenewald and Hughes' position I'd have wanted the same.
Sorry **Palladino**
ReplyDeleteUnless it suddenly turns square from Day 2 then I suspect we are in trouble here. The reliance we have on Madsen and to a certain extent Chanderpaul is obvious to all and despite the last two wins you should always look to pick your best team which clearly is not the case in this match with Palladino left out
ReplyDeleteCrazy decision from kric, to play players that have not got proven wicket taking capabilities like higgy and alex hughes in a big game like this, instead of a proven fit palladino who has proved time and time again a match winner.
ReplyDeletejohn.
Timmy g has got 6 months to enjoy being with baby g, in a matter of weeks, that's a luxury the modern working man doesn't have.
ReplyDeleteDisagree Anon. Tim G has earned a right from his efforts this season and in previous campaigns to be with his wife and child at this time.
ReplyDeleteI ask everyone who has contributed to the debate - what would you do? Wouldn't your wife/partner want you there? Wouldn't you want to be?
No one loves cricket more than me, but it is second to my family - and by some distance.