Surrey vs Glamorgan LV=County Championship

First topic message reminder :

surrey team to play glamorgan
Gareth Batty (C)
Zafar Ansari
Dominic Sibley
Vikram Solanki
Benjamin Foakes
Arun Harinath
Gary Wilson (W)
Aneesh Kapil
Thomas Curran
Christopher Tremlett
Stuart Meaker
Dunn has been rested and no idea where burke is
surrey win toss and bat

kingdaveeagle wrote:From 200-0 in our first innings, then having them at 30-4 and 50-odd for 5, to then lose by what will probably be 8 wickets is appalling. I know we're without several first-teamers, but they're mainly batsmen and as well have repeatedly said, the bowling is still the main problem. Only missing Dernbach (and he can't take wickets to save his life) and the Viscount (hmmmm).

dont forget dunn

thegooch7 wrote:whether it turns or not is irrelevant, bowling this dross is though

208-0 and we only got 3 batting points!

thegooch7 wrote:208-0 and we only got 3 batting points!

Kapil comes on to bowl in the 61st over with the game gone?! Is he an all rounder or not?!

And gets a wicket!!

Olly wrote:Tremlett came out to bat so he can't be tooo bad....

245 ahead - if we can eek that upto 270-300 and bat towards lunch we're well in the game.

Heck chasing 250 batting last is never a doddle...

thegooch7 wrote:Kapil comes on to bowl in the 61st over with the game gone?! Is he an all rounder or not?!

more suited to the one day game gooch tbh

jimbobgooner wrote:

thegooch7 wrote:Kapil comes on to bowl in the 61st over with the game gone?! Is he an all rounder or not?!

more suited to the one day game gooch tbh

He can't be worse than Meaker though Jimbob?!

thegooch7 wrote:

jimbobgooner wrote:

thegooch7 wrote:Kapil comes on to bowl in the 61st over with the game gone?! Is he an all rounder or not?!

more suited to the one day game gooch tbh

He can't be worse than Meaker though Jimbob?!

sadly gooch meaker is not suited to either format

An absolute cruise for Glamorgan, fair play to them on a fully deserved and comprehensive victory. The only positive I take from the game is Harinath's batting. Meaker+Solanki should be dispensed with now. I mentioned before the season that making Norah captain, almost compels us to play him! The last time he spun anything was 10.30 Monday morning when the two Bob flew through the air and he called 'heads'!

Olly wrote:I'm telling you fellas there's something about this team this year #surreyunbeatenruninthecountychampionship2015

A setback indeed but under the circumstances not unexpected. You have to say well played to Glamorgan and in particular Graham Wagg.

We'll bounce back fellas

jimbobgooner wrote:

Olly wrote:I'm telling you fellas there's something about this team this year #surreyunbeatenruninthecountychampionship2015

Always seek the positives: jimbobgooner - think off all the time you'll save (eg for sitting in this beautiful summer sunshine) by never again having to type out "#surreyunbeatenruninthecountychampionship2015 ". PS well played Glamorgan, but very well played Harinath, too.

Olly wrote:A setback indeed but under the circumstances not unexpected. You have to say well played to Glamorgan and in particular Graham Wagg.

We'll bounce back fellas

Olly - I was actually wondering if you were going to eat some humble and say, ''Sorry Guildford, you called it completely right.''

guildfordbat wrote:

Olly wrote:A setback indeed but under the circumstances not unexpected. You have to say well played to Glamorgan and in particular Graham Wagg.

We'll bounce back fellas

Olly - I was actually wondering if you were going to eat some humble and say, ''Sorry Guildford, you called it completely right.''

I'll never apologise for believing in the boys #backthelads #surreypromotionpush2015 

I reckon once Burns is back, Harinath and Burns should open, move Ansari into the middle order (if he's going to be the sole spinner which I think he should be).

Olly - whilst your support and enthusiasm for Surrey is admirable, that doesn't get you off the hook if your assessment of the match situation turns out to be completely bonkers wrong or mean that other Surrey posters should view things through the same rose coloured specs.

Sorry if I sound a bit grumpy.  There's a reason for that. I'm a bit grumpy.

Surrey badly fouled things up in this match. I suspected we were going to and said the same. That doesn't make me feel any better. Nor does it make me any less of a supporter. Fairly pointing out concerns and likely failings is surely part and parcel of being a  true supporter.

Btw, some may be interested / even pleased to know that Batty hurt his right (bowling) hand when stopping a ball at mid off late in the afternoon. He didn't come back to bowl after this and was then regularly wringing his hand and looking at it. Possibly this may keep him out for a bit.

guildfordbat wrote:Olly - whilst your support and enthusiasm for Surrey is admirable, that doesn't get you off the hook if your assessment of the match situation turns out to be completely bonkers wrong or mean that other Surrey posters should view things through the same rose coloured specs.

Sorry if I sound a bit grumpy.  There's a reason for that. I'm a bit grumpy.

Surrey badly fouled things up in this match. I suspected we were going to and said the same. That doesn't make me feel any better. Nor does it make me any less of a supporter. Fairly pointing out concerns and likely failings is surely part and parcel of being a  true supporter.

Oh don't get me wrong I loves a moan (see my posts about Batty) - I just think someone's you guys are overly negative when you don't need to be

What would be the best bowling attack Surrey can put out?

LondonTiger wrote:What would be the best bowling attack Surrey can put out?

When fit and firing imo it'd be this

Ansariforengland - batting at 6
Curran - batting at 8
Tremlett - batting at 9
Dunn - batting at 11
Linley - batting at 10

Can you tell me more about Linley - has he played this season?

Other than Tremlett, who is almost 34, injury prone and sadly been bowling 75mph lollipops when I have seen him recently, that is a very inexperienced lineup that so far seem to have not been setting the world alight. Is it strong enough to get Surrey promoted.

Tiger,

Linley - always massively popular amongst Surrey supporters for his lion hearted attitude - has been recovering most of this season from a significant knee injury and hasn't played for the firsts in any format. However, to the surprise of many, he went on loan to Sussex at the weekend. He then took 8 match wickets in their CC defeat by Durham this week including a fivefer. As a bowler, he's in the David Masters type category and was at his most successful in the days of the Tiflex ball; he merited more of an opportunity when that ball was replaced but for much of the time afterwards found himself in the squad but not the actual eleven.

He's now 33 and his contract is up at the end of the season. Particularly in view of him being allowed out on loan at this time and further youngsters (James Burke, Sam (kid brother of Tom) Curran) coming up on the rails, the suspicion is that he's about to be shown the door.

When Tremlett is fit, he's a very valuable member of the bowling unit. Even if not taking wickets, he supplies control which is much needed with the likes of Dunn always likely to go for a few. The trouble with Trem is that his fitness cannot be relied upon and he has come to personify a sicknote waiting to be signed.

Olly wrote:

Oh don't get me wrong I loves a moan (see my posts about Batty) - I just think someone's you guys are overly negative when you don't need to be

Olly - possibly so although I strongly feel I was on the money throughout this match. I wish that hadn't been the case.

the viscount has been recalled see the kent T20 thread

Meanwhile, Linley has been recalled from his loan spell with Sussex and is named in the squad for tomorrow's night's t20 game against Kent at the Oval. I'm sure the always reliable JimBob will be putting up a separate match thread soon.

guildfordbat wrote:

Olly wrote:

Oh don't get me wrong I loves a moan (see my posts about Batty) - I just think someone's you guys are overly negative when you don't need to be

Olly - possibly so although I strongly feel I was on the money throughout this match. I wish that hadn't been the case.

Tbf you did have the distinct advantage of you know being there

Olly wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Olly wrote:

Oh don't get me wrong I loves a moan (see my posts about Batty) - I just think someone's you guys are overly negative when you don't need to be

Olly - possibly so although I strongly feel I was on the money throughout this match. I wish that hadn't been the case.

Tbf you did have the distinct advantage of you know being there

Exactly. I'm not trying to make out how smart I was but .. er .. perhaps .. you could have taken account of where I was and listened to my concerns at the time.

guildfordbat wrote:

Olly wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Olly wrote:

Oh don't get me wrong I loves a moan (see my posts about Batty) - I just think someone's you guys are overly negative when you don't need to be

Olly - possibly so although I strongly feel I was on the money throughout this match. I wish that hadn't been the case.

Tbf you did have the distinct advantage of you know being there

Exactly. I'm not trying to make out how smart I was but .. er .. perhaps .. you could have taken account of where I was and listened to my concerns at the time.

Time to defend G Batty.

Yes, he is currently a liability on the field and his injury has provoked possibly understandable Schadenfreude from some quarters. But cast your minds back just 3 years, almost to the day, and we will always be in his debt for the way this guy stepped up to the plate and glued it all together in the immediate wake of the awful, untimely death of Tom Maynard. He led from the front as we faced up to the dire knock on effects those events had within the club on the field, notably the meltdown of TM's close friend and our then captain, RHB, who never was the same again (who can blame him?). GB did the same again the next season, under different circumstances, when we suddenly lost the services of Graeme Smith, around whom it had been intended to build the team. So if and when GB ceases to be a player, we should remember his gritty 100% attitude over two spells of loyal service to this club, and the role he played as a leader in those dark days of 2012 and a difficult 2013.

Rather than send him on his way with a churlish 'goodbye and good riddance', we should surely say instead 'congratulations on a wonderful career (7 England caps, 10 ODIs and 1 T-20) and thanks for all the good things you did for this club, especially at times of major crisis. Cheers, Gareth'.

Anyone disagree?...

Very well said Simon.

I haven't been Norahs biggest advocate as a spinner either prior to his time at Surrey or during it. However his efforts as captain during some horrible times for the club have been truly admirable and for that alone he should not be cast aside so easily. On top of that his bowling has actually been better for us as a whole than I expected when he signed.

Clearly he isn't right with injury at the moment and whether he needs time away from the CC, first team cricket or cricket altogether to get that right should be the first question asked and answered.

If he can get fit again he is an experienced spinner who plays in all three formats, contributes with the bat and offers a good option as captain. They are not attributes to be thrown away on account of some mixed performances from a side missing many key players.

surrey sign south african opener dean elgar as the clubs oversea player until july 1st
i thought a bowler was needed more

jimbobgooner - seeing as we have lost Third Degree, Kumar, KP, Interesting and Le Roi from our top 6 for various reasons in the past month, a Test batsman to shore up the top order looks sensible to me. We have plenty of young fast bowlers to choose from, and a likely long overdue recall for the Viscount, too.

Simon - I've said before that we were going to hell in a handcart three years ago when Gareth Batty put his head above the parapet, when most others were losing theirs, and came to our aid. For that we will always be in his debt. Also, it shouldn't be underestimated how very well he knows and understands the Club and its people - not just the players and coaches but all including the kitchen staff and programme sellers.

For the sort of reasons above, I hope he'll stay at the Oval beyond his playing days. I'm sure there are various ways in which someone of his character and experience could make a valuable contribution.

I also posted before the start of this season that his appointment as captain meant a possible imbalance for the team, particularly on early season wickets when we were likely to be a spinner heavy and a seamer light. Unfortunately, that has sometimes been seen to the case and accentuated by ordinary form and possible injury.

With an element of hindsight, there's a decent argument to be made that Wilson should have been given the captaincy following his stand-in role last summer. However, I can understand why that didn't happen. It was felt Wilson would miss more games for us by being with Ireland than he has (it was a surprise he was available for Guildford) and that Foakes (his signing probably merits a subject in itself) might take the gloves from day one.

Taking Wilson out of the mix, that left very few other realistic captaincy candidates.

Having given Batty the captaincy, we now have to stick with him in that role although shouldn't be adverse to leaving him out for certain games as happened at Leics. We also shouldn't overlook that because of or in spite of his leadership on the field, we are still in a promotion place. Hopefully (not a word I like much - it leaves too much to chance), Batty will come more into his own in the second half of the season as tracks start to favour the slow men. If he doesn't, a more permanent decision to leave him out may need to be taken. if that does happen, I agree with your tone that it should occur with as much good grace and gratitude as possible.