Surrey vs Glamorgan LV=County Championship

First topic message reminder :

SURREY HAVE NAMED A THIRTEEN MAN SQUAD FOR THEIR OPENING GAME IN THE LV=COUNTY CHAMPIONSHIP AGAINST GLAMORGAN STARTING ON SUNDAY IN CARDIFF.
Kumar Sangakkara will make his Surrey debut having arrived at the Club this week and Kevin Pietersen is also included. Chris Tremlett is unavailable for selection due to a minor hamstring strain he picked up against Oxford MCCU
The Surrey squad to play Glamorgan in the LV=County Championship at the Swalec Stadium on Sunday 19th April, Monday 20th April, Tuesday 21st April and Wednesday 22nd April :
Gareth Batty (capt)
Zafar Ansari
Rory Burns
Tom Curran
Steven Davies
Jade Dernbach
Matthew Dunn
Stuart Meaker
Kevin Pietersen
Jason Roy
Kumar Sangakkara
Vikram Solanki
Gary Wilson
no sign of foakes yet guildford

wagg joins the 100 club just bumble to go now

Well spotted on the 100 club, JimBob. Not sure though that Bumble will bowl again in this innings ....

come on Rudolph give the ball to bumble he only needs four to join the rest

guildfordbat wrote:Well spotted on the 100 club, JimBob. Not sure though that Bumble will bowl again in this innings ....

career best for davies

200 for davies

563 for 7 declared

Well played Davies Incidentally, that innings of 200* has taken his first class career batting average up to 40.

Pleased to see Curran get some runs - a career best 23*.  I have a feeling that at lower cricketing levels he was seen as something of a bowling all rounder, so it would be excellent if he could turn into a useful number 9, or even better.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Well played Davies Incidentally, that innings of 200* has taken his first class career batting average up to 40.

Pleased to see Curran get some runs - a career best 23*.  I have a feeling that at lower cricketing levels he was seen as something of a bowling all rounder, so it would be excellent if he could turn into a useful number 9, or even better.

Agree all points there, Corporal.

Incidentally, Tom Curran's younger brother Sam has done well for the Academy side and there are high hopes for his future.

Hi all - back for another season of ups and, probably mainly, downs supporting Surrey. Great batting from Davies and the new boy(!). Still don't understand why we've failed to bolster the bowling department during the winter. Our problem for years now has been an inability to take 20 wickets in a match, and I can't really see that changing. Dunn will take some, and hopefully Curran, but Tremlett will be injured mnore often than not, Meaker is too expensive and Dernbach just not goo enough. Linley will do a job if asked but was Balcombe the best we could do in the way of recruitments? As for spinners, although Batty will do a job as captain, I'm not sure he merits a place in the side every week, and Ansari doesn't get used enough.

Hi KingDave.  Good see the mustering of the Surrey troops!  

The honour of taking the first cc wicket this season for Surrey goes to "Clive" Dunn.  We are indeed going to rely heavily on him and Curren continuing to develop and improve. Maybe things will come together on occasion if Tremlett is fit and Meaker has a hot streak.  But, overall, I think we will struggle to take 20 wickets other than on poor batting surfaces.

Greetings, KingDave.

102/1 off 36 overs. Think that leaves 8 more today.

Really want one more wicket before stumps ....

And Norah strikes to dismiss Rudolph.  Does look very likely to be a draw, but if bowlers chip away we could yet put Glam under a bit of pressure.

Hmmm. Massively on top and many thanks to Sanga and Interesting for that. However, I'm concerned as to whether we can get a further 18 wickets in the time allowed. One bowler really needs to come to the party.

David Lloyd never got me out. Therefore JD > Sanga. He did, however, hit me over a road a couple of times, but swings and roundabouts!

JDizzle wrote:David Lloyd never got me out. Therefore JD > Sanga ...

JD - Surrey AGM on Thursday night. I'll propose under Any Other Business that we sign you up!

Anyone know why Ansari never seems to get a bowl?

3 wickets so far this morning. Settle for that.

Charlie Cooke just run out - he must be getting on a bit these days, eh Goochie?

guildfordbat wrote:

JDizzle wrote:David Lloyd never got me out. Therefore JD > Sanga ...

JD - Surrey AGM on Thursday night. I'll propose under Any Other Business that we sign you up!

It's always good to have depth behind Dernbach in the bowl-half-trackers-and-full-tosses role at the death!

Glam 210 - 5  at lunch. (2 wickets for Dunn, 1 each for Curran and Batty and a runout).  The new ball is due shortly.  Sounds like a good morning's work from Surrey.

One interesting note is that so far Dernbach has bowled 14 overs for 27 runs.  Considerably tighter than he has generally achieved in recent seasons - and not just in limited overs matches.

Ansari bowled plenty of overs in the recent match against Oxford MCCU, so I would not be at all surprised to see him bowl a bit in this match, especially if wickets are not falling and faster bowlers are tiring and leaking runs.

JDizzle wrote:.... It's always good to have depth behind Dernbach in the bowl-half-trackers-and-full-tosses role at the death!

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Glam 210 - 5  at lunch. (2 wickets for Dunn, 1 each for Curran and Batty and a runout).  The new ball is due shortly.  Sounds like a good morning's work from Surrey.

One interesting note is that so far Dernbach has bowled 14 overs for 27 runs.  Considerably tighter than he has generally achieved in recent seasons - and not just in limited overs matches.  

Ansari bowled plenty of overs in the recent match against Oxford MCCU, so I would not be at all surprised to see him bowl a bit in this match, especially if wickets are not falling and faster bowlers are tiring and leaking runs.

Although he's currently wicketless, I suspect Stewart and Ford will be fairly content with Dernbach's contribution so far. He seems to be filling the role of Tremlett and keeping it tight so that Dunn and Curran can ''get it up 'em''.

I'm not too surprised Ansari has hardly bowled yet. There doesn't seem much in the pitch for the slow men. Cosker is no mug with the ball and has been plying his trade at Glamorgan for over a decade but ended up with no wickets and in JimBob's 100 club yesterday. Looks like it'll mainly be Batty today ''doing the hard yards'' (per Sanga in his interview with Churchy); hopefully, both Batty and Ansari tomorrow.

261/6 with Batty picking up his second by bowling Wagg.

Still 300 ahead.

Assuming* we have the option of enforcing the follow on, it'll be interesting to see if we do. The modern tendency (which I don't share) is not to do so. However, I'm already conscious of the clock and don't feel we can afford to unnecessarily lose any time batting second dig here. Yes, the bowlers will get tired but they shouldn't feel that if they're taking wickets.

*Olly - another rule in following Surrey: Beware the curse of assumption!

293 - 8 Batty and Curran each take another wicket.  Guildford - I'm definitely not making any assumptions about whether Glam will be dismissed before close of play tonight!

Bumble out lbw to Batty.

293/7

I agree we should enforce the follow on if we get the chance guildford.

Time is running out to get the full 20 and we just can't afford to waste anytime. I'd much rather situation in which they get a lead and we open with Roy and Davies in an attempt to chase it quickly than one in which we run out of time with Glamorgan batting second time round.

Whilst I'm typing the 8th falls

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:293 - 8 Batty and Curran each take another wicket.  Guildford - I'm definitely not making any assumptions about whether Glam will be dismissed before close of play tonight!

Corporal - my comment about being aware of assumptions was directed towards new and young Surrey followers. With the greatest of respect, I was not thinking of you for a moment!

Meanwhile, in the seconds game (yes, I know wrong thread but more of an audience!) Solanki has just been dismissed, caught for 22. According to the scorecard, ''c Unsure''.

I noticed that as well Guildford. "Unsure" is clearly a good fielder as the text commentary, which usually just give facts and no opinions, says it was a good catch!

360-8 now - 9th pair have so far added 67.

Tbf Craig Meschede is a pretty good bat to be coming in at 9 in a div 2 side!!

100 partnership for 9th wicket now. Just 20 to avoid follow-on. Pathetic as usual Surrey. How often has this happened in the last few years that we've let teams escape with a mammoth late partnership?

Olly wrote:Tbf Craig Meschede is a pretty good bat to be coming in at 9 in a div 2 side!!

I'll accept that, JD, but our seamers should be sending Cosker's stumps cartwheeling.

all out at last follow on avoided

I think that's a decent effort on what is by all accounts a flat wicket

Olly wrote:I think that's a decent effort on what is by all accounts a flat wicket

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:293 - 8 Batty and Curran each take another wicket.  Guildford - I'm definitely not making any assumptions about whether Glam will be dismissed before close of play tonight!

Just as well since it was always going to be very finely balanced - stumps called as the last wicket fell

Par for the course that we let tailender score maiden century against us

Olly wrote:I think that's a decent effort on what is by all accounts a flat wicket

Olly - it was a very decent effort in getting Glamorgan 8 down for 293. However, then permitting the 9th wicket to put on almost 120 was not.

Johnny Barran (cricket broadcaster on Radio London) has in the past referred to day three of a CC match as ''moving day''. Barring something incredible tomorrow, this match has now moved to a draw. I'm disappointed with that.

Looks like poor captaincy by Batty. When I played there was nothing worse than a captain who would bowl himself all day. Finally gives Roy a go and he gets a wicket with his first ball. Why wasn't he or Pietersen given a couple of overs earlier?

The last score I got was when Glam were 8 down, very disappointing, but very predictable from Surrey. I really hope that Norah doesn't declare today to set a target, because this weak attack will not take 10 wickets in that short space of time/overs, and we could end up losing a match we've had the better of for 3 days

kingdaveeagle wrote:Looks like poor captaincy by Batty. When I played there was nothing worse than a captain who would bowl himself all day. Finally gives Roy a go and he gets a wicket with his first ball. Why wasn't he or Pietersen given a couple of overs earlier?

...hence my reference at the top of the thread to Surrey fielding 5+2 bowlers for this game (the '+2' being Roy and Pietersen who are both handy occasional bowlers and partnership breakers). C'mon Nora - show as much aggression in your captaincy as you do in your own bowling and we'll all be happier bunnies.

thegooch7 wrote:The last score I got was when Glam were 8 down, very disappointing, but very predictable from Surrey. I really hope that Norah doesn't declare today to set a target, because this weak attack will not take 10 wickets in that short space of time/overs, and we could end up losing a match we've had the better of for 3 days  

Goochie - I agree with you. It's a very disappointing outcome having been in charge of the match for so long but I don't see a realistic alternative. T20 has shown that 200 can readily be scored in 20 overs. Even allowing for the lack of fielding restrictions and less stringent calling of wides in a CC match, it's not impossible that Glam could get, say, 320 in 45 overs. Particularly if they set off like a train and had a bit of luck early on. If they did lose 3 or 4 early wickets, they should still be capable (Cosker refers) of bringing down the shutters and batting out time.

All this of course assumes we won't be skittled second dig for 120!

To be honest Guildford, the track is probably too good for us to have bowled them out in enough time even if we did enforce the follow on!
But it would've put them under a lot more pressure
Interesting that 'Interesting' is opening in the second inns!

After Meschede's maiden ton, he now adds Sanga to his Tendulkar and KP high profile scalps, if he gets Norah Batty and Clive Dunn, he really will have 'arrived'!

Can't really tell whether Surrey trying to set up a meaningful declaration.  Scoring briskly but without throwing the bat at everything.  Just lost le Roi to leave the score at 120 - 4.  With the lead currently at around 260 I think a degree of prudence is needed.  Don't want to lose last wickets in a clatter with Glam set an entirely gettable 300 to win.

Afternoon Corporal - yep, it's all a bit odd. Almost as if Noah thinks there's an extra half-day available tomorrow!

I would guess we're looking to declare about 40 minutes after lunch and then have around 50 overs to bowl at Glam in the expectation that we'll be too far in front for them to chase down any total and the (big) hope that our bowlers can cause a collapse.

Olly - you're the betting man here. Stick any spare dosh on a draw although don't expect much in the way of winnings!

'Noah' declares 350 ahead - I think that gives Glam 57 overs to get them - just above 6 an over...........hopefully we'll be safe with that!!

thegooch7 wrote:'Noah' declares 350 ahead - I think that gives Glam 57 overs to get them - just above 6 an over...........hopefully we'll be safe with that!!

Goochie - maybe we've just been suffering too long but it does seem odd. I mean, we declare and then we worry, not about winning but whether we'll be safe!