surrey vs middlesex LV county championship

First topic message reminder :

Surrey have named a thirteen man squad for the LV=County Championship match against Middlesex at the Kia Oval starting on Tuesday.
Stuart Meaker returns to the squad having missed the last couple of months of cricket due to a knee injury. Jade Dernbach is also named having missed the recent game against Derbyshire due to his involvement in England’s T20 series against Australia.
Gary Wilson is unavailable after being selected in the Ireland squad for their ODI against England and Chris Tremlett is rested.
there is also no place in the squad for tom curran.
The Surrey squad to play Middlesex in the LV=County Championship at the Kia Oval on Tuesday 3rd September, Wednesday 4th September, Thursday 5th September and Friday 6th September :
Gareth Batty (capt)
Hashim Amla
Zafar Ansari
Rory Burns
Steven Davies
Zander De Bruyn
Jade Dernbach
George Edwards
Arun Harinath
Tim Linley
Stuart Meaker
Dominic Sibley
Vikram Solanki
maybe harinath and edwards to miss out

Afternoon, gentlemen.

I was about to ask the Corporal for a detailed weather forecast. Had heard it's not meant to be good tomorrow. Baking hot here now at Guildford Towers!

There again, we might lose by stumps tonight anyway and can't complain if we do. Middlesex rattling through their overs. Rayner has bowled 25 on the reel and already has 11 match wickets.

50 for amla  

Rumours that Tom Jewell and Freddie van den Bergh might be released...

Shelsey - there is a rumour to that effect on the so-called wallpaper site.  

But on the other hand (also on the wallpaper site) Guildfordbat posted yesterday that Stewart had said that VDB (and Roy) were not out of contract this season.  Seems unlikely that Guildford or Stewart were making that up...

Shelsey93 wrote:Rumours that Tom Jewell and Freddie van den Bergh might be released...

Shelsey - the rumours about van den Bergh are a bit surprising although I appreciate they are increasing which suggests some substance. At a members' forum on Tuesday, Stewart said there were 4 players out of contract this season. I probed this as I thought the number was greater, consisting of Lewis, de Bruyn, Jewell, Tremlett, Roy and van den Bergh. I took Stewart to say that the last two were not out of contract. He confirmed the first three by name were and we (including our mutual friend Marcus Hook) took this to mean Tremlett was the fourth.

I'll be sorry to see Jewell go. He's a decent bloke who has had a raw deal.

188 - 5.  Davies out for 38.. Can Amla and the tail scrape together another 197?

amla gone game over

I assume they can claim an extra half hour if needed?  With our tail I expect the umpires would have no hesitation in granting it.  

There have already been 108 overs bowled today plus a break between innings.  Clearly it is not compulsory to bowl with a slow over rate.

Meaker  

no idea why meaker played in this match

Batty  

extra half hour taken

Oh well, might spend what would have been tomorrow's rail fare on a couple of drinks tonight!

my verdict on this  

Why do we even bother sending 8, 9, 10 and 11 out to bat - this has to be the worst tail in county cricket history. Now we're 9 down and reliant on Keedy to hold out for 20 mins - the same Keedy who has still to score his first run this season!

he's done it dave  

The end!

Lasted longer than I thought it would - Rayner 15 wickets in the match. What the ..... ? Another distinctly awful display by Surrey. Apparently the win over Derby failed to inspire them. I think that's it for us now. Div 2 beckons.

Tremendous match return for Rayner. Congratulations to him.

A generally very poor performance from Surrey. Definitely Division Two for us.

Apologies for the delay in report from the ground.

Here are my pieces:

Rayner/ Stewart quotes - http://deepextracover.blog.com/2013/09/05/rayner-ecstatic-but-stewart-bemoans-lack-of-application/

Report within round-up - http://deepextracover.blog.com/2013/09/05/lvcc-division-one-round-up-thursday-5th-september/

Today's play saw a decent fighting effort from Surrey on a tough pitch. Amla and Davies, in particular, offered considerable resistance, to the extent that they made Middlesex go to the part-timers and then the new ball. After his first innings aberration Amla really showed his quality and deserved a century. Middlesex bowled well - Rayner was probably better than he was in the first innings - and were also terrific in the field, holding on to almost all the chances that were presented to them around the bat.

As alluded to yesterday the length of Surrey's tail is a real issue. 20 years ago 8-11 were expected to contribute only occasionally, but these days most numbers eight and nine are more than capable. Certainly I reckon your average team would hope to add at least 50 runs for the last four wickets, something which Surrey aren't doing. Add 40 more runs in each innings and this particular game suddenly looks much closer.

At the close of play we had an interesting interview session with Alec Stewart. He gave some thoughtful answers, and wasn't afraid to criticise the batsmen. But he did get a bit prickly at times, primarily because George Dobell was grilling him about the age profile etc. He certainly gave a compelling argument for not picking Jason Roy (who sounds unlikely to feature any time soon).

The conversation got onto comings and goings. He wouldn't say anything about the hunt for a new coach. It has been strongly rumoured that Graham Ford is the preferred choice. With regard to contracts he confirmed that there are four players out of contract - Lewis (who has been released), de Bruyn, Jewell and another that he didn't name. Whether or not that is van den Bergh or Tremlett I'm not sure: I believe the rumours I spoke of earlier eminated from a Surrey forum which Oval press box regular Marcus Hook moderates. It would surprise me if Tremlett's contract were allowed to run out without media speculation - if he were released it would be big news as England players need to have a county - though it is possible that those that are normally in the know just aren't.

It has also been suggested that, despite being in contract, Gary Keedy could be let go. Stewart got particularly spiky when it was put to him that Keedy would be playing at Taunton. Perhaps he won't be, possibly with the length of the tail in mind.

All in all quite an unusual match with so much spin bowled, which made it all the more enjoyable. Ollie Rayner's figures were the best for Middlesex against Surrey, the best for a Middlesex bowler since Fred Titmus and, until Patel got the penultimate wicket, he was on for Middlesex's best ever figures in their 149 year history! Remarkable from a bowler that has been the butt of the joke for so long!

One last thing. If you haven't already I'd recommend watching Sam Robson's catch to get rid of Zander de Bruyn - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQ7SpjAcyD8. Sensational.

Thanks again, Shelsey. Interesting stuff once more.

Strange that Stewart appears reluctant to name ''the fourth man''. Any reluctance would to my mind suggest it's Tremlett rather than van den Bergh. I can't see why Stewart would be shy in naming a young second teamer like van den Bergh - particularly as he didn't hold back at the members' forum on Tuesday in confirming Jewell's name.

Although I'm beginning to doubt myself, I was also sure that Stewart confirmed at the forum that Roy and van den Bergh weren't out of contract; I put both their names to him when I thought there were more than four out of contract and understood him to say these two players weren't out of contract. Admittedly, my interest related most to Roy.

Btw, Marcus Hook normally attends these forums but doesn't act as a moderator. They're run by Chairman Richard Thompson and Chief Exec Richard Gould (''the two Richards'' or, if we're doing badly as now, ''the two Dicks''). I know Marcus a bit through another contributor to the wallpaper site and we sat together on Tuesday. Marcus definitely took the fourth man to be Tremlett then and his reasoning seemed entirely logical.

As to the match, a tremendous performance from Rayner. He seems a very level headed guy and I'm sure he'll appreciate the comparison to Fred Titmus. Interested as well to read that Rayner attributed much of his success to his considerable height giving him extra bounce off the pitch (something I had speculated about yesterday - he added immodestly!).

As first flagged by another on the wallpaper site, Dernbach's innings appeared to be particularly reckless and stupid. Was trying to smash the ball out of the park really the right approach with only a few minutes left tonight and a forecast for heavy rain tomorrow which might have given us a draw and 3 more possibly vital points (admittedly undeserved)?

guildfordbat wrote:

As first flagged by another on the wallpaper site, Dernbach's innings appeared to be particularly reckless and stupid. Was trying to smash the ball out of the park really the right approach with only a few minutes left tonight and a forecast for heavy rain tomorrow which might have given us a draw and 3 more possibly vital points (admittedly undeserved)?

No, although you'll find few complaints from the press box! The prospect of coming in for 1 ball and/ or watching the rain all day was not particularly enticing... though it might allow us to appreciate the super breakfast's that they put on!

Shelsey93 wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

As first flagged by another on the wallpaper site, Dernbach's innings appeared to be particularly reckless and stupid. Was trying to smash the ball out of the park really the right approach with only a few minutes left tonight and a forecast for heavy rain tomorrow which might have given us a draw and 3 more possibly vital points (admittedly undeserved)?

No, although you'll find few complaints from the press box! The prospect of coming in for 1 ball and/ or watching the rain all day was not particularly enticing... though it might allow us to appreciate the super breakfast's that they put on!

Glad to see my membership fee is being put to good use!  

 (Shelsey)  (Guildford)

Dernbach's never struck me as being the brightest spark. Seemed crazy to go out all guns blazing as they were never going to get the runs for the win. Disappointing about Roy - first choice for limited overs but never given a serious run in the Championship. Surely if you can bat, you can bat? I can see him 'doing a Carberry'.

By way of a postscript - Surrey were spared the usual tail end stand between Murtagh and Roland-Jones to add to the other punishments meted out in this match.  But Murtagh certainly did his stuff with the bat for Ireland against Scotland - hitting a 6 and 4 off balls four and five of the last over the match to secure victory.