SURREY VS WORCESTERSHIRE ROYAL LONDON CUP SEMI FINAL

Surrey have named a 13-man squad to take on Worcestershire in the semi-final of the Royal London One Day Cup.
Jason roy is available after England's exit from the icc trophy
There is no place in the squad for Mark Foootitt or Dominic Sibley.
Full Surrey Squad
Gareth Batty (captain)
Scott Borthwick
Rory Burns
Sam Curran
Tom Curran
Jade Dernbach
Ben Foakes (wk)
Stuart Meaker
Ollie Pope
Ravi Rampaul
Jason Roy
Kumar Sangakkara
Mark Stoneman
meaker will miss out so it comes down to between Burns or pope for the last spot .
I would go with pope but with burns being vice captain I wonder if he will get the nod.
Over to you chaps

Cheers, JimBob.

Given Roy is in the squad, I assume he'll play. I had wondered if Stewie etc might be concerned his head was scrambled after his torrid time with England and consider it best to give him a few days away from the game. I can well understand them not doing that - after all, Roy on form is a serious match winner - but I do hope they've checked on him.

I was very impressed with Pope the other night. Too often in white ball cricket, we get off to a flyer but then allow it to fizzle out. Pope actually kept the momentum going and built on it. He'll be desperately unlucky if he gets the chop.

I'll therefore say Burns to miss out although it's on a knife edge. Someone else instead who just could be sharing drinks duties with Meaker is Borthwick although his place is probably saved by him being the sixth bowler.

I'll say Meaker and Pope will miss out - harsh on Pope, but I think they'll fancy Burns's experience, and with Roy coming into the side, they'll feel they've replaced Pope's explosiveness somewhere.

Definitely think its good Roy is playing - he needs time in the middle to find form imo. All it takes is for him to get to 60/70 balls and Surrey are well in the game.

Surrey win the toss and bat - Burns and Meaker sit out, meaning the Pope retains his place. Interesting

Borthwick injured in the warm up - so Burns comes in for him.

Surrey 1-0 off 0.5 overs

Surrey end up 13-0 off 1 over.

32-0 off 3 overs - a rapid start, but the pitch looks a belter, and the outfield is quick. Stoneman given not out somehow for a plumb LBW!

Early impressions are we're gonna need well over 300 here...

Mornin' Olly and all - collapsing in front of the tv having been doing some gardening labour for an hour or so!!

Cracking start by Surrey. 32/0 off 3 although Stoneman seemed fortunate to survive an lbw shout from Hastings.

Olly - not doubting you, just interested - it was confirmed Burns was originally left out?

I know that LBW was Umpire's Call on Hawkeye, but oh my! It just look dead.

Really good start this from Surrey. Fear Worcs limitations might get exposed here against some real class players in Roy, Stoneman and Sanga.

90-0 off 10, Roy goes to 50 off 37 balls. Surrey have shown good intent, but Worcs have bowled some tripe so far.

Yeah Guildford - Borthwick turned his ankle in the warm up - was down to play and Burns came in for him. Pope was always playing

Cheers, Olly.

As I mentioned last night, Pope deserves this opportunity.

Yeah, pitch is an absolute belter. We're doing very well so far (112/0 off 13) but are going to need well, well over 300 to be in with a good shout. Our bowlers will need to be on the money, especially with no Borthwick as a sixth option. I guess Roy would take on that role if really necessary but I don't think he's bowled for a couple of years.

JDizzle wrote:I know that LBW was Umpire's Call on Hawkeye, but oh my! It just look dead.

Really good start this from Surrey. Fear Worcs limitations might get exposed here against some real class players in Roy, Stoneman and Sanga.

Hi JD - I've said this before and thought it again recently in one of the CT games when an apparently ''stone dead'' appeal wasn't given and the onfield decision was upheld on review as being umpire's call - even if the ball is only clipping the stumps, I think it should still be out on review (regardless of the onfield decision) if the ball doesn't have much of a way to travel. In other words, there needs to be a distinction between where the batsman is playing forward outside his crease (fair enough to say umpire's call there) and where he's on the back foot a few inches from his stumps (where imo umpire's call shouldn't come into it). Exactly where the distinction should be made, I'll leave to those more expert than me - a bit of a cop out there admittedly but I still believe the current system needs tweaking.

Absolutely agree Guildford. Often, as with the Stoneman LBW, the umpire has been shown to be wrong, but the call remains due to the rules not being flexible enough. It's not fair on the players and it's also not fair on the umpires who get the flack for the wrong call.

Cheers, James. Hope all good with you - you've been missing in action lately?

Yeah, just busy with with work recently. All seems to be calming down a little now so that should leave more time for cricket!

That's good, James. Meanwhile, 259/4 off 39. Sanga caught behind down the legside off Hastings. Need at least another 100 off the last 11 on this pitch,

297/4. off 44. Foakes 59* at slightly better than a run a ball. Pope settled in quickly again with 20* off 16 including a maximum into the Radio commentary box which was dropped by Churchy!

Foakes and Pope take their partnership to 50 in 35 balls. That's good stuff after Worcs pegged it back a bit.

With that Pope goes for 22. I like the momentum he brings and that he totally plays for the team.

Foakes is a classy player. Its a shame he won't get a chance for England with Bairstow + Buttler around

Worcestershire's bowlers seemed much too​ keen on the shirt ball at the death there. Seemed like they had a plan and didn't really react when bouncers kept being hit to the boundary.

jimbohammers wrote:Foakes is a classy player. Its a shame he won't get a chance for England with Bairstow + Buttler around

Hi Jimbo - I know it won't be easy but I wouldn't completely write off Foakes' chances with England. He's definitely on the radar and is playing for the Lions next week.

Meanwhile, Surrey make 363/7 off their 50. Very hard to judge a par score here. Looks a good wicket and lovely conditions for batting. Worcs could get near or even overtake it but, if we get early wickets, they could fold for loads less.

Worcs need to get seriously after at least one of our bowlers as we don't really have anyone in reserve.

Any spare money going, my suggestion would be to put it on Surrey but don't count your winnings yet!

James100 wrote:Worcestershire's bowlers seemed much too​ keen on the shirt ball at the death there. Seemed like they had a plan and didn't really react when bouncers kept being hit to the boundary.

Yep. They were probably at their best with the ball when they had their slow men, Moeen and Dolly, bowling. Although I'm not a great fan, it might have been handy for us to have Borthwick available to send down a few overs.

Worcs 47/3 off 7. Good scoring rate but the number that really matters there is the 3.

Surrey helped by a dreadful run out of Fell, terrible cricket.

Sam Curran on the money with 1/10 off 4. Keep him going.

paul allott

jimbobgooner wrote:paul allott

Afternoon JimBob - I actually find Cork and Butcher a lot worse.

Anyway, in the Corporal's absence get ready to open the bar! Excellent performance.

9 down. Start pouring the drinks, JimBob. I'm sure the Corporal said to put the first round on his tab!

PS Make them large ones!

guildfordbat wrote:9 down. Start pouring the drinks, JimBob. I'm sure the Corporal said to put the first round on his tab!

PS  Make them large ones!

3rd time lucky

Those unhappy with Paul Allott should recall what was said about the said ex-Lancs and England player when he first burst on the scene. He was described as being "like Botham, but lacking Botham's charm".

Missed everything after about 25 overs of our innings - but appears to have been yet another wonderful knock from Foakes and Sangakkara - and as ever our bowling seems to have performed well? Obviously didn't see much of it, but appears Batty and Sam Curran in particular the standouts.

Hopefully Borthwick is fit for the final - for me he is both a better bat than Burns in one day cricket, and offers the 6th option with the ball - something we really lack without him

guildfordbat wrote:

jimbohammers wrote:Foakes is a classy player. Its a shame he won't get a chance for England with Bairstow + Buttler around

Hi Jimbo - I know it won't be easy but I wouldn't completely write off Foakes'  chances with England. He's definitely on the radar and is playing for the Lions next week.

Meanwhile, Surrey make 363/7 off their 50. Very hard to judge a par score here. Looks a good wicket and lovely conditions for batting. Worcs could get near or even overtake it but, if we get early wickets, they could fold for loads less.

Worcs need to get seriously after at least one of our bowlers as we don't really have anyone in reserve.

Any spare money going, my suggestion would be to put it on Surrey but don't count your winnings yet!

I think Foakes batting in the longer format is going to need to improve, he could probably make a real shot at being a #7 in the test arena and keeping if it does. It's hard to see him getting in the one day setup with Buttler, Bairstow and Billings all ahead of him atm

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Missed everything after about 25 overs of our innings - but appears to have been yet another wonderful knock from Foakes and Sangakkara - and as ever our bowling seems to have performed well? Obviously didn't see much of it, but appears Batty and Sam Curran in particular the standouts.

Hopefully Borthwick is fit for the final - for me he is both a better bat than Burns in one day cricket, and offers the 6th option with the ball - something we really lack without him

Hi Olly - yeah, all pretty much as you say. I liked the way as well that Pope and the Currans kept the scoreboard moving in the closing overs - none of the 24 off 36 type business that we've had to endure too often in the recent past as an innings fizzled out after a bright start.

Sam bowled particularly well with the new ball, nice whippy action. Take nothing away from Batty but things were set up nicely for him - over 360 to defend and Worcs already 3 men down when he came on in the 11th. If you get a chance, try and see a recording of Fell's run out - real comic cuts which gifted us a wicket.

I'm not sure Borthwick is a better bat than Burns but, as you say, we need the 6th bowling option he provides. Fortunately that wasn't an issue today but I suspect it could be against Notts.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

jimbohammers wrote:Foakes is a classy player. Its a shame he won't get a chance for England with Bairstow + Buttler around

Hi Jimbo - I know it won't be easy but I wouldn't completely write off Foakes'  chances with England. He's definitely on the radar and is playing for the Lions next week.

Meanwhile, Surrey make 363/7 off their 50. Very hard to judge a par score here. Looks a good wicket and lovely conditions for batting. Worcs could get near or even overtake it but, if we get early wickets, they could fold for loads less.

Worcs need to get seriously after at least one of our bowlers as we don't really have anyone in reserve.

Any spare money going, my suggestion would be to put it on Surrey but don't count your winnings yet!

I think Foakes batting in the longer format is going to need to improve, he could probably make a real shot at being a #7 in the test arena and keeping if it does. It's hard to see him getting in the one day setup with Buttler, Bairstow and Billings all ahead of him atm

Well now I totally agree with Olly there- re Foakes. Obviously I haven't watched him like you fellows but I'm happy to accept the overwhelming view that he's a fine gloveman. Certainly the ODI outfit is overflowing with WK options ; but the Test arena is another thing : Billings is nowhere near it ; and if I had my way Buttler wouldn't be either as his (wonderful) limited overs skills just don't translate into the red ball game - which he hardly plays these days ! So if Foakes can just establish reasonable first class credentials with the bat he'd be automatically first reserve. And with many wishing to see YJB concentrating on top order batting (though I must admit I'm not one of them) he could well give commentators their dream middle order lineup of Stokes Foakes and Woakes


Oh - by the way : well done Surrey

And best wishes for the final . (Might seek out a stream.) Drink up lads

I feel Foakes' batting in the red ball game is better than suggested. I accept he's not been blazing the way this season in the Championship but he's still averaging above 33. In his first class career, his average is a touch under 40 and he's scored 6 centuries in the process.

As regards any form of international recognition, he has a strong supporter in Alec Stewart which won't do him any harm.

Glad you guys able to raid the bar in my absence on manoeuvres in Scotland! An excellent performance by Surrey