Derbyshire 492 and 94
Kent 412 and 176-3
Kent won by seven wickets
I have to admit being disappointed by this one.
I had a vibe last night that we'd go down today and we did, quite heavily. It was a question of whether we bowled or batted the worst, on a wicket that was offering reasonable help for bowlers. By all accounts Kent got their combination right and bowled as they needed to do. We didn't and there should be a few embarrassed players tonight. To make nearly 500 in the first innings and then fail to make three figures in the second is, quite frankly, a poor effort. Only Wayne Madsen looked to come to terms with the wicket, which in a decent batting side is, to use that word again, disappointing.
I'm a little baffled tonight to be honest. We have a young leg-spinner who has huge potential in Matt Critchley and he got carted today, as Kent wisely decided to go for it, rather than waiting for one of dodgy bounce to do for them. Yet Matt was the sixth bowler used and we need to get him some overs, in one team or another. I just get the feeling he is currently being used as an afterthought in the championship.
Leg spin is a fiendishly difficult art to master, but there's only one way to do that - by bowling, then bowling more. He's not yet a good enough batsman to play in the latter capacity, so in four-day cricket we either need to bowl him more and accept there will be times he will be costly, or give him the bowling he needs to perfect his skills between the one-day game and the second team. He will be a key component of our one-day side in a more defensive role, but if he is only going to be used as a second or third spinner in the championship, maybe Alex Hughes or Scott Elstone should be given a try.
It was all rather a shame for Shiv Thakor, who had the best game of his life yet somehow ended up on the losing side. There wasn't much more that he could have done, that's for sure.
Let's hope that we can put this one behind us with another good T20 performance on Friday night at Northampton. I bet the players are looking forward immensely to the drive down to Hove straight afterwards...that's quite a trek on a Friday night.
Shades of the 'good old days'.
How could we score 492 and then lose against a team that was two players short?
ReplyDeleteHow could a pitch that had yielded over 900 runs in the first three days suddenly become an apparent minefield when we batted agiain, and then lose its venom when Kent came in to knock off the runs? A mystery!
For seasoned Derbyshire fans, this was not a surprising defeat, but it was a deeply shocking one.
Why do they make it so hard to believe in them?
Keith B
Very poor indeed. To lose from that position is unacceptable.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately at the moment young Critchley is not good enough to play four day cricket. His career bowling average at first class level is now a mind boggling 160 with an economy rate nudging five and unless I've missed it he hasn't taken a wicket this season. Let's play him in the T20 stuff and work from there.
He's not the only one seemingly unable to extract pressure on opposing batsman. Thakor aside our season bowling averages and economy rates make for depressing reading. You could make a case for dropping all three from this game and bringing in Milnes, Cork and Davis but would it make any difference?
I'm not bothered what they might or might not be looking forward to- most need to have a good think about that performance and do something about it. Woeful!!
ReplyDeleteGood points made today and yesterday Peakfan regarding the squad. At least we all seem to be arriving at a consensus that this team is inadequate in the 4 day game. Where do we go from here now that we have added our signature battling collapses to our already hapless bowling?
ReplyDeleteThis is a really toxic mix of ineptitude and some fundamental changes are required. Given the recent contract extensions we have one hand tied behind our back.
I expect the one day game might give is some respite but we need to see our middle order in action before we get too confident
Many more questions to answer about this defeat than the handling of Critchley. He wasn't actually as much of a target or afterthought as the scorecard makes it look. He came on to bowl the 17th over, caused a few problems, and wasn't the most expensive at that stage - both Thakor and Taylor were more expensive. The real damage to his figures came when he was brought back on to bowl with just 17 required after the previous two overs from Cotton and Hughes had gone for 24 runs. With six wickets to spare and rain hovering, it was obvious what the Kent batters were going to do, whoever was bowling, and it was indefensible captaincy to throw a young bowler to the wolves like this.
ReplyDeleteIndeed there are, Notoveryet, as I think was obvious in my piece last night. That was the point I was making, that we are not being fair to the lad. He can only learn by bowling and needs runs to play with - as do all of his kind as a rule. Had we batted anything like we should have, he could have been a match winner. Yet it is unfair to put that pressure on a young man who is perhaps ten years from his peak and very much at the 'novice' stage.
ReplyDeleteMore from me later...
The five draws we've mustered before this hammering have only papered over the cracks so far this season. It should be reading three draws three defeats if we're being honest with ourselves. Welch is accountable for this, and I'm seeing zero signs of improvement in the four day game since he's been here. Few players improve, Thakor may be the exception this season, so is it down to the poor coaching as well?.
ReplyDeleteWe seem a very passive lot at Derbyshire and settle for mediocrity season upon season, so time for change if you ask me.
The question with Matt Critchley is can the club afford the long term commitment a player of his type requires. Can the short term interests of the club be secondary to the long term interests of the player. It's a long, hard slog to make a leg spinner. Hundreds and hundreds of monotonous hours of practice just to master the basics. There are no short cuts. He should only play when its in his interests to play and this could be for 4 or 5 years. I'm not sure if modern society has the patience.
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned the other week the plan a couple of weeks ago seemed to be Wes Durston to be the main spinner this season but then a couple a games in (and Durstons figures were no worse than other bowlers) Critchley seems to have been thrown in.
ReplyDeleteThe plan just seems to change with the wind and I cant help thinking this doesn't help the players