At his best, Lungley was a very good bowler and in 2007 looked as if he could be on the verge of something
special. There were 59 wickets that summer and at times he looked unplayable. There was a rhythm to his bowling and he could look as good as anyone in the country. I saw him a few times that summer and was confident that, after a few years of problems with injury, this could be the locally produced seam bowler we had been looking for.
He could handle a bat too. Rarely with the aplomb that he showed when smashing a double century in the Derbyshire Leagues, but he could keep an end going and was a regular and competent night watchman.
It never worked out for Tom because his body was ultimately too fragile for the rigours of seam bowling in first-class cricket. Despite 59 wickets that summer, the rest of Lungley’s time at Derbyshire since 2000 has seen only a further 90 first-class victims. There have been occasions since then when he has looked dangerous, but he has rarely managed to hold down a regular place because of recurring problems.
It can sometimes be overlooked by supporters how demanding seam bowling is. Given that the bowling action is not a natural thing for a body to do, replicating it time and again, over after over, puts considerable strain on joints and muscles. Only those with strong physique and a less demanding and well-grooved action can escape serious setbacks and the current game is littered with those who have had their share of problems. There’s not that many Jones’ and Groenewald’s around.
At the end of it all, a club with Derbyshire’s resources cannot carry players who are consistently unfit but it is ironic that Tom’s final setback at Derbyshire was not of his own making. The fierce Steffan Jones drive that broke his arm meant he would not have one last chance to prove himself, though some would say there had been plenty such opportunities.
Whatever else, Tom Lungley gave his best when he had the opportunity at Derbyshire and I am sure that fans will wish him well. At his age and with his fitness record another county chance is unlikely, but the departure of a local lad is always sad and there are a lot of what-might-have-beens with Tom Lungley.
As for the club, I assume that this is the last departure of the season. As has been pointed out on IMWT, the loss of Rogers, Peterson, Wagg, Goddard, Sadler and Lungley frees up some money for John Morris that will help him to reshape the side. We have swapped a relatively inexperienced keeper and time-served seamer with opposites in Luke Sutton and Mark Turner, but no one would dispute that in doing so we haven’t improved things.
What John Morris does with the rest of his ‘pot’ will make for fascinating winter watching and I am as excited at the prospect as the rest of you.
Got to feel a little sorry for Lungley who always seemed to give his all for the club. Apart from his 'Golden' season though he rarely looked the part. Hopefully though he can pick up a few pounds elsewhere but I think he will struggle to get another first class county.
ReplyDeleteDCCCFOREVER
Despite my frustration with some of Morris's squad composition and, of course, Tom Lungley has been a significant player in that respect, I too recognize his long service to the club and wish him well. Ultimately though, this was the right decision, all things considered.
ReplyDeleteI now hope Turner can develop the control to go with his pace and offer the cutting edge we clearly need. Similar comments apply to both Footitt and Sheikh, as I highlighted on IMWT a couple of days back.
Numerically, we are carrying enough seamers now with seven in the senior squad. I would question if we have sufficient exponents of swing, but I am not convinced Morris will dabble further at this stage in that area of the ranks, unless an all rounder comes in to offer skills in this particular art.
There is clear potential there amongst the quicks, but I would question a few of things:-
a) the spread of experience
b) the variety
c) lack of a nigh on 'banker' for
40-50 wickets
Obviously, Morris might look to augment the group further, but I cannot see the point in eight pacemen personally, unless Jones seriously begins to retreat into the coaching ranks.
It is possible Morris has a good spin option up his sleeve of course. Although many, quite understandably, feel Needham needs a run, he is another with potential, rather than a proven record. I am not advocating resisting the opportunity to give him first go, but Morris has appeared to refrain from airing him out in the CC2 games this term, even when another twirler might have been a viable option. Does he share some of the fans' optimism?
I suggested six would go this tear and I think I may be right with this tally, although it is not quite the group I envisaged (5 out of 6). It will be interesting to see who else comes in - I expect a further two, maybe three.
Of the squad currently assembled, only Borrington and Hunter leave me rather unconvinced. There are a fair few more with 'potential' tags, but I feel that the former mentioned has to really step up next term and assert himself (at present his strike rate is feeble) and Hunter needs to show more of his early 2009 form. I have to say, I am not convinced he will, but he may have an Indian Summer, which would be great.
Hmmm, Rush. Long time since I listened to them. Perhaps, their less commercial third album, if my memory serves me right, Caress of Steel, was my favourite. Never tried to sing along with Geddy though, he sounds in a lot of pain with those tight trousers!
MASTERVILLAIN
Thanks gents and I agree DCCCF. Excellent sentiments MV and my son is impressed by your awareness of Caress of Steel. Reckons you're a true aficianado...
ReplyDeleteHard to argue with your assessments either