SURREY VS YORKSHIRE SPECSAVERS COUNTY CHAMPIONSHIP

SURREY HAVE NAMED A THIRTEEN MAN SQUAD FOR THE SPECSAVERS COUNTY CHAMPIONSHIP GAME AGAINST YORKSHIRE AT THE KIA OVAL STARTING ON MONDAY.
Jason Roy returns to the squad after his Man of the Series performance for England in the One Day Series against Sri Lanka. Dominic Sibley is available for selection after recovering from his back strain but James Burke is unavailable for selection after having an injection in his ankle.
Gary Wilson is away with Ireland playing in their One Day Series against Afghanistan.
There is no place in the squad for Jade Dernbach or Matthew Dunn.
The Surrey squad to play Yorkshire in the Specsavers County Championship at the Kia Oval on Monday 11th July, Tuesday 12th July, Wednesday 13th July and Thursday 14th July:
Gareth Batty (capt)
Zafar Ansari
Rory Burns
Sam Curran
Tom Curran
Steven Davies
Aaron Finch
Ben Foakes
Mark Footitt
Arun Harinath
Stuart Meaker
Jason Roy
Dominic Sibley
As discussed on the warwickshire thread do we go with 4 seamers? if so can see Harinath and davies missing out if not Harinath plus either of the currans (Tom might need a rest)
Over to you chaps

Cheers, JimBob.

As mentioned on the Warks thread, I expect not only Roy but also Sibley to play. Sibley to replace Harinath but who makes way for Roy? Barring a late injury, that's going to be an extremely difficult call.

If another batsman drops out, I go along with JimBob that it'll be Davies. If it's a bowler, could be Batty, Meaker or either of the Currans. I would be tempted to leave out Sam although it could be anyone, maybe even the skipper choosing to stand down.

Hoping to get along tomorrow.

As well as Root and Bairstow, Yorks also lose Ballance to the England Test side (and a possible groin injury - thanks Jetty, posting on the Test thread). However, the White Rose county have Willey, Plunkett and Rashid back from one day international duty.

If we win this one, the Corporal and Chichester will need to place record orders for the bar!

Good job we won the toss - only 3 seamers play (the Currans and Meaker)

guildfordbat wrote:Cheers, JimBob.

As mentioned on the Warks thread, I expect not only Roy but also Sibley to play. Sibley to replace Harinath but who makes way for Roy? Barring a late injury, that's going to be an extremely difficult call.

If another batsman drops out, I go along with JimBob that it'll be Davies. If it's a bowler, could be Batty, Meaker or either of the Currans. I would be tempted to leave out Sam although it could be anyone, maybe even the skipper choosing to stand down.

Hoping to get along tomorrow.

Somehow the only one Guildford didn't suggest misses out. Seems odd given how well he seems to have bowled last time out and the comments from all this week about the seam attack. Guess it must be an 'easing him back from injury' thing.

21 - 1 in 14th over.  Burns falls early to Willey - Sibley and Ansari digging in.  Have to assume Foottit not 100% match fit.

At the ground. 18 overs so far of top notch seam bowling from the Yorks quartet. 25/1. Tight and miserly bowling with not even a single extra given away. Sibley and now Ansari digging in - can't complain at that.

Partnership 14* from 12.2 overs so far. Some relief with the odd singles off Rashid. 

Hi Guildford - just checking that no team captains or managers on either side have resigned this morning....

Lunch. Surrey 82/2 after 32 overs. Surrey have come back well since the 2nd wicket fell. However, another one going down within half an hour of the restart will once more establish Yorks' control.

Olly asked me about Finch at Guildford - he didn't bat long long enough second dig there for me to comment. However, very impressed here. Considerable power as you might expect but also respectful of the better balls and prepared to dead bat them or, better still, nudge them away for singles to keep the scoreboard ticking (cf Ansari and Sibley who got a bit too bogged down and added to the pressure). Finch also running very well, turned a 2 into a 3 for Ansari.

Lovely leg side catch by Hodd (who started at Surrey) to get Sibley off 'Invisible Man' Patterson. All the Yorks seamers looked good although Willey was a bit wide of off stump to Finch in his second spell and predictably suffered. Rashid seemed to bowl a little short but early days.

Rain stopped and sun out but it was a very heavy downpour just after lunch. A lot of water is still on the covers.

Footitt playing for the XI today

Raining again.

Word at the ground was simply that Footitt hadn't made the eleven. Odd given he was our most successful bowler last time and we were so keen to sign him a few months back.

Corporal - no resignations as far as I'm aware. Not yet anyway.

Guildford - especially odd given that in this match http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/946805.html, Batty didn't trust Sam Curran to bowl at all in the second innings, but a couple of matches later for the two of them, he's suddenly ahead of someone who nearly made his test debut six months ago.

James - trying to make sense of Surrey's selections this season is tougher than learning Chinese!

The only thing it can be is managing workload of Footitt, and with the Currans off on England duty soon they see this as an opportunity to rest him

See that play has now been abandoned for the day. I gave up just after 4 o'clock and came home. On the way back, I noticed there was meant to be an inspection at 5:30 - that seemed very optimistic as it had chucked it down hard earlier and afterwards there was still often the threat of rain in the air. A real shame as it had been a very watchable first session for fans of the 4 day game. Quality seam bowling, a cracking catch behind, attritional batting and Finch then sensibly attacking in a delightful cameo.

Olly - good call on the Currans going away, hadn't remembered that—makes a little more sense at least!

James100 wrote:Olly - good call on the Currans going away, hadn't remembered that—makes a little more sense at least!

Full credit to Olly for the possible reasoning although I wonder if he's being too generous in believing Surrey gave such thought to Footitt's omission.

There was hardly any rain today where I live in W Kent, so a bit unfortunate that London copped so much.

RATS!!! I was just about to post that it seems to have been a decent first half-hour for us and then Zaf is bowled by Willey 121/3.

Roy joins Finch - something's going to happen ....

Not there today but hoping to get along t'row - Corporal, an in-depth weather preview is requested please.

Give me strength!

5 down now for 149. Finch and Roy back in the hutch. Less than 2 sessions completed and we're once more playing catch up - simply not good enough.

One possible crumb of comfort is that this particular Yorks side appears stronger with the ball (at least on paper). That's not to say they're mugs with the bat - just that their batsmen from 5 to 10 all seem more suited to numbers 7, 8 or 9 (Rashid, Rafeeq, Bresnan, Plunkett, Willey and Hodd)

Meant to say y'day - it looked a very unusual wicket, an unattractive mucky brown colour, most odd. Seemed to play true enough in the opening session (and so it should have done) but unsure what might happen later on.

Typical of Surrey's season in the cc that the first sign of a decent partnership is enough to trigger a collapse.

Obviously we chose to bat in showery conditions and so can't complain too much, but we have been a bit unlucky that the rain seems to come just at the point when the batsmen seem to be getting their act together.

Looks like showery again tomorrow, Guildford, after a dry start. As noted above, London was much wetter yesterday than it was down our way so it really is hit and miss....

A rain hit draw may not be the worst outcome from this match for us...

25 or so miles south of the ground and it's raining heavily here now after a showery morning. Sky covered in grey cloud. If the weather's similar at the Oval, reckon that'll be it for the day.

PS Thanks for your forecast, Corporal. As you say, very unlucky y'day to cop it so much - the general view at the ground when the bad weather first came was that, although heavy, it would pass and the players would be out again for a lengthy evening session.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:A rain hit draw may not be the worst outcome from this match for us...

We are likely to lose ground on Hants and to strengthen Notts' position. But if we could, somehow, get to 300 and bowl Yorks out in their first innings that would limit the damage (assuming of course that Warks and the weather combine to thwart a Hants victory.)

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:A rain hit draw may not be the worst outcome from this match for us...

We are likely to lose ground on Hants and to strengthen Notts' position. But if we could, somehow, get to 300 and bowl Yorks out in their first innings that would limit the damage (assuming of course that Warks and the weather combine to thwart a Hants victory.)

Whatever the weather, I'm sure Ronnie won't let us down.

As yesterday there was very little rain today in West Kent.  Most likely result a draw, though Surrey could still lose if they are dismissed quickly tomorrow morning and Yorks then put the foot down when batting.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:As yesterday there was very little rain today in West Kent.  Most likely result a draw, though Surrey could still lose if they are dismissed quickly tomorrow morning and Yorks then put the foot down when batting.

Yes, agreed. A draw unless we somehow manage to manufacture a loss - not impossible given recent form.

guildfordbat wrote:

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:As yesterday there was very little rain today in West Kent.  Most likely result a draw, though Surrey could still lose if they are dismissed quickly tomorrow morning and Yorks then put the foot down when batting.

Yes, agreed. A draw unless we somehow manage to manufacture a loss - not impossible given recent form.

We're doing our best on the manufacturing a loss front! Foakes already gone to the Invisible Man. Patterson - no one notices him but he keeps taking wickets.

Unable in the end to get along today - maybe just as well!

Pity about late collapse with Tom Curran and Batty falling quickly in a double wicket maiden, but sounds like Sam Curran has played well, reaching 50 and securing a couple of batting points.

Fifties for Sam Curran and Steve Davies take us above 250 - not a disaster as it looked when Foakes fell early this morning, but still not great.

Have to bowl well - but again the draw a clear favourite here

Listened to some of the commentary this morning. Seemed like Sam was playing well and positively. That apart, the batting was pretty ordinary. I realise this match has already been so badly affected by the weather that the draw remains the clear favourite, as Olly says. However, 267 all out first dig having won the toss and batted gives no reason for optimism.

It'll be interesting to see what approach Yorks adopt from here. Having biffers down their order like Plunkett and Willey could still be useful to them.

Yorkshire 48-2 off 12.2 overs, early wickets for Sam Curran and Meaker - Tom Curran bowling well without reward according to church

Yorkshire 107-2 at tea

Looking increasingly likely we'll have to bat out two sessions to draw this game

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Yorkshire 107-2 at tea

Looking increasingly likely we'll have to bat out two sessions to draw this game

Olly - you're thinking something like Yorks aim to bat sensibly but still positively in the last session tonight (maybe get another 120) and then really go for it in the morning session (maybe add another 160) before getting all out / declaring? Leaves us around 120 in arrears with two sessions to bat out, right?

If Yorks were thinking as above, Zaf's not letting them get on with it. Just 9 runs off his 10 overs so far!

guildfordbat wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Yorkshire 107-2 at tea

Looking increasingly likely we'll have to bat out two sessions to draw this game

Olly - you're thinking something like Yorks aim to bat sensibly but still positively in the last session tonight (maybe get another 120) and then really go for it in the morning session (maybe add another 160) before getting all out / declaring? Leaves us around 120 in arrears with two sessions to bat out, right?

Yep this was my thinking - but seems like they aren't thinking that way and the weather has intervened again - all about picking up bonus points now

58 overs into the innings and Sam Curran has only bowled one spell of 6 overs (in which he picked up a wicket)

What's the point in playing him if the captain so obviously doesn't trust him?

Rather strangely Yorkshire have sent Pattinson in as night watchman

yorkshire only need a session a to win this

Yorks could indeed win this eg if they bat aggressively and declare no later than lunchtime with a lead of, say, 120.  If Surrey then go into "limp scoreless collapse" mode Yorks would then only need a very few overs to knock off any residual runs Surrey manage in excess of 120. I recognised that that is a scenario worthy of the late lamented poster "Depressed Surrey Fan" but it's by no means impossible!

A slightly more optimistic view - at least as regards us not losing - is that Yorks may underestimate our brittleness, decide too much time has already been lost to force a result and concentrate on getting maximum batting points.

I think Yorks will bat 'normally' until they get to 400 for maximum points. Our 'mistake' may be in taking wickets regularly and bowling them out for about a 140 deficit, and leaving 40 overs to survive! I will put my neck on the line and say we will deffo get a draw!

Agree that a draw seems nailed on. I also wouldn't expect Yorkshire to declare until the have maximum batting points.

Lyth 150.  Nightwatchman Patterson 50, and heading towards his highest first class score.  No wickets and no more bonus points this morning.  Although, as I type, Ansari finally gets Patterson.

Yorks playing tough, disciplined cricket - everything we aspire to but totally fail to achieve.

That was a good innings from Patterson. Together with centurion Lyth, prevented us getting an early wicket, moved the score along and has set things up nicely for the Tyke biffers.

Currently 293/4 off 88 overs with 72 left in the day. General view now seems to be that they're looking for max batting points, hit out for a few overs once that's achieved and then declare leaving us around 45 overs to bat out or lose our heads.

330 - 6 and a bonus point.  *Muted applause*

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:330 - 6 and a bonus point.  *Muted applause*

Might be worth having at the end of the season and something that JimboHammers would have preferred not coming our way. Nonetheless, impossible to get excited about it now.

3 questions left for today, I guess. Can Yorks hit out and get max batting points? Can we get another 3 wickets in (?) 13 overs for a third bowling point? Can we bat out circa 45 overs to deny Yorks a win and scrape a draw?

Guildford - Yes, No and hopefully!

Max batting and bowling points for both sides today as Yorks are 407 all out. A lead of 140. 52 overs left in the day.

Meaker only bowled 8 balls today and picked up two wickets to go with his one from yesterday. Admittedly he was helped by Yorks throwing the bat after lunch when he (finally) came on. However, I would have got him to rip from the start today (if not last evening) at nightwatchman Patto. Although he batted well, he's probably a genuine number 10 or 11 (just 2 fifties before today in 130 f-c innings and an average around 16) - such tailenders normally have an aversion to pace and that's what Meaks has got.