Derbyshire 109 (Came 19, McKiernan 17)
Yorkshire 110-9 (Waite 23, Hill 21, Conners 5-28, Aitchison 3-33)
Yorkshire won by one wicket
It was a shame. The tracks for the Middlesex game at Chesterfield and the truncated Yorkshire T20 were excellent, but this was awful for a first-class game. Balls lifted off a length or shot through at ankle height, making confident shot-making a lottery, wicket keeping a greater challenge than usual.
The sight of Mickey Arthur and Ryan Duckett on the square in the interval between innings confirmed what a lot of us knew very early, when Luis Reece was hit on the grill of his helmet from one that lifted off a good length. He wasn't to be the last, but Derbyshire battled hard. Came lasted longer than most, McKiernan hit the only six of the innings and Aitchison again belied the tale, told elsewhere, that he is 'one of three number elevens'.
I said at the 35-over mark on Twitter that 120 would take some chasing and we sadly fell short of that as Yorkshire bowled well. Those extra ten runs might well have made all the difference.
Conners bowled splendidly for his best List A figures, while Aitchison did too but was very unlucky. Reece dropped one from him at mid wicket that, in the words of Cliff Gladwin, 'he should have caught in the cheeks of his a**e', before holding the same batsman, Duke, off a more difficult chance at the other end.
I was surprised to see Potts bowled before Reece or Dal and the youngster leaked a few more than the surface warranted, despite producing an excellent yorker at the death to make it interesting. It happens with young bowlers, perhaps the excitement of a helpful wicket making them lose their natural rhythm. He will learn from the experience.
Waite chanced his arm and made crucial runs, while Hill batted very well for the visitors and steered them near to the win, before losing concentration and edging behind. But umpire Shanmugam turned down what looked a clear inside edge when nothing else was near the ball, early in his innings. A very good leg before shout was also turned down by the same umpire, but the bottom line, poor wicket or not, is that we again failed to get enough runs. Sadly, a sentence I seem to have repeated too often for comfort in recent weeks.
I am unsure what penalty there may be for this wicket, or if there will be one, but although it resulted in a very exciting and close game, first-class cricket should be played on first-class wickets.
This was a long way from that, I am sad to say.
Sadly this wicket will do nothing to enhance hopes of continuing with Chesterfield first class matches. It’s hard to believe why the wicket was so poor as the weather had been perfect and scores around the country reflect this. Would probably have been better if the Yorkies has romped to a 10 wicket win inside 15 overs then we could have blamed our poor batting. Despite all this we should have won as surely use of Reece and Dal instead of Potts and Watt would have made more sense? Bizarre captaincy using a spinner today !
ReplyDeleteThe wicket will no doubt be declared as “ poor” which could result in a points deduction next season. Such a shame as the Middlesex pitch was classed as good but knowing the ECB this will be forgotten about. We really don’t help ourselves at times though 😔
Paul
Not sure if it contributed to the state of the pitch or not, but there was torrential rain in Chesterfield on Tuesday.
DeleteTotally bizarre that Dal didn't bowl on that pitch.
I was at Queen's Park today and it was such a pity that a bumper crowd had to contend with the spectacle of batsmen on both sides having to cope with a pitch of such uneven bounce. So many balls flew over the shoulders of batsmen or scuttled through at ankle height. Having said that I feel that just another ten runs or so would have made all the difference and I was surprised that our later batsmen did not charge the Yorkshire spinners but mostly stayed in the crease, allowing the ball to deviate and scuttle. I thought it would be all over very quickly as we started our defence of such a modest total but splendid bowling by Conners and Aitchinson had the visitors' batters in jut as much trouble as ours had been. However, I do agree that it was strange not to see either Reece or Dal bowling at the death although Watt with a little more luck would have had a wicket or two. I see on the Cricinfo site that it is Yorkshire that Shan Masood will be joining. They would not have been able to see what he can do on today's evidence.
ReplyDeleteThe above is me..... Chapel Guy formerly High Peak Star!
ReplyDeleteRe: the choice to bowl Potts instead of Reece/Dal was a 'test' of Potts in a tight situation (in albeit a dead rubber). MA spoke at the start of the season about getting to know players in pressure situations. Character building at least for him.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I guess so, Rich. But there was a game to be won and lost and he will have other opportunities to be on the right side of it!
DeleteWe nearly won, thanks to some great bowling by Connors and Aitchison.
ReplyDeleteBut I have a question (I watched the live steam): could someone explain to me what kind of pitch we had at Chesterfield today? Specifically, what was wrong with it from a batsman’s point of view? Different types of pitches are something I’ve always struggled to understand when it comes to how a team plays.
It seemed to be a combination of variable pace and bounce. Some balls flew through but good batsmen struggled for timing throughout. With some really climbing and others shooting at ankle height, it was a nightmare for batsmen. While nice to see bowlers get their way for once, it was too heavily weighted in their favour here
DeleteIt's a shame about the wicket, but it was exciting. I suppose the crowd was 3,000, when at Derby it would have been 500, so playing at Queens Park is vital to the finances. The wickets for the other games were fine, so I'm not sure what happened with this track. Kris
ReplyDeleteThere was issues regarding drainage going back to the early nineties it was one of the reasons Derbyshire stopped playing at Queen's Park for several years didn't Derbyshire have a four day game abandoned without a ball being bowled their a few years ago? despite their being fine weather during the four days because of heavy rain a few days earlier
ReplyDeleteI don't think Chesterfield has been alone in this. I think even Headingley had this issue after heavy rain. Indeed, I spent hours at Derby only last week in fine weather, only to be told the game was off! Kris
ReplyDeleteShame about the wicket as there was a good crowd to witness what should have been an enthralling encounter. The pitch for the Middlesex game was excellent in comparison. I just hope this debacle does not jeopardise the chances of county cricket at this wonderful venue. If, as seems likely, the county championship fixtures are reduced in 2024 then it puts in doubt the cricket festival here in Chesterfield and that would be a sad outcome.
ReplyDeleteNudger