SURREY VS LEICESTERSHIRE/MIDDLESEX/KENT/NOTTINGHAMSHIRE/YORKSHIRE/LANCASHIRE/HAMPSHIRE/ESSEX METRO BANK ONE DAY CUP

Surrey have named a 14 man squad for the Metro Bank One Day Cup opener against Leicestershire at The Kia Oval on Thursday 3rd August.
Surrey will be without 13 players this year due to a minor cup competition.
Rory Burns will captain the side in this season’s competition.
Ben Foakes, Jordan Clark and Dom Sibley are all available as well  
Matt Dunn, Yousef Majid and Amir Virdi are named in the squad for the first time this season.
17 year old Luke Griffiths has signed a one-month contract to play for Surrey during the Metro Bank One Day Cup, Griffiths is a right-arm fast bowler who has been part of the Surrey Player Pathway since the U12 age group.
Sadly Nathan Barnwell and James Taylor will miss all of the competition with Back stress fractures.
There is no place in the squad for Sheridon Gumbs, Nick Kimber or Nico Reifer.
Full Squad:
Burns (c)
Blake
Clark
Dunn
Foakes
Geddes
Griffiths
Majid
McKerr
Moriarty
Patel
Sibley
Steel
Virdi
Nice surprise to have a much better squad than expected
Griffiths and maybe Majid and Virdi on drink duties  
Over to you chaps  

Cheers jimbob, probably agree with the 3 left out, can't see us having all that spin, especially with the mighty Steel in the team! I do have visions of the oppo not trying to get our speedy openers out as we steam on to 30 without loss off 20 overs. I think my main concern in the minor cricket competition is will little Sam Curran get enough rest after bowling 3.2 overs every 4/5 days

Ha! Nice one, Goochie and thanks for the thread, JimBob.

You chaps could well be right about the 3 missing out although of those I think Majid has the best chance of playing (? maybe for Moriarty).

Anyway, assuming JimBob is along the right lines even if not spot on, there aren't many bowling options. 3 seamers and 2 spinners (1 of which is the mighty Steel as Goochie says) plus maybe Patel and even Burns if things get desperate.

Guildford nearly calls it, but Majid in for Blake, looks like our tail is bigger than the body! Leicester put us in....good luck!

Makes no sense to leave Blake out when he's in form

Shocking umpiring for the burns dismissal given out caught behind off his pads ‍�

205-4 off 34 overs, Foakes 89* and Steel 35* in the midst of a good partnership, but need to push on past 300 if possible with the short boundary legside.

Like the look of this young Leicester seamer Josh Hull

jimbobgooner wrote:Shocking umpiring for the burns dismissal given out caught behind off his pads ‍�

And now Patel has claimed a dropped catch and the ump has given it to get rid of Steel just as he passed fifty...

Standard of county umpiring has been noticeably worse this year. Shocking.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

jimbobgooner wrote:Shocking umpiring for the burns dismissal given out caught behind off his pads ‍�

And now Patel has claimed a dropped catch and the ump has given it to get rid of Steel just as he passed fifty...

Standard of county umpiring has been noticeably worse this year. Shocking.

Sadly it's blatant cheating from Patel, creeping into the game far more often now

At the ground.
Unless my eyes deceived me and it was very near me, the ball popped out in front of Patel as he landed. Blatant cheating. Dreadful umpiring. Steel was perhaps a tad naive in heading quickly to the pavilion before stopping by the boundary when alerted by the crowd’s abuse of the fielder but by then it was apparently too late. Patel continuing to be jeered ….

Just had a look and I'm the King's left nut if that catch was taken fairly.

Yep Steel not out either
What a cheat Patel is

Nice work by Jimbob's man Geddes to get us beyond 300

Competitive score, but never ever took full advantage of that very short boundary, Sibley 11 runs in 10 overs of power play, Ackerman going for just over 5 an over, hope I'm wrong but I think we'll have to take wickets, rather than restrict to win

Foakes off the pitch with a injury
Leicestershire have allowed Blake to keep they must be feeling guilty

Some of the worse bowling I have ever seen

Braindead bowling and captaincy from Surrey, as feared, we need at least 500 with this utter garbage bowling

Given that the 1st XI bowling often leaves a lot to be desired, bowling was always going to be a problem in this competition, especially against teams who haven't lost their 'star' names to the 100.

Every time we win the toss we have to put them in with that bowling attack, No idea why Patel isn't bowling anymore

Unchanged squad for Middlesex
Maybe Virdi in for Majid, but most likely unchanged eleven

Keep the same 11, if I was going to change it then surely McKerr or Dunn should be dropped, I think a bigger problem is our clueless captain

With the weather forecast we've every chance of getting our 1st point tomorrow

thegooch7 wrote:Competitive score, but never ever took full advantage of that very short boundary, Sibley 11 runs in 10 overs of power play, Ackerman going for just over 5 an over, hope I'm wrong but I think we'll have to take wickets, rather than restrict to win

Apologies for belated comments, chaps, but Goochie was spot on there. I've never seen the boundary so close to the Tenison School. Our guy who did the best of milking that was JimBob's man Geddes but he effectively ran out of partners. Moriarty didn't help by mainly swinging and missing rather than looking to nudge it for a single. Most of our innings we seemed to have lost at least 1 wicket too many for comfort. Have to blame our poor batting plus bad umpiring and shameful cheating by Patel as flagged before.

Surprised in a way that Blake wasn't in the eleven - he's been good iwith the bat in the stiffs and also in the warm up game against Suffolk - but guess he lost out due to being the 'junior' name. I did think Yousef was likely to play but couldn't figure who would make way for him.

Think Blake will play today, certainly if Foakes drops out with his knee niggle. If Foakes is ok, a bold but probably sensible choice would be to bench Sibley.

The 3 Surrey seamers were too short much of the time. Dunn was the best of a poor lot in his opening 5 powerplay overs but completely lost it when he came back for a sixth over and went for 3 maximums. The seamers will probably all get another chance today. I noted JimBob's - why don't we give Patel a bowl? Good question as I think he could send down 4 or 5 overs around the first half of the opposition dig for about 20 and maybe pick up a wicket. Seems little interest from the management with the ball though. When some were bowling on the outfield between innings, he was just doing catching practice.

Looking at the forecast and the weather here now, the game may start today but we'll be (un)lucky to get a finish.

weather is the winner 1st point on the board

Squad unchanged again for Kent

Team unchanged
Kent win toss and bat

Well done Sibley, at least he didn't waste the whole power play this time

Some of these shouldn't still be at the club.

Middlesex must be fuming, only getting 1 point against this garbage

Jordan Clark drops out of the squad for the game against Nottinghamshire today with a hamstring niggle.
Could be a chance for young Terry to play which would mean our tail starts at 7

I think our tail starts with Burns and Sibley in this format. Surely McKerr can't play again

jimbobgooner wrote:Jordan Clark drops out of the squad for the game against Nottinghamshire today with a hamstring niggle.
Could be a chance for young Terry to play which would mean our tail starts at 7

    Even if it took me longer to get it than it should have done!

You, JimBob, do though make a good and serious point about the tail. On Thursday against Kent we were still in with a chance on paper needing 110 off the final 10 overs with 5 wickets left. Always a very tough ask for any side but not impossible - look at how Leics slaughtered our bowling when they were 5 down. However, our last 4 batters could all have equally batted at number 11 and so we folded almost as soon as the 6th wicket fell.

I was at the Oval for the Kent game and thought something was up with Clark. He didn't get the ball until after 20 overs, seemed to pull up uncomfortably once or twice after a delivery and didn't bowl his full 10 overs. I know nothing about young Terry but assume he doesn't bat much. If that's right, there's no way we can try and bat with 5 ferrets - particularly when Sibley so far has brought nothing to the party. I would bring in Blake to replace Clark as a batter (Clark has been number 5 in the 2 games) and, as you've said recently, look to use Patel as an additional bowler.

Although we were generally poor against Kent, the Hop county played well and were impressively skippered by Leaning who took a lot of personal responsibility. 87 runs (94 balls) at number 3 and then sending down 10 overs on the reel opening the bowling. His role with the ball was very smart. Never looking that dangerous but consistently bowling to his field. No wickets but only 37 conceded as we fell behind the rate putting too many demands on our later batsmen. In earlier contrast, Majid opened our bowling, sent down 3 tidy overs (0/9), was then yanked off and was never as settled or good when he came back on.

Quick word for Kent's 17 year old Jaydn Denly (nephew of Joe). Faced one ball and hit it for four. Began his bowling with a wicket maiden, the only maiden of the day. Not a bad debut!

Terry gets the nod
Nottinghamshire win toss and bowl

jimbobgooner wrote:Terry gets the nod
Nottinghamshire win toss and bowl

It sure looks like 5 ferrets at the back end with Terry listed at 10.

Meanwhile, Sibley has clearly been listening to Goochie about not wasting balls received. Today he's departed for a golden duck off Hutton who is having a mighty impressive season, not least against Surrey.

1/1 off 9 balls as the rain gets heavier, the players come off and we're spared further embarrassment for a while.

Game reduced to 40 overs per side.

Surrey 83/3 off 19. Looking pretty ominous. Going to need snookers from Terry.

244/7 from our 40. Not bad and a lot better than seemed likely earlier.

A target to bowl at anyway.

Thought Notts might require 246 as we began batting on the understanding that it was a 50 over game but just the 245 needed according to the BBC.

guildfordbat wrote:
...

Thought Notts might require 246 as we began batting on the understanding that it was a 50 over game but just the 245 needed according to the BBC.

And Notts' target has actually been reduced to less than our total which seems nuts to me!

Think it's to do with our having lost a wicket in the 9 balls before they went off for rain but it still seems to defy any sense or logic.

it's nuts and even more nuts Geddes is bowling

jimbobgooner wrote:it's nuts and even more nuts Geddes is bowling

With Dunn crocked and assuming Notts bat into the 40th over, Terry has to bowl unless Geddes bowls 3 more and the other bowlers all deliver a full 8.

We need to get Terry into the action very soon.

Leaving Blake out makes even less sense

[quote="guildfordbat"]

jimbobgooner wrote:it's nuts and even more nuts Geddes is bowling

With Dunn crocked and assuming Notts bat into the 40th over, Terry has to bowl unless Geddes bowls 3 more and the other bowlers all deliver a full 8.

We need to get Terry into the action very soon. [/quote
Burns must have heard you and Terry gets his first wkt

Cheers, JimBob. Still very poor captaincy from Burns to hold the young lad back until the 30th over (of a 40 over game) with Notts on the march. He goes for 10 in his second over and imo it's the skipper we need to look at for that.

How tf can Notts need LESS than we scored??!!

Get in!! Deserved that

What a win Moriarty take a bow

Incredible last over from Moriarty as we somehow get out of jail!

You going to Guildford on Thursday, JimBob? If so, take your kit.

guildfordbat wrote:Incredible last over from Moriarty as we somehow get out of jail!

You going to Guildford on Thursday, JimBob? If so, take your kit.

I've got to get to Yorkshire on Tuesday first

Steel voted man of the match

Does anyone know what the injury to Dunn is?

jimbobgooner wrote:Does anyone know what the injury to Dunn is?

Looks like a torn hamstring.