SURREY VS ESSEX HOME LV= COUNTY CHAMPIONSHIP DIVISION ONE 2024

Surrey have named a 13 man squad for the for the LV=Insurance County Championship game against Essex starting on Sunday 30th June at the Kia Oval.
Tom Lawes returns,    and Sai Sudharsan signed with the Club for this fixture.
Matt Dunn is named in a squad for the first time since April.
As centrally contracted players, Ollie Pope and Gus Atkinson have been made unavailable by the ECB for this round of fixtures.  
There is no place in the squad for Conor McKerr , whilst Amir Virdi has joined Worcestershire for on loan for their County Championship game against Durham, starting from Sunday, 30 June.
Sean Abbott has returned home  
Full Squad:
Burns (c)
Clark
Dunn
Foakes (wk)
Lawes
Lawrence
Patel
Sibley
Smith
Steel
Sudharsan
Taylor
Worrall
Possibly Dunn and Patel to share drink duties, Patel at 7 would make no sense so Steel will probably get the nod over him and Taylor did enough in the the 1st innings against Worcestershire to warrant another go.
Over to you chaps  

Cheers jimbob, I'm surprised newly selected Smith, and Lawrence are 'allowed' to play for us today! I think you could be right about the 2 to miss out, although Dunn's extra pace maybe handy

Essex win toss and bowl
Dunn and Steel miss out 50‰ right

thegooch7 wrote:Cheers jimbob, I'm surprised newly selected Smith, and Lawrence are 'allowed' to play for us today! I think you could be right about the 2 to miss out, although Dunn's extra pace maybe handy

Belated thanks for the thread, JimBob (been away a couple of days).

Goochie - I think this is the reason for Smith and Lawrence being 'allowed' to play -
Unlike Pope and Atkinson, they don't have central contracts. In view of that and the first Test not overlapping with this match, Smith and Lawrence couldn't be pulled by the ECB.

With Patel being picked to bat at 7, the Surrey team looks to me like it has been chosen with the aim of batting long to get a draw against our strongest title rivals. Not sure that'll work. Feel it would have been better to be bolder and go for the win with the extra bowler and pace of Dunn as Goochie suggested. Also unsure that the four seamers chosen will be enough - in particular, Worrall has had a neck muscle injury which kept him out of the Blast and Lawes is only just back from a heel injury.

Some shocking shots in the Surrey dismissals, but if we can at the very least get the 2 runs to earn 1 bonus point, then try and keep Essex to under 300, we might be able to get the draw, but as Guildford says, that bowling attack doesn't look great

Essex out for treble 60

That went well, til we batted again, although I have to say, one of the worst lbw decisions I've ever seen to give Lawrence out, I know they'd been off for bad light, but that seriously affected his view....or he saw another set of stumps

thegooch7 wrote:That went well, til we batted again, although I have to say, one of the worst lbw decisions I've ever seen to give Lawrence out, I know they'd been off for bad light, but that seriously affected his view....or he saw another set of stumps

One of the worst decisions I think I've ever seen - these umpires are unfit for the county game. On and off for bad light, they're now out to play four overs at the end of the day and there is no spectator left in the ground!
No wonder this format/county game is dying on its arse. How annoyed would you be as a paying punter today with the nonsense that's gone on in this final session from the umpires?

lead goes past 350

100 for Patel

So Essex need 361 to win

Excellent day.....in the end! Really good from Smith, obvs, but brilliant from Patel, and a good finish from Worrall and Clark bowling. Really big today tomorrow, need to keep the intensity

Watched a lot of yesterday on the stream - superb batting by Smith (who rather gifted away a second hundred in the game) and Patel, ably supported by Clark and Taylor who did their holding roles nicely at the other end. Patel's innings in particular was sensational, and has really taken the game away from Essex. When he came to the crease, it was very much in the balance.

Really surprised that Harmer hasn't bowled more in the game - seems to me like he's got blinded by the pitch a bit too much and forgotten he's Essex's best bowler!

With Cox not batting, Essex are essentially three down already. But, Elgar and Westley are together and think they will present our biggest challenge today, along with potential rain/bad light...still need a good day to produce a victory.

Another astonishingly poor umpiring decision to not give Westley out off Worrall

In perfect conditions Surrey have bowled very poorly today

Still looks like Surrey's match unless the weather intervenes, especially with the two quick wickes, and it looks like Somerset are playing for a draw in their game, so Surrey should be well clear at the top of the Championship tonight.

This isn’t won by Surrey yet.
Surrey only (for them) with 4 seamers and one of them, Taylor, is bowling like a drain.

Some backsides need a good kick at tea time, this has been atrocious all day from all 4 bowlers on a seam friendly pitch and perfect overhead conditions.....time for our captain....to actually captain

At the ground and the scoreboard is showing our over rate as minus 1. Ways often seem to be found to get rid of this being an issue but atm we potentially face a 1 point deduction. Possibly more Lawrence or still go for the win and the 8 points that go with it even if we lose one??

Surrey need to realise that Harmer is not a mug. They keep bowling well wide of the stumps and he’s more than happy to watch the ball go by as he stays on 0 but now from 24 deliveries faced.

Hi Guildford
Your reverse jinxing did the trick, with Walter removed.

Do I understand correctly that Kent are missing Cox, and so it's only two tail end wickets to get?

Yes, Cox started the game but went into hospital on the first evening and had his appendix out. No subs allowed for that and so Essex are now effectively 8 down.

guildfordbat wrote:Yes, Cox started the game but went into hospital on the first evening and had his appendix out. No subs allowed for that and so Essex are now effectively 8 down.

I've always thought this not allowing replacements under such circumstances in unfair, but you play to the ruled that exist...

The bar is open

At last! We needed 7 good balls to win today, and amongst the dross we eventually bowled them....feel a bit for Essex missing Cox, may have been different 11 v 11

dummy_half wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Yes, Cox started the game but went into hospital on the first evening and had his appendix out. No subs allowed for that and so Essex are now effectively 8 down.

I've always thought this not allowing replacements under such circumstances in unfair, but you play to the ruled that exist...

The whole concept of subs in cricket is very difficult for me to get my head around.

On the face of it, Cox not having a sub seems unfair. However, if a player has a grumbling appendix and takes a chance he'll be ok to last the game*, should he be allowed a sub if his condition worsens? I would suggest not. Players should not start a game if there's a reasonable concern they won't be able to finish it.

Subs are allowed for concussion. That's probably fair and sensible. However, if a batsman and bowler collide when a quick single is being attempted, one could theoretically end up with concussion whilst the other breaks a leg. Very harsh on the one with the busted leg not being allowed a sub whilst the other can.

Should you be able to use subs for all medical conditions? I believe subs are also allowed for Covid. Understandable. However, how far do you extend it? For example, a bowler is depressed and anxious after an awful first spell. Should he be allowed a sub? The immediate answer of (nearly) all of us, I'm sure, would be no. However, depression and anxiety are recognised ailments so perhaps a case could be made.

I'm not trying to give any answers here but show the current position is far from ideal which tbf isn't that surprising given it's a tricky and complex wide ranging subject.


* I've no knowledge this was the case with Cox and am not suggesting it was.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote: ...

Really surprised that Harmer hasn't bowled more in the game - seems to me like he's got blinded by the pitch a bit too much and forgotten he's Essex's best bowler!

...

 

We had a bit of luck in this game for sure. Obviously Cox dropping out plus Taylor and Lawes picking up a combined 3 wickets in Essex's first dig despite bowling poorly. However, probably on a par with Cox and in line with Olly's post, a massive break for us was Essex hardly giving Harmer a bowl.

I readily acknowledge the track was the greenest green wicket I've ever seen (I was there days 2 and 4) which was undoubtedly prepared to lessen Harmer's impact. However, Harmer's a class act and should have been trusted to use his experience in still being a handful through subtle variations in his flight, speed and pitch.

PS and edit: Olly - rereading your insert, I wonder if you thought Harmer was captaining Essex. It was actually Westley. He (Westley) does it in red ball and Harmer, I think, in white ball.

guildfordbat wrote:

dummy_half wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Yes, Cox started the game but went into hospital on the first evening and had his appendix out. No subs allowed for that and so Essex are now effectively 8 down.

I've always thought this not allowing replacements under such circumstances in unfair, but you play to the ruled that exist...

The whole concept of subs in cricket is very difficult for me to get my head around.

On the face of it, Cox not having a sub seems unfair. However, if a player has a grumbling appendix and takes a chance he'll be ok to last the game*, should he be allowed a sub if his condition worsens? I would suggest not. Players should not start a game if there's a reasonable concern they won't be able to finish it.

Subs are allowed for concussion. That's probably fair and sensible. However, if a batsman and bowler collide when a quick single is being attempted, one could theoretically end up with concussion whilst the other breaks a leg. Very harsh on the one with the busted leg not being allowed a sub whilst the other can.

Should you be able to use subs for all medical conditions? I believe subs are also allowed for Covid. Understandable. However, how far do you extend it? For example, a bowler is depressed and anxious after an awful first spell. Should he be allowed a sub? The immediate answer of (nearly) all of us, I'm sure, would be no. However, depression and anxiety are recognised ailments so perhaps a case could be made.

I'm not trying to give any answers here but show the current position is far from ideal which tbf isn't that surprising given it's a tricky and complex wide ranging subject.


* I've no knowledge this was the case with Cox and am not suggesting it was.

I'd draw the line at 'physically incapable of playing'. I'd also not mind if this required the assessment of an independent doctor (as used to be the case in rugby union) - it's pretty rare in cricket that a substitute (other than a replacement fielder) is required immediately.
Obviously, cricket has had some issues with player's mental health (most famously Trescothick), but in those circumstances I would say the onus ins on the player and selectors to not put a player who is struggling mentally on the field. Sport is about competition, and that includes an element of mental dominance over your opponent, so I don't see how you could allow a replacement for a player's mental condition (noting that there is a difference between being down because of poor performanc and being clinically depressed).