SURREY VS MIDDLESEX /KENT SPITFIRES T20 Vitality Blast

Surrey Academy wicket keeper Jamie Smith has been named in a 14 man squad for the opening Vitality Blast matches with Middlesex and Kent this week.
Will Jacks, Ryan Patel, Freddie van den Bergh and Morne Morkel could all be in line for their T20 debuts for Surrey as well as Smith.
Sadly there is no Jason Roy, Tom Curran (injured) Aaron Finch or Nic Maddinson available    
Mark Stoneman has been left out for poor form.
FULL SQUAD:
Jade Dernbach (captain)
Gareth Batty
Scott Borthwick
Rory Burns
Rikki Clarke
Sam Curran (Middlesex game only)
Matt Dunn
Ben Foakes
Will Jacks
Morne Morkel
Ryan Patel
Mathew Pillans
Ollie Pope
Jamie Smith
Freddie van den Bergh
don't want to sound like Gooch but I cant see any wins from these two games with hardly any fire power in that batting line up.
Hard to call the 4 to miss out maybe Smith, Dunn Pillans and Burger van
Over to you chaps  

Cheers, JimBob.

I'm a bit surprised but not totally staggered to see Smith in the squad. I've never seen him play and know little about him but he did well pre-season in Dubai and slammed a quick 60 yesterday for the stiffs. I think the three you mention are the ones most likely to miss out but it's just possible Smith could squeeze in around number 7 to edge Clarke or more likely Pillans out.

Agree with you about us lacking firepower. You would feel that two of Jacks, Pope and Foakes will need to properly deliver for us to have much of a chance.

Sam Curran released by the ECB to play tonight

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Sam Curran released by the ECB to play tonight

Good news for Surrey and an even better find by Olly - a couple of hours before the Club confirmed it.

Maybe go with: Jacks, Burns, Borthwick, Pope, Foakes (wk), S Curran, Smith, Clarke, Batty, Morkel, Dernbach ??

guildfordbat wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Sam Curran released by the ECB to play tonight

Good news for Surrey and an even better find by Olly - a couple of hours before the Club confirmed it.

Maybe go with: Jacks, Burns, Borthwick, Pope, Foakes (wk), S Curran, Smith, Clarke, Batty, Morkel, Dernbach ??

spot on

Whilst I agree that our batting looks weak, it's a great opportunity for the likes of Jacks/Smith to shine, and our bowling unit looks really strong

Too kind, JimBob. It'll be a miracle if the batting order is right though!

surrey win toss and bat

The sky lineup had Jacks, Pope, Smith, Foakes, Burns, Borthwick, Curran, Clarke, Batty, Morkel, Dernbach as the batting order

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:The sky lineup had Jacks, Pope, Smith, Foakes, Burns, Borthwick, Curran, Clarke, Batty, Morkel, Dernbach as the batting order

what do they know

Ok why are Curran and Clarke batting ahead of Pope and Borthwick

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Ok why are Curran and Clarke batting ahead of Pope and Borthwick

You beat me to it, Olly. Pope is surely our best available batsman for this game. Putting him down to 6 makes no sense to me. Nor does promoting Clark to 5.

Tbf, Clarke doing his best to prove me wrong. Still very surprised though!

guildfordbat wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Ok why are Curran and Clarke batting ahead of Pope and Borthwick

You beat me to it, Olly. Pope is surely our best available batsman for this game. Putting him down to 6 makes no sense to me. Nor does promoting Clark to 5.

Pope isn’t a big hitter - he’s an excellent timer and placer of the ball, perfect for opening or batting at 3 in T20. Complete nonsense to have him batting at 6

We’re a good 20 runs short there imo - short boundary, lightning outfield, good pitch to get under 160 is poor. Will need our bowlers to pull it out the bag

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:We’re a good 20 runs short there imo - short boundary, lightning outfield, good pitch to get under 160 is poor. Will need our bowlers to pull it out the bag

Yep again. I'm only following on cric info (Mrs Bat hogs the remote throughout Wimbledon!) but I was looking / hoping for 40 from the last 4 overs to take us to 180 or so. Didn't think that was too ambitious given we were 141/4 off 16. We ended up getting a measly 17. Helm's over (the 17th) which got Clarke and saw Pope run out really did for us.

Was Borthwick as bad as he came across on cric info?

We can almost certainly give the MotM award to Stirling now.

Wtf is happening I went to put the bins and washing out and I come back to find Middlesex have lost four wickets in an over

Just be aware that Simpson is another who often does well against us ,,,,

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Wtf is happening I went to put the bins and washing out and I come back to find Middlesex have lost four wickets in an over

Meant to say - you're living the life, eh Olly?!

Borthwick being treated like he was in the 50 0vers competition.
he is and will never be a finisher

3 wicket win for Middlesex with an over to spare.

We did well to get 7 of 'em out - remember when we batted we only lost 6 wickets - but were probably always 20 runs shy. As said earlier, the last 4 overs of our innings cost us.

morkel dropping cartwright on 9 summed up his day

Need to sort this batting line up cant rely on Borthwick and a 17 year old boy to be facing the last 4 overs

jimbobgooner wrote:Need to sort this batting line up cant rely on Borthwick and a 17 year old boy to be facing the last 4 overs

Once two of Roy, Finch and Mad Dog become available, then Borthwick will be on drinks duty and Smith can go back to watching Cartoon Network. However, I agree with you that atm based on what happened tonight, the batting order is a bl**dy mess.

guildfordbat wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Wtf is happening I went to put the bins and washing out and I come back to find Middlesex have lost four wickets in an over

Meant to say - you're living the life, eh Olly?!

Gotta do what you gotta do Guildford

Good bowling performance last night, but as said by pretty much anyone who watched the game, we were 20 short. For me, despite Clarke's runs, we had the order completely wrong - as Jimbob says Borthwick is not and never has been a finisher, and imo Pope isn't a big hitter, more a very good stroke player - so for me, they should have been ahead of Curran/Clarke who are more of your classic big hitters than anything else we have. At the very least Pope should have been at 4, and Curran at 6

Kent win toss and bat
Pillans and burger van replace baby face and Borthwick

You there, JimBob? If so, give us your thoughts when you can. Cheers.

guildfordbat wrote:You there, JimBob? If so, give us your thoughts when you can. Cheers.

where to start Guildford the bowling wasn't great with the exception of Pillans
Burger van's first 2 over were tidy the last denly took a shine to with 17 off it
have to say the ground fielding was poor as well 2 shots that went for boundaries should have been stopped.
The catching was a positive 2 excellent catches one from Foakes and the other from Smith.
At the halfway stage I thought we might struggle to get 174 but the way Burns and Foakes batted to get the run rate down from 8 a over to just over 5 was excellent.
The turning point was the Denly hat trick which if you watch the highlights you have to ask with the experience that Clarke has why he would dance down the wkt not even trying to hit it big.
If he had batted sensibly like Foakes we would have won it easily I know we still had 6 wkts in hand but Smith ,Pillans and burger van don't fill you with confidence almost like they a place too high in the batting line up.
with 7 needed off 8 balls Dernbach just needed to see off 2 deliveries and hope Foakes could score 7 off Braithwaite only he can answer why he slashed at a wide one. The look on foakes face said it all.
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Many thanks, JimBob. That confirms a lot of what I was thinking.

After the football, I rewound the stream and watched it from just after Denly had taken his hat-trick and we were 6 down. We still should have won it from there. Brain dead batting from those who should have followed only one instruction - ''Stay with Ben''.