Derbyshire v Surrey day 4

At the risk of suggesting that I have acquired Mystic Meg-like talents, today's game ended in the draw that looked nailed on from lunch time on day three. Indeed, it couldn't have looked more obviously so had it taken out national newspaper adverts, perimeter ads on the boundary hoardings and a fifty-foot high neon sign at the entrance to the ground that said 'THIS IS A DRAW'.

The wicket rendered it so, for reasons that I explained last night. No doubt a track more conducive to wicket-taking was prepared, but you can't legislate for the rain that meant we had to switch. Some might say we should have had it covered better, but I don't accept that as fair comment when you're playing the night before for the benefit of the TV cameras.

The only surprise to me was that Karl Krikken didn't take the opportunity with the game dying on its feet to give Ben Slater another bat at the County Ground. With Seconds' games played away from home, it would have been useful experience for the lad and neither Madsen nor Chanderpaul really needed another knock after their first innings. Odd one that, when one assumes he will retain his place for a decent run.

He should open against Durham MCCU, a game that offers a number of batsmen an opportunity to find form. Godleman, Redfern, Durston and Whiteley should all play and we may see an Academy player or two, maybe even Tony Palladino if he is nearing fitness.

Time for replies to last night's comments - Mark: come on mate, get the gloomy glasses off! This would have been a good eight-day match and only a Steyn or Warne would perhaps have changed that. We need to get the wickets right from here and trust to the players to out-perform their opponents. To suggest that the bowlers were at fault on this track is just daft mate.

As you'll read in my next Cricinfo piece over the next couple of days, another £300K in our playing budget would have helped a bit, but we're doing the best we can with players who, realistically, are in some cases looking short of top level standard. That may be because it has come too soon for them, or it may be because, like a good Championship goal-scorer who doesn't make the step up, they are just short of the next jump in quality. Time will tell, but we'll keep working and see if some can prove early judgements to be incorrect.

Notoveryet is correct in his assertion that pointing out the failings of winter signings after the event is not especially realistic. Sure, had we the money to sign Denly, Ballance and Brooks this winter we would have done better. But were they available? Brooks was, but Yorkshire paid top dollar that we can't afford. Denly and Ballance weren't available, so fans need to be realistic. Surrey paid big money for Vikram Solanki, who averages 34 - OK, but maybe not enough bang for the buck. They did the same for Gary Keedy, who has 2 wickets at 121. Somerset paid big money for Gemaal Hussain a couple of years back after a good year at Gloucestershire, but 2 wickets at 63 this year suggest he's short of this level too. It ain't easy folks and the solution takes time.

Mind you, notoveryet...I did get that result right. I don't know about signs of wear, but this game needed at least two more days for a positive result.

Finally tonight, let's hear it for Martin Guptill. His superb innings today highlighted once more what a class act he is. We can only hope that he's back at the County Ground before too long, but I don't think it will be for the T20. I think he will opt for the Caribbean version, a good shop window for the IPL - and, let's face it, better weather...

Hope I'm wrong though and that Messr Grant and Krikken have got a good plan B up their sleeves.