Sunday, 6 August 2017

Derbyshire v Nottinghamshire day 1

Derbyshire 220 (Reece 45, Hughes 55 not Hutton 5-52)

Nottinghamshire 93-2 (Mullaney 35 not)

Derbyshire lead by 127

It was always likely that Derbyshire would be batting first today, the visitors quickly exercising their right to bowl. It was equally likely that we might struggle, against a keen attack that contained our erstwhile favourite, Mark Footitt, as well as recent England man, Jake Ball.

As it turned out, it was a more unsung hero, Brett Hutton, who did the damage, taking five wickets as our batsmen laboured all day. Luis Reece did well for a while and Alex Hughes once again showed the battling instincts for which he is becoming known. Ben Cotton knocked it around too, in a last wicket stand that added 48, but I was left with the feeling that 220 was OK, but little more than that.

Tomorrow's first session is one where the visitors will either get away or be pegged back and we need a huge effort. Hardus Viljoen took his first championship wicket for us, but early inroads tomorrow are vital from an all seam attack.

Most of the comments and messages that I fielded today on Twitter and elsewhere revolved around Harvey Hosein playing, but not keeping wicket. The assumption that you would make, from that, is that Harvey is seen as the third best keeper in the club and is in the side for his batting exploits in recent weeks for the second team.

I think that a fair summation of things. Given that Gary Wilson was brought in to mentor the lad, he was obviously seen as a better wicket-keeper, but in turn was succeeded by Daryn Smit, who is seen as better still. As my old Dad said this afternoon, when we discussed it, how would you see him as the finished article at 20?

Harvey's return to the fold was short and sweet, nicking one through first ball to Chris Read from the bowling of Hutton. He is a better player than that and will hope to show his true worth in the second innings.

Plenty of work to do then, over the next three days.

5 comments:

Tim, Chesterfield said...

220 is probably 100+ off being 'OK' in reality, assuming we expect to be competitive.

Peakfan said...

It was more than we looked like getting but less than we would have hoped for. Certainly less than we needed...

notoveryet said...

I think 220 probably wasn't much short of what you would expect on this pitch against good quality bowlers. There were a few indeterminate strokes that resulted in dismissals but these were more than balanced by the number of times batsmen were simply beaten by good balls. Reece and Hughes both played gutsy innings, but both were regularly beaten and could have been out for many fewer runs. Apart from Wilson, who was LBW to a ball that looked clearly as if It was going down the legside, and Madsen who was caught off the execrable uncontrolled flick down the legside that undoes so many good batsmen, most of the others were undone by the conditions and good bowling. I'd love to know the risk / reward equation for the legside flick - it's completely uncontrolled by the batsman, so it's entirely dependent on whether the contact is thick enough to evade the wicket-keeper whether it brings you four or gets you out. Viljoen got his wicket in a similar fashion, so I suspect the balance on the day was something like 16-2, which makes it something to leave alone.

The difference at the end of day 1 was how wasteful Derbyshire's bowling was. Taylor bowled no-balls and wides, Palladino (!!) no balls, and Viljoen wides and byes (the latter starting wide and swinging wider in a way that gave Wilson no chance of stopping them). There was also what looked like a dropped catch which Madsen parried and Wilson couldn't gather, and without these, Notts might have been 65-3 at the close. This is a tough wicket, and 220 was no disgrace, but we didn't make Notts work hard enough, and have to do a lot better tomorrow if we're not going to be out of the game by lunchtime.

Anonymous said...

I seem to be getting my comments ignored, anyway I'll try again.

Notoveryet, do you seriously consider the leg side flick should become a 'leave'??. I would suggest it is infinitely less risky than a drive against a potentially moving ball and, if we accept your suggestion, the opportunity for hugely negative bowling in championship cricket prevails. Leg side deliveries are free hits - simple as that.

Notts will get a lead of at least 200 today and then the outrageously muddled selection by Derbyshire of coupling a very fragile top order with a tail the length of a snake's will be exposed.

It is a real shame that the club are effectively ignoring championship cricket with still half a dozen games to go. It is our position in the championship that will be registered, not losing quarter finalists in the T20 .

As for Imran Tahir - well, I'm not sure he fancied a midweek game in Derby in front of three men a dog. He seemed perfectly fit to me on Friday.

Regards
Bob

Peakfan said...

Your previous comment went under last night's post Bob.

How would you get around that selection dilemma? Fielding our best bowlers doesnt allow for a long batting line up. If we went with Viljoen, Qadri, Tahir and Davis, there's no runs from 8 to 11 at present, tho Qadri will improve.

Can only go with what we have!