|
|
|
|
|
The more I reflect on the recent Chairman's Evening the more I think that Roger Harman's letter, which went to members prior to the meeting, was a waste of postage. Like many of you I went along expecting to get answers. But since it would appear that Harman is only keeping the seat warm until Surrey appoint a managing director of cricket, he wasn't in a position to make any promises. I doubt that if it came to relieving Alan Butcher of his job, it would even be down to Harman to deliver the sad news Harman's letter said very little, but reading in-between the lines it suggested that the players haven't been giving one hundred per cent this summer. I have attended a fair few matches this season and, by and large, the attitude shown by the team has been first-class. That is one thing Butcher has sorted out. One wonders, therefore, if Harman has seen much of the first team this year. However, there is a big difference between attitude and ability. Unfortunately, for much of the season almost half the side has comprised a) players who are unlikely to amount to anything more than good county pros (even though, in the case of one, he has played 32 Test matches) and b) highly promising youngsters who are at least two years away from where you would prefer them to be at this precise moment in time. The latter group will learn and develop. Given that mix, though, should it come as a surprise that Surrey have failed to cope with injuries to Chris Jordan and, in particular, Mark Butcher? At the same time, many of us have seen this fallow period coming for a while and, yet, what has the club's hierarchy done about attracting top quality replacements for the players it has allowed to walk away in the past five or six years? Whilst not wishing to pre-judge who will win our young player of the season award, I think Jade Dernbach has been a revelation when you consider that there hasn't been much pressure coming from the second eleven, which seems to be devoid of decent seamers. There remains a shortage of quality players in the 27-33 age group. As long as that situation persists then the silverware is likely to end up elsewhere due to a lack of competition for places. But is the members' dissatisfaction down to the absence of silverware? I can't believe it is. In my view it is because there does not seem to be a coherent three, four or five year plan. Roger Harman said at the Chairman's Evening that Surrey faced two choices - either to buy success or to build for the long-term by sticking with the current crop of youngsters. But, when asked by a member which policy the club would pursue, Harman said he favoured "a mix of both." Suddenly, a situation that was supposedly black and white became grey. I cannot help feeling that the decision to wind-up the cricket committee - which used to be chaired by Harman - in anticipation of a managing director of cricket being appointed, was a mistake and that some of Surrey's current problems on the field stem from the person, or group of people, who took that decision before they had someone lined-up. By doing away with the cricket committee, even more responsibility has been heaped on to Alan Butcher. In football, the manager is often empowered with structuring the playing and coaching staff as he sees fit, within the financial constraints placed on him by his chairman and board. In county cricket, however, where they play, on average, five days a week that is far less practical. I doubt whether Butcher has attended more than a handful of days when the second team has been in action. As far as I know he doesn't get to see footage of their performances (because none is taken), so it must be hard for him to judge a second team player's ability and development. It amazes me that he knows how the reservists are shaping up in match situations and, to some extent, how they are responding to their coach. That brings me on to the subject of coaches and coaching generally. Surrey have a second team coach, a specialist bowling coach, a fitness instructor and, when time permits, Butcher doubles up as a specialist batting coach. But for all of the team's failings this summer, the fielding has been a significant weakness. According to Butcher, the Brown Caps have put down well over forty catches in the championship. Our ground fielding hasn't been much to write home about either, as those of you who watched the Pro40 game against Glamorgan on Sky will have seen. People say this is down to Surrey being an ageing side, but during the Twenty20 Cup two of our best fielders were Alistair Brown and Mark Ramprakash, both of whom were 38. Once the season gets underway there probably isn't much scope for working intensively on the basics, one of which is fielding. Even if there was, who would take charge of this area? From what one can tell, it would be Alan Butcher, who, as I have said, already seems to have more than enough on his plate. Whoever is manager next summer, one thing he must do is appoint a fielding coach to drum into the players that there are three basic skills a cricketer needs to work on. I'm not sure that Shoaib Akhtar is the answer. If the trend of spurned chances continues it might simply mean that catches will be dropped off him as opposed to Matt Nicholson. Talking of Nicholson, in my opinion he would make an excellent bowling coach assuming Geoff Arnold is pensioned off when he reaches retirement age in a year's time. But coming back to Shoaib, my question is: "Why now?" Why wait until there are just two teams we can overtake, in terms of number of wins, before bringing in someone who is capable of running through sides? As far as I can tell, Shoaib has been available since the end of May, when the Kolkata Knight Riders were eliminated from the IPL reckoning. Interestingly, he missed Pakistan's training camp in July due to doubts over his fitness. So, if Shoaib Akhtar is going to be drafted in for the last three championship games I would wait and see what sort of shape he is in first if I was Alan Butcher, especially given the criticism Butcher received at the Chairman's Evening over the selection Chris Lewis; who, to be fair, was a flawed signing for reasons other than his fitness. Butcher, who gave an interview for Oval World, which appears in this edition, says that if you play well you tend to be lucky and vice versa. To not have a ball bowled at Blackpool was a huge slice of bad luck, but there cannot be any complaints. There would appear to be no fault on Lancashire's part. Indeed, as a result of their abandoned four-day game with Surrey, they too are going into the final weeks of the season facing the prospect of relegation in the championship. However, with Sussex and Yorkshire due to play each other twice, I would rather be in Lancashire's shoes than ours. Unlike the three aforementioned counties, the Brown Caps do not owe their position in the Division One table to England call-ups. Indeed, it would seem that not one member of the Surrey first team is anything like close to selection. In the case of some it is due to age, and in the case of others I would venture to suggest that their lack of agility in the field doesn't even get them to first base in the selection process. If bonus points can be awarded for batting and bowling I'm sure there is scope for awarding points for the number of games a player plays for England during the home Test and one-day series. One of the reasons why some counties have preferred to go down the Kolpak route is because they do not want the disadvantage of losing players to the England team. Points based, perhaps, on each Test cap earned by a player assigned to that county would encourage clubs to develop England cricketers and increase the chances of those sides being in the top flight. I thought it was a bit rich of the England management to rest Andrew Strauss for Twenty20 finals day. But, as Middlesex proved, team spirit often counts for more than star names. I certainly couldn't have stomached Kent winning the Twenty20 Cup again; even though they are an even better side now that they've got our Azhar. A lot of people criticised the selection of Darren Pattinson for the Headingley Test. However, I can't help but feel that there wouldn't have been such an uproar if he had taken eight or more wickets. Stephen Harmison - who apparently insists on being called Stephen, not Steve, so is clearly someone who is easily upset - was a tad miffed that he was passed over for Pattinson. In the end, Harmison earned his recall on the back of polishing off the Surrey tail at Guildford and Peter Moores's decision to rest Stuart Broad for the Third Test. As one might expect from a 22-year-old, Broad claimed that he didn't think he needed a break. It is clear that some players have a divine right to play for England, almost. Let's see how Harmison does after the Stanford Twenty20 game against the West Indies on November 1. He claims that he hasn't reversed his decision to retire from one-day international cricket because of the money now on offer. For someone who used to be constantly complaining about feeling burnt out, it is strange that we haven't heard him bemoan the amount of bowling he is being asked to do recently. The more I think about it, the more I am against a salary cap being introduced in county cricket. While I don't totally go with the "players don't want to move to London" excuse trotted out recently, it is a fact that your money goes further when you are outside the M25 ring. A salary cap would therefore disadvantage Middlesex and Surrey. Alex Gidman, Steve Kirby and Stephen Moore have all turned down offers to join the Brown Caps due, to varying degrees, on their reluctance to move to London. It seems to me, therefore, that Surrey should only go after players who already live in or close to the capital. From what I understand the only player we have approached formally, who is yet to commit himself for next season, is Middlesex's Eoin Morgan. So, if he doesn't end up coming it will be interesting to know his reasons. Morgan is approaching his 22nd birthday, so isn't in that bracket we need to fill, but I have to say I was impressed when he made 96 against us in last year's Pro40 League game at Lord's and I see he made a hundred against Essex at Chelmsford in this year's Friends Provident, which is no mean feat. Perhaps, given the age profile of the side, it makes sense for Surrey to target the one-day competitions in the short-term.
BACK TO: |
