SURREY VS NOTTINGHAMSHIRE SPECSAVERS COUNTY CHAMPIONSHIP

First topic message reminder :

AND WE'RE BACK
SURREY HAVE NAMED A THIRTEEN MAN SQUAD FOR THEIR OPENING SPECSAVERS COUNTY CHAMPIONSHIP GAME AGAINST NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AT TRENT BRIDGE STARTING ON SUNDAY.
Mark Footitt and Ravi Rampaul are both named in a Surrey Championship squad for the first time and Jason Roy is included in the squad having returned from the World T20 with England.
Rory Burns has been appointed the official Vice Captain for the 2016 season.
There is no place in the squad for james burke or Dominic sibley while jade dernbach,stuart meaker and son of boris remain on the treatment table.
The Surrey Squad to play Nottinghamshire in the Specsavers County Championship at Trent Bridge on Sunday April 10th, Monday April 11th, Tuesday April 12th and Wednesday April 13th :
Gareth Batty (capt)
Rory Burns
Sam Curran
Tom Curran
Steven Davies
Matthew Dunn
Ben Foakes
Mark Footitt
Arun Harinath
Ravi Rampaul
Jason Roy
Kumar Sangakkara
Gary Wilson
tough to call the two to miss out so i'll go for wilson and dunn
over to you chaps

GSC wrote:Looks like we'll get over the line.

Credit to Surrey for making a game of it after the first 2 days, not sure if we took it a tad easier or so. Certainly made it hard for ourselves this afternoon. Best of luck for the rest of the season guys (except for the return games )

Been good chatting to you, GSC. Please feel free to show up on the Surrey threads anytime.

Dave Bracegirdle summed things up, ''Surrey fought and fought and fought over the last two days but the damage was done in the first two days.'' Spot on.

Anyway, congratulations. Think it'll be early closing in the Corporal's cyber bar tonight but you're welcome for a quick one if you don't celebrate too loudly!

Sorry but Gareth Batty captained that game horribly, from the toss to the bizarre omission of himself and Sam Curran second innings

Good fight shown, but ultimately too many silly mistakes and lack of discipline cost us dear

king_carlos wrote:Sam Curran has just fielded a ball so is out there. It just seems he hasn't been trusted by Norah.

Whenever other commentators raised Sam not bowling, Church kept prattling on that Batty was relying on experience. However, this overlooked why Batty himself wasn't bowling or even - as Olly asked earlier - why he was playing.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Good fightback in this last innings by Surrey but, even with Read gone, it was a case of too little too late.

What's the odds on the match ending with a Rampaul no ball.  

Sadly, it looks as though Guildford has never really got over Jon Lewis's no balls. Rampaul has reopened the wound!  

Probably right there, Corporal, although I was also hoping for a bite from JimBob concerning the fragrant Mrs Lewis.

To not even give Curran Junior the ball when we needed something from him could do his confidence more damage than if he had been tageted by eg Mullaney and gone for 20+ in a 3 over spell. Just imagine how things might have looked, however, if he had come on and taken a wicket with his brother bowling well the other end.

Irrespective of captaincy queries, why the hell did we go into this match with a captain apparently there as a specialist number 9 batsman? We surely would have been better served on an early season surface by playing the extra batsman - Wilson - and having faith in all four members of an all seam attack to deliver the goods with the ball between them. Sheesh.

SimonofSurrey wrote:To not even give Curran Junior the ball when we needed something from him could do his confidence more damage than if he had been tageted by eg Mullaney and gone for 20+ in a 3 over spell. Just imagine how things might have looked, however, if he had come on and taken a wicket with his brother bowling well the other end.

Irrespective of captaincy queries, why the hell did we go into this match with a captain apparently there as a specialist number 9 batsman? We surely would have been better served on an early season surface by playing the extra batsman - Wilson - and having faith in all four members of an all seam attack to deliver the goods with the ball between them. Sheesh.

Hopefully church asks the question and hopefully we get some answers as to the thinking behind these decisions

More likely church asks about the "fight" tho....

Lizzy Ammon replied to my tweet about why Curran/Batty didn't bowl and why Batty didn't bowl all game with "pitch and situation didn't require him"

How do I call her stupid nicely?

Weird game.

Batted well first innings, Surrey perhaps didnt bowl particularly well. Second innings we were disciplined and a lot of batsmen got in and out rather quickly rather than wickets falling in clusters.

That to me suggested it wasn't really a bad pitch to bat on and we would've been better served having another bat, making 200-250 and making Surrey chase a nominal 450 in a day or so on a day 4 pitch.

As suspected, some of the batsmen converted those starts to scores in the 2nd innings and we were left with a tricky, if not massive chase. Didnt feel we bowled that much worse 2nd time round, you guys made a much better effort was the big difference.

Mullaney had the right idea, whack a big chunk off the total quickly and its a different chase. But then I dunno if guys got tight or something but pressure and good bowling told and our entire middle order went walkies in short order. Calmer heads prevailed and Smith/Read got us to the finish line.

Not entirely sure what to make of that to be honest. 2 days of good and 2 days of just good enough.

Olly wrote:Lizzy Ammon replied to my tweet about why Curran/Batty didn't bowl and why Batty didn't bowl all game with "pitch and situation didn't require him"

How do I call her stupid nicely?

Why be nice about it?

GSC wrote:Weird game.

Batted well first innings, Surrey perhaps didnt bowl particularly well. Second innings we were disciplined and a lot of batsmen got in and out rather quickly rather than wickets falling in clusters.

That to me suggested it wasn't really a bad pitch to bat on and we would've been better served having another bat, making 200-250 and making Surrey chase a nominal 450 in a day or so on a day 4 pitch.

As suspected, some of the batsmen converted those starts to scores in the 2nd innings and we were left with a tricky, if not massive chase. Didnt feel we bowled that much worse 2nd time round, you guys made a much better effort was the big difference.

Mullaney had the right idea, whack a big chunk off the total quickly and its a different chase. But then I dunno if guys got tight or something but pressure and good bowling told and our entire middle order went walkies in short order. Calmer heads prevailed and Smith/Read got us to the finish line.

Not entirely sure what to make of that to be honest. 2 days of good and 2 days of just good enough.

Well, it makes 24 points. You might want to settle on that.

guildfordbat wrote:The first season we signed him, 2012 I think, Jonathan Lewis bowled 50 no balls in CC cricket and thus cost us 100 runs. I went crackers about that at the time so no prizes for guessing my thoughts about Rampaul overstepping 11 times so far on debut!

PS The only good thing about Lewis was his wife, eh JimBob?

Not sure why you lot are berating the captaincy so much - you got within one wicket of having a crack to win the game at two tail-enders who can barely hold a bat, all this after following on. I thought that was a very solid showing after the first couple of days. Made sense to me to trust experience once wickets started to fall - Rampaul did bowl a lot of no balls but also took 8 wickets, so pretty much half of all those you took in the match

Younger Curran was presumably kept out of the attack after a poor first innings and Footitt being a much more experienced and proven left-arm option

You'll win games with that attack anyway. Rampaul should improve and is a canny operator, Footitt will come to the party soon enough and older Curran did well. Your batting seems to have learnt fast after the first innings as well

So one bad performance with the ball means we should not bowl one of our most threatening bowlers? Hmmm don't go along with that theory at all

My issue is not really about whether Sam Curran bowled or not. Personally I would have given him at least a short spell but accept he could just as likely (if not more so) gone for 25 from 3 overs and hastened defeat rather than nicking a couple of wickets and seeing us to an unexpected win. Anyway, that's a personal choice and I agree it's only right to be made on the field and not behind a keyboard.

My issue is far more about team selection and choice of captain in typical April conditions. We are simply not strong enough as a team and Batty is not so tactically astute as a captain that we can afford to carry him batting at number 9 and hardly bowling. I may be wrong but it's a considered view and not influenced by any thoughts about Batty as an individual (whose efforts for the Club on and off the field I much appreciate).

Also with regard to team selection, I would still question Rampaul's inclusion and whether he was sufficiently match fit or, perhaps better expressed, match ready. Yes, he took 8 wickets and improved over the 4 days. However, he was dreadful in the first two sessions on day one. There was insufficient coming back from that which significantly contributed to our losing the game.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on anything to do with this but was he not your captain last season and led you to promotion? Not to say that makes him a good captain, as many would have done the same with that set of players at their disposal

But given he's the man in possession, that must make him a near certainty to play at least at the start of the next season.

Am not saying that's definitely the right decision more that is the logic I would see behind it. When Ansari comes back, which is imminent, and given he looks to be the better bowler nowadays you can't afford to carry Batty as you might have in D2. Some tough decisions coming up at The Oval I expect!

Btw, I've said previously that I'm not totally sold on Footitt. I've seen him a few times bowl for Derbys at the Oval. Some decent spells and some not so hot.

Some good judges (which really means one person in particular I know and whose opinion I rate ) reckon he'll do well for Surrey. I'll be guided by that for now. In any case, it would be ridiculously premature to rush to any other view after just one CC match. I'll leave it by just saying I hope to be convinced soon ....

VTR wrote:Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on anything to do with this but was he not your captain last season and led you to promotion? Not to say that makes him a good captain, as many would have done the same with that set of players at their disposal

But given he's the man in possession, that must make him a near certainty to play at least at the start of the next season.

Am not saying that's definitely the right decision more that is the logic I would see behind it. When Ansari comes back, which is imminent, and given he looks to be the better bowler nowadays you can't afford to carry Batty as you might have in D2. Some tough decisions coming up at The Oval I expect!

VTR - out for a few hours now but will respond later.

VTR wrote:Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on anything to do with this but was he not your captain last season and led you to promotion? Not to say that makes him a good captain, as many would have done the same with that set of players at their disposal

But given he's the man in possession, that must make him a near certainty to play at least at the start of the next season.

Am not saying that's definitely the right decision more that is the logic I would see behind it. When Ansari comes back, which is imminent, and given he looks to be the better bowler nowadays you can't afford to carry Batty as you might have in D2. Some tough decisions coming up at The Oval I expect!

He did fine as captain last season, but I believe a similar issue has always arisen this time of year over his place in the side. He just doesn't bowl enough in these early season games to justify selection and while in Div 2 we could get away with it to a certain extent, I don't think you can afford to carry someone in Div 1

As you say the logical thinking is that he'll be replaced by Zaf when he is fit to return, whether that's actually the case is a different question

(No problem with Batty come the June/July/August time of the season - he performed well last year I thought)

I suppose then as the season goes on it could develop to be a nice problem to have - I am not sure that many CC teams will have a spin attack as strong as one made up of an ex-England spinner and the guy who would have been current reserve spinner but for injury

VTR wrote:I suppose then as the season goes on it could develop to be a nice problem to have - I am not sure that many CC teams will have a spin attack as strong as one made up of an ex-England spinner and the guy who would have been current reserve spinner but for injury  

VTR - on the right wickets, Batty and Ansari in the same attack should again be a potent weapon. However, that's not going to be here in April.

I'm very much with Olly on his last post. That really covers the other points I was going to make.

Btw, we sometimes get accused of being a closed shop and too cliquey on the Surrey threads. I don't go along with that and very much appreciate input (for or against) from other posters on all things Surrey. Cheers.

Taking wickets later in the season is going to be a really interesting, and vital, challenge for Zaf and Batty. Zaf has never bowled in the Div 1 and it's been a few years for the skipper as well. Good'ol Norah is 38 now we must remember. Hopefully they can work well in tandem again and get wickets by tying batsmen down then striking a few blows at once when new batsmen come in.

Neither turn the ball big but they aren't straight up and down arm ball bowlers either. Accuracy, smart field placements and varying the pace were the main weapons for both last year. Without the threat of real variation or big turn they will need to be bang on the money to take the wickets needed later in the season though.

The bowling attacks for a few sides in div 1 aren't as strong as you'd expect this year but the batting line-ups largely look very good. Interesting challenges ahead!

guildfordbat wrote:
Btw, we sometimes get accused of being a closed shop and too cliquey on the Surrey threads. I don't go along with that and very much appreciate input (for or against) from other posters on all things Surrey. Cheers.

I wouldn't say that really, certainly people have responded to me and GSC on here. At least part of the cricket section is active when England aren't playing!

Good luck to Surrey for the season anyway - you are not a club that should be languishing in Div 2 and I think the game in England is stronger overall if there's a competitive Surrey. My gut says you will stay up and spring a few surprises along the way

I've always found that the cricket section with one of two exceptions is the most open board on this site among sports