SURREY VS WARWICKSHIRE SPECSAVERS COUNTY CHAMPIONSHIP

First topic message reminder :

SURREY HAVE ONCE AGAIN NAMED AN UNCHANGED 13-MAN SQUAD FOR THIS WEEKEND’S SPECSAVERS COUNTY CHAMPIONSHIP GAME WITH WARWICKSHIRE AT EDGBASTON.
Squad:
Gareth Batty (captain)
Zafar Ansari
Scott Borthwick
Rory Burns
Sam Curran
Tom Curran
Jade Dernbach
Ben Foakes (wk)
Mark Footitt
Stuart Meaker
Kumar Sangakkara
Dominic Sibley
Mark Stoneman
Will son of boris miss out this time?
over to you chaps

Foakes falls for 21 with score on 351- 5.  Pity - that was a useful partnership (48) developing, and at a good run rate.  Lead 22.

Sibley 50.   Very good comeback from a batsman whose confidence must have been low.

Sibley falls for 56 after another useful but not decisive partnership of 40. Now 403 - 6, meaning a full quota of bonus points.  The drinks are on Guildford!   Lead up to 71 - very useful but unlikely to be match winning.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Sibley falls for 56 after another useful but not decisive partnership of 40. Now 403 - 6, meaning a full quota of bonus points.  The drinks are on Guildford!   Lead up to 71 - very useful but unlikely to be match winning.

Hopefully the last 4 wickets can get us upto a lead of somewhere around 150 (ambitious maybe!) - would put us in a position where it'd be hard to lose, but it's also going to be tough to win on this track - which is evidently a good one for batting

410-6 at lunch - TC somehow managed to survive the last over of Patel before sandwiches, and with that I am off to score my first mildly disappointing 17 (36) of the season

Sam Curran falls to Patel for 32.  Another useful innings and just-about-worthwhile partnership, of 25.   Lead up to 87.

Batty - 6 and out against Patel. 

Could do with a bit of obdurate late order stuff here. There's a big psychological difference between a +/-100 run first innings lead and, say, +/-140. Ideally, Tom (and JD?) to give it a bit of tap, then Footitt to stick around longer than his usual 1 ball cameo innings in support of whomever is still in at the other end.

Dernbach lasted 16 balls.  Footitt has already lasted 2 balls and scored a couple.

Curran, looking for a not out score to boost his average, gives Footitt the strike against Patel.  Who obliges and is out next ball.

...as I said

Warks may be about 100 ahead by close today - which could set up an interesting day tomorrow. Not sure about Warks psychology if they have plenty of wickets after an hour's play tomorrow.  Will they will press on and offer Surrey a tempter of a target - or bank a draw to stabilise things after their poor start to the season?

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Sibley falls for 56 after another useful but not decisive partnership of 40. Now 403 - 6, meaning a full quota of bonus points.  The drinks are on Guildford!   Lead up to 71 - very useful but unlikely to be match winning.

Yeah, I muddled that up - pour 'em out Corporal and make sure there's a large one for Olly after his time in the middle! Reckon there were more overs left than I thought last night but more than anything I hadn't foreseen Sibley adding 44 off 56 balls (think that's right!) this morning - well done to him!

Our lead isn't as much as we would have been hoping for but it's still a useful one and has moved the game on. Happy enough at this stage.

Ps Was out this morning and early afternoon. Just been catching up with the action on Olly's stream (thanks again!) - pretty sure Sam will be in hot water over his unhappy reaction to being adjudged lbw.

45 - 2.  After a solid start by Warks, Dernbach picks up a couple of wickets, (Porterfield and Trott - latter for a duck). That should keep the pressure on Warks for a while.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Warks may be about 100 ahead by close today - which could set up an interesting day tomorrow. Not sure about Warks psychology if they have plenty of wickets after an hour's play tomorto row.  Will they will press on and offer Surrey a tempter of a target - or bank a draw to stabilise things after their poor start to the season?

Hi Corporal - it's a good question. After their dreadful opening two games and having trailed by more than a 100 on first innings in this one, I suspect Warks would be content to stop losing and so would settle for a draw. Maybe allow Patel a few overs at us late tomorrow in the hope of something special happening or at least giving them a confidence booster.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Sanga falls to a very good delivery from Guildford's man Ronnie - touch of movement away, corridor of uncertainty - edged to second slip. Lovely...for Warks!

Need Sibley/Foakes to show intent here.....a chance to show they've learned lessons from last weeks debacle

Sorry, know this is out of sequence but I've playing catch up with what's been going on today - yeah, lovely ball by Ronnie. I do believe he's a very decent bowler. With him sending down that sort of delivery and Patel being around to regularly hoover up the opposition tail, I struggle to understand why the Bears are doing so badly.

Tea. Warks trail by 45 with 8 wickets left.

Doubt now that they'll lead by more than 45 at stumps. If we can put in a good shift in the final part of moving day (that's for you, Carlos! ) and take a couple more wickets, we'll be in a strong position in the morning.

Warks got slightly more in the final session that I expected (I'll blame a Dernbach over going for 3 fours! ) but we took the 2 wickets I was hoping for!

Warks now lead by 57 with 6 wickets left. All results still possible but we're in the best seats tonight.

According to George Dobell's cricinfo report, Footitt has a leg injury and is unlikely to be able to bowl tomorrow.

Dobell also suggests that Sam Curran could be reported by the umpires for dissent upon being given out lbw. I saw that on Olly's stream and posted earlier that I thought he might be in hot water.

Footitt injury is a big one - gonna need Batts to come to the party tomorrow now

Good to see Borthwick getting a bit of a bowl, and a wicket.

Just checking in after a nice day at Wembley

JimBob - I hope you bought the lino a drink!

PS Might need a weather bulletin from the Corporal.

Guildford - yes the forecast isn't looking too great for tomorrow.

Just watching the clip on twitter....Sam Curran was certainly in no hurry to leave the crease after being given out yesterday...

Just catching up with the scores.

Bell fell on 99 to Batty but that's been our only success today. Warks now 265/5, leading by 161.

Footitt has bowled this morning but got some tap in his 3 overs.

To win the game, we had to win this session. Doesn't look at all like that's going to happen.

Back on after an extended lunch due to bad light and showers.

Warks well ahead and still only 5 down.

A draw must be nailed on now. Just hope Patel doesn't give us a scare late in the day.

Clarke gone as the lead approaches 200. I wonder if Bell will fancy a cheeky little declaration to test Surrey's mindset? Maybe set 220-240 in 35-40 overs (if that equation's still possible). If we then lost a couple of early wickets, they'd really fancy it.

In short, if the weather holds from now on, I think we could yet be in for an interesting finish.

...and now Ambrose goes with the lead not yet 200. Maybe the declaration won't be needed (even allowing for their non-tail and our inability often to clean up 8, 9, 10, Jack quickly).

Can't see a result here tbh - would be the kinda chase we need Roy for

Match drawn

guildfordbat wrote:

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Warks may be about 100 ahead by close today - which could set up an interesting day tomorrow. Not sure about Warks psychology if they have plenty of wickets after an hour's play tomorto row.  Will they will press on and offer Surrey a tempter of a target - or bank a draw to stabilise things after their poor start to the season?

Hi Corporal - it's a good question. After their dreadful opening two games and having trailed by more than a 100 on first innings in this one, I suspect Warks would be content to stop losing and so would settle for a draw. Maybe allow Patel a few overs at us late tomorrow in the hope of something special happening or at least giving them a confidence booster.

Warks leading by 269 and choosing to continue batting with a maximum of 26 overs for us to face. Think you have your answer, Corporal!

50 for Ronnie! If I did one of those Fantasy leagues (I'm talking cricket, JimBob ), he and Patel would be two of the first names in my team.

SimonofSurrey wrote:Clarke gone as the lead approaches 200.  I wonder if Bell will fancy a cheeky little declaration to test Surrey's mindset? Maybe set 220-240 in 35-40 overs (if that equation's still possible). If we then lost a couple of early wickets, they'd really fancy it.

In short, if the weather holds from now on, I think we could yet be in for an interesting finish.

Simon - I suspect you may have got that sort of finish if this game was being played in September. However, I can understand Bell deciding in April that stopping a losing run was more important than gambling on a win.

Not saying his approach has been the right one (we'll probably only be able to judge in hindsight at season's end), just that it was understandable.

Tend to agree guildford. I guess Warks wanted to stop the losing rot rather than risk anything with a sporting declaration. Not the worst outcome for us. I think Warks have re-found their batting mojo and few others will take a win and a max points draw from them this season.

Meanwhile, is it now time to give Sibley and A N Other a few overs to avoid tired front line bowlers risking a ridiculously timed pointless injury?

Simon - in the old days (and they weren't always bad, Olly! ), I'm sure umpires and captains would have agreed on bad light and the draw long before now. With modern technology, probably can't do that now.

Time for one day cricket now and interestingly who opens with Sibley

Match petered out, with Surrey unable to take wickets today. With 8 wickets down, bad light has come to Essex's rescue at Lords so it looks like only one of this round of Div 1 matches will have had a positive result. A draw plus full bonus points not a bad outcome really.

jimbobgooner wrote:Time for one day cricket now and interestingly who opens with Sibley

Son of Boris, surely? (...you started it )

Stoneman to open with Sibley I'd guess. Am I right in thinking that Borthwick has generally played more as a bowler in limited overs stuff?