Saturday, 17 September 2016

Critchley signs but Parkinson leaves

Mixed news for Derbyshire supporters today, with the story breaking that leg-spinner Matt Critchley (pictured) has signed a new four-year deal with the club, but left-arm spinner Callum Parkinson has signed a two-year deal with Leicestershire.

The Critchley signing is excellent news. While the youngster still has a long way to go to be bowling sides out in the four-day game - and why would we expect otherwise at his age - he bowled superbly throughout the club's one-day season and troubled almost every side that he bowled against.

That he is set to work with Shane Warne over the winter is excellent news and will give him things to think about and work on. What he perhaps could really do with now is a senior spinner of quality to come in, work alongside him and mentor his short-term development.

With his batting steadily improving too, Matt is a player who could be a focal point of our team for a long time and I am sure that he will be well-treated at the club, as he has been with this contract.

The news of Parkinson is disappointing and tweets from chairman, Chris Grant this morning were fairly clear.

'I believe the actions of agent Phil Weston have been totally unethical and I will be raising the matter with the ECB' said Grant. 'Counties must be given the requisite 28 day protections for players within their Academies, otherwise poaching will become commonplace.'

One can only assume that the player's agent has got what he feels is a better deal for his young charge, at least in the short term. Whether this goes to the ECB will be worth watching, though the agent's stance will doubtless be that Parkinson was not a product of the Derbyshire Academy, rather that of Lancashire. He was a relatively recent addition to our resources and, as a result, perhaps not deemed a graduate in the normal sense.

Mind you, having taken most of his wickets and played his best innings against them this year, they will be well placed to judge his potential. The chairman is absolutely right that clubs who put time and money into a player's development through an Academy system should have some protection, and seems to have support for this around the country. I suspect that this case may eventually be seen as different though, as highlighted above.

Time will tell.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

I do not blame Leicestershire. Our club dithered while the Foxes swooped. Another cricketer leaves the club but in this instance not to a bigger test match ground club but to a local rival of similar standing. I expect the departures of Wes and Ches to be announced soon but I hope I am wrong. Can the club expect to attract new quality signings finishing bottom of div 2? I hope Elton is not the only new quality experienced performer that is announced for next season. I live in hope!

NatWest 81

Anonymous said...

Opening media centres, engaging pop stars and sending birthday congratulations to players is all well and good but it is on the field it matters. Leicestershire did nothing wrong. Eye on the ball Derbyshire!


NatWest 81

Roy of the Falcons said...

I think we need to keep our eye on the ball with all our youngsters I notice Harvey Hossain's current contract expires at the end of next season as does Chris Read's.
Chris Grant is right there should be protection for academy players and to be honest I am surprised there is not. A friend 's 9 year old son appeared to be signing his life away when he signed for a football club academy. There was even gossip about a transfer fee for an 11 year old who moved to a club nearer home.....

Tim, Chesterfield said...

Disappointed at this news. Did we want him? We gave him his chance and unless we weren't competitive in our offer then I hope the move goes badly.

Gary said...

Tim that a bit harsh! If you have somone who your agent giving you advice and maybe better contract you would take it. I hope he has sucessful career. I do think brings intresting debate and think compsensation be fair in sitution like this or ECB change rules to make harder for this to happen.

Peakfan said...

I can only assume the agent got him a better offer than that on the table from Derbyshire. It will doubtless cause a rule change, perhaps creating a new 'Parkinson's Law'...

I'd never wish anyone badly, but I hope his move goes better than the more recent one of Wayne White back to Leicester, and that of Atif Sheikh. Third time lucky, perhaps.

Anonymous said...

Losing Parkinson is a real disappointment to me and a huge surprise I'd have to say. I was at the last afternoon against Leicester and assumed a contract announcement was just a formality. I wonder if Derbyshire thought the same. There is very little loyalty in sport and life in general I'm afraid. People expect there employer to do right by them but feel it's ok to do anything that's deemed best for themselves. I except that the boy was not under contract so was a free agent but please. Who was the club willing to give the lad a chance ? Not Leicester. Would they have been offering a 2 year contract on the strength of his academy performances. I think not. Maybe there's a good reason for not fighting to keep him. Maybe a world class spinner is on the way? Someone who can bring on and mentor the boy Critchley. Let's hope so. In the meantime I would ask the club to secure the services of our other young hopefuls if not already done. Young Macdonald and Wood are to players I do not want to see playing at another County next year.

Mark said...

Oh well, we can always concentrate on winning at least one championship game next season, that looks like being the main target. Very disappointing to lose one of the most promising youngsters, who are we going to sign of any quality this autumn/winter?.

Dave said...

We stand to lose even more of our players if the future composition of our coaching team remains unresolved.The Critchley 4 year contract looks like a knee jerk reaction to losing Parkinson.Despite 2 very poor seasons it looks as if the current coaching team will remain in place for next season.We cannot have made the recent contract offers unaware of our revised coaching team,so why not make it public knowledge?