Wednesday, 31 August 2016

Derbyshire v Gloucestershire day 1

Derbyshire 242 (Slater 109, Broom 36, Miles 4-30)

Gloucestershire 27-1 (Milnes 1- 9)

Derbyshire lead by 215 runs

If today's cricket were a musical, it would have doubtless had Maurice Chevalier in a boater, crooning 'Thank 'eavens, for Benny Slats...'

Without him, beyond doubt, we'd have been in a pretty bad place tonight, but one of the few Derbyshire players to have made marked progress this summer effectively carried a side where only Neil Broom lent support after the dismissal of Billy Godleman.

It makes it all the more surprising that he was omitted at times this summer and one given for 2017 is that we have a solid opening pair in Slater and Godleman. Neil Broom continues to frustrate to the season end, making a start then getting out, while the least said about the rest, the better.

It was a funny-looking side to be honest, with everyone from number six at least two places too high. Matt Critchley is a good cricketer, but eight in the batting line-up at best at this stage. Harvey Hosein too and even from distance it looked a side that could go from 150-3 to 230 all out in no time. So it pretty much transpired.

An early wicket for Tom Milnes gave hope, but we need a good first session tomorrow to stay in this game.

Finally tonight, I read with interest that Angus Fraser echoed my own thoughts on yesterday's run-fest for England. Such one-sided contests are dull for those who like to watch a game, rather than long hitting all the time.

Fair play to England for a terrific display, but if we carry on like this, in fifty years time cricket will consist of a bowling machine at either end while batsmen compete to hit the biggest six  and running between the wickets will be a thing of the past.

Let's have a greater balance between bat and ball in future.

It has largely been a batsman's summer, for sure.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why the hell is alex hughes coming in at number 3, what`s sadler thinking its totally ridiculous.

Hes a number 6 at best.

John.

Tim, Chesterfield said...

Why on earth are we playing only four batsman and then having five number nines? Shades of Matthew Vandrau opening with Kim Barnett back in the day with Alex Hughes at number four. Do we seriously have no other batsman? Are the club pretending Rutherford doesn't exist or have I missed the press release?

Doug said...

Is a "funny looking side" a euphemism for something that can't be put into print?

A top order of 3 proper batsman (not counting A Hughes) , a middle order that starts at 5 and ends at 5, and a tail (sorry a lower order) that starts at 6.

It aint funny it is tragic

I agree about the international 50 over game though, turned off at 120-1, never looked again and felt I didn't miss much

Gary said...

Cant understand why we wouldn't play 2 young batsmen? MacDonell did pretty well in the last match, Wood has done well in the 2nd team and Alex Hughes is a number 7 at best based on past form. To see your number 7 stranded on 10 not out is pretty embarrassing but as you say it is pretty obvious to anyone with any cricketing knowledge that this would happen - Just don't understand what is going on with that selection?

notoveryet said...

Very much self-inflicted wounds here, in which all of our senior batsmen have to take the blame. Apart from the points made above about the frailty of the batting from 6 down and the presence of Alex Hughes at 3 (why, if he has to play as a specialist batsman, couldn't he be given the opportunity at 5 with Madsen and Broom moving up?) all of our experienced batsmen were out to "catching practice shots". Godleman and Madsen played almost identical firm drives to cover, Broom lunged way outside his off stump to steer the ball to slip, and Slater played one of those horrid flicks on the leg side that so often get batsmen out. Toss in a run out and you have a well-below par score.

In fairness, it may not be as poor as it looks, even if it was a missed opportunity to hammer a side whose confidence has been about as low as ours. The pitch looks two-paced, and batsmen were often a little early on their shots, so it might be that both teams were inclined to bat first because they didn't want to bat last. What's certain though is that even if the bowlers can do the job today, we are going to have to bat a lot better second time round, and not expose Alex Hughes again at no.3. Perhaps an opportunity for Broom to show that he's capable of something better than failing at no.5? He's not frustrating, he's inexplicable, and you can only think it's a massive flaw in his concentration that he gets out constantly when he's looking well-set.

Tim, Chesterfield said...

I'm sure Broom is embarrassed at his output. He ought to be in any case.