Durham 337-9 (Critchley 4-53) v Derbyshire
One is that the attack, without Michael Cohen, is too similar. For me, five right arm fast medium bowlers is at least one too many. If you are going to bowl them out on a wicket offering help, you will likely do it with three, especially when you have Luis Reece as a fourth variant to them. If you can't, then you need other options in order to do so.
Thus our need for winter recruitment would appear to be in getting that variety. With all rounders Reece and Hudson-Prentice in the eleven, I don't think we need four additional seamers in the side. Alex Hughes will always lengthen the batting and give a bowling option, while Tom Wood could have given another batsman. I would love to see us find an off-spinner who can bat for another year, as it is one angle we currently have no option and there is no genuine spin partner for Matt Critchley in an otherwise strong side.
Second, sadly, I am not convinced that Ed Barnes is of the requisite standard and would be surprised were there any interest beyond this season, assuming he is released by Yorkshire. He runs in hard and gives his all, but at this unforgiving level needs that little bit more. Ben Aitchison is a far better option and judging by their respective workloads in this innings (20 and 11 overs respectively) I don't think I am alone in that assertion.
Precious little passed the bat in the morning, or caused any issues until Critchley bowled Coughlin as he played on, then bowled Potts with a beauty that beat an otherwise perfect defensive stroke. Two wickets in three balls, after a 150 stand - like buses, eh?
Barnes did get the wicket of Salisbury, well caught by Madsen, before the rain came with a vengeance, but it is hard to see where a result can come from without a contrived finish along the way. The home side would appear to have scored too slowly to threaten us with the follow on and may be unwilling to risk another defeat by setting a target that we would undoubtedly chase.
That extra batsman might well have been useful...
No witch hunt here but did say I'd have gone with Cohen over Barnes.
ReplyDeleteQuicker and the other angle too given we have enough coming over the wicket the usual way.
You're right to point out that we're crying out for an off spinner. They used to be ten a penny even if Derbyshire tended not to have many good ones in my time!
It was an oddly flat, subdued performance this morning. Coughlan and Eckersley were allowed to play themselves in against a lackadaisical few overs of medium pace with the old ball as Derbyshire marked time waiting for the new one. A few overs of Critchley, who had troubled both at the start of their innings, and du Plooy would have made much more sense, and might have enlivened the fielding, which seemed to doze off in the first 20 minutes, and never really woke up even with the new ball. As they did yesterday, all of the quick bowlers erred on the leg side, ensuring a steady stream of singles that prevented any pressure being built up on the batsmen, even when they struggled to get shots away elsewhere. Guest was again untidy, gloving a couple for byes and letting go of what might have been a low catch off Coughlan, although the lack of dismay from the slips might indicate that it hadn't got an edge or dropped just short, but he had it in his gloves and let go. The one bright spot was that Critchley showed again his ability to conjure wickets even when he isn't getting a lot of help from the pitch, and this makes it more surprising that he has to wait until the quick bowlers have failed to get a bowl.
ReplyDeleteUnless the dire forecast for Tuesday is wildly awry, all that's left for us in this match is maximising batting bonus points after dropping the third bowling point. On a slow pitch with Rushworth to contend with, this isn't going to be straightforward and if they can get to 3 points tomorrow, they will have to go a good deal quicker than Durham managed. It's by no means a given, and with Somerset racing away with plenty of time to beat the weather, we'll have a lot to do in the final game to match Essex. It's fair to say that we'd all have been delighted a few weeks ago to be told that we'd seriously be competing at this stage, but this game and elements of the Yorkshire game have been an anti-climax.
I personally would like to see Tom Wood be given a proper opportunity. In the times he has been on Derbyshire books the amount of opportunities have been very limited. I Feel the Club has short changed the guy and we really should know by now if he got what it takes. He made his debut in 2016 and is now 26. I would certainly like to see in game against Lancashire and play him at 5. I think he should be used at 5 in 20/20 too and play all games. Taking player in and out how can get any consistency or confidence think its incredibly hard. The reason suggest play him at 5 I think top 4 is best seen for long time Reece, Godleman, Madsen and Du Plooy.
ReplyDeleteI think my thoughts Hughes is he doesn't do enough in this format. Fantastic one day player!!!! When was last time he made decent score in championship cricket? He was very underused as bowler last year and only got 3 wickets from the 90 overs he bowled. So if he is going play they need play him at 6/7 as proper allrounder and give him workload with the overs as he use to have knack breaking partnerships.
No arguments there, Gary. I think he would be a good option at 5, for sure
DeleteI too would like to see Wood get a proper go.
ReplyDeleteI think in truth we are a side in transition. The top 4 is set in stone as is Hosein's position as keeper.
Our bowling unit is promising but in the absence of Dino and Ravi it's shorn of experience. Cohen, Melton, Conners and Aitchinson as a unit is brimming with potential but this is perhaps a season too early for all of them to be playing without that senior bowler to lead the attack. That being said they will be benefiting enormously from the experience and it stands us in good stead for next year. I think we'd hoped to squeeze another season from Dino and Ravi, and the signing of Abbott as overseas was canny as he'd have been ideal in this young team as well, and that again stands us in good stead for next season if he does come. But given that I'd expected the three to be our first choice attack and we haven't been able to play any of them I won't be complaining that we've struggled to shift players of the quality of Lees and Eckerlsey.
Barnes doesn't look to be doing enough to get a permanent deal mind and in the event Ravi and Dino aren't returning next year I'd like to see Abbott retained on the overseas deal with another experienced bowler coming in to mentor the young attack alongside him.
In between the top 4 and the bowling attack our middle/lower order is again promising but I'd like to see further strong performances from HP and Critchley to nail down those positions particularly with the bat. A strong showing from Critchley nailing down a top 6 batting position and continuing to take wickets would be welcome. If he remains inconsistent then I'd move Hosein up to 5 (he's good enough) and let the ball rounders continue to compete in the lower order.
I may have said this in another thread but I don’t understand what Derbyshire’s intentions are in this mini series of first class matches Derbyshire have put themselves into a great position and should have put out their strongest team to play Durham instead of rotating players and treating these matches as bounce game’s
ReplyDeleteI disagree, Ranger. To be honest, I not sure what our strongest team is anyway.
DeleteRavi and TP have been unavailable and the rest of the bowling is largely unproven at this level. Bowling three spells a day, or two days running will be new for some, while Dave Houghton will want to see the newer ones with a view to a contract next year.
Plus he will want Reece and FHP fit for the T20, so has to protect them. Especially when the pre-season they would normally have has been much different.
So DH is doing it absolutely right for me.
Like Peakfan, I'm not sure what our strongest team is, and it will change for different conditions quite apart from the need for bowlers to rest and recover, particularly those who have little or no experience of longer forms of crocket. For example, as our battery of right-arm fast medium bowlers were trundling away on the second morning, how much did you want a Cohen or Melton to add some pace and fire? But let's be honest, they would have been wasted (and probably wasteful) on this dozy pitch. If you accept that, Conners, Reece, Aitcheson and FH-P is our strongest attack, supported by Dal, is probably the strongest pace attack. I might have preferred McKiernan to Barnes, bringing more variety to the attack and adding a capable batsman at 9 but otherwise, wouldn't question the bowling selection.
DeleteOne of the complicating factors for selection is the presence of so many all-rounders. With Reece, FH-P, Critchley and Dal (or Hughes), we already have two-thirds of a decent attack with specialist batting down to 8, and adding three other bowlers is always going to make it look as if we have too many bowlers. It's a decent problem to have.
I agree Peakfan, these are young lads who until this season have probably only been used to playing mainly weekend cricket, so fitness and fatigue of 4 day cricket will no doubt affect them, they need protecting for the future we have had too many young fast bowlers who have gone by the wayside through injury to their young bodies. You correctly state 'what is our best Xl', and whilst we have 15/16 player who can easily fit into this unit, rotation is an excellent opportunity to both assess these youngsters and give everyone to overcome any niggles and hopefully allows rest in this significantly shortened season, especially as we now move into the quick fire 20/20 games before the BWT game against Lancs.
DeleteIn addition to what Peakfan says I think we need to remember our bowlers are coming off of almost a year without first class cricket and won't have built up the normal level of fitness over pre-season because there wasn't one!
ReplyDelete