Derbyshire 260 all out (Came 71, Chappell 48, Home 6-51)
Worcestershire 261-2 (Roderick 152*, Libby 71*, Chappell 2-40)
Worcestershire won by eight wickets
In fact, after a solid opening stand of 82 in 14 overs from Harry Came and Luis Reece, they didn't really look like winning at any point. Worcestershire employed our own tactics against us and strolled to victory, winning the toss, bowling and then knocking off a fairly ordinary total with considerable ease.
They deserve great credit. I can't recall the last time I saw an attack with such little experience, but they bowled very well as a unit and were backed up by tigerish fielding, as you might hope for in a youthful side. In Jack Home they appear to have unearthed another very talented quick bowler and he reinforced the positive impression that he made against us in the T20 match at Worcester. Tom Hinley bowled his left arm leg spin cleverly and Ethan Brookes again confirmed that we missed an opportunity when he trialled with our second team last summer.
They looked to have a long tail, but they didn't need to take the risks that may have been required had they needed to bat first and set a total. Roderick batted beautifully after a hesitant start against Conners and Chappell, rarely looking in trouble. Libby gave good support as they eased to their target with overs to spare.
Derbyshire never got going. The middle order was again disappointing as a unit, as the visiting spinners bowled with accuracy and only a late injection of much-needed power from Zak Chappell set any kind of total. In light of his form with the bat, perhaps he and Patel should swap positions in the order? Came anchored the innings, but struggled for fluency against a keen attack.
Chappell was also excellent with the ball and Conners looks the best I have seen him this season in this competition. His excellent catch to dismiss Jones also gave Derbyshire some hope, but that was as good as it got, as Libby helped Roderick add an unbroken 161 for the third wicket.
The control of Moore was missed today, which is high praise for a 17-year old. Dupavillon doesn't offer that and I have to wonder, after watching him all summer, if he perhaps runs in TOO quickly, perhaps not being consistently balanced in his delivery stride? I know he is struggling with injury, but there was little control from him or anyone today, after the opening pair finished their spells
Just a thought. There will be a few of those before Taunton on Sunday.
Very disappointing. Came and Reece got us off to a good start, but we then imploded (as we often do) until Chappell, supported by Dupavillon, got us to a competitive score.
ReplyDeleteOur bowling was lacklustre. Credit to Worcestershire, who fielded a lot of young and inexperienced players. Roderick and Libby never looked in trouble.
Downthewicket
On holiday in France , so watched the live stream . Once Reece was out , I thought the innings was poorly handled and our players found ways to get themselves out apart from Came … the table topping euphoria will have been tempered a little , Somerset and Hampshire on the road will be a test and probably define whether we qualify or not . Hopefully Moore is ok to play and Whiteley can return from the Snackerama Competition
ReplyDeleteHave to admit that I was concerned when we had to bat first. Our middle order just has no form at all but there’s not really much option to change it.
ReplyDeleteExcellent from Chappell once more, but the middle order failed to fire again. We really missed Moore's control and bounce. I would pick Moore and Dal for Sunday. Kris
ReplyDeleteWent today and that knock from Roderick was one of the best innings I've seen. Simon
ReplyDeleteHe is a good player, surprised Notts haven't been in for him yet...
DeleteProbably because he is a wicket keeper and would take the place of Tom Moores. Can’t be having that at Notts!
DeleteWas Harry Moore fit today? If so, the decision to leave him out in favour of Dupavillon backfired spectacularly. Worcs played their 18 year old fast bowling prodigy, Jack Home, who took 6-51. We leave out ours and his replacement takes 0-47 in a lacklustre bowling performance. Much food for thought?
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, they rested Home in the last game, because they need a break at that age. We rested Moore today but he will likely be back on Sunday, I suspect.
DeleteThe last thing we can afford to do is wreck a young talent before he's even got started. There have been plenty of similar talent in my time watching the club and we have to do the right thing and look after the lad, even if it is to the team's detriment at times
fully agree with you there peakfan , we need to be careful with younger fast bowlers. Martin
DeleteExcellent all round performance from Chappell today. Plus marks for Connors and Came too. The rest were amateurish with the middle order treating it as a T20 match. Worcestershire were impressive.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree about our middle order. It's been poor this season in all competitions...and last season...and the one before. We have talented players (on paper), but too many times they don't deliver. Why? I've no idea.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the betting that the Derbyshire collapse starts as of now, Somerset will be another hammering as well. You just know that all of the good work we've done in the first few matches will probably count for very little come the final game
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Peakfan. Losing the toss was a bad blow. If we had won the toss and put them in we may have had a different result.
ReplyDeleteI am still confident of qualification, if Moore and Dal come into the side. Du pavillion looked down on pace (injury?) and without speed, he suffers. There is a case for batting Wagstaff as a batter, instead of a number 8. This would give an extra spinning option and take one of the out of form players put of the middle order. Kris
ReplyDeleteI didn't watch any of the match, and looking at the result, I wasn't sure whether it was our batting unit or bowling unit that had misfired. Sadly, reading your post and comments to date it would appear that it was probably both. Maybe an opportunity for both Dal and Wagstaff for Lamb and Bin Naeem, though dropping Bin Naeem after only 1 inning would be harsh. It would though give many more bowling options, whilst not damaging the batting on current form.
ReplyDeleteInterested in your comments on Sam Conners. He does seem to have more fluency in recent times, but he is meant to be a strike bowler, and he has really struggled with wickets this season. In this competition he is averaging a wicket every 11 overs. In comparison Brown is taking 1 every 3 overs, Chappell 1 every 4 and Moore and Du Pavillon 1 every 5. I cant really see why he isn't taking wickets this season, but it was the same in the Championship. Is it worth giving Potts a go in his place?
Zak is seriously impressive at the moment. Why Welsh Flicker didn't pick him up instead of Ross is a mystery. Not that it will happen but I'd go with the following side for Somerset. Came, Reece, Wagstaff, Guest, Dal, Bin Naaem, Chappell, Patel, Moore, Conners, Brown
ReplyDeleteI think we would have all taken won 3 lost 1 from our first four games. The test now will be 2 away games against teams, which, although weakened, are counties that are accustomed to winning.
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with resting Moore. That wasn't the reason for losing yesterday. Our middle order didn't produce. After a good start, we fell well short of the 320 plus we looked on course for.
Patel's dismissal certainly lent credence to the theory that he is susceptible to the short ball, and your suggestion of swapping him and Chappell isn't such a crazy idea it might have previously seemed.
From the stand, it was difficult to tell how well Home bowled. Apart from Reece, who he bowled, all his wickets were catches off skiers. It wasn't obvious if this was batsmen error or good bowling inducing false shots. And they included Bin Naeem (probably nervous), Dupavillon and Chappell in the last over.
ReplyDeleteWorcestershire didn't have any experienced batting to come if we could have taken another wicket, but Roderick and Libby didn't look like getting out, so a disappointing end to the match.
The middle order has let us down so many times this season.We would have qualified for the Blast quarters if we hadn't had so many collapses.Nothing much wrong with
ReplyDeletethe bowling but a middle 3 of Lloyd Lamb and Patel aren't going to get us the runs we will require.topspinner