Monday, 5 October 2026

Weekend news roundup

So Simon Hughes is the latest former player to decide to have a pop at Derbyshire, in a column in The Times this weekend.

He has made a good career in the media after playing for a number of years as a bit-part player at Middlesex. He had his days in the sun but never established himself as a regular and moved to Durham before slipping into the media.

This weekend he said: 

You question the raison d'etre of a club like Derbyshire... with a perennial position in the nether regions of Division Two and who haven't produced an England cricketer since Dominic Cork in 1995

For Hughes read Atherton and Pietersen. They were all happy enough to earn a crust in the first class game, but are now happy to question the existence of the member clubs who made their career.

I do get it, but it still annoys me. This is why I am so keen to see Derbyshire promote their own. Why I want to see the Pathway more obviously assimilated into the grand plan. Why I see no point in giving a short-term deal to a player who learned his skills elsewhere, rather than that opportunity going to one who has come through our age groups. You know who I am talking about..

But Hughes, like the others, neglects the fact that there is another side. Having more clubs ensures that late developers can sometimes throw themselves into contention for national selection. Mark Footitt came close, Nye Donald, George Scrimshaw and Shoaib Bashir made it, thanks to the experience and exposure that they got in Derbyshire colours. 

There were no takers for Bashir when he left Somerset. Had Derbyshire not taken him on, we would potentially have seen England 's number one spin bowler without a club. Of course, we don't know what happens with his central contract for the year ahead and a new decision will need to be made at the end of 2027, regardless of whether he retains it or not. I suspect he will need better figures than 2026, but we will see.

He is a young man with obvious talent yet needing the opportunity to bowl and keep bowling. The same with Nye Donald, who could easily be outside the game now, were it not for the opportunity he got in the East Midlands.

It isn't JUST about bringing through youngsters, but for Derbyshire to retain their relevance, it is imperative that we do more than merely pay lip service to the Pathway.

There is the quandary. In Mickey Arthur, we have a man who sits at the top table of English cricket and is well-placed to state the case of players like Bashir, Donald, maybe even Martin Andersson, if his upward trajectory continues. 

But his background shows zero evidence of the development of young players. You look at Glamorgan, Leicestershire, Worcestershire and even Gloucestershire and see counties who have had recent success with teams largely reared by themselves. Yet Derbyshire can't match that and until we have a Head of Cricket who is prepared to offer opportunity, my concerns will still be there. 

Of course, you can't just throw them in. You couldn't pluck Theo Brown out of school and expect him to flourish, any more than you could play Matt Stewart and expect him to take five wickets a match. To succeed, they need to come into a side where they can play a part and learn at the same time. But it is crucial that Arthur - assuming he remains after recent events - is seen to consider them for senior action. 

Yousaf Bin Naeem will only develop if he gets regular cricket at a higher level. And I will die on the hill on which I argue Matt Stewart being around the first team squad would have had greater value long term than Will Rogers providing 'a different angle'. 

When Arthur goes, it is crucial that he is replaced by someone who has clear evidence of being able to work with young players, get the best from them and encourage them into a senior side where they are surrounded by seasoned pros of quality. Like Barnett, Adams and Morris, when they joined people like Steele, Hampshire, Wright and Kirsten.

Hughes' article goes on to say that counties earn 'on average' £1.25 million a year on membership fees. I think it is fair to say that Derbyshire would love to earn that...

In other news, The Cricket Paper reported:

Wayne Madsen's retirement from T20 cricket was followed by his departure from the professional game, closing a 17-year Derbyshire association 

Thank you to Simon for alerting me to this. I can confirm that there is no truth in it at this stage and any development will be announced by the club when they are ready to do so. 

For what it is worth, I fully expect Wayne to play the red ball season next summer, which may well be an extended farewell around the country. 

But that old saying 'you're a long time retired' still holds true and if he showed that the old magic is still there, you never know. Just like Old Man River, he might just keep rolling along.

I am sure that he will want to join his family in South Africa before too long, but while the body is willing and the returns are good...

Anyway, enjoy your weeks and I will see you soon.

26 comments:

  1. Strange that the likes of pocketgate cheat Atherton, the stage "northerner" who has probably lived in Hampstead for thirty years and South African mercenary Pietersen (even Bob Willis years ago) never mention that the likes of Lancashire and Middlesex, with all their resources, have been languishing even closer to the bottom of Division 2 for years, so too Notts. until recently when they suddenly became Worcestershire Second XI. Some "commentators" won't be happy until the only county cricket is Surrey v Surrey Seconds played on a loop - Manchester City/Arsenal syndrome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Point of order, Middlesex have 0 resources they are a hostage to not owning a ground.

      Essex fan

      Delete
  2. During the Dean Jones era Simon Hughes was a regular face at the county ground in his capacity as a journalist

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ian from Suffolk5 October 2026 at 17:52

    Very very sad when you get someone like Hughes ( who I normally like) and Agnew in the past who were really nothing more then county trundles criticising teams like Derbyshire or any over small club. I never really get the England argument surely there’s enough counties producing England players. A lot of people love county cricket and 18 teams spread between all of England and Wales surely isn’t too many. I obviously agree though that Derbyshire should be producing more of their own young players and Arthur must be one of the worst ever coaches at giving younger players a chance. The decision to release Hawkins at the age of 19 is a perfect example. Surely a player who recently played for the England under 19s and took 7 for 60 in his last second team game deserved at least a couple more years to show what he could do. The county championship would lose so much without the so called smaller counties involvement. It’s really what makes the championship great. If there were other minor counties who wanted to step up to first class cricket I could slightly see the argument the Derbyshire might deserve to be a contender to drop out especially at the moment but luckily I don’t think any of the minor counties are keen to step up and the championship needs at least 18 counties to give poorer players like Hughes and Agnew a chance to make a living and for more people who love cricket to be able to watch without travelling At least 50 miles

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's quite something when you get these people who managed to make their living from the game and continue to do so, who want nothing more than to shrink the professional game they benefited from.

    For players to lose their livelihoods, for fans to lose their clubs, to basically kill cricket for many people in whole counties, to have less kids able to go and watch the sport at professional level and to be inspired. For less games and even less opposition for the bigger teams.

    If you like cricket you should want to grow the game, maybe even improve the standard of the hideously treated and disregarded minor counties or put money into getting cricket into state schools. There could be an argument made that some of our ECB funding would be better spent doing that, it's at least an idea but there isn't an argument that giving that money to Surrey or Lancashire would benefit the test side in my opinion. It is a boring and tiresome idea that someone trots out every now and again though. Always, always grow the base if you want a higher peak to the pyramid, don't shrink it. Obviously really.

    As soon as I hear such nonsense from someone you know to disregard anything else they say. And it's all supposedly in aid of saving the England cricket team. It's not the appalling management of the game via the ECB and the various morons running it that's the issue according to these people, it's somehow the smaller club's fault. The blunderers who created the Hundred and then proceeded to sell English cricket's soul to foreign investors who care about nought but making money and certainly not English cricket. The fools who took test cricket off terrestrial tv 20 years ago.

    Many just don't want cricket played outside of public schools and test grounds. Some are just looking to line their own pockets. None of them care about English cricket.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ian from Suffolk5 October 2026 at 21:34

    Very true Hamez. All the talk about growing the game is nonsense. The only interest they have is money nothing else. The sandford thing years ago proved that. Test cricket is now at its lowest point for years with teams like West Indies and Sri Lanka hardly playing . The West Indies very test future is in serious doubt.I think the ECB would love only 7 or 8 4 day games a summer and less county teams and still pretend they are growing the game. The money might pile in but in say 10 years the only cricket left will be the 3 hour stuff for people with short attention spans. So for a lot of us who love the traditional form it won’t even really be the same game anymore

    ReplyDelete
  6. Didn’t Boyd Rankin start at Derbyshire and play for England? Dre.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He started in Ireland and was signed from there by Derbyshire but wasn't an academy product. And he played for England after he left us anyway, before returning to play for Ireland

      Delete
    2. Boyd Rankin didn’t come through the academy, but neither did Dominic Cork.

      According to the Independentnewspaper article, "The Rise of Dominic Cork," he was spotted playing for Betley Cricket Club by Alan Hill on the recommendation of Bob Taylor. Both players were given their breaks in county cricket by Derbyshire, although they first played for Ireland and Betley Cricket Club, respectively.

      For me, the idea that a county cricket club "produces" a player is nonsense anyway. How many other players who appeared for both a county and England were spotted playing for other clubs?

      Before the era of the academy—but also after Cork's time—Ian Blackwell played for Derbyshire and England. However, he didn’t make his international debut until he was at Somerset.

      Like most other smaller clubs, Derbyshire now struggle to hold on to their most talented players.

      Sorry if this sounds a bit blunt.

      Dre.

      Delete
  7. It is an interesting question “what is the point of a county cricket club?”
    For me the answer is to provide entertainment for the local population. Nothing else. This entertainment could come via watching, following, playing, scoring or whatever. If the team is successful then it is more likely to be providing good entertainment, but entertainment remains the main, indeed sole, purpose.
    People trying to state that you need to be producing players for England is just them trying to enforce a goal that is non-existent.

    MarkB

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sounds like a mix of arrogance and ignorance

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mark Nicholas said something similar a while back. I think it is part of the has beens, now in the media, trying to stay relevant. I just ignore the rubbish. Grant from Telford

    ReplyDelete
  10. I hate that people think it, I hate that people write it but… I can see their point.

    In a purely performance-based analysis, I would agree. We’ve been treading water - at best - for the past five years and being more accurate would say we’ve gone backwards. We produce the occasional player who moves on to bigger and better (Critchley and Slater to name a couple) but otherwise I struggle to put an argument forwards on the basis of performance.

    However, we are part of the fabric of county cricket and have been for well over 100 years. We’ve got our place there through the dedication of players, supporters and officials who have all gone above and beyond to make Derbyshire CCC one of only 18 counties to hold this privileged position. We might not have been very good for much of it, but DCCC have always been there. To cast us aside now would be to ignore the livelihood of the many people the club employs and also the fans who have spent decades supporting their team. That’s the point of Derbyshire.

    Messers Hughes and Atherton (and others) won’t know, because they don’t know the club. They don’t know our club.

    Chris in Shropshire.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Tim, Chesterfield7 October 2026 at 07:17

    I can't abide Simon Hughes. Add Mark Nicholas to that list of mine. Pretentious, pompous and often widely inaccurate in their claims. The very worst of English cricket.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I wouldn't say we've got backwards in red ball, although until we gain promotion, it won't matter. They'll be plenty of seasons where we don't win 3 home games and some this millennium when we've won none! White ball and youth development has been disappointing. Kris.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Although these comments are unpleasant at best they do represent a feeling among the cricketing elite.
    Derbyshire are in danger of losing first class status as the least successful club of the 18.
    This needs to be a wake up call to do something different to at least make us as successful as the other smaller counties.
    At the moment we are run by people whose heads are firmly buried in the sand.
    To them I say do something now or Hughes and his cronies will get their way! - Ian B

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ian from Suffolk7 October 2026 at 13:04

    Just one other thought. I know some people seem to think Derbyshire membership is still cheap and I understand we have less supporters but membership at Surrey next season for exactly the same championship and one day package is£46 cheaper at £193 . Division one cricket and a far nicer ground. I know maybe they make loads more money through other things but then again you wouldn’t expect to pay more for your Crewe Alexandra season ticket then a Liverpool one

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...but if you want to include t20, it jumps to £285. Personally, they would need to pay me to watch Surrey!

      I understand everyone being frustrated with the current regime, but not renewing memberships isn't going to help. However, I would understand people's reasoning for not doing so.

      Delete
    2. Ian…sadly the likes of Surrey Notts and others do not need to overprice their memberships as most of their members spend money on Test Match tickets and that is the carrot they have to get them onboard plus they are not a heavily reliant on membership revenue like us. Oh and don’t forget they have 💯 money Jason

      Delete
    3. Surrey have over 20,000 members and part of the membership package gives them preferential access to international tickets ( Guaranteed men’s test match every year).
      Derbyshire have 1,158 members, no preferential access to men’s test matches. Figures obtained vía Google.
      I am guessing DCCC must consider what is the correct price point for membership to maximise the income. Martin

      Delete
  15. Straightnochaser7 October 2026 at 19:04

    https://www.cricinfo.com/story/shoaib-bashir-set-to-retain-ecb-contract-despite-limited-england-test-role-1557291
    Cricinfo reporting that Shoaib IS to retain his central contract

    ReplyDelete
  16. Great piece Steve, as ever.

    Out of interest (e+oe) I asked A.I. to give me the current populations, in millions, of the current 18 first class counties but tied to the pre 1974 historic county boundaries (on which county cricket has been based since 1864 eg Middlesex and Glamorgan no longer exist as such.

    Results were

    1- Yorkshire 5.4m
    2- Lancashire 5.2m
    3- Middlesex 4.2m
    4- Essex 3.2m
    5- Surrey 3.1m
    6- Kent 2.9m
    7- Hampshire 2.2m
    8- Warwickshire 1.7m
    9- Sussex 1.7m
    10- Durham 1.4m
    11-Glamorgan 1.3m
    12- Gloucestershire 1.2m
    13- Leicestershire 1.2m
    14- Worcestershire 1.2m
    15- Notts 1.1m
    16- Somerset 1.1m
    17- Leicestershire 1.0m
    18- Northants 0.9m

    Cheers

    THE EXILE

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You've got two Leicestershires there and no Derbyshire (do you work for the ECB?)

      Delete
    2. We definitely don't need 2 Leicestershire's 😂

      Delete
  17. Oops- that’s us at 13, not Leicestershire….

    ReplyDelete

Please remember to add your name. Avoid personal comment at all times. Thanks!