SURREY VS MIDDLESEX SPECSAVERS COUNTY CHAMPIONSHIP

SURREY HAVE NAMED A TWELVE MAN SQUAD FOR THE SPECSAVERS COUNTY CHAMPIONSHIP GAME AGAINST MIDDLESEX AT LORD’S STARTING ON THURSDAY.
Aaron Finch will play his final game for Surrey before heading to Sri Lanka to join Australia’s Squad for the upcoming One Day Series. Tom Curran returns to the squad after missing the last Championship game due to him playing for the England Lions in the Tri-Series against Sri Lanka A and Pakistan A.
There is no place in the squad for Jade Dernbach,Gary Wilson,Arun Harinath, Matthew Pillans or James Burke
while Matthew Dunn keeps the treatment table busy.
The Surrey squad to play Middlesex in the Specsavers County Championship at Lord’s on Thursday 4th August, Friday 5th August, Saturday 6th August and Sunday 7th August:
Gareth Batty (capt)
Zafar Ansari
Rory Burns
Sam Curran
Tom Curran
Steven Davies
Aaron Finch
Ben Foakes
Mark Footitt
Stuart Meaker
Jason Roy
Dominic Sibley
Will it be Footitt missing out again or is it time for one of the curran boys to carry the drinks?
Over to you chaps

Cheers, JimBob.

I'm glad you haven't cut and pasted the news about Aneesh Kapil being released. His release is not that surprising or something I can argue with but it was very shoddy of the Club to try and hide it in a match preview.

I feel Tom will come back in. Going round in circles as to who misses out. Most likely imo to be Sam and then Footitt. There's even a case for playing the 6 bowlers and batting Foakes and the Currans at 6, 7, 8 with one of the batsmen on the bench - but there again, who?

S*d it, I'll say Sam as twelfthie but really need expert guidance from James. I'm also thinking of going on Friday - Corporal, you owe us a good weather forecast!

I'll follow your lead Guildford and say Sam to miss out and also that Footit is most likely if they decide otherwise.

Last match was the first time our opening partnership has really clicked all season, so hoping for more of the same this time out. They'll be especially wanting to contribute as Stoneman is likely to have one of the two opening slots next year.

Just got a hunch Meaker will miss this one

I think Meaker and Footitt will play and probably Sam Curran will miss out.

Have watched that spectacular Foakes catch last night a few times on the highlights!

Middlesex have named a 14 man squad including usual suspects Rayner and Toblerone Jones plus Surrey old boy Murtagh. Compton also returns although Robson and Fuller miss out with side injuries whilst Finn sets about Pakistan.

Good start. Toss won - again! We bat - had to imo.

And it's Footitt who misses out.

Sibley and Ansari out early

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Sibley and Ansari out early

Threatening to go belly up after our recent optimism. Both wickets to Murtagh who probably didn't get a fair crack of the whip in his Oval days.

Good thing is that we have recent centurion Gareth Batty slated to come in at 10 - so our tail is very short!

112/3. Burns and Roy steadying the ship. Mind you, Rayner hasn't bowled yet. Please don't let him bowl an over before lunch and add yet another Surrey wicket to his collection!

Rayner gets his over but not his man. 6 balls bowled at Roy and one boundary. Phew!

125/3 off 27 at lunch. Burns 51, Roy 31. We haven't turned things around but it's a lot better position that when Roy went to the crease with the board showing 70/3. Vital that these two kick on. As Stewie keeps saying, we need the frontline batsmen to score more than fifties once they get in.

Feel the next session is going to have a large influence on the match ....

Roy's got his fifty and a good stand here from these two. Shame to see low scores for Sibley, and especially Ansari—from memory he hasn't really got started in FC cricket with the bat this year.

Disappointed by the call to select Sam over Footit and really hope it wasn't for the extra batting.

230-4 - Burns fell just short of a century but a good knock nonetheless - Roy going well on 81*, Davies 16* (and has hit Rayner for a maximum already!)

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:230-4 - Burns fell just short of a century but a good knock nonetheless - Roy going well on 81*, Davies 16* (and has hit Rayner for a maximum already!)

Good certainly but not match winning and once you have 70 odd to your name that's what you should be looking to do. Does that sound grumpy and greedy? Well, yes it does but it's Stewart's view and I understand it.

PS Pleasing that Rayner's bowling got what it deserved there from Davies.

Roy into the nervous nineties

Yes Jase!

Roy gets his ton

Now keep going and make it really count.

Afternoon, JimBob. 2 points in the bag already so can't moan too much.

Can now Guildford Davies gets out in the last over before tea to rayner

If Roy is still in at the end of play we could end up with 400+ on day one...

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:If Roy is still in at the end of play we could end up with 400+ on day one...

Yes, that's right and I hope that's how it turns out.

Another alternative though is that Rayner works more of his filthy magic and we're all out for 310.

Really poor from Davies

Roy gone

3rd batting point

jimbobgooner wrote:Really poor from Davies

Yeah, I'm not a fan. Too often he flatters to deceive. Elegance not enough, more fight wanted in my book.

302/6 off 69. Going to be a late one.

Even though Olly regards another century from Batty as guaranteed , I would settle for us scraping together another 98 runs.

need baby face and that's all to get us close to that mark guildford

jimbobgooner wrote:need baby face and that's all to get us close to that mark guildford

Yep, although I think it'll be pushing it to get 400. Not given up hope yet though.

323/7 off 79. Sam gone now.

We could be bowling before stumps.

Better. 351/7. 4th batting point.

33 needed off 13 overs

Just come in.  Sounds like a reasonable day for Surrey, especially with this useful and fairly rapid partnership of 48* between Foakes and Tom Curran taking us to four batting points.  Excellent that Roy at last got the kind of score in cc that he ought to be piling up regularly.

367/7 off 87. That's really slow going at this time of day - don't know why so slow.

9 overs left. Be good if we can take our knock into the start of day two. Even better if we can get that 400 ....

Tom Curran goes lbw for 26.  That's the fifth lbw of the innings - hope the umpires are equally accommodating when it's Surrey's turn to bowl.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Tom Curran goes lbw for 26.  That's the fifth lbw of the innings - hope the umpires are equally accommodating when it's Surrey's turn to bow.

Was just about to note this myself - hopefully they haven't worn out their trigger fingers....

Don't know if they've been sharing out the lbw decisions but I've thought before that umpire Millns has it in for us.

50/50 for the final batting point

Olly / Corporal and all - do you know if you can look up online the numbers for the different types of dismissals that a player has had in his career? For example - bowled 22 times, caught 90 times, run out 5 times, etc.

I'm interested to check Sibley's record. My perception is that he's out lbw a lot. Thanks.

384-8 at the close of play - Foakes moving past fifty to keep up his good season. A very good day for Surrey I reckon - should be able to get full batting points with a few throws of the bat from Batty in the morning, and who knows maybe we could push up towards 450...

From 23-2 half an hour into the morning session - a good deal of character shown, Roy and Burns the standout performers

jimbobgooner wrote:50/50 for the final batting point

Yeah, a game within a game but the odds probably more in our favour now.

Good as well that the Middlesex opening batsmen will have to go out and field in the morning before having to dash off and then be out there again just ten minutes later facing the new ball. I know (itk, JimBob ) that Stewie is always keen to reduce as much as possible the time that opposition openers have to prepare for their knock - that's a major reason why we batted on beyond tea on day two at Hants last time out.

To Middlesex's credit, not a single no ball, wide or bye - normally those would have given us another 15 to 20 runs and probably seen us to 400 today.

guildfordbat wrote:Olly / Corporal  and all - do you know if you can look up online the numbers for the different types of dismissals that a player has had in his career? For example - bowled 22 times, caught 90 times, run out 5 times, etc.

I'm interested to check Sibley's record. My perception is that he's out lbw a lot. Thanks.

Sorry Guildford gonna fire a blank on this one - guess if you're real bored you could get up the scorecards of all Sibley's first class matches and note it down (he's played what about 20 first class games so far?)

I've already done this week's homework,Guildford, on Batty's propensity to win the toss! 

To update you on that, Surrey have won the toss in 11 out of 12 cc matches this season so far.   (They lost the toss against Middlesex in mid May.)

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Olly / Corporal  and all - do you know if you can look up online the numbers for the different types of dismissals that a player has had in his career? For example - bowled 22 times, caught 90 times, run out 5 times, etc.

I'm interested to check Sibley's record. My perception is that he's out lbw a lot. Thanks.

Sorry Guildford gonna fire a blank on this one - guess if you're real bored you could get up the scorecards of all Sibley's first class matches and note it down (he's played what about 20 first class games so far?)

Cheers anyway, Olly. Just interested as to whether such info was out there in cyber space and, if so, easily available. I'll leave it at that but will look out in the future for how Sibley gets dismissed and watch his footwork when I actually see him at the crease. If my perception is right, it makes me wonder about his footwork.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:I've already done this week's homework,Guildford, on Batty's propensity to win the toss! 

To update you on that, Surrey have won the toss in 11 out of 12 cc matches this season so far.   (They lost the toss against Middlesex in mid May.)

That's an excellent piece of homework, Corporal.

I gather then that this new fangled nonsense of the visiting skipper being entitled to dispense with the toss and bowl hasn't been taken up by Batty or his opposite number in any Surrey matches.

guildfordbat wrote:I gather then that this new fangled nonsense of the visiting skipper being entitled to dispense with the toss and bowl hasn't been taken up by Batty or his opposite number in any Surrey matches.

 Woops - sorry forgot about that!  There was one match (away to Notts) where Surrey elected to bowl.  So figure should be Surrey won 10/11 tosses.

Full batting points

Another LBW!

Right guys.  Looks like frequent LBW appeals is the way to go!

Middlesex 17 - 1.  Tom Curran bags first wicket, lbw.