I see Chris Waters is questioning Yorkshire's failure to win in the Championship. He puts it down to two factors: a) Michael Vaughan, and b) Signing Naved.
Belated recognition that there is a fundamental problem
June 20 2009, 2:18 PM
Somewhat belatedly David Walters seems to have realised that YCCC are a quality batsman light.
He is only partially correct. It is not a question of "a quality" batsman. In fact, since the beginning of the 2007 season YCCC selection policy has been in complete disarray. Certainly, the return from Team England in the last 12 months of an out of form (and possibly declining) Vaughan has not helped matters, but it has not been the only point at issue.
Repeatedly, YCCC have gone into CC matches with too many, almost identical, bowlers at the expense of the extra batsman and the disregard of its talented spinners. Why?
On can only conclude that those responsible for team selection, which we are led to believe was soley Gough in 2007-8, but surely now includes both Mags and Mox, have had insufficient faith in the county's seam bowlers to restrict their number to sensible proportions.
For example, at Taunton last year, YCCC went into the game with five seamers, two spinners, a wicketkeeper and three batsmen. By accident, and it was certainly not by design of either direction or tactics, we won that game; or to be more precise Somerset lost it! For anyone with any real understanding of cricket the writing was on the wall at that point. In fact, it was Yorkshire's last CC victory to date and it was one that they gained by default.
Those who were critical of the selection and tactics used in that game were pooh-poohed and advised that they should rejoice in the Yorkshire victory. After all, Mags and Mox knew best!
Here we find ourselves, a year on, with the slowest learning management team in the history of first class cricket, and David Warner proclaiming in the "penny dreadful" that he thinks a problem exists. He is correct, but the only people who have taken longer than he to notice it are Mags and Mox.
While our early middle-order batting is prone to crashing at inopportune times, more often than not the batting has put Yorkshire into potentially winning positions. I think the batting fragility is more a case of the wrong batting order (sending Rudolph in to face the new ball is not clever), than it is any intrinsic lack of class. Besides, as Joe notes, we've got lots in reserve.
Bowling wins matches, batting saves them. And it is worth noting that over our sixteen match non-winning sequence, our batsmen have put up 400+ in the first innings 9 times and given Yorkshire a first-innings lead 9 times (plus one tied), in the 16 matches - yet the bowlers have failed to hammer home the advantage and create even a single win.
Clearly, our attack lacks a true match-winner (where have all the "five-fers" gone?) and thus, we aren't able to exploit winning positions.
I know Bressy and Kruis have many fans on this site, and that includes me, but they are both at BEST first and second change county trundlers and their bowling is not going to lead us to the promised land in the longer game.
And what with injuries, ICL conflagrations, visa issues and "rests," Yorkshire probably gets less out of its overseas player than any other county team does. Signing Rana was a mistake, and it has haunted us for the best part of two years. For heavens sakes he's appeared in all of 10 County matches out of the 22 Yorkshire has played since he was signed. (Put a Graham Onions-type bowler into the attack and Yorkshire would be an immediate contender.)
Sometime statistics don't lie - Kruis : 10 wickets at 38.10, Naved 8 at 38.75 and Bressy with 8 at 55.37. Vaughan: 147 runs at 21.00
David Walters, David Warner or Chris Waters? Does it really matter?
The bottom line is that whoever it is that writes the column in the "penny dreadful", it has taken him over a year to realise that which was as "plain as the nose on a face" to anyone who knows anything about cricket by the end of the YCCC v Somerset game at Taunton last year.
That Chris Waters can see it now undoubtedly puts him ahead of Mags and Mox, but well behind those who have been pointing out the inconsistency for over a year.
If I were the editor of the publication in question, I would be reviewing the position of my cricket correspondence with the same sense of urgency with which the YCCC Board should be evaluating the activities of its "Director of Professional Cricket" and its County Captain.
I agree with Tony. The team's lack of focus and inconstancy may well be due issues with McGrath's and Moxon's leadership and management. If the team doesn't perk up, I'm sure there will be a blood-letting after the season. This can't go on, year after year.
Tony should try keeping up to date. Kruis has taken 10 wickets at 38.10. Not brilliant but not that much worse than Shahzad who's 10 are at 36.60. I critised Bresnan after the Somerset match ... but without Tim's batting there's a good chance we would have lost the game of Worcester. (Hoggard's 15 wickets have come at 31.13 btw).
As I've said the problem isn't the cricketer's we've got in the team but that they perform well in one game & are awful in the next .... an please tell me which spinner would have joined Rafiq ... as both Wainwright & Rashid were injured
If you look back you will see that I pressaged all my comments with the caveat that YCCC probably had little room for manouvre when it came to selection for the Worcestershire match.
Obviously, Rahid and Wainwright were both injured.
That, however, was not the point which I was making. On the contrary!
Let me say this as clearly as I can. YCCC has for two and a half years chosen to select far too many mediocre right-arm-over medium pacers, to the exclusion of a proper balance between batsmen and bowlers in the side. Secondly, within the ranks of the bowlers it has chosen to adopt a philosophy of grey sameness, to the exclusion of a properly balanced attack. Thirdly, when opportunities to introduce new blood into the side came about, it was decided to bring in outside "ringers" rather than test the resources already employed by the club.
One assumes that responsibility for this parless state of affairs rests with the Director of Professional Cricket (Moxon) and the captains (Gough and McGrath). If this is not the case, and the Board enforced the decisions in opposition to the director or captains, this should be put in the public domain.
If not, and the Board acted on the advice of the Director and Captains, then the time has come for the latter to be held to account.
To be perfectlly honest I've given up on the YP mainly because of the cricket correspondent who seems to have an understanding of cricket more fit for The Sun. Sadly he is not in the same class as many lf the former correspondents such as Terry Brindle.
But Yorkshire didn't go into the match at Somerset last season with only THREE batsmen!!! The first four in the order were Rudolph (who made 155 opening the innings), Lyth, McGrath and Gale. Brophy was at 5, with Rashid and Bresnan to follow. In all, nine of Yorkshire's batsmen in that game have scored first-class centuries, the others being Pyrah and Wainwright.
Lets not split too many hairs. If Brophy ever bats at five we are one, two and possibly even three batsmen short. The fact almost everyone else behind him is an alledged allrounder also tells it's own story. Nice to have an allrounder but in the end, batsmen have to bat and bowlers have to bowl. That's why I'm not going too overboard with Rafiq's century. I'd rather the batters had batted and the bowler Rafiq had taken ten wickets instead of three. Beautifully as he batted, his main job is to bowl and as beautifully as he bowled, he still only had three wickets to his name. His runs were a well needed bonus, but not a guarentee to a starting place for the rest of the season.
Tony Cronshaw has repeatedly asserted that Yorkshire played only three batsmen at Taunton last year, despite my having challenged this statement at least once. I can't see how it's splitting hairs to point out that the central element of evidence underpinning someone's argument is sheer fabrication.
The "big lie" technique seems to be enormously robust on these kinds of Internet forum. I happen to think we should try to avoid it.
But, perhaps I was counting him as one of the seamers!
It does not alter the substance of my argument either way! The point is that YCCC went into that match with inadequate batting resources and far too many bowlers. This presented its own dilemma, and indeed, it was difficult to say, given the amount of bowling he was allowed, why Wainwright played at all.
The tactics in that game were, depending upon your point of view, daffling, misguided or "effectively lucky, and therefore, unimportant" and Somerset lost, leaving Yorkshire to win by default.
To some this was a triumph! To the more clear-sighted it was a wake-up call, that YCCC selection and tactics would not cut mustard. So it has been proven; continuing witrh the same approach they have not won a subsequent match!
So, Yorkshire played three batsmen - or four if you count another one of the batsmen?
And Yorkshire went into the match with inadequate batting resources, the batting resources being proven inadquate by the fact that they scored enough runs to win the match?
And the fact that Yorkshire didn't win subsequent matches - in which they never played as few as four batsmen again - proves that these tactics (of playing four batsmen) don't work?
I'm beginning to see why you might be constantly baffled.
It does seem curious to cite as an example of our failings one of the very few games that we've actually won in recent years. Perhaps we should list all those games where we've played five or more batsmen and FAILED to win...
1. I am not anti-Mags or anti-Mox, indeed I would dearly like both of them to succeed. If you doubt this, then I suggest that you look back on this site to my support for Mags in the Winter/Spring of 2006/7. On the other hand I do not think that either of them have yet shown us that of which they are capable, and this is what I find most frustrating. "Safety first" selection policies and "fag packet" tactics are not in the county's best interests and I feel that both Mags and Mox need to break out of that mold.
2. The reason why I continually "harp back" to Taunton in 2008 is because, I was there for every minute of the game and although YCCC won the game, we did not on the basis of the tactics which we employed, deserve to do so. It was not so much that YCCC won the game, as that Somerset lost it. Consequently, in celebrating the win, we did not learn from it that the tactics which we used very clearly caused us to very nearly lose it.
3. Since Taunton 2008, we have continued to adopt essentially the same tactics as those which so nearly caused us to lose that match, and not surprisingly we have failed to win another game since.
4. The "fag packet" / "go through the motions" tactical approach which we adopt, "and time and strength will tell" philosophy has served us badly. The Somerset victory should have been a comprehensive win, but turned out a highly exciting, cliff-hanger which we very nearly lost.
5. There were significant lessons to be learned from that match. What has followed clearly demonstrates that they were not learned and that is why we have subsequently done so badly.
I make no apology for drawing attention to the fact that you can learn from your victories as well as your defeats. But you can only do this if you are critically aware. Critical awareness is not a characteristic that I would say one would normally associate with either Mags or Mox. And it is this which I would like to see them develop!
In that Taunton win I seem to recall Pyrah putting up an impressive batting display. This I thought may be his breakthrough moment into 4 day cricket. Alas it wasnt to be.
Is he forever going to be simply a one day specialist?
Agree T19xx ... I've called Pyrah Gary Felloes Mk II for a few years .... sorry but IMO Richie's bowling just isn't up to the mark in the championship & his batting needs his bowling
I love this tread. TC is simultiniously right and wrong.
The facts he has used to support his 'Taunton' agruement are, as shown, incorrect although his conclusion is spot on. The Mags / Moxon combination is not working. I'd take it one step further than TC and argue it will never work.
My view is that Mags is a very poor captain. Although he has his strnegths such as his ability to be 'inclusive' which with a changing team is not to be underrated. My observation is that as the young Asian lads have come into the side Mags has been the one with the people skills to include them. A vluable skills. However, overall the negectives outweigh the positives. Vaughan would be a far better tactical captain. Vaughan with support from Mags is my dream ticket. Mags is obviously worth is place in the team for all forms of the game, day in day out he's our most valuable batter.
Moxon I feel is a hugely overrated coach. Lacks innovation and flair, always behind the game, tactically weak and seemingly without any strategy. I'd go with an overseas coach in the Wayne Clark mould - Aussie and unconnected with the club.
Sadly Pyrah isn't quite good enough as either batter or bowler.
For what it's worth, I think Moxon is an erudite coach with an excellent knowledge of cricket. His recent behaviour demonstrates his passion and commitment for the club. Looking at the strength of our playing staff it would seem a strange time to dispense with his services.
Sadly however, I don't think Mags is a natural leader of men. Captaincy isn't something that you can learn or develop, and I don't actually think Antony is very happy in the role. I'm afraid lack of leadership on the pitch is the missing 10% that's stopping us winning games at the moment.
I don't think Vaughan would do it, but if he could be persuaded i think it would be the sort of challenge that would maintain his interest and bring the best out of him as a batsman next season. He seems to thrive on responsibility where mags seems slightly overwhelmed by it.
I partially agree with both of the previous 2 posters. The big problem is demarkation. From the sound of it Mags is now in control of the team .... & I don't think he's up to it. As I've said in another thread Vaughan should be captain & openingwith Rudolph back where he belongs at no 4.
i do like these threads along these lines but would much prefer to see the same words in a different order (bit like the legendary Morecambe & Wise sketch with Andre Previn) and change the thread title to
Yorkshire on whats wrong with Chris Waters.
Lets face it - he has suggested nothing that he could nto have detected just by reading the WRF.