Derbyshire seemed to have kept a fairly straightforward run chase under control and when Madsen was out after 11 overs we had 104 on the board.
Yet in the next four and a half overs we added only 28 runs. I was surprised, because on the dismissal of Madsen, a right hander, I expected Ali, another right hander to come in and keep the bowlers guessing and changing their lines.
Instead du Plooy came in and never got going, his 13 runs taking 15 balls. Having slept on it, but not with the benefit of hindsight, I do question why there was a need for him to travel all the way to Worsley and play in a second team game, just after he had scored 170. He is a good enough player to change formats easily and it would have made more sense for Mitch Wagstaff, who I understand was 12th man, to play in the team. It would also have meant the Derbyshire skipper wasn't travelling the highways and byways of the country before another lengthy trip to Durham.
While acknowledging a job well done by the second team, perhaps the greater need was for a young player to experience a pressurised situation, rather than playing a high class one. In amateur circles, such a player would be called a 'ringer' and I can understand the frustration of those other teams.
I still argue that he was the only contentious selection, but it was unnecessary.
Ali batted well, but was starved of the strike over the last two overs and it cost us. He looked in fine form and while his presence in the middle order as a finisher is the right thing, greater game sense needs to be employed at the other end to give a man of his talent and power as much of the strike as possible.
The Durham spinners did a good job for their side and slowed the scoring at a crucial side, while Coughlin was excellent, until he took stick in his final over
Earlier I thought we bowled pretty well, the standout yet again being Zaman Khan, whose 4-21 represented high quality, professional bowling. The young Pakistan quick bowler is a class act and I enjoy watching him bowl. Chappell also did well and I enjoyed the change in strategy that we offered in the field, the bowling changes less obvious than recent games.
So it is back to Chesterfield on Sunday. One more run here tonight would have made the prospects for the weekend promising, but I think Derbyshire will look back on this with misgivings and regret.
I know I do. This side should chase down such a target, nine times in ten.
You are right definitely right - a point lost. I feel we need to place more emphasis on runs per ball than runs scored when batting. Regarding ‘Ringers’ - didn’t Ross Whiteley play for Hampshire when losing to Glamorgan in the semis? Because they lost, nothing made of it! Also Harry Came made the same journey and seemed unaffected.
ReplyDeleteBut anon ( name next time please!) Whiteley is only a limited overs player and didn't play for Hants this week. Came faced only 24 balls in the match v Yorkshire, not batting for over three sessions!
DeleteI understand Derbyshire are taking heavy flak for this selection and I get why. Had Yorkshire gone with Masood or Wiese it would have been the same
Du Plooy playing was strange I agree, can see why eyebrows were raised about that, though let's not worry about any flak!
DeleteYes, overall a point dropped considering the position we got ourselves into in the run chase. Although Reece played well after a sluggish start I did think he played a high risk shot when getting out which wasn't necessary at that time.
I thought Sowter and Turner bowled well (let's not forget there are 2 teams trying to win) and were instrumental in increasing that required run rate at a crucial time, and were it not for Parnell and his crazy decision to attempt that 'run out' in the final over we may well have cone away with nothing.
Yes we seemed to lose our mojo in the 2nd part of the innings, especially in overs 15-17. Did you notice the required run rate jump from 9 to 12 during that batting period. It was a limp period. From then it became necessary to penetrate the boundary frequently and it looked like we had cocked it up on what seemed a sticky wicket. Some lusty blows and wides in the penultimate over gave us a firm site of the prize going into the last over. Unfortunately it ended in s bit of an anti climax. Still a point is a point and we must lift our pecker and exact revenge on the porkies
ReplyDeleteWe let this game slip through our fingers when we looked set for a victory. We should have had it wrapped up before the final over.
ReplyDeleteDespite losing a point, I think we can take heart from the overall performance. Our bowlers kept them under 180, and we were always in the fight. Khan is turning out to be some bowler in T20s, and Chappell keeps on picking up wickets. It was good to see Came score rapidly and Reece get another 50 in the competition.
Whilst we have competed well generally, there is a lack of ruthlessness in our batting overall , whether setting or chasing a total.
ReplyDeletePoor game management imho.Although comfortable we never got ahead of the rate and why the skipper chose to bat before Haider is baffling [left/right combinations ?]. Very much a point lost and I hope we do not regret it.
ReplyDelete