Further thoughts on Derbyshire and Arthur

There have been a lot of comments, understandably, after the debacle of the Derbyshire defeat against Sussex yesterday. 

In the years that I have been doing this blog, comments have always been greater in number after a poor performance than after a good one. Perhaps it is human nature, but it is certainly an observation substantiated by checking back in this instance. 

One thing I would like to say is in response to assertions that Mickey Arthur 'doesnt care'. 

I disagree with that, entirely. 

He is an international coach of high pedigree. He has been in charge of the national cricketing fortunes of Australia, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Pakistan, with varying degrees of success. 

Like a number of you. I had my concerns last year, when the club agreed that he could do our job as well as that of the Pakistan national side. I was quite clear in my assertions at that point that it was unsustainable and unfair on both the club and the country. It is impossible to serve two masters and to give equal time and focus to two jobs of such high profile. 

However, at no point have I felt that Arthur didn't care about Derbyshire, nor that he knew nothing about the club. On his arrival, he told of his long- time interest in county cricket and ever since has been one of its strongest advocates, when others have been quick to drag it down. Equally, he spoke with passion about Eddie Barlow and Fred Swarbrook, the tales they had told him and his long-time interest in the county for which they played. 

His arrival was much heralded and rightly so. His first season offered a glimpse of what might be, with players galvanised by his reputation, perhaps by his approach. But we see that all the time in sport, a new coach with fresh ideas brings a previously lacking impetus to a side. 

Last season was different. There was a clear and obvious decline, heightened by the absence of Shan Masood, a talisman of the highest order in that first summer. His Sri Lankan overseas pick, Suranga Lakmal, was an abject failure, seldom fit to take the field and underwhelming when he did so. Haider Ali was easy on the eye, but his loose technique and his being told to open the batting early season was always going to fail. There was a decent run in the T20, partly because of Zaman Khan and his toe-crushing yorkers, but the Head of Cricket was consistent in claiming that next year he would have HIS team.

Perhaps his plans for that team took a hit when the Pakistan role disappeared before the season, his services no longer required in the latest of many power shifts in that country. We don't know if he had people lined up, but it seems a strong possibility that his early knowledge of who would NOT be going to the T20 World Cup might well be to Derbyshire's advantage.

It is too early to know if Blair Tickner and Daryn Dupavillon will have the requisite skill set to inspire a fine one-day summer. But the sad news about Tickner's wife yesterday suggests that his availability may be limited, depending on her treatment and the needs of the family, which obviously come first. 

I will admit to having several concerns. One is that recruitment appears to have been lop-sided. The batting, while individually not short of talent, tends to misfire without a consistent someone to bat around. There are players capable of individual brilliance, but not necessarily used to being the focal point of that side. Perhaps a gritty batsman at the top of the order would have been beneficial,  someone like Marcus Harris, Dean Elgar or others. A di Venuto or Rogers in this side would be gold dust...

The seam bowling now has plenty of options, but if he plays both overseas then domestic talent is squeezed out. If he doesn't, then it rather ignores the point of having two overseas players, when everyone else is fielding them. An overseas player should be better than what you have and should fill a gap. I'm not yet convinced we have done that, but I will maintain optimism. 

Spin? Alex Thomson was given a 2-year contract and grounds for optimism that he realised with a 12-wicket haul in the first game. But then he is omitted, despite being the leading wicket taker and a player who offers balance, in favour of a loan player who, talented as he is, isn't as far on in his cricketing development. 

For me, the greater need was for a spinner who could bat, or a batter who could offer a spin option. It would have given the team balance, as at present it isn't. Yesterday's eleven offered little prospect of runs after number seven, Zak Chappell's cheerful occasional clumping not yet warranting my regarding him as a genuine all-rounder. 

It will be the same for T20. To accommodate two non-batting overseas quick bowlers, as well as Pat Brown who is a T20 specialist, Chappell will need to bat at eight. Unless Thomson plays as a second spinner to Samit Patel, in which case Brown or Chappell would miss out.

Maybe the hand will be forced. Another overseas may need to be engaged to allow Tickner down time with his family, but I am sure the imbalance isn't only obvious to me. He cannot really play Jack Morley either, because you have another bowler with few pretensions to batting. You could argue that if the top seven fail, there should be no expectations of the rest changing the game, but it would be nice to have that option and with the greatest respect to those concerned, I don't see it. We have all seen enough T20 to know that we are as likely to be 60 for five off 10 overs as we are 100 for one...

It hasn't been an easy year for overseas recruitment. With the World Cup on and so many other counter attractions around the globe, the challenge is clear. But I can't see how all of our domestic bowlers will get the game time they require to maintain rhythm, especially when Ben Aitchison is fit and I have no idea how Nick Potts gets near this side. Which is a shame, because a Derbyshire side without any home-reared talent in it yesterday is at odds with the investment in and heightened profile of the Pathway. 

Yet for all that I feel that he has made mistakes, I do not doubt for a minute that Arthur wants success at Derbyshire. His pained, stressed expression in the post-match interview yesterday told its own story. I don't know his plans for the future, but if they included a return to international cricket those plans would only be improved by a strong showing by his domestic side. 

Perhaps his approach needs to be considered. You cannot treat good quality first class cricketers in the same way that the elite, the creme de la creme are treated. Any more than you could use those methods on club cricketers or on a school side. The approach needs to be measured, needs to be appropriate to the needs of the individuals concerned. I speak not as an international cricket coach of standing, but as someone who has managed dozens, hundreds of people over many years. 'One size fits all' doesn't work well in management and an inflexible approach to that is seldom the way to consistent success. Nor indeed a happy and productive environment. 

I wish Mickey the very best for the remainder of the season. I hope that he can turn it around, just as I hope that individuals within the team who seem to be suffering from a crisis of confidence at the moment can return to their best days. 

Only by working together, learning from the bad days and celebrating the good ones will they do so.

We must only hope that they return to action after this fixture-enforced break with appetite renewed, bodies restored to full vigour and a desire to succeed foremost in their minds.