Jump to content

Derbyshire CCC - Mickey Arthur Appointed


Mihangel

Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, jimbo jones said:

If we don’t get to 350 I’d back Sussex to win unless Watt can get it spinning with more regularity. Getting Rizwan early will also be key.

We need to bat for half an hour in the morning and get a 370 run lead…they won’t get that and it will be a case of whether they can bat out the day…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Steve Buckley’s Dog said:

I’m not quite sure what that was all about. Why we didn’t bowl again is a bit of a mystery. Let’s hope we have enough time, and runs, to bowl them out tomorrow. 

In 'broken record mode', it's just the most barmy decision of the season, absolutely bonkers, (remind me to delete this post when we've got them at 89/9 tomorrow afternoon).

Edited by Grumpy Git
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jimbo Ram said:

I wasn’t overly surprised to be honest. We had been in the field for nearly 100 overs. In theory batting again and getting quick runs with the bowlers coming back refreshed in the morning kind of makes sense…

..................... except we did everything except getting 'quick' runs'. I think we only scored five runs off the last five overs of the day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never made my mind up what the advantages or disadvantages of enforcing the follow-on actually are, other than by the use of hindsight.

You could blindly look at the scorecard and see that 14 wickets fell on day 3 and infer from that that the wicket is far from the road it appeared to be for the first two days and up until mid-afternoon today, but other than the new ball when Sussex batted and a somewhat reckless approach when Derbyshire did, it really does look like hard work for the bowlers for the most part.

Convention is to avoid batting last on a Bunsen, but it's far from that. Although Mark Watt bowled beautifully at times, I don't see him and Alex Thompson running through Sussex in a session. Derbyshire are still favourites, but the decision to bat again introduced the possibility of defeat into the equation. It's a game of small margins, so perhaps batting again just increases the likelihood of Derbyshire winning (by a few percentage points) and reduced the possibility of a draw.

I should imagine that it was a decision backed by the management.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jimbo Ram said:

We need to bat for half an hour in the morning and get a 370 run lead…they won’t get that and it will be a case of whether they can bat out the day…

A maximum of 30 minutes, in my mind.

Derbyshire have two new balls available - batting for 6 overs, 2 lost for change of innings allows 8 with the second new ball. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jimbo Ram said:

We need to bat for half an hour in the morning and get a 370 run lead…they won’t get that and it will be a case of whether they can bat out the day…

Sorry Jimbo - but that is going from being in a winning position to looking for a draw. 

I simply cannot fathom not enforcing the follow on. Eddie asks the advantage - well it completely takes away the uncertainty of what lead is required, thus giving us more of a chance of booking them out (more overs) and then if they did score enough runs to put them 50-100 ahead, we would know exactly how many to chase in how many overs.

Quite simply with four sessions left, if you enforce the follow on there is no way of losing the game. By not enforcing the follow on we are now playing a game of how many runs do we need to put on so we don’t lose. Inevitable a risk averse approach means we look for a 370 lead. It’s like a Gareth Southgate formation with seven defensive players lol.

I predict this game ending in a draw, we will get them 7 or 8 wickets down and fail to get the last few batters out because of the stupid tactics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, rammieib said:

Sorry Jimbo - but that is going from being in a winning position to looking for a draw. 

I simply cannot fathom not enforcing the follow on. Eddie asks the advantage - well it completely takes away the uncertainty of what lead is required, thus giving us more of a chance of booking them out (more overs) and then if they did score enough runs to put them 50-100 ahead, we would know exactly how many to chase in how many overs.

Quite simply with four sessions left, if you enforce the follow on there is no way of losing the game. By not enforcing the follow on we are now playing a game of how many runs do we need to put on so we don’t lose. Inevitable a risk averse approach means we look for a 370 lead. It’s like a Gareth Southgate formation with seven defensive players lol.

I predict this game ending in a draw, we will get them 7 or 8 wickets down and fail to get the last few batters out because of the stupid tactics.

Read Peakfans blog, sums it up rather well ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My issue with not forcing the follow on is Sussex we’re on the ropes, they looked dejected in the field on day 2 and collapsed in that first innings. The pressure was on them and they’d have been expecting to come out and bat again, not enforcing the follow on took the pressure off them and put it on the Derbyshire batsmen to come out and score quickly...and we saw how that worked out. 
 

If we only had 4 front line bowlers the tired aspect would make more sense to me. We have 6, plus Madsen and Du Plooy if things get desperate.

Surrey and Notts both made their opponents follow on and they will probably win the 2 division titles between them. For me, that’s what the confident side that expects to win games does. Perhaps I’m getting ahead of myself expecting that? If we pull of the win tomorrow nobody will care follow ons ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Jimbo Ram said:

Read Peakfans blog, sums it up rather well ?

Have done, and I appreciate he knows his cricket better than me, but I still think it’s a negative decision.

Were we tired - probably. However it’s one session and then we can relax overnight ready to go today. Potentially with 1/2 wickets already down.

Instead we’ll be asking our bowlers to go and do some batting and then telling them the pressure is on to get the wickets but at the same time, not going at 4 an over which means moderately defensive field positions.

I just honestly think we’ve gone from win/draw guarantee to a win/draw/lose position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jimbo jones said:

Raining this morning in Hove, hopefully we get away on time. Supposed to clear up by midday at the latest. If there is a delay of an hour or so, the declaration probably comes straight away.

 

Makes the 'batting again' decision even more bizarre given how easily available (and accurate) local weather forecasts are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd always be nervous about the follow on, unless it's a total mis-match or the pitch makes it a no brainer, the side followig on usually digs in out of pride and the bowlers are not usually able to keep it up over 20 wickets.

If you bat again you can *usually* establish a no lose situation and decide how much time you think you need to bowl the other team out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...