Derbyshire 160-8 (Hudson-Prentice 41, du Plooy 28)
Birmingham 161-7 (Mousley 56, Critchley 2-21, Van Beek 2-28)
Birmingham won by three wickets
A batting line up shorn of McDermott, Madsen and Hughes laboured today and it was only a lively stand between Hudson - Prentice and Guest that took us to a respectable total.
Reece again looked a million dollars but got out when going well, Came never really got going and Godleman fell cheaply once again to spin. Du Plooy batted nicely for a while but 160, while respectable, never looked a total to win the game.
Not even when the visitors lost three wickets in the Powerplay, two to Van Beek who mixed it up and bowled well. The second was to a stunning diving catch by the captain, but that was as good as it got for Derbyshire.
There were too many loose balls, far too many wides and too much sloppy fielding. Hain gave his wicket away, charging Critchley, who bowled well, while Mousley and Burgess also perished in the deep, the former after an excellent half century.
28 were needed off three and when Brathwaite also perished, hooking Cohen, there was just a glimmer. But Woakes steered his side to victory, as you hope your international players will do, of course.
Winning at Leicester didn't make us world-beaters, just as losing here doesn't wreck our chances.
But until we sort the batting personnel, we won't win many matches. We cannot expect Reece and Critchley to dig us out every time. It was also a puzzle why Mattie McKiernan wasn't asked to bowl, when the other spinners of each side had done well. It is almost, at times, as if having seven bowlers is one too many to remember.
Absentees notwithstanding, we battled well, but ultimately fell short.
I fear it won't be the last time I write those, words.
Have to disagree on sloppy fielding, Derbyshire were much better than Warwickshire on the fielding front. Felt we were 15-20 short with the bat which showed.
ReplyDeleteWhether we were better or worse than them isn't the issue. We had to be flawless and there were at least two fours should have been stopped and two or three poor pick ups/stops.
DeleteWe were 20 short but at present we are batting with a batsman completely out of form and too many bowlers.
Wood should have played for Scrimshaw or McKiernan, or Wood and McKiernan should both have been in.
Losing Hughes probably did two things, make them plump for mckiernan over wood to give that bowling option (although playing him and not bowling him is wasteful).
DeleteAlso I think it means Billy stays in the team, I don't think he is worth his place right now but without Madsen or Hughes, who leads the team? Possibly critchley or Reece, neither of whom have much captaincy experience and would be better without the responsibility of leading.
I don't expect to see changes for Tuesday except Thomson coming in for Cohen or Scrimshaw. Maybe wood will get a go instead of came as well
I'll say it again, Billy fails once more. Getting ridiculous now how he keeps getting picked
ReplyDeleteIm totally lost to why we insist on playing 7 bowlers when the batting is clearly an issue. No McDermott , Madsen or Hughes. Godleman batting like a man possessed ( possessed with no natural ability to hit the ball that is ) . Yet we still go with 7 bowlers. Under bowl one ( FHP )
ReplyDeleteDon’t bowl the 7th at all ( Macca ) . Not sure what Wood as to do to get a gig in this team, It absolutely beggars belief. Even if Billy plays there is scope for an extra batsman. Especially with hitters being our big problem. Wood could have played instead of Scrimshaw if Billy must play. FHP and macca taking his 3 overs. We give ourselves a mountain to climb before we even step on the pitch with non Sensical selections.
3 successive batting failures by Billy G. He must be left out.
ReplyDeleteI went today and I have to say I thought they were far sloppier in the field than us indeed I thought we looked lively. 20 runs short but overall competed well especially looking at the respective line-ups. No complaints from me today.
ReplyDeleteI didn't say who was worse, Jasper. Just that we weren't good enough. Defending 160 you have to be tight with the ball and in the field.
DeleteWe weren't. Eight wides, two fumbles for four and a couple of others would have meant an extra 12 to 14 runs. Had we batted better, they would have needed maybe 20 off one.
Game on..
Disappointing result although I always thought we were behind the game, we just didn't get a significant partnership so were 15/20 runs short of a competitive total especially with the quality of Brathwaite and Woakes at 7 & 8. Like others I cant understand the selection, despite his great catch, Billy seems to have been sussed by the opposition, he turned a quick 2 for Du Plooy into a single then promptly got out next ball! Why have we wasted money in giving a contract to Wood and not playing him, I can only think with Madsen and Hughes out the management are worried about inexperience at the top of the order, but hopefully he and Came plays on Thursday. Whilst Van Beek bowls well early and mid innings I am not sure he is suitable at the death, I saw the end of the Leicester game and his last over today which were both a disappointing, although without Hughes I think it only leaves Reece and Van Beek for the last couple of overs?
ReplyDeleteVan Beek escapes any criticism from me. Get Wood in this side for a series of games Drop Godleman from the T20 squad. He Cannot retain his place and his Captaincy is woeful. McKiernan not bowled.....what is going on.
ReplyDeleteBest team won to be fair when you have Braithwaite/Woakes at 7/8 then they should. 68 off first 10 overs isn't good enough though middle order pulled it round a little. As other comments Wood should have played but then I think the die is cast for him. It seems picking him now would be seen as management weakness unless we get more injuries! The young bowlers did what young bowlers do have a good over then a not so good over this is to be expected. It was good to see some live cricket however.
ReplyDeleteDon’t think anyone’s saying Wood is the answer to all our problems. It’s just common sense to play him now based on the players available. T20 is a fickle game. Especially at the top of the order. Batsmen have to chance their arm to get to the desired 50 off the 6 over power play. Batsman cannot be expected to get it right every dig. However it’s clear to all people who’ve seen Wood play. Not just his one innings last year but other games he’s played. He has the shots to help us in the first 6 overs. Why the management team appear so reluctant to give him a chance is frankly baffling.
Delete