Monday, 3 August 2015

Derbyshire v Leicestershire RLODC

It's welcome back to Tillakaratne Dilshan for tomorrow and the remainder of the season.

The legend - a fairly apposite title - that is Dilshan replaces Hamish Rutherford, a player who let no one down in his stint at the club. We now need the Sri Lankan, undoubtedly one of the finest players to emerge from his country, to show the form that earned him that reputation.

No one would say that his form in the previous stint was vintage Dilshan. Even his runs against Lancashire in the televised T20 were scratchy and his CPL stint brought only 67 runs in four matches. Yet I understand that the player has had family concerns and any one of us who has been through such trauma will know how it can affect your everyday life.

Hopefully he is back to his best and can reproduce the form that made him one of the stars of the World Cup, because to progress to the knockout stages of this competition we need to win our last three games. All are winnable - we should have beaten Durham at Derby and we weren't far away from Worcestershire either. Given that tomorrow's opponents and the latter are bottom two in the group, at our best we really should be beating them. Then it will come down to that result, where? Down by the Riverside....humour me, old song, old joke...

The squad is largely unchanged, with Will Davis replacing England-bound Mark Footitt as the only change. The attack will be young and largely inexperienced, but there's only one way to get the latter and that is to play. Our squad:

Wes Durston
Billy Godleman
Tillakaratne Dilshan
Ben Slater
Chesney Hughes
Scott Elstone
Wayne Madsen
Alex Hughes
Shiv Thakor
Tom Poynton
Matt Critchley
Greg Cork
Ben Cotton
Will Davis

Our visitors lost to Yorkshire today, leaving them with only a no-result point from four games. They have some good players, but we really should be beating such teams if we play at our best. Young the squad may be, but they are undoubtedly talented and need to show that.

If we concentrate, make no daft mistakes and work hard, we will be very much in the quarter-final mix this time tomorrow.

That'll do quite nicely, I think.

7 comments:

Paul said...

Peakfan , I usually try and accept team selection on the basis that as you say the coach sees players in training etc etc and we mere mortals don't know as much as the experts. I also understand that youth needs to have a chance .......
BUT I would really be interested in your views on why 3 players are missing from the squad never mind the team tomorrow
1. Palladino- our most accurate seamer, in absence of Footit the only man with experience and can score runs. The championship has gone so that's not relevant this year.
2. Wayne White- brought back from Lancs apparently for his experience, best bowler in T20 then mysteriously dropped. Vague stories about an injury that certainly don't hold water now as he is playing in Derbyshire's Premier League. Had also taken a bucket load of championship wickets when left out.
These two missing without explanation is like Derby leaving out Martin and Hughes for no apparent reason.
3. Hosein- not as controversial but Harvey imo is slightly the better keeper and scores more runs. Poynton averages 18 and 15 in the 2 one day tournaments and is a very limited one side of the wicket batter. Surely he's not being retained in the side based on sentiment?
These choices ? are baffling most Derbyshire fans and it would be good to hear your take on it



Peakfan said...

Good points mate - my answers being:

Palladino - does he still have a knee niggle that they don't want aggravated in one-day games? We play Leicestershire at Grace Road on Friday, so my guess is he's being kept fit for that, especially if Footitt is in the England side and he is then the only experienced seamer in the side.

White - is he fit for league duties but not fit enough, for whatever reason, for the first-class game? Or do they just feel that the young lads coming through should be given their head? If Wayne, a senior player on senior money isn't playing, then it suggests, rightly or wrongly, that he isn't seen as a part of the future.

Hosein - I don't think there's much between the two keepers at present, but agree that Hosein is the better bat and will only get better. The case for his inclusion will only get stronger after another winter's work and next season I see him as probably the number one.
Tom needs runs and the only issue I see is if Harvey opts for University, in which case we wouldn't have him for the early part of the summer.
The bottom line is that there is little to choose between them and Hosein is eight years younger.
In the next twelve months I expect to see him take the role as first choice. It is the way of progression in sport, just as, in the fullness of time, he will make way for a younger man.

notoveryet said...

There's no doubt that this one is a must-win, and almost certainly a should-win. Having been at both the Northampton and Surrey games, the strengths that were shown in both also highlighted the weaknesses, and the word that strikes me most was naivety. There's no question about the ability of Godleman, Madsen and Durston to make big scores, but even when they do, things are still a struggle. Although the win over Northants was eventually quite comfortable, there was a sticky point at about 5 overs out when the required rate began to increase quite quickly, and if Godleman had been out, it would have been easy to see us lose from that position. Whilst there was no shame in being beaten by Surrey, who are now playing very good cricket, t was a throwaway from the position we had got into. A few overs of patient accumulation by Durston and Thakor was what was needed, and it was disappointing that both threw their wickets away with over-aggressive shots. This has been a bit of a pattern for Durston, and tough though it is to criticise someone who has scored 129, it was a reckless way to go when he'd already taken 6 off the over.

The bowling against Surrey was pretty naïve at times, and the lack of experience was very evident. I'm therefore a bit alarmed to see Footitt replaced by Will Davis rather than Palladino. It means that apart from Durston and possibly Dilshan, there won't be a bowler older than 23, or with more than a handful of matches in this format. With experienced replacements available, this determination to play an increasingly inexperienced attack is perverse, and is going to hurt us badly one day.

I haven't seen anything that suggests that Palladino is being rested or protected - apart from the overs he bowled against Australia, he also played a second XI match last week, so has probably bowled more overs than he would have done playing in the one day cup. As for Wayne White, I don't think there's any question that he's gone. His Twitter profile has, I think, been changed to remove the reference to him as a Derbyshire cricketer, and the photograph is from his Lancashire days, and there was also a tweet last week(now deleted) to a Leicestershire supporter, saying that he was fit to play but couldn't comment on selection decisions. Other counties don't seem to have the same problem of communicating with supporters and members about playing matters that are of legitimate interest to them, as with the lack of explanation for the change of captaincy last week.

Anonymous said...

With nothing to play for in the cc2, surely we should be playing our best players in the royal London cup, and dino is one of them.

Its interesting to note, neither of the other two pervious coach`s didn't play palladino in the one day stuff either.

John.

Marc said...

I couldn,t agree more,notoveryet. I think Peakfan is clutching at straws with his comments to Paul and few if any seem plausible. We may get away with a very young attack against Leicestershire but the omens would not be so good against a better class of opposition. In saying that,it was somewhat ironic that Footitt was by far the most expensive bowler against Surrey,though Al Hughes would have run him very close had he bowled his full compliment.

Palladino has played more one day cricket under Welch than previously but many of his omissions have been without apparent logic and there have been countless occasions where the control he brings to the table has been sorely missed. It is now patently obvious White has fallen out with the leadership at the very time he was producing some of his best form. We know of no reason because we are never told such things. Communication from the club has improved somewhat but it still leaves much to be desired. It has been a feature of Welch to go into his shell when results and performances have been less than satisfactory and this aspect of his management style is poor.

This match is crucial and any slip up would now prove fatal. Parental duties prevent me from attending but I think we should have enough about us to win the game. Gloucestershire have made a good start against Durham and will benefit us enormously if they manage to win. Time to turn the radio.

Peakfan said...

Marc, so you think it more important for Tony to bowl ten overs today and perhaps jeopardise 40 to 50 in the game starting later in the week? Less clutching at straws than common sense, I think...

You have to rotate seamers and give them a breather and the one-day game is unforgiving as there is no hiding place in the field.

On the right wicket, Tony might play - he could do at The Riverside, but you need a senior bowler in the four-day game and we can hopefully get away with rotating a young attack in this one.

Marc said...

I take your point Peakfan and I agree with bowler rotation. However,when it comes to Palladino he has been "rotated" too often and has not only missed matches when he should have been playing,he has missed entire competitions. It,s fine having young bowlers in the side and i,m not against the idea at all. We need to bring these players through but it is asking for trouble to play too many at any given time and have no experience to call on. The younger element have generally done quite well when called upon but i,m a little concerned we may push our luck once too often.