And so, with more of a whimper than the roar of a lion, Derbyshire's RLODC campaign petered out on a murky day, perhaps in keeping with the way things ended.
The batting was adequate, but no more than that. It was a good toss to win and the ball zipped around early on. Shiv Thakor played a fine innings, much of it on the front foot as conditions dictated. Alex Hughes played a delightful cameo that threatened to make our score something challenging, while Daryn Smit played some inventive shots at the death, including a remarkable reverse sweep for six over the wicket-keeper.
Yet the target never looked challenging for the visitors and for the most part the Derbyshire attack looked pedestrian. The early assault by Kohler-Cadmore effectively won them the game and bruised too many bowling figures for comfort, while the out fielding was at times quite ordinary.
Later things improved. Smit held an excellent catch standing up to end the first wicket stand, technically better if not so spectacular as his later two handed grab from Viljoen. I thought the latter's second spell quite menacing and a couple of the batsmen were noticeably hurried by his pace and bounce. The catch by Mendis on the boundary to give him a third wicket was somewhat fortuitous for him, though stunning by the fielder, but it was all a little too late by then.
Worcestershire are a decent team in this competition and showed it by progressing to the knock out stages. For Derbyshire, it was a familiar tale of early promise that petered out in an all too familiar fashion.
I will acknowledge improvement, which is perhaps what we all hoped for, but there is work to be done before this side progresses further. Sorting all the problems in one winter was asking too much, considering where we were last summer, but we seem short of two bowlers of quality.
For another year, someone has to really kick on, or we need to look for options elsewhere and spend our Elton John swag on a proven wicket-taker.
There have been good spells by most of the bowlers, but until we have five who bowl more good than bad, we will continue to be consigned to the group stages of this competition.
Which is probably why we signed Matt Henry and Imran Tahir for the T20.
It makes a lot of sense, based on the efforts we all saw today.
While i agree with a lot of your sentiments,i still think it was an overall improvement on what has gone on in recent previous years. As you say,most of the bowlers have bowled good spells ,but only in 2 or 3 games,when we need it to be in 4 or 5 games.Undoubted improvement in the batting overall.
ReplyDeleteDL didn't do us any favours today,and i think we can count ourselves unfortunate to have lost the toss in the last 3 rain affected games.
The crucial game was the lancs one,losing that when the game seemed won.If that had been won,then who knows.
I think we now have a competitive outfit,providing most if not all are fit,and firing.
Overall though,i am encouraged.
Not having Davis at all during the tournament has been a big miss. Hopefully though,if nothing else,the last few games are getting Viljoen fitter and upto speed.
The slump has set in again, it's what Derbyshire do best. the the
ReplyDeleteNo I agree with Ian. There are improvements and D/L did us no favours. Steps forward but more needed from the bowling as a unit
ReplyDeleteThink the powers that be need to take another look at DL to see if there can be any way of tweaking it such that it shouldn't always be the automatic option for the side winning the toss to bat 2nd. We had 2 very different situations today vs worcester and lancs away,yet the side winning the toss immediately chose to bat 2nd. DL was certainly more generous in the game vs Lancs than today.We were into the 11th over before the first interruption,and by the time play resumed ,it turned out to be approx 28% of the way thru our innings,with less than 25 overs still to be played. Indeed we scored at an approx rate of just under 7 per over for the rest of the innings,and yet according to DL only 9 runs were added to the target,which seems rather harsh. Yes worcs may still have won,but DL doesn't seem to be keeping up with the way 50 over cricket has evolved over the last couple of seasons.
ReplyDeleteVery good comment anon.
ReplyDeleteI've read the current comments regarding the DLS method with great interest.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately the method used by the scorers is unavailable to the public due to the ICC claiming proprietary software issues stop it from being released in the public domain.
However, the Standard edition is freely avaialble and I encourage people to have a look.
The basis of the system is to convert the 1st innings into a percentage table where the percentage of the resources (overs and wickets in hand) is cross referenced.
Thus, using the Standard edition, the equation for Tuesday would have been:
Derbyshire started with 50 overs and 0 wickets lost = 100% of the resources available. When the rain started they scored 34-1 off 10.4 overs = 83.5% resources left. Play resumed with the match reduced to 36 overs per side, meaning 64.5% of their resources now remain. The method then takes the missing 19% (83.5% - 64.5%) into account, so Derbyshire used 81% of their 100% resources available.
A look at the chart shows 36 overs left with 10 wickets in hand meant Worcestershire had 84.1% of their resources available. Due to Worcestershire's % of resources being more than Derbyshire's %, the target is adjusted upwards using the following equation.
T= Target, S= Derbyshire's final score, R2= Worcestershire's resources, R1 = Derbyshire's resources, 245= The DLS par score for a 50 over innings at this level.
T= S + (R2-R1) x 245/100) + 1 so to fill in the numbers:
T= 208 + (84.1% - 81%) x 245/100) + 1
T= 208 + (3.1 x 2.45) + 1
T= 208 + 7.595 + 1
T= 216.595
As I mentioned earlier, the Professional method used by the scorers is not available yet to the public, so the scores will be slightly different, but I believe uses the same equation but with different percentage tables.
Derbyshire's problem was the three maiden overs they had early on and the loss of wickets at the end. All teams need to be aware of the equations used in these circumstances, they should have been aware that Worcestershire would only be chasing are marginally higher target.
Many thanks
Jeff
Very interesting post and well explained. Thanks Jeff!
ReplyDeleteI thought on this occasion it had been calculated by Diane Abbott!
ReplyDeleteExcellent post Jeff but unless this season is an anomaly the ECB need to change the DLS par of 245 as that would have won virtually no games this season
ReplyDeleteNo viljoen again tomorrow what was the point in him playing on Tuesday for what was a dead game if he is injured?
ReplyDeleteThe par score of 245 covers all matches played at this level globally, thus I don't think the ECB can actually change it. From memory it was increased from 235, I think, sometime ago. I do think the par score needs updating but the scores have increased mainly due to fielding restrictions, bigger bats and shorter boundaries. Hopefully the new bat restrictions will make for a more balanced game.
ReplyDeleteOne thing to note about DLS is that the same table is used for T20 as for 50 overs. Given the proliferation of T20, I would have thought there would be enough data to construct a specific chart for T20.
Looking at Viljoen on Tuesday I would be amazed if he played a championship game before the T20. He looked a long way short of fitness for bowling up to 20 overs a day.
ReplyDelete