The dust has settled on another Derbyshire white ball defeat and I thought I would try to unpick a few things as best I can.
I will start by saying that I don't doubt, for a minute, the commitment that Mickey has to the Derbyshire job. Some do, but I can only go by my own observations and anecdotes from those whose opinions I trust. Aside from other contracts that he has been allowed to take on in his time at the club, his commitment has been impressive.
I know that he arrives early and often leaves late. I know that some of the players he has brought to the club have been as a result of those other contracts and I am confident that he has given his best to the club.
But was he the best fit for the job in the first instance?
I just feel that perhaps he brings an intensity which is too much in a dressing room that is not stacked with elite cricketers. By that, I mean non-internationals, because you have to be among the very best to set foot on a first-class cricket ground and hold down a career.
It has been evident in some of the post-match interviews that he has done that he is stressed and under pressure. With respect, that goes with senior management in most spheres and having been there, the skill is in not conveying that to those underneath you. There were times of crisis in my career where others were running around like Corporal Jones in Dad's Army and people were looking for help.
Don't get me wrong, inside I may well have been as stressed as them, but It is how you conduct yourself in these situations that dictates how you are perceived as a man and a leader, and how people respond to that leadership.
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence - and I've heard it a couple of times myself - of the hair dryer treatment being given in the dressing room after a game. That might have worked for Alex Ferguson at Manchester United, though I feel football and cricket are different beasts and I am not sure how effective it will be in cricket.
That rant might help you as an individual, a safety valve if you will, but it doesn't do a great deal for those on the end of it. Indeed, if it becomes commonplace, that already limited effectiveness is almost nullified, as the recipients will sit there thinking 'here we go again', probably zoning out as the shouting goes on. So the impact is only in communicating to your charges that you need to vent, you are stressed, you are not happy and you are not in control.
It also needs to be remembered that few people really respond to being shouted at. I never have, for one and I felt my hackles going up, tension build and less productive as a consequence.
In the course of my time writing, I have spoken to a number of former Derbyshire players and the insights of those from the Eddie Barlow era were particularly interesting. Of course there were bad days under Barlow, as there are for any sports team. His response, at the end of the game, was to say 'let's talk about it tomorrow'. They would do, in a calmer, more rational state of mind and people would have a clear idea of how to do better next time, of where they had fallen short the day before.
To some extent it was easier for Eddie, because he could go on the pitch and influence the game with his great skills and personality, but the processes are still valid. In defence of the Derbyshire Head of Cricket, he doesn't go out there and play the poor shots, bowl the long hops, or drop the crucial catch.
When Mickey Arthur came to the club, he said that people should judge him when he had HIS team. I seem to recall that after two years he said that he now had that team. People with more time than I may wish to go and find those interviews, but I don't think I'm wide of the mark.
He also said, in another interview, that he felt three years, at the most four was the lifespan of a coach's effectiveness in a role, because at that point the players had heard it all and there was nothing new to say.
Fast forward to year...five, this year. With another two to come. So what has changed? Isn't it fair for supporters to feel short-changed and to wonder why his stance has altered and the club appears - rightly or wrongly - to be content to merely mark time?
I have obviously never been in the Derbyshire dressing room. But isn't it logical for players to start to doubt a coach who one minute is ranting and pulling them apart in the dressing room, then telling the world they are all much improved in an interview? When defeat follows defeat, the latter surely cannot be true, unless the opposition are having three Shredded Wheat for breakfast.
You look at the player averages over that five year period and they don't show a widespread improvement. Some have gone into clear decline, with only the likes of Ben Aitchison (thankfully recovered from injury) Rory Haydon (new to the club) and Nick Potts (benefitting from a fresh voice, giving him confidence) really moving forward. Why is that?
Even our overseas players have had mixed results. Shan Masood was a class act and Zaman Khan will be remembered fondly. So too Mohammad Ghazanfar (but not his fielding) but others? Haider Ali was brought to England for a first experience of conditions as a middle order bat and was asked to open. Suranga Lakmal was a fair idea, but he had never bowled the sustained overs we needed and broke down. Daryn Dupavillon looked fairly ordinary, despite a number of career wickets. Blair Tickner was far from a success despite trying hard. Caleb Jewell has declined in year two, Mohammad Abbas has struggled to take wickets for the first time in his career.
So is it the environment? Is it too pressurised for non-elite players? Some people thrive on pressure but others crumble. When the going gets tough, the tough might get going, but don't make an assumption that everyone is in that bracket. They will look for guidance and leadership. They will want someone to break their role down for them, especially the less experienced or confident.
Eddie Barlow used to say cricket is a simple game. See the ball, hit the ball. It is easy to over-complicate it and wonder if your hands, feet and head are in the right position, but if you hit the ball cleanly, does that matter so much?
Another great, Dean Jones, broke down his acknowledged ability to chase totals. Ten an over is no big deal, he said with typical Aussie bravado. An early boundary each over, then rotate the strike and 'manipulate the field'. Ones became twos, with good placement and timing of shots, together with hard running. Dot balls were minimised. He was right, of course, as he usually was.
A great player too, though perhaps an example of what Mickey referred to, with a finite lifespan. He was abrasive, called a spade a ***** shovel and wasn't averse to bawling people out within earshot of supporters, as I saw a few times. It worked for one golden summer, but in a dressing room of strong personalities, his style was always going to limit its effectiveness and long-term viability.
So what next for Derbyshire?
There is no magic wand to wave. A look around the country at out of contract players doesn't show many who would radically change our fortunes, even if the budget was there. The Hundred is changing things - and not for the better - and some of the salaries being asked by agents and paid by some clubs is eye-watering. We can't compete and an appreciation of that is key to setting expectations. We could get rid of player X, Y and Z but the replacement costs could be higher and with no guarantee of them doing any better, of course. Rikki Clarke was a terrific cricketer, but his time at Derbyshire was disappointing, as just one example.
Yet Northamptonshire won the Blast, a county similar to ourselves. Perhaps in a style tangentially opposed to modern thinking, with three older players in David Willey (36) Luke Procter (38) and Ben Sanderson (37) key to their success, rather than a team of athletes in the field. Add in some shrewd domestic recruitment (Calvin Harrison) and gun overseas bats in Chris Lynn (36) and Nathan McSweeney, they had a solid, professional side who bowled cannily and batted without fear, whether setting or chasing totals. Regardless of the eleven, Darren Lehmann got the environment right - and players responded.
I don't expect Mickey Arthur to fall on his sword anytime soon, nor do I expect the board to thank him for his time and pay up his deal. The first would be an admission of failure, which is unlike the man, the second would be a financial commitment the club can ill-afford, unless they went without overseas players and new recruits for next year. Would you take on the role in that situation? I know I wouldn't.
Change is needed, but that could be both in personnel and/or mindset. Worcestershire have been using mindset training to improve their handling of tough game situations and it might be worthy of investigation.
The one sure thing is that they cannot continue as they are. I accept - and I think most supporters do - that the county is not equipped to challenge in both red and white ball cricket. Certainly not with the injuries of this year, when the squad has come close to a 'last man standing' selection process.
But getting the best out of those players is key. The evidence is that too many players are in decline, which can be down to age or motivation. Nor does there appear an obvious correlation between doing well in the seconds and gaining opportunity as a consequence.
We should have been all over Savin Perera, who scored an unbeaten 160 for the second team this summer. He has been given a deal for the One Day Cup by Somerset and performed solidly so far. This is a lad who has made 20 centuries for SACA and has scored a thousand runs in each of the last three summers in the Nottinghamshire Premier League. He averages 95 this year and has four successive centuries in a strong league. If we are looking for a fairly cost-effective player for next summer, surely he would be a good option, worth a punt on those stats? That he is left-handed and desperate for an opportunity only heightens his appeal to me.
But the overseas signings also need to be right. Good ones set the standard and spread confidence by their efforts. Easier said than done with the congested international calendar, but identifying the right attitude will go a long way. I have to say I am a fan of the regulation positive mental attitudes of Australians and Kiwis, rarely a bad thing.
There is no quick and easy solution, I'm afraid. You simply cannot bring the best Pathway players into a struggling side and expect them to perform. Most have a challenge with the transition to the second team, so further elevation is more likely to break them, than anything else.
If the board feels Mickey Arthur is still the best man to improve the mindset of the existing players and bring through the young ones when they are ready, they will back him. I have my doubts, but it isn't my decision to make.
But with clear evidence of decline among the playing staff, surgery is needed that we cannot really afford, so patience is the only way forward.
From where we are right now, I don't see major improvement in the next three seasons, regardless of who is in charge.
But the time for a reset of some kind is firmly upon us. And a clear strategy of how that is to come about simply has to be in place.
As a friend messaged me today:
'Surely we have two cricketing purposes? One to win cricket matches and once in a while either win promotion or get to finals day.
Two, to be a vehicle for young talent through the pathway & local leagues to aspire to be a professional cricketer'
While accepting that 'two' takes time, there has been no progress in one, that I can see.
