Midway through the afternoon session, when the Warwickshire innings had extended way beyond what they would have realistically expected and what we would have wished, the window of opportunity for Derbyshire's top tier survival was reduced to the size of an especially neat porthole.
Once the Warwickshire ninth wicket had extended to a partnership of 166 runs and we had crucially been deprived of the third bowling point that had at one point appeared a formality, a light appeared to go out for our lads and the early batting collapse was not entirely unexpected.
Defeat sometime tomorrow, if things slide rapidly downhill, or Friday if we battle to the bitter end, seems a formality, but we really shouldn't be too surprised. After the first few months of the season, getting to this stage with a notional chance of survival was an achievement verging on minor miracle, but as I've pointed out before, it shouldn't be allowed to mask shortcomings that will need addressed in the close season.
Where there's Chanderpaul there's hope, but we cannot realistically expect to get to 242 and avoid the follow-on. Even if we do, the Trent Bridge game is building up to one where both sides get maximum bonus points, which is perhaps not the greatest of surprises...
Let's remember that our opponents were champions themselves only last season and only a chronic catalogue of injuries, together with international calls, has stopped them mounting a greater challenge this time. Weakened they may be, but they have some very fine players who look like being too much for our young side.
But of course, such things aren't understood by some supporters, as nonsense on the Forum tonight suggests. Some of the stuff is frighteningly naive and ill-thought out, with some comments almost painful to read. It saddens me, if I'm honest.
Anyway, enough for tonight. Celebration time chez Peakfan, as our son has secured a terrific job today that has left him - and us - on cloud nine.
Shame the cricket score couldn't be better on such a day, but...
See you tomorrow.
I haven,t been today but it must have been very disappointing for those that did. For me there was a certain inevitability about the season,s outcome from the moment we gifted Surrey that infamous win.
ReplyDeleteI see little point in repeating some of the things I said yesterday,it no longer matters. We have a long time to reflect on what might have been and a similar amount of time before we can start to put things right. I still think relegation could have been avoided and there are certainly lessons to be learned. The most disappointing thing in a way is we can,t really say it was good while it lasted. I don,t normally look forward to the end of a cricket season but there is always an exception to every rule.
I've just put a comment on last night's post whilst tonight's was being added. I won't repeat it here, but I was there today and it was every bit as desperate and clueless as the scorecard suggests. Sorry, Peakfan, we weren't humiliated by last year's champions or a hatful of internationals, but by a loanee who couldn't get into a second division side with a career average of 5 and a previous best of 30. Apart from the performances, the team's body language was poor (will somebody do something about the horrible habit of kicking or swiping at the ground that simply tells your opponents that you're beaten and has been such a part of Derbyshire cricket this year?) and it was obvious that they weren't up for this. Maybe it will all change tomorrow and pigs will pirouette across the County Ground, but relegation or not, this performance tells me again that there is something badly wrong about the leadership of the team. wronge f
ReplyDeleteCricket's full of players having one-off golden days...remember Rajesh Rao of Sussex?
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't a great day by any stretch, but an England player scoring 150 was a substantial factor, I'd have thought.
Heads went down after a big stand, as often happens in cricket, especially when its unexpected. It left us with nowhere to go and inexperience (and good bowlers) cost us.
You can,t just put it down to inexperience. There are few teams with more experience than Surrey and they are below us. Woakes thrived because we couldn,t remove the tail enders with bowlers who,with the exception of Hughes,have a good deal of experience. Why,during the 70 odd overs we bowled at numbers 9 and 10, did we not try something different?. A few overs from a part timer may have done the trick. Sticking to the tried and trusted certainly didn,t.
ReplyDeleteWoakes is a decent batsman but a season record of 6 half centuries is hardly up there with the best. The biggest mistake of all was not batting first and putting Warwickshire in the position we found ourselves in. The flimsy excuse of a first morning pitch doesn,t wash with me. The pitch didn,t do anything very much and Warwickshire were guilty of gifting a number of their wickets. Why put yourself in a potential position of having to rely on the oppositions generosity to declare their second innings?. By doing what we did meant a day and a half in the field and then batting against a mammoth score in poor light and cloud cover. We should have taken advantage of what were near ideal batting conditions on day 1. We are in late September after all.