County Championship Division 1 - Yorkshire v Surrey

First topic message reminder :

Venue: Headingley, Leeds
Date: Sunday 8th - Wednesday 11th May

Umpires

Steve Garratt
Alex Wharf


Form

Yorkshire - P3, D3

Reigning champions are a side bang out of form atm. To win early season matches you need runs from the top order and wickets from the seamers. Yorkshire have managed neither. As with last season first innings scores are being rescued by the middle and lower order. Lees hit form at Trent Bridge, but the main run scorers otherwise have been Bairstow (5), Rashid (7), Plunkett (8) 7 Patterson (10). UInliek last season the opening bowlers are not coming to the rescue - highlighted by the spinners taking more wickets than the opening bowlers.


Surrey - P3, D2, L1

Reigning Second div champs, Surrey have, a wobble in the first innings of the season apart, been providing runs. Their issue has been the bowlers (Rampaul apart) aping the Yorkies and struggling for form.


Squads

Yorkshire:
Bairstow (Wicketkeeper), Ballance, Brooks, Gale (Captain), Lees, Lyth, Patterson, Plunkett, Rashid, Rhodes, Root, Willey, Wainman

Surrey:
Gareth Batty (capt), James Burke, Rory Burns, Tom Curran, Steven Davies, Matthew Dunn, Ben Foakes, Arun Harinath, Mathew Pillans, Ravi Rampaul, Jason Roy, Kumar Sangakkara, Gary Wilson

Potential Milestones:

AU Rashid needs 80 runs to reach 6000 runs in First-class matches.
JA Brooks needs 1 wickets to reach 100 wickets in First-class matches at Leeds.
SA Patterson needs 9 wickets to reach 300 wickets in First-class matches.

GJ Batty needs 11 wickets to reach 600 wickets in First-class matches.
R Rampaul need 4 wickets to reach 200 wickets in First-class matches.

Hi again MfC - I actually agree with your last post bar the ending.

First off, I may be better versed in the CC but I fully accept that doesn't mean I'm correct. I think you know I like Alec Stewart, particularly his straight talking. One of his regular expressions is, ''It's a game of opinions.'' If necessary, I'll line up with Stewie and that quote against anything you, Mike and ''the great Mourinho'' can muster.

We agree about Ansari and preferring him over Batty in early season games.

We also agree about sides needing a spinner for ''better balance''.

Therefore, if Ansari is unavailable, Batty should still be picked. However - and this is where perhaps we have a different emphasis - it should be with a clear intention of him playing an active role. Sure, match circumstances can influence how much and when that occurs. However, he didn't bowl yesterday until the 45th over with 240 plus on the board. In my opinion (back to Stewart's quote), that was too late and too many. Furthermore, Curran and Rampaul had already bowled 16 each by then, arguably too many at that stage. I wanted Batty to be using his experience to at least try and keep an end quiet(er) - feel that was right and necessary.

I genuinely don't think Batty keeping himself out of the firing line is anything to do with fear. That's not him at all. Quite the opposite. He would probably walk barefoot over glass for Surrey. It may well be more to do with Batty not having a high enough opinion of his own bowling and honestly believing others could do a better job. That's very honourable but I feel he overdoes it. If he's so reluctant to bowl himself, the question again arises - what to do? There are a few options but none I'm over the moon about, as below.

Harinath is a smashing guy but that's irrelevant here. What is to the point is that he'll never be more than a fill-in bowler for a few overs every second or third game. He's therefore no answer here.

You could drop Batty and bring in a batsman (Wilson or Sibley). That should boost the runs but it does nothing for the bowling balance and only puts more demands on the four seamers. Therefore, again not the answer.

Similarly, a bowling replacement would most likely be a seamer and that would again hinder balance.

Appoint another skipper who would be more willing to bowl Batty. Possibly an answer but Sanga is off to the Caribbean soon and I'm not sure anyone else ticks the captaincy boxes.

All in all, probably best to live with things as they are (at least with Ansari injured) but urge Batty to bowl more and sooner. As per my last post, this should become less of an issue with better summer weather and spinning conditions. However, it still grates that imo we've been handicapped in this way in the early season games. I think that's reasonable although you may consider it reactionary.

Btw, a bit like you with the CC,  it's because too much of my time is already taken up by cricket that I made a conscious decision some time ago not to follow the women's game. Just knew that I would become too involved if I gave it a chance.

Hope you enjoyed the sunshine. Trust we get some more here ... but not until after stumps on Wednesday!

Prospects of play have improved, we might be able to get somewhere near a full day's play in, though the gloom does persist.

Presumably Yorkshire will declare immediately.

Morning, Duty - purely from a Surrey points perspective, that's disappointing about the improved prospects of play although we had some luck yesterday with all that rain.

I believe Yorks must declare straightaway. There's a general case to me made against overnight declarations but imo it doesn't hold water in the current situation. When declaring on an overnight score, you have to give the opposition a minimum of 15 minutes' notice whilst it is an automatic 10 minute turnaround if declaring during the day. I've heard Alec Stewart comment upon how valuable most opening batsmen regard those extra 5 minutes to prepare themselves. I well appreciate that but here you can't afford the luxury of toying with the opening batsmen by keeping them out in the field and need to go for wickets from the very start. Every ball is going to be especially vital as you don't know if more time will be lost to the weather.

Yorkshire will be a bowler light with David Willey suffering an abdominal strain and likely to be out for 6 weeks. May bat though.

Morning all.

Yorkshire must surely declare right at the start? Yes it gives the openers a bit longer to prepare, but when you're not sure how much cricket you'll get their best chance is to get stuck into the Surrey batting asap. They already have a lead of 227, as well as plenty of big hitters who could chase down a small target in double quick time if it gets to that point. Duty reports that it's gloomy too, which makes an even stronger case for bowling?

Back to guildford, as you say it's a game of opinions. I admitted in my first post that I was to an extent playing Devil's advocate with my defence of Batty, but I felt it was needed to point out the reasons I could see for why he made the decision to not bowl himself for so long. I do agree with your broader point that the best thing for Surrey would be to get Batty bowling more in first innings in general (though perhaps not this particular one ). This brings back the old debate about bowlers being captains and knowing when to bowl themselves (or not to bowl themselves of course) in the longer form of the game, whereas batting is a mostly selfish thing, in the nicest possible sense of the term, hence why nearly all captains are batsmen. Yes historically there are other reasons of course, but in the modern day I think that's the main reason.

Sunshine still glorious here, we'll be having a drought soon

Play due to start at 11:45.

LondonTiger wrote:Play due to start at 11:45.

As I understand it, no play lost to the weather on the last day is made up so that's 12 overs effectively gone. Therefore, a maximum of 84 left for Surrey to bat out as Yorks have now declared.

If Surrey survive this then it will have been one of the more unjust draws that I can remember in recent seasons. That's the nature of CC cricket in early May though I guess. [I openly admit that I would be using a few more expletives if the boot were on the other foot!]

On the other hand this is a good chance for our batsmen to apply themselves and show they can mix it with the better attacks in Div 1. Thus far we have seen lots of starts but very few innings of substance. That is probably indicative of our young batsmen who were used to seeing off the opposition opening bowlers in Div 2 then often feasting on some lackluster change bowling. This Yorks attack doesn't allow that break of pressure though so the likes of Burns, Roy and Foakes especially will need to develop better ways to release that pressure valve themselves rather than waiting for the bowler to offer it for them.

We only batted 91 overs in the first innings so even if it's a max of 84 overs that is going to be a massive challenge against an attack with 5 very good bowlers.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Morning all.

Yorkshire must surely declare right at the start? Yes it gives the openers a bit longer to prepare, but when you're not sure how much cricket you'll get their best chance is to get stuck into the Surrey batting asap. They already have a lead of 227, as well as plenty of big hitters who could chase down a small target in double quick time if it gets to that point. Duty reports that it's gloomy too, which makes an even stronger case for bowling?

Back to guildford, as you say it's a game of opinions. I admitted in my first post that I was to an extent playing Devil's advocate with my defence of Batty, but I felt it was needed to point out the reasons I could see for why he made the decision to not bowl himself for so long. I do agree with your broader point that the best thing for Surrey would be to get Batty bowling more in first innings in general (though perhaps not this particular one ). This brings back the old debate about bowlers being captains and knowing when to bowl themselves (or not to bowl themselves of course) in the longer form of the game, whereas batting is a mostly selfish thing, in the nicest possible sense of the term, hence why nearly all captains are batsmen. Yes historically there are other reasons of course, but in the modern day I think that's the main reason.

Sunshine still glorious here, we'll be having a drought soon

Morning, MfC - I think we've about run this race.

Just to follow up on one thing. Whilst the majority of captains have probably always been batsmen, I feel that when I was growing up and first watching the game in the late '60s / early '70s there were a few more (slow) bowling captains or bowling all-rounder captains about. I particularly remember Ray Illingworth. He was a canny and effective skipper but still had a slightly selfish streak. If the opposition were batting first on day one of a Test, you could set your watch by him coming on to bowl one solitary over 2 minutes before lunch so as to chalk up a maiden against his name.

Continue to enjoy the sun. Grey and drizzly here.

Hi Carlos - good post as ever.

Just to flag that David Willey is crocked and won't bowl.

Immediate Surrey objective - get to lunch with at least 9 wickets left.

Good morning all.  It will certainly be a test for the likes of Burns to bat out the day. Dismissed before I managed to complete the post.

Bad news for Surrey is that we're likely to get all 84 overs of play in.

A lot rests on Sangakkarra - like Ponting v England at Old Trafford in '05.

I'd expect Surrey to get the draw now. Reduced overs, possibility of rain, Yorks a bowler down...

And Burns is gone almost immediately. Maybe a little less confident now.

I see that Hants have so far batted 63 overs for their 97 - 3. We're going to need some of that grit!

guildfordbat wrote:Hi Carlos - good post as ever.

Just to flag that David Willey is crocked and won't bowl.

Cheers as ever guildford!

That's a shame about Willey but obviously a boost for Surrey. Although Brooks and Plunkett isn't exactly a bad pair to open the bowling anyway! It should bring Rashid into the game more which which could take things either way this early in the season.

Is there any update on what Willey's done?

With Burns gone I fear that these two and Interesting will need to get us much of the way through to tea if we want to cling on.

Hi Carlos - abdominal strain for Willey. Likely to be out for 6 weeks per Yorks twitter.

Hi James - nice jinx! Both the openers now back in the hutch.

One more wicket before lunch and it's a perilous state of affairs.

Yorks well on top. Really need a couple of batsmen - and in particular these two - to be lasting 150+ balls each.

Surrey will survive the day just fine - probably take a lead just after tea.

Sanga and Davies steady the ship but we are still in rough waters ....

Yorkshire probably need to remove Sangakkara in the first half-hour after the interval to elicit any hopes of a victory.

Duty - yes, Sanga would be a massive wicket for Yorks and a real boost to your bowlers. However, don't give up hopes of a win if he's still at the crease half an hour after lunch or even longer than that.

Apologies for the name drop but the Corporal does rather look forward to it - anyway, Alec Stewart, when talking about our last stint in Division One, said to me, ''Once we were 6 down, it was a case of start the mower!''. I'm not convinced the tail is that much stronger now.

That said, hopefully the middle order can see us to a draw. A few things in our favour. One thing that James left out in his attempt at a jinx is that it's effectively a day 3 pitch.

Rain returns.

They're playing again but a further 7 overs lost - welcome bonus for Surrey!

50 partnership.

Another 50 for Sanga, though it does sound as if he is taking a few risks.

Surrey going nicely atm. 120 odd for 2 and less than 45 overs to bowl.

Mind you, another wicket soon would change the look of things.

Next milestone for the 2 batters: get to tea. That's in less than an hour (fixed time of 3:40 on last day).

Root been going past Davies outside edge rather a lot, but it is Sanga's wicket he takes.

Big wicket, but probably too late. Surrey's lower order withstood the assault from Durham, who imo have a better seam bowling attack, very well last week.

Sanga gone to Joe Root

Rooooot - anything the boy can't do?

Probably too late, but another quick wicket could send Surrey into a panic.

With England reluctant to bring Buttler back from the IPL (and thus move Bairstow up to 5) there are mutters that the selectors are seriously looking at Roy. A good innings here will help his case.

Oh, sorry Surrey fans I talked Roy up too soon

And another 50 from Davies as after almost playing on, then fencing and missing he clips nicely off his pads. Then falls Root. Foakes needs to replicate last week's heroics.

It's on now. Great spell for Yorkshire. Two new batsmen at the crease, deficit of 76, 38 overs left.

Oh dear

Root - talk about a goldenarm. How long before he displaces Moeen as the lead spinner in the Test side

I'm a huge Roy fan and love watching him bat but if he is seriously being considered for the test side then I really fear that middle order!

As a rule of thumb if you average below 40 in first class cricket you don't belong in a test top 6 (or top 7 if a poor keeper is being picked for their batting). Hales, Buttler and Roy are all fantastic ball strikers and stroke players (I accept that sounds like filth...) but their FC averages sum up where there development is in the longer form of the game.

I blurt this stat out on repeat like a broken record but it really does frustrate me that Chris Read has only played 15 tests due to a lack of ability with the bat but averages more in FC cricket than not only Buttler but also our incumbent test opener (Hales) and also Roy.

Back to the cricket....

Oh dear. If there was ever a time for Foakes to prove the hype right or Burke to justify his selection as a number 7 then this is it!

Burke technically dropped at short square - off middle of the bat though so one that needs to stick in clothing etc.

king_carlos wrote:As a rule of thumb if you average below 40 in first class cricket you don't belong in a test top 6

While not fundamentally disagreeing with this - for so long as County Cricket was played on pitches of dubious quality there was always a strong chance that players would average more in tests than in CC. Of course examples such as Trescothick who averaged well under 40 when Fletcher called him up will be used as evidence to support picking players on "ability" rather than stats - and the plethora that prove the opposite conveniently forgotten.

6 down with Burke playing across a straight one.

One run in the last five overs, followed by the sixth wicket.

Yorkshire edging out the draw as favourites.

Burke really isn't cut out to be a no 7 in a Div 1 batting line up.

Surrey 15/4 in last 10 overs.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Yorks well on top.  Really need a couple of batsmen - and in particular these two - to be lasting 150+ balls each.

Both of them lasted a little over 100 balls - but the contribution from all the other batsmen so far as been fairly minimal.

Where's King Dave Eagle with a cheery word of encouragement?

Hants will probably lose - but they have at least managed to bat out 116 overs, (with two wickets left). Surrey lost six wickets in 44 overs.

At tea Surrey have a minimum of 29 overs to survive. Hmm Deficit is 66 so, if Surrey do manage to hang on through most of the last session, there is an outside possibility of Yorks having to bat again. That was firmly Yorks' session.

Yorkshire need to get those four wickets within 22-24 overs, just so they have enough overs left to knock off a (possible) low double-digit score.

One more good burst should see them through.