Glamorgan 394 and 184-2
Derbyshire 598-5d (Godleman 227, Lace 143, Hosein 91*)
Drawn
And so a game that was ruined by the rain, and a wicket that was far too heavily in favour of batsmen, petered out yesterday.
The only interest, to be fair, was in whether Billy Godleman could set a new record for the highest score made by a Derbyshire batsman, and if Harvey Hosein could make a century.
Neither happened, as it turned out. Billy was adjudged leg before for 227, while Harvey was unbeaten on 91 when the declaration came. It was a fine effort by both of them, but this sort of wicket is the kind that kills the game. The one at Durham last week had something for batsmen and bowlers alike, but the declaration here was but a token.
We move on to Derby against Lancashire on Monday, where batting, against a keen seam attack, will be much more of a challenge.
More from me over the weekend.
PS Could someone PLEASE tell the chap that does the ECB voiceovers on the highlights that it is Hu-sane and not Hoe-sin?
And while you are at it, let Sky know that 'six' is fine and 'maximum' is really unnecessary every time on the commentary.
Still, they will be on to annoy us with 'Derby' 'Madsden' and more before we know it...
I wasnt able to follow this game other than via your updates Steve and the scorecards but I do wonder why, considering the pitch was such a batsman's paradise and the chances of us bowling Glamorgan out were slim, on earth Harvey wasn't allowed the chance to complete his century ??
ReplyDeleteThe game is at Derby on Monday Peakfan
ReplyDeleteDisappointed Harvey wasn’t allowed to get his hundred. And also disappointing that this new lad Du Plooy is the new specialist batsmen at 8. Ludicrous batting order decisions for the last 12 months really if you ask me.
ReplyDeleteI think it was the very definition of optimism to bowl them out in less than two sessions when runs had been so easy to come by. So I am inclined to agree.
ReplyDeleteAlso with du Plooy at 8. For me, he should be at five, between Lace and Hughes. Four in T20, though there would be an argument for him opening
With the wicket being so flat I would have just batted time and giveh the chance for Harvey to make a ton and Matt a third successive 50
ReplyDeleteAgree with Duplooy being at 5 in the order
Will be an interesting benchmark v Lancashire
According to Godleman in interview, the team knew that there was a cut-off for the innings with 62 overs, with a maximum of another 2 overs if someone was approaching a landmark. So Hosein knew exactly how long he had to reach his century, and presumably decided not to risk getting out. David Houghton confirmed this when he said it was the batsman's decision and supported him in not risking throwing away his wicket. In the even, for all it mattered in the end, he could have been allowed to complete it, along with Critchley and du Plooy getting needed time in the middle. I'm not sure how meaningful this would have been as Glamorgan were clearly losing interest, and we'd all have complained about Derbyshire lacking ambition.
ReplyDeleteOn the point of Harvey's surname, I'd be interested in knowing how he pronounces his name, as Derbyshire's own announcer has always pronounced it "Hoe-sine". Maybe we're all getting it wrong.