Further thoughts on Houghton and successor

David Griffin, the club's Heritage Officer, came up with some interesting statistics on Wednesday on Dave Houghton's two spells at Derbyshire.

From 2004-2007, in four-day cricket we played 55, won 7, lost 19, drew 29

From 2019-2021, we played 31, won 6, lost 12 and drew 13.

Neither are especially impressive records, but I would still regard his second spell as marginally better, as he has had younger players. The challenge has been in developing them and the question is how many of our players have genuinely improved over the last three years? 

I struggle to count to five, which is why he has ultimately failed. Certainly of our top five batsmen, only Matt Critchley has come on in that time, the others either having plateaued or declined from erstwhile glories. 

There is more potential and achievement in the bowlers. Both Sam Conners and Ben Aitchison have done well, while there is perhaps untapped potential in  Dustin Melton, Nick Potts and Mikey Cohen. But the need for senior support was obvious and they have been thrown in at the deep end, results suffering as a consequence. 

I will maintain to my last breath that the release of Tony Palladino was a huge mistake. He would have enjoyed some of the wickets this year, as well as offering the captain control on less favourable ones. Someone for the youngsters to look to on the pitch, where they had nowhere to go. 

The only surprise, for me, was that it took so long. The reasons for a parting of the ways were patently clear several months back. Take your pick between recruitment, especially of overseas players, selection, motivation and interviews in which he seemed to toss a coin and blame someone, not always logically. When he chose a Members Forum to publicly criticise Harvey Hosein, it was patently clear that the rudder had gone. You just don't do that. 

From a marketing perspective, selling Derbyshire to potential members, sponsors and players was going to be very tough without change. It got to the point where it was a necessity on finance alone, especially when for 2.5 days we were hammered by a very average Leicestershire side that included three of our old players, ones we thought either weren't good enough or didn't fight hard enough to keep. 

A club that props up tables is not an attraction, any more than a pub with a bad reputation. Hanging 'under new management' outside the door is something to hang your hat on, for people to get behind. If the new man has a little charisma, as the best do, it will help in ways that are not necessarily obvious. 

My suggestion of coaches we should consider last night focused on people with track records in motivational skills and tactical nous, as well as coaching ability. Whoever comes into our job will have a limited budget, so considering those whose name and reputation has been built at counties with money is questionable.

Most decent coaches can buy success. Our need is someone who can coax more from the players we have and devise playing, coaching and recruitment strategies to turn matches and improve them. 

As Mark Alleyne said in the linked article, a good player might still score runs against you, but if you can slow him down from ten an over to seven, you make a difference to perhaps win a game.

As Grant Bradburn wrote on his Twitter feed last week, 'provide an environment where everyone is valued and you will see the leaders. They are not just the captain'. Sage words indeed. 

Houghton was right yesterday, when he said that the players needed a new voice. You saw it with Dominic Cork in year one of the T20, the players responding to his gung ho style. In year two it was less effective and I have heard that his coaching has less substance once the response to 'up and at 'em boys' has gone.

Dean Jones was the same. In his first year his abrasive nature shook things up and we nearly won the title. Second time around that approach became an irritant in a strong dressing room that quickly became polarised and fragmented. He worked on the basis that everyone responded to that. They don't. Any manager worth his salt will tell you that. 

Eddie Barlow succeeded because, regardless of his own performance, he gave players clear goals on fitness and performance, he led from the front, valued his players and made them feel there was no such thing as a lost cause. Years later, those who played with him revere his memory, those who saw the side play get nostalgic over the positive attitudes he instilled around the club. 

I have spoken to many players, past and present, over the years. They all say that they played their best cricket when they felt wanted, when they knew their role and when the coach understood them and encouraged them to express themselves. Reading how Grant Bradburn got into the heads of the Scotland players is remarkable. A cursory look at his Twitter feed shows his references to having regular discussions, getting people into a good place, encouraging them to play their own game and be fearless, as well as being unafraid to have tough conversations. We need that at Derbyshire. 

Let's face it, whoever comes in may need to work notice, so recruitment for next year will be a challenge, another reason for my suggesting an earlier parting of the ways with Houghton. The new man may broadly have to work with what we already have, so maximising their potential, getting a structure in place and getting to know people and what makes them 'tick' will be the immediate challenge.

The board absolutely MUST ensure that the recruitment process is robust and thorough, as this is the biggest thing they will do for years. Get people involved like those I mentioned last night - and Adrian Rollins would be another good person to involve - to ensure we get a coach fit for modern purpose.

They mustn't go for the easy approach, the Derbyshire name, the cheap and convenient option who won't cost much for relocation. Look at the CVs of the applicants, where they had their success, HOW they got it. Talk to people around the circuit (and overseas, depending on where the applicant is from) and find out their strengths and weaknesses as a coach, as a man.

If they listened to supporters, Chris Adams will be a shoo-in. I am not against him at all, but success at Sussex came with money and a good squad, plus stellar players from overseas in Murray Goodwin and Mushtaq Ahmed. Issues at Surrey have followed him since and the reality is that he has been out of first-class cricket for some time. I suspect he is more of a 'my way or the highway' coach too, which ultimately didn't work for John Morris or Kim Barnett, as well as Dean Jones. 

I won't discount him though, because he may be a decent and best option from those applying. There weren't many applicants last time and we must hope for better this time around. Northamptonshire also have a vacancy now, so competition for the best is there. 

But whoever we appoint, he HAS to be the right man, the appointment made for the right reasons. His ability to strategise, plan, recruit, motivate and coach, proven in environments similar to our own. A man who will have a style we play and wants a certain type of wicket to support that style and the players we have. 

Not merely an appointment to placate supporters and have a fairly quiet life.

As I have said before, there is opportunity here. We need to be brave enough, ambitious and sufficiently forward - thinking to take it.