Saturday, 4 June 2011

Worth a read

Every now and again I get an exceptional comment from fans that is more than just a few words. It is good to bring these to wider notice at that time and such a comment came in last night from Notoveryet. You may or may not agree with the idea (I'd be interested to hear from you on that) but it is well thought out and  - well, I reproduce it below so you can see for youtself!

"Tonight was one of the few games that didn't clash with work commitments and close enough for me to get to. It brought back my comment a few nights ago - do we have the batting to chase 200?


The answer's yes but not every game, and I'm afraid that's what our T20 is going to look like. A dodgy stumping tonight didn't help us but our bowling was staggeringly naive at times. Notts bowlers were intrinsically no better than ours and a lot less experienced, but knew where to put the ball - full and straight - and had some subtlety and variety. Ours were too often in default mode - bang it in short and wide and hope for a wild slash.

This, for me, is the biggest indictment of John Morris' time. Our bowling has simply withered on the vine, dependent on varying quality of imports with no development or progress for our home grown talent. It's not surprising when we have had no bowling coach for two years, then bring in someone who can't do a lot of coaching when he's playing all of the time.

Let's face it, Derbyshire does not need a new head of cricket. Seven years of Morris / Houghton hasn't taken us very far, and in all honesty, it hasn't worked in a lot of other teams either. It's a great comfort blanket to have one man to blame or praise but has little else to commend it.

I hope that Chris Grant's idea is a team approach, in which several individuals combine their particular talents. This ensures continuity as people move on or change roles. Which brings me to my suggestion for a landmark signing - someone who knows the club inside out, lives locally, is doing a great job of supporting young talent at his present club, can still conjure occasional miracles as a player and captain, has never made any secret of his wish to finish his career with us, knows and gets on well with Krikken and Sutton, brings a high profile, and whose signing won't prevent us having a good overseas batsman.

I'm talking about Dominic Cork, obviously. A leadership team comprising him as the inspiration, mentor and on-field coach, Sutton as the planner and tactician, and Krikken as the co-ordinator, talent-spotter and technical coach. I think this will work.

Cork sounds as though he could be up for it as long as he doesn't want sole command and control. Earlier in the year, he tweeted "I always have a soft spot for Derbyshire. One day I would love to turn them into the Sussex of the north. Winners!!!!"

I know there is history that gets in the way, but perhaps a new chairman who isn't shackled by it and doesn't have the fragile egos of some of his committee that helped to drive Cork away could be the one to make it work.

At the very least, it's more likely to work, and cheaper, than bringing in an old overseas warhorse in the hope that they will do what Eddie Barlow did, but won't leave a structure behind that will bring long-term stability and progress."

The idea has much to commend it, as the correspondent points out. Cork knows the area and club and for those worried about old issues recurring I'd suggest that he is a far more mature, less confrontational player than the one who left Derbyshire for Lancashire. His son is currently in the academy and he has done a good job at Hampshire, still turning in decent figures after over twenty years in the game. It could, as pointed out, be affordable.

I only have three issues. One is that he may decide that his growing media career offers him the long-term security that he may wish, although much will depend on the strength of that desire to come back and turn us into a good side that can compete against the best on a regular basis.

The second is that the player/coach role may be attractive to the players I mentioned the other night and a good few more, but a standard overseas role for six months may not be a sufficiently attractive package. While they may be prepared to commit for something that gives them a start in a career after they stop playing, I'm not sure that big names would commit to six months of helter skelter for anything less.

The third is Cork's age. He'll be 40 at the start of August and the appointment couldn't realistically be seen, at least in any playing role, as anything but short term. To get more than one season out of him would be impressive, despite the fact that he still looks as fit as the proverbial butcher's dog. Time waits for no man, as the old saying goes.

Still, it is a worthy idea and that media role I referred to could see us attract more interest than has been the case for some time (the skipper's excellent newspaper blog notwithstanding).

Like I say, I'd welcome your comments. Thanks to Notoveryet for producing an excellent, thought-provoking piece.

13 comments:

  1. Would welcome him with open arms, he has a house (a very big one!) in mickleover so he would be up for it. Still a solid performer in division 1 so he should still have plenty to offer for at least one, maybe two more years. Opening the bowling next year with Steff they will have a combined age of 80!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sorry, Corky is not on my list of preferred candidates. As you say Peakfan, he may have mellowed somewhat, that indeed has to be hoped, but my reservation would be that he may still carry elements of the man management attitude of our former Head of Cricket, and I am certain that if that was the case then that would not be good for Derbyshire cricket, particulary for the development of our younger players.

    Sooner or later he would want sole control, and I just don't think that would work. So, sorry Notoveryet, it's a thumbs down for me on this one.

    I will however concur with Peakfan, you wrote a great piece, well done, I look forward to the next one!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes. A very good article notoveryet and well worth writing. Ive deliberatly taken time to think about it before replying. There are some good ideas but having thought about it as a whole,i am reluctant to vote in favour.

    I agree the Houghton/Morris era have failed to produce a team of satisfactory standard in any form of the game,in spite of both being allowed sufficient time to do so. We have to be careful though,not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Rather than blame the system, the fault surely lies with those we have entrusted in the past to implement it.

    Where both Houghton and Morris have mitigation is with regard to the academy. How many players have we produced through this avenue that have gone on to establish themselves as regular first team players?. And a very mediocre first team at that. Even if we did,are we doing it for our benefit or for other more affluent counties who would inevitably cherry pick the best players early in their careers?. It is clearly an unsatisfactory situation as it stands and one has to question if an academy is worth the financial cost it incurrs,or whether that money would be better spent in other areas. If we can,t produce county standard players there seems little point in it,s continued existence.

    To get back to the "management" side of things,i am still of the opinion that someone has to be in overall charge of playing matters. You make a valid point about utilising talent within the playing structure,but that has to under the direction of the head of cricket,or what ever other name may be chosen instead. Players should concentrate purely on playing. Yes, senior players have a role to play on the pitch itself and lend their experience to younger players,but when it comes to team selection,playing policy and tactics the captain in unison with the head of cricket should be the only player involved. Touching on the playing front,if the captain can,t seem to make the bowlers use a modicom of common sense,then what chance does anyone else stand?. Even if we did have a bowling coach. You shoudn,t need a coach to tell you to bowl straight and keep it pitched up. Its the basics of bowling,taught to you as a kid,but which our bowlers constantly choose to ignore.

    The obvious danger in involving too many people in the running of the club is there will inevitably be disagreements. Who,s right,who,s wrong and more important, who makes the final decision. The old saying "Too many cooks" springs to mind here. Under your idea that would be Krikken if i understand it correctly. So in effect,Krikken would,to all intents and purposes, be the head of cricket. Another point worth bearing in mind is contracts and player recruitment. No way can that involve people who still have a vested interest in playing. That has to be done by whoever is in charge.

    Im not sure about Cork either. Can,t see him wanting it anyway with his telly commitments. I would go for someone outside the county to be put in charge,with a new pair of eyes. That doesn,t mean he even has to be a coach,or indeed foreign. The coaching side would be for him to structure in the way he sees fit,but ultimately he takes responsibility for what happens on the pitch.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If it is Cork we want then fair enough but we have to give him full control. We can't have Grant, Sutton or anone else interferring I'm affraid.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Reading Chris Grant's latest article he seems focussed soley on next season which seems to mean he has already written off this season. With this in mind why don't we field some more youngsters this season and get more of the ECB cash? I'd start with giving Tom Poyton a go and let Madsen have a go at captain. Luke Sutton as captain hasn't worked and with him being towards the end of his career why not give a younger player a go as captain?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would leave Sutton as captain. You can,t blame him for irresponsible bowling and poor batting. He can only work with the players he has at his disposal. He has my sympathy. With regard to fielding more youngsters, dare we risk it?. This is part of my argument. We have a number of youngsters who have been around for a while now,but show little or no sign of making the grade. I suppose playing them would answer a number of questions as to whether they have something to offer,or not. Remember,county matches are supposed to last four days!.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks for the kind words, and I'm delighted it's provoked a really intelligent discussion. I'm sure I'm not the only one to feel that way.

    Dominic Cork wasn't really the main point. He just seemed to me to be someone who really fitted the bill in the structure I was thinking about. I had some doubts about whether he would eventually want complete control, but I think it's unlikely. Given his other interests, I can't imagine he'd want the year-round commitment needed for a head of cricket role, and that as long as he's playing, the role I'm suggesting won't impinge on his other activities.

    I take the points about decision-making, and there needs to be a clear structure where someone has the final word if it's needed. But I don't think it has to be tied to a job description or post title. Thinking back in our own history, one of our most productive periods was the Barnett / Russell / Willett era, and I don't think any of us really know who had the final word if it was needed. I'll give some more thought to this (though hopefully Chris Grant will be ahead of me) but perhaps this is more an issue of governance than line management. Perhaps a role for a strong cricket committee made up of co-opted members with good playing experience and able to stand aside from petty club politics, with a strong chair?

    On the academy, we seem to produce players who get to the fringes of the squad but don't develop further. This might be a matter of ability, but I suspect it might be the poverty of coaching and development they've had once they leave the academy - and perhaps the lack of incentive from a head of cricket who always seemed to be keener to import players than develop his own.

    Looking back to the end of Houghton's time in 2006 and 2007, we were optimistic about the future of the young players who had emerged from the academy. Redfern, Borrington, Poynton, Whiteley, Goddard, Patel and Needham spring to mind. None have developed as we anticipated and I can only think of Knight and Sheikh who have emerged from the academy who have got anywhere near the first team since. The academy seemed to do well enough in producing young players with good potential up to 2007, and it's only since then that it's dried up. Of course, Karl Krikken may have lost his touch in finding and developing players but I think it's unlikely.

    One of the things that led me to Dominic Cork was something I've read about Danny Briggs, Hampshire's young spinner. Cork seems to have played a big part in supporting his development, even if it sometimes didn't help the team in the short term. The sense was that you trust your young players and help them to learn when it doesn't go well, rather than blame and exclude them.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If we are having a new Head of Cricket (although for legal reasons we might not be able to call him that) next season my first choice would be Cork followed by Collingwood. If it was an overseas appointment I would (subject to availability) go for Justin Langer.
    The facts are that we have an Head of Cricket called Karl Krikken and it would be unfair for the chairman or anyone else to think about next season until Karl has had a 'fair' chance at the job.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You,re right notoveryet. Maybe the young players are not of sufficient caliber to make the first team,or indeed the coaching and structure are to blame aswell. Whatever the reason,something has to change and quickly. We can,t go on pumping money into something than produces unsatisfactory results. We may aswell spend it on the first team in recruiting better players or maybe increasing the wage budget to retain those we wish to.

    I agree a role need not be tied to a job description. my main point is there needs to be someone who is clearly in charge and can be identified as such. What you call him is immaterial.

    Cork has helped Danny Briggs develop as a player and i think all senior players at any club would look to help younger players. Im not a big fan of player/coaches though. There is a potential for them to fall between two stools and one or other role may suffer.

    Anway,it was a good piece and its that sort of thing that makes the blog worthwhile. Apathy is a friend of the devil.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Manchester United do very well because they give the manager a budget and let him get on with things without interference. I am very worried then when I read that our Chairman is looking to bring someone in to work with Luke Sutton. Does anyone think for a minute that the Chairman at Old Trafford chooses the captain?

    ReplyDelete
  11. What about our old mate Diva. I believe he has been assistant coach at Tasmania for the last 2 years while still scoring loads of runs for Durham in the 1st Division. Great mates with Sutts as well. Could we get him back?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Diva is now classed as English so we would be able to have an overseas player aswell.
    Funny you should say that Diva was assistant coach aswell as a player at Tasmania. I was lead to believe by a Mr. Grant last week that a Player Coach or Player Manager was 'ground breaking' lol.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Diva coming back would be brilliant

    ReplyDelete

Please remember to add your name. Avoid personal comment at all times. Thanks!