To illustrate what I referred to earlier, I'd like to offer you the Yorkshire T20 game at Headingley.
You will recall that this was originally scheduled for July 13, but was switched from that date to Monday 30 July, so that fans would be able to see the England World Cup match that was being played that evening.
Now Gloucestershire decided that the game they had on that date would still be played, but with a 3pm start. It may have inconvenienced a few, but they felt that the game could be played and everyone could be home or in the bar to watch the football afterwards.
We - I would think to Yorkshire's mirth - agreed to switch the date completely. A decision almost certainly made by no one on the cricket side, as Kim Barnett had left by that point. Yet whether that decision was made at Board level, or by the Chief Executive, it means that Derbyshire will play not a weakened Yorkshire, but one that will have David Willey, Adil Rashid, Liam Plunkett and Kane Williamson available for selection.
Had we had a greater cricket input on the board, the decision would surely have been made to change the time. Inconvenience a few and lose some of the potential gate, but maximise Derbyshire's chances of winning by not playing against their big guns. Dig our heels in and say no. So what if they are not happy?
It annoys and frustrates me to see that kind of thing happening. We talk about percentages being the difference between winning and losing a cricket match.
Well, there's a few per cent swung against us before we start.
This is spot on I am still fuming about this. Absolutely stupid decision.
ReplyDeleteI'm very much with you on the need for accountability, transparency and sound governance at Derbyshire, but I don't think this is a particularly good example. I recall reading somewhere that Yorkshire had looked at moving to an afternoon start time, but were advised against it because of potential travel issues with an early rush hour expected, and they had looked at moving it to the following day, but Derbyshire had objected because it would give them three matches in successive days. Their initial decision was to leave it on the Wednesday night but changed it because of appeals from, among others players. I've no idea who approved the change on behalf of Derbyshire, but I do know that among those tweeting in support of a change was Daryn Smit, with Ben Slater retweeting it, and Ian Morgan liking it.
ReplyDeleteSo unfortunately, some of our own cricketers and supporters seem to have had a say in the decision, and it probably goes to show that putting people on to a board simply because they are cricketers doesn't guarantee that they will make sensible or intelligent decisions.
My understanding is that we were offered a date in early August, which we declined because Wahab Riaz will not be here then. That in turn suggests that he will not be replaced...
ReplyDeleteWe opted for this date, I am told, as a compromise with Yorkshire, as Riaz will be available.
In the interest of fairness, Smit's comment was tongue in cheek and one or two people didn't take it the way it was intended.
It wouldn't have been my way, I'll be honest. We are in the business of playing cricket and winning matches. I'd have done it differently and have made that point clearly