I've just finished listening to BBC Derby on i-player and I thought Simon Storey did a very good job in fielding an array of questions on ground developments, the season just past and the future on the breakfast show this morning.
I thought he did especially well in his response to 'Graeme from Belper' who suggested that Charlie Elliott was a far better batsman than Wayne Madsen and 'always scored 20 or 30' in the sort of tones that suggested this was a Bradman-esque feat. Madsen gets out cheaply too often, was his sketchy rationale, which justifies a look at the respective records:
Innings Runs Average Centuries Fifties
Elliott 468 11965 27.25 9 59
Madsen 172 5951 36.96 16 29
Notwithstanding the changes of playing conditions, such as playing on uncovered wickets, I find it hard to see how anyone could come to such an idea. Elliott was a good servant to the county, but struggled to hold down a regular place on occasions when we were a poor batting side. I know it's all about opinions, but I struggle with that one and would just like to say that I wish we had five other batsmen who 'struggled' like the skipper...
I'd an interesting e-mail last night from James, my Durham counterpart on Cricinfo, who said that their financial issues mean that players could be leaving. Gareth Breese and Gordon Muchall have only been offered one-day deals, Callum Thorp is leaving, along with Will Smith, while there are apparently question marks over the future of Michael Richardson. Good players all and I'd expect there to be interest in any of them who decide to explore options (though Thorp, at 38 is now likely to retire).
I'd see either Muchall or Smith able to do a good job for us, while Richardson is a good and improving player, as befits the son of former South African wicket-keeper Dave. It shows the parlous financial state of some counties, when the champions are struggling.
As I've written before though - and doubtless will again - our recruitment has to be canny and strengthen the side, while not blocking the progress of young emerging players.
More on that soon.
I'd have thought a lot more of Simon Storey's interview if he'd mentioned in his reassuring reply about the importance of hanging on to our younger players, that Dan Redfern has been given permission to talk to other counties. As it was reported on the Daily Telegraph website four hours after he went off air, presumably it didn't happen in the interim, and he was well aware of this.
ReplyDeleteIf the Telegraph report is correct, I feel pretty betrayed by this.
I've been openly sceptical here about the unspecified injuries that have kept Clare and Redfern out of action for so long without any update on their progress or prognosis. Unless there is a clear statement to the contrary, I think we can assume that a similarly sneaked-out announcement about Clare will follow.
Redfern (and Clare) may have been injured, but it clearly hasn't been the whole story. Redfern surely hasn't helped with his Twitter comment about the chairman's club, Swarkestone, buying the Derbyshire Premier League, but this can't be the whole story.
It confirms two things for me. Firstly, that it's impossible to feel that there is open and honest communication from Derbyshire when such a key piece of news is left to sneak out in the way that it has. Secondly, that there are undercurrents in the club that pose questions either about its leadership's man management skills of, or its judgment in awarding expensive long-term contracts last year to, Whiteley, Redfern and possibly Clare.
Unless and until there is honesty and openness that hasn't been obvious in the club's handling of the Redfern news, why should any of us trust its ability or willingness to address other issues, or its capacity to hold on to the talent that we are being told is the basis of the club's future?
I think the club has learned lessons with regard to contracts last year.
ReplyDeleteThree years is fine for some players, but I don't think too many of those will be signed in the future unless we become established in division one. The Whiteley issue showed how easily people can leave contracts.
To be fair, the CEO was answering questions. They want to hang on to their best young players, but only if those young players want to be there. If they don't, or if their attitude suggests as much (I don't refer to players specifically there) then it is counter-productive to do so.
As I said to you on an earlier piece, there are certain things in any organisation that will be conducted behind closed doors for a range of reasons, many things that are entitled to be handled with tact and in privacy, as you will know with your own role. The cricket club is no different to any other organisation in that.
We'd all like to know - but we don't have a RIGHT to do so.