Friday, 10 July 2015

Nottinghamshire v Derbyshire T20

Nottinghamshire 172-6 (Hales 54, Patel 52, Thakor 3-25)

Derbyshire 170-4 (Rutherford 62, Madsen 51 not)

Nottinghamshire won by two runs

Another close defeat for Derbyshire tonight, but against the self-billed team of all the talents, having beaten them at Derby, we ran them very close again tonight.

I can take defeat when we play well and run sides close - there can only be one winner and it cannot always be us. By all accounts, tonight we bowled and fielded well, held our catches and then batted with common sense before just coming up short as the home side held their nerve at the death.

Shiv Thakor once again bowled a good spell and has impressed with the ball in this competition, while the rest of the attack played their part. Fresh from a good performance in the second team, Greg Cork let no one down in front of a large crowd  and the target was always within reach if we got a start.

Once more, Hamish Rutherford did well and looks a genuine talent, switching from the anchor role at Chesterfield to the aggressor here. Had he stayed another over or so, we would have walked it, as he and Wayne Madsen were taking us home.

Fair play to Samit Patel and Steven Mullaney, whose tight spells proved the deciding factor in a game that must have been thoroughly enjoyed by the large crowd. Yet praise must go to a Derbyshire side who gave a good account of themselves.

No complaints tonight from me. We left Trent Bridge with our heads held high.

Now for Yorkshire on Sunday, where I hope we can do the same to end the Chesterfield festival.

Postscript - apologies for the lack of a preview last night...life is quite hectic right now...

13 comments:

IanC said...

Couldn't agree more Peakfan,though there seems to be a completely different perspective on the falcons forum.

For me,we have run a top team right down to the wire,and just come up fractionally short. From afar it looks a good team effort,and rather than blame the batsmen,when we finish 2 short with 6 wickets in hand,how about considering how important extras can be in such a tight finish. We bowled 7 wides to their 3.

I think the team can hold there heads up high after tonights match,and we can reflect that having won 3 this season,we could so easily have won 6 with just a little bit more composure,and been right in the mix,so that represents progress on last season.

I have also been impressed with Rutherford,and hope that they may be putting feelers out on engaging him for the season next year. With hindsight,the bit part overseas players have not been a success,and i would expect came pretty expensively

Tim, Chesterfield said...

I'd love to hear the explanation for Godleman's inclusion and the decision to put him in ahead of Knight in the order.

Is that four or five games we've thrown away now?

Peakfan said...

Well, Tim, I would have put Knight in earlier too, but to be fair, Billy only faced two balls from which he scored three runs. I don't think any batsman would find that situation easy to hit a boundary and the rationale would have been greater experience.
We are improving in this format, especially with the ball, but need to find that extra ten per cent or so to get across the line another year

Peakfan said...

Ian, I don't read it mate. Someone directed me to comments earlier and it's just mischief makers in a couple of cases.
It would have been a great double and it was a win we could have had, but a decent effort that just fell short.

Anonymous said...

your piece , as usual is far too complementary and lacking any real perspective. That batting order tonight was still not rational and the Management must spend most of their time thinking of the best ways of losing matches. Knight should have next in before Alex Hughes. What is wrong with the people at this club? Are they completely lacking in judgement and for you to go along with it, accepting defeat in another match we should have won ,is particularly galling. After Rutherford's fantastic knock (again) and great support from Madsen, this match was there for the winning. Losing by a few is the same as being trounced. Sam

Roy of the Falcons said...

Sat a couple of rows in front of me were five faithful Notts members whilst it seemed the rest of the stadium cheered at the end and the players celebrated on the pitch they stood up clapped four times and left. That gesture summed it up for me a very good team had been taken to the wire so well done to the lads from Derbyshire. I think our T20 season so far may be summed up with the phase " just one more boundary".

Peakfan said...

Really Sam? You read and comment regularly and must therefore see that I am critical when it is deserved. There have been poor performances this summer that have been criticised, but to suggest the management is thinking of ways to lose games is disrespectful to the max...

Hughes was the right man, in form and with a track record in the competition for quick runs. Should Knight have come in before Godleman? Maybe, but Billy is another form batsman and they must have thought him the best bet.

What I won't do is become a moaner, just because I can. If there's a need to be critical, I will be. Yet aren't we all supporters? The clue should be in the name and people way better qualified than you and me are making the decisions. At times we may disagree, albeit in ignorance of full knowledge of the facts, but you have to credit Notts for pulling it back and, in those closing overs, just being too good for us.

But compare their budget and team with ours, it should have been a cakewalk for them. We've won one convincingly and lost one narrowly to one of the country's biggest clubs..can't you find a positive in there?

Sam said...

That's not the regular Sam peakfan! This one thought we played fairly well and most importantly competed. As you say we lost this game in the spin department and didn't bowl as well as Patel and Mullaney in the middle. Rutherford looks a class act and I would gladly see him back next season. It was also good to see Thakor bowl early on and also bowl some good Yorkers at the death, and Greg Cork get rewarded for his good form in the 2s. The decision to put Godleman in at 6 would hardly have struck fear into the hearts of the notts players, though he's a senior player now and there was some justification behind it

Peakfan said...

To be honest mate I did wonder, because your posts are normally rational and well thought out! Good you have cleared that up and thanks for doing so...and agree we need a spin option another year for balance

Anonymous said...

Great effort from the team in a thrilling match. We have matched our rich neighbours and their star billing every inch of the way.
When the defeat is so marginal (2 runs out of 172) there are 40 overs of cricket which ultimately accounted for the result.Only non cricketers would try and highlight an individual person or Coach as responsible. It is entirely academic to suggest a different batting order in hindsight and is the easy and pitiful option for the ill informed moaners.

Brian.





Peakfan said...

Totally agree Brian. Well said mate!

Marc said...

it might have been a good effort but it wasn,t good enough and to lose a match so narrowly with six wickets in hand,in some ways makes it worse than being thrashed. I,m afraid I don,t agree with Brian.

Why should an individual not be held responsible,or at least partially responsible. Durston would fit the bill quite well as he threw his wicket away in circumstances that a young player would be rightly criticised for. He has been our most reliable batsman but that does not alter the fact that had he survived a few more overs we might well have won the match. Questions raised regarding other aspects of the team are not necessarily in hindsight. It is perfectly obvious to anyone we should not be playing Godleman in this type of cricket any more than Footitt. How long did it take for the Footitt penny to drop and how long will it take for the Godleman penny to drop?.

The trouble is we fail to do ourselves full justice because we keep repeating the same errors,usually with the same results. To suggest that people who point these things out are knee jerking or using the benefit of hindsight is false. Perhaps if those in charge used hindsight as a tool which could benefit the future we wouldn,t be in the predicament we now find ourselves in. They might something.

Peakfan said...

Marc, your comments are coming over as increasingly bitter and negative and I'd be grateful if you could temper them.
You don't know why player A is selected and player B isn't, any more than I do. Those in charge do and you're doing them a grave disservice by such comments, as you are by suggesting that they don't think about and learn from poor (and good) performance.
Durston hit three fours and then got caught. His shot didn't come off, but it is like any other in the game - six inches to either side of a fielder and the batsman is a genius. If he hits it straight at the fielder, he's an idiot for trying it. If you have played the game you will know it is based on small margins of error, usually separating success from failure.
I don't want this blog to become the cricket equivalent of The Little House on the Prairie, but I won't allow it to become a moanfest either. It wasn't set up for that purpose.
If you want to discuss this, you know where to contact me.