While the T20 campaign doesn't finish for Derbyshire until the weekend, the chance of progression disappeared with the defeat to Leicestershire and so the final game, against Yorkshire, effectively becomes one with bragging rights alone at stake.
Suggestions that our season is over are premature and silly. There is still a chance of winning the section in the Pro 40, while a decent run in the Championship could yet see us make a late challenge for promotion. Fanciful maybe, but look at the respective tables and it is hard to dispute if we get our act together.
As for the T20, it was once again a curate's egg of a campaign, mixing some very good with an occasional performance of a shambolic nature. Doing the double over Warwickshire, beating Yorkshire and Durham and probably winning the return against the latter were fine efforts against better sides than us. We should also have beaten Nottinghamshire at Derby and Leicestershire in either game, while the Worcestershire game at the County Ground was gift-wrapped and only needed opening.
Realistically, until we start to win our share of the close games and beat the teams that we should do, we will not move to another level as a side. Such things come from experience, of course, but there are enough players in the side among the tyros to be winning our share of these and showing a little more nous when it matters. If we can beat division one sides with some style, beating the Worcestershires and Northamptonshires of this world should be a doddle with a similar attitude.
Progression will be dependent on several factors, primarily the retention or replacement of key personnel. We know now that Steffan Jones will retire at the season's end, a major part of our T20 side gone. Greg Smith will probably go too, though his performances have flattered to deceive on occasion and he has played little part in this campaign. Should Tim Groenewald also leave, however, it would leave a major hole in the side that will take some filling. I doubt Leicestershire would have made the target last weekend were he available, but that's life and someone else needs to step into the breach and make a name. I hope that Groenewald stays and realises that opening the bowling for Derbyshire is more rewarding than being first/second change elsewhere. Money will be a major factor, but I think that Derbyshire will make a good cricketer a fair offer - the rest is up to him.
One persistent anonymous contributor has harped on about the lack of a second overseas player, something I've covered before and don't intend to go over again. Suffice to say that the failure to replace Usman Khawaja wasn't for the lack of trying. By the same token, had such a player come in, a batsman may well have taken Ross Whiteley's place, while a bowler would have had Tom Knight's. Who were the biggest successes of the campaign...?
Be sure though that those two players will face their challenges in summers ahead. Both have the talent to go a long way, but cricket form ebbs and flows for most people. Jon Clare had his detractors in the T20, but the young all-rounder is gradually returning to his form of two/three years back and will be a huge asset next year, with a near injury-free season behind him. The margin of error for all bowlers in T20 is tiny, the game being heavily weighted in favour of the batsmen. Big bats and short boundaries make bowling an awkward proposition, but Derbyshire got it right much of the time with the use of spin - or at least slow, accurate bowling - to frustrate the opposition. Chesney Hughes and Tom Knight did exceptionally well in the middle of innings, while Wes Durston bowled some intelligent spells at the start on some occasions.
The batting fired more often than not, with Guptill and Durston usually a good opening pair. For me, Hughes could have moved up and down the order, coming in against the seamers rather than spin where he had his struggles. Garry Park and Wayne Madsen had solid campaigns, the former perhaps a better option at three on some occasions for me. Ross Whiteley was a revelation at the end of innings and I've seen comments suggesting he too should have been elevated. I'm not so sure and feel his niche is going in to play shots and clear the boundary when the fielders are back, rather than when there are more close fielders in for the occasional shot in the air. Quite often promoting batsmen doesn't work. Although I take the point that if Whiteley got out he would score quickly in a brief knock, it would then need someone else to take up his mantle lower down.
Then there's the skipper. Luke Sutton generally kept wicket to a very high standard and rang the changes well. Perhaps on a couple of occasions he got it wrong and those were the things people picked up on, rather than applauding the times he got it right. I don't envy him his role in T20, when the game is moving at breakneck speed. Keeping wicket, often standing up to stop the batsman using his feet, leaves you exposed if the bowler then fires a couple wide down leg side, or a batsman gets one away off an inside edge. Similarly, keeping the field in the right places and changing it for different players is a tough job and combining the two in a pressure cooker environment is not for the faint-hearted. Then, of course, you have to go in and bat...
Sutton only scored three runs in the campaign. Then again, he only had four innings and generally came in when time was running out. Against Worcestershire, when his savvy might have made the difference, Chesney Hughes ran him out when Usain Bolt wouldn't have covered the 22 yards in the required time. Against Nottinghamshire he was run out by David Hussey (that's the unregistered one...) when we needed 68 from four overs. Against Lancashire he was caught and bowled, getting in with five overs to go on a turning track, then against Leicestershire got in with three overs left. You could hardly say that he might have played match-winning hands in the circumstances, nor hold him liable for not doing so.
I would agree that next season we might look to playing Tom Poynton in the shorter forms of the game, with our new star captain skippering the side. Mind you, I'd hope that people might be more respectful and understanding of Poynton if he only got in at such times and failed, as logically he would do more often than not with no time to get your eye in. By the same token, Sutton's merits behind the timbers are such that, freed of the captaincy, he might just contribute more with the bat anyway...
At the end of it all, only the foolhardy would suggest we failed to compete this year. With better luck from the weather and a little more savvy we could have been a win away from the quarter finals. For me, the emergence of Knight and Whiteley has been a major plus in this campaign. With the right man in to coax the best from them, these lads, together with the likes of Hughes, Redfern, Poynton and others form the nucleus of a young team of some potential.
PS I should add that I was as puzzled as some of you at the absence of Tony Palladino, especially when Groenewald or Jones were unavailable. I came to the conclusion that a niggle he's had this year might have been the reason. He wasn't a T20 regular for Essex and it may be that his attacking length might have been more likely to be hit. We'll never know - at least not this year. I expect to see much more of him next time around though.
Showing posts with label T20. Show all posts
Showing posts with label T20. Show all posts
Tuesday, 12 July 2011
Sunday, 19 June 2011
It must be his fault then...
So 'Jim' posting below the last article suggests that I sit on the fence. Hmmm... I can only assume that he's not read much of the blog as I don't think too many people would concur. I won't flatter myself in thinking that people will always agree with what I write, but I don't think I've ever resorted to a Mavis Barlow, Coronation Street "Ooooh...I don't know."'Jim' presumably doesn't like the fact that I defend the club's stance in only having one overseas player. Now that's fair enough to a point, but it ignores a few harsh realities.
Like the fact that the club had no idea, until it happened, that Usman Khawaja (pictured) would be called up to an Australian training camp at very short notice. Had they known that, early plans could have been put in place for a replacement, because you don't just sign a player, see him jump on a plane and walk into the dressing room. There are many visa and registration details to complete, all the formalities of anyone going to another country to work for a period of time. That's after you've discussed the niceties of the deal with his agent. If you've ever had to do that sort of thing, you know how time-consuming it can be. If you haven't, trust me.
Had Chris Grant got someone to say 'yes' on the day he heard about Khawaja's departure, that player would probably be set to appear from next week, given the timescale. Someone mailed me to suggest he should have had someone lined up for that eventuality. Why would he? That's like having a hire car on constant standby in case yours breaks down. It is unrealistic, to say the least.
I have criticised the club plenty of times in the past - check back if you don't believe me - but what else could they have done? So Leicestershire signed Razzaq in the nick of time - the work on that signing was going on for weeks because they knew they had a vacancy. Simple as that.
The big thing is, what can you realistically expect to get? Some of the bigger names have come to T20 for figures around £80K to £100K for 16 matches, with the semi-finals and finals if they have done the business to be paid for on top of that. That is £5-7K per match, a handsome reward, but not when those big names have just spent six weeks in India in the IPL and have picked up between £30K and £60K per match.
I know that enquiries were made for several players who might have made a big difference, but they weren't interested. The money on offer was not inconsiderable, but when you've been away from your family for six weeks and made a lot of money, is another, less lucrative offer to keep you away for another month really something you would want?
We could then have gone down to the next level. Picked up a Travis Birt, Jon Moss, Chris Harris, Mohammad Kaif if you like. Would they have made a difference? For all the fact that we had Loots Bosman and Charl Langeveldt last season, did they win us many games? A Chris Gayle would, but he's hardly going to bother his shirt for five grand a game. He knows that after his IPL exploits this year he is guaranteed a million next time around.
There were plenty of moans about last year's campaign with those two experienced international cricketers, because there are no guarantees in this game. Middlesex spent a fortune on Dave Warner and Adam Gilchrist, huge names in the format - and did what? Warner had a highest score of 43 from 15 innings and Gilchrist had one decent knock. The previously mentioned Abdul Razzaq had a highest of 44 for Hampshire in 15 attempts...
Keep in mind too that we had two thousand people at the Lancashire game when there was everything to play for. Even if they all paid £16 (which they didn't) that's £32K income to cover all the other costs, including the notional additional overseas player. Sorry to set off my train of thought rolling down this track, but the T20 cash cow is needing urgent veterinary treatment. Have a look at the latest offering by the excellent George Dobell on Cricinfo and see what I mean:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/county-cricket-2011/content/story/519534.html
Yes, a second overseas player would have made a difference. That's a no-brainer, but to criticise the club in this instance is just silly. There are too many extraneous factors beyond their control and people need to try and understand that.
Friday, 22 October 2010
Something for the weekend
There was an array of season statistics in the Wisden Cricketer this month, but nothing, to my disappointment, on the performance of overseas players who were brought in specifically for the T20.
While some of the names below were engaged as season-long overseas players, the figures make interesting reading. Please note that I’ve omitted some players who played the odd match. The pick of these was Andrew MacDonald at Leicestershire, who averaged 86 but only played in three matches.
Derbyshire - Loots Bosman 368 runs @ 29 / Charl Langeveldt 13 wickets @ 23
Durham - Ross Taylor 315 runs @ 39 / Albie Morkel 272 runs @ 34 and 7 wickets at 42
Essex - Scott Styris 392 runs @ 36 and 13 wickets @ 31 / Danish Kaneria 17 wickets at 17
Glamorgan - Mark Cosgrove 562 runs @ 35 / Shaun Tait 7 wickets @ 41
Gloucestershire - James Franklin 470 runs @ 39 and 8 wickets @ 40
Hampshire - Abdul Razzaq 183 runs @ 20 and 7 wickets @ 35 / Daniel Christian 33 runs @ 8 and 9 wickets at 31
Kent – Malinga Bandara 17 wickets @ 22
Lancashire – Simon Katich 185 runs at 26 / Nathan McCullum 155 runs @ 17 and 11 wickets @ 30
Leicestershire – Brad Hodge 431 runs at 28 and 10 wickets at 18
Middlesex – Adam Gilchrist 212 runs @ 30: Dave Warner 260 @ 20
Northamptonshire - Chaminda Vaas 412 runs @ 25 and 23 wickets @ 15: Elton Chigumbura 160 runs @ 22 and 10 wickets @ 21
Nottinghamshire - David Hussey 524 runs @ 44: Dirk Nannes 17 wickets @ 28
Somerset - Keiron Pollard 354 runs @ 32 and 29 wickets at 15: Murali Kartik 13 wickets @ 30
Surrey - Andrew Symonds 263 runs @ 20 and 12 wickets @ 25: Younis Khan 154 runs @ 15
Sussex – Brendon McCullum 200 runs @ 33: Yasir Arafat 13 wickets @ 30
Warwickshire - Imran Tahir 20 wickets @ 20
Worcestershire - Sanath Jayasuriya 267 runs @ 26 Phil Jaques 330 runs @ 33
Yorkshire - Herschelle Gibbs 443 runs @ 37
While I accept that batting averages for T20 will not compare with those in other forms of the game, some of those above didn’t get a great deal of value from their imports. Lancashire, Middlesex and Surrey all have reason to feel short-changed by their players, while Hampshire seem to have won the competition despite, rather than because of their imports.
Keiron Pollard’s statistics suggest that he was probably worth the sizeable outlay, while Northamptonshire did better than most with their signings. I highlighted the value of Chaminda Vaas last winter having watched the IPL and he didn’t disappoint, nor did Elton Chigumbura, who ripped us apart in that decisive nightmare game at the County Ground.
Essex and Nottinghamshire also did well with their players, though Surrey must get the booby prize for their two high profile (and presumably cost) players. I just wonder if Ashley Giles saw these statistics before taking Younis on a two-year deal…
Derbyshire? Loots Bosman pretty much lived up to his career average, but struggled with a knee injury, while Charl Langeveldt still bowled with control but looked noticeably slower than two years ago. You couldn’t say they let anyone down, but they didn’t quite produce as often as we’d have liked. Mind you, Bosman’s assault on Yorkshire at Headingley will live long in the memory and there’s a lot of people would love to play just one innings like that.
For what its worth, my benchmark for ‘circus cricket’ is an average of 35 for a batsman and a bowling average of twenty and/or impressive parsimony from a bowler. If you’re bringing someone from the other side of the world that has to be a consideration.
On that basis, there’s not too many successes in that list.
While some of the names below were engaged as season-long overseas players, the figures make interesting reading. Please note that I’ve omitted some players who played the odd match. The pick of these was Andrew MacDonald at Leicestershire, who averaged 86 but only played in three matches.
Derbyshire - Loots Bosman 368 runs @ 29 / Charl Langeveldt 13 wickets @ 23
Durham - Ross Taylor 315 runs @ 39 / Albie Morkel 272 runs @ 34 and 7 wickets at 42
Essex - Scott Styris 392 runs @ 36 and 13 wickets @ 31 / Danish Kaneria 17 wickets at 17
Glamorgan - Mark Cosgrove 562 runs @ 35 / Shaun Tait 7 wickets @ 41
Gloucestershire - James Franklin 470 runs @ 39 and 8 wickets @ 40
Hampshire - Abdul Razzaq 183 runs @ 20 and 7 wickets @ 35 / Daniel Christian 33 runs @ 8 and 9 wickets at 31
Kent – Malinga Bandara 17 wickets @ 22
Lancashire – Simon Katich 185 runs at 26 / Nathan McCullum 155 runs @ 17 and 11 wickets @ 30
Leicestershire – Brad Hodge 431 runs at 28 and 10 wickets at 18
Middlesex – Adam Gilchrist 212 runs @ 30: Dave Warner 260 @ 20
Northamptonshire - Chaminda Vaas 412 runs @ 25 and 23 wickets @ 15: Elton Chigumbura 160 runs @ 22 and 10 wickets @ 21
Nottinghamshire - David Hussey 524 runs @ 44: Dirk Nannes 17 wickets @ 28
Somerset - Keiron Pollard 354 runs @ 32 and 29 wickets at 15: Murali Kartik 13 wickets @ 30
Surrey - Andrew Symonds 263 runs @ 20 and 12 wickets @ 25: Younis Khan 154 runs @ 15
Sussex – Brendon McCullum 200 runs @ 33: Yasir Arafat 13 wickets @ 30
Warwickshire - Imran Tahir 20 wickets @ 20
Worcestershire - Sanath Jayasuriya 267 runs @ 26 Phil Jaques 330 runs @ 33
Yorkshire - Herschelle Gibbs 443 runs @ 37
While I accept that batting averages for T20 will not compare with those in other forms of the game, some of those above didn’t get a great deal of value from their imports. Lancashire, Middlesex and Surrey all have reason to feel short-changed by their players, while Hampshire seem to have won the competition despite, rather than because of their imports.
Keiron Pollard’s statistics suggest that he was probably worth the sizeable outlay, while Northamptonshire did better than most with their signings. I highlighted the value of Chaminda Vaas last winter having watched the IPL and he didn’t disappoint, nor did Elton Chigumbura, who ripped us apart in that decisive nightmare game at the County Ground.
Essex and Nottinghamshire also did well with their players, though Surrey must get the booby prize for their two high profile (and presumably cost) players. I just wonder if Ashley Giles saw these statistics before taking Younis on a two-year deal…
Derbyshire? Loots Bosman pretty much lived up to his career average, but struggled with a knee injury, while Charl Langeveldt still bowled with control but looked noticeably slower than two years ago. You couldn’t say they let anyone down, but they didn’t quite produce as often as we’d have liked. Mind you, Bosman’s assault on Yorkshire at Headingley will live long in the memory and there’s a lot of people would love to play just one innings like that.
For what its worth, my benchmark for ‘circus cricket’ is an average of 35 for a batsman and a bowling average of twenty and/or impressive parsimony from a bowler. If you’re bringing someone from the other side of the world that has to be a consideration.
On that basis, there’s not too many successes in that list.
Sunday, 23 May 2010
T20 side
The always worth reading In Morris We Trust has a section on naming your T20 side for this season. While such calls are difficult with all the injuries, here's my suggestion.
Bosman
Hughes
Rogers
Smith
Peterson
Wagg
Madsen
Park
Goddard
Needham
Groenewald/Jones
It pretty much speaks for itself but the main points would be that we have to maximise the fielding restrictions in the first five overs. If one of the big guns fails, we have the skipper to come in. Though not a natural T20 player, he's no mug. Madsen and Park can work it around from seven if things go pear shaped.
I'm not confident about our bowling, but Tim and Stef give us the best chance of economy. Given that the hardest bowling to hit is spin, I'd play RP and Jake, while Chesney could also be used. The side is long on batting as I don't think we have enough tight bowlers at present, and Peterson apart, none you would regard as a real "go to" bowler.
I'd be inclined to open with a spinner, which often causes opening batsmen problems, while rotating them and not allowing anyone to "line up" a bowler is the key to success. There are six bowlers here and another couple of options.
I think it is the best option for us and will allow the seamers to be fresh for the rest of the Championship campaign. Whether it is enough for greater success only time will tell, but based on players I am aware of being available, this would be my first choice side.
Bosman
Hughes
Rogers
Smith
Peterson
Wagg
Madsen
Park
Goddard
Needham
Groenewald/Jones
It pretty much speaks for itself but the main points would be that we have to maximise the fielding restrictions in the first five overs. If one of the big guns fails, we have the skipper to come in. Though not a natural T20 player, he's no mug. Madsen and Park can work it around from seven if things go pear shaped.
I'm not confident about our bowling, but Tim and Stef give us the best chance of economy. Given that the hardest bowling to hit is spin, I'd play RP and Jake, while Chesney could also be used. The side is long on batting as I don't think we have enough tight bowlers at present, and Peterson apart, none you would regard as a real "go to" bowler.
I'd be inclined to open with a spinner, which often causes opening batsmen problems, while rotating them and not allowing anyone to "line up" a bowler is the key to success. There are six bowlers here and another couple of options.
I think it is the best option for us and will allow the seamers to be fresh for the rest of the Championship campaign. Whether it is enough for greater success only time will tell, but based on players I am aware of being available, this would be my first choice side.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)