SURREY VS LANCASHIRE SPECSAVERS COUNTY CHAMPIONSHIP

SURREY HAVE NAMED A UNCHANGED SQUAD FOR THE SECOND SPECSAVERS COUNTY CHAMPIONSHIP GAME OF THE SEASON, AGAINST LANCASHIRE AT THE KIA OVAL OVER EASTER WEEKEND.
FULL SURREY SQUAD
Gareth Batty (captain)
Zafar Ansari
Scott Borthwick
Rory Burns
Sam Curran
Tom Curran
Jade Dernbach
Ben Foakes (WK)
Mark Footitt
Stuart Meaker
Kumar Sangakkara
Dominic Sibley
Mark Stoneman
Never change a winning team I sure I read somewhere.
Over to you chaps

Thanks, JimBob.

At Saturday's forum meeting, Stewie emphasised the importance of the squad and that there will be a need to rest and rotate bowlers. However, I can't see that happening yet (unless there's any niggle we don't know about). So, yes, same again imo.

Meanwhile, Lancs have named a 12 man squad. Regular skipper Croft misses out with a thumb injury and so Livingstone leads our visitors. Anderson is rested on ECB orders (that's good for Surrey but not imo for cricket). Kerrigan and Saqib Mahmood, Olly's tip for 2017, are added to those who were on duty in their draw at Essex.

I agree with the Anderson and broad resting personally

I'd bring Zaf in for Batty and bat him at 6, especially with our lower order not in good nick. But I would think it's an unchanged team

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:I agree with the Anderson and broad resting personally

I'd bring Zaf in for Batty and bat him at 6, especially with our lower order not in good nick. But I would think it's an unchanged team

Olly - I wish my great-uncle was still around to talk to you youngsters about resting! He was a professional footballer in the 1920s and '30s. At that time, teams played on Christmas Day and Boxing Day. In 1930, Christmas Day fell on a Thursday so he not only played that day and the next day but also Saturday 27th. There was no thought of postponing the usual Saturday fixtures. Thus, 3 games in 3 days. He also played on Thursday 1st and Saturday 3rd January. ''It was what the supporters expected and we had the summer to rest'' was how he explained it to me without complaint.

I'm not actually holding that up as the way things should be done but I do feel the pendulum has swung too far the other way as far as cricket goes.

guildfordbat wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:I agree with the Anderson and broad resting personally

I'd bring Zaf in for Batty and bat him at 6, especially with our lower order not in good nick. But I would think it's an unchanged team

Olly - I wish my great-uncle was still around to talk to you youngsters about resting!  He was a professional footballer in the 1920s and '30s. At that time, teams played on Christmas Day and Boxing Day. In 1930, Christmas Day fell on a Thursday so he not only played that day and the next day but also Saturday 27th. There was no thought of postponing the usual Saturday fixtures. Thus, 3 games in 3 days. He also played on Thursday 1st and Saturday 3rd January. ''It was what the supporters expected and we had the summer to rest'' was how he explained it to me without complaint.

I'm not actually holding that up as the way things should be done but I do feel the pendulum has swung too far the other way as far as cricket goes.

I'm thinking more from the sense they're central contracted players - so really the "ECB's" players so to speak. England can ill afford them to be over bowled when there's such a heavy summer and winter schedule to come

Olly - part of my issue here is that I struggle to accept these players are or should be effectively owned by the ECB. I probably care as much (or maybe even a bit more) about the counties and the supporters who go to watch them as I do about England. My problem.

Risk of some rain and bad light during the latter part of tomorrow. Hopefully, it won't impinge until at or near the end of scheduled play.

I expect to see an unchanged team, though with the frailties of our lower order, undoubtedly selection of Ansari instead of Batty would strengthen batting department.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Risk of some rain and bad light during the latter part of tomorrow. Hopefully, it won't impinge until at or near the end of scheduled play.

Forecast has improved overnight - looks likely any rain won't be until this evening. (Especially for Guildford's benefit!)

Thanks, Corporal. I note you've ducked my question on the other thread about the trains!

Approaching Vauxhall on the train. Cloudy and overcast. Could understand bowling first today although I still wouldn't!

Ansari for Jade - did not see that change coming at all

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Ansari for Jade - did not see that change coming at all

Three seamers in April when there's overcast conditions forecast

Lancs 63 - 4.  Wicket each for the Currans - and now two for Footitt.

Wow! Now Footitt gets Villas second ball!

Surrey handed great start to season by ineptitude of opposing captains. Warwicks should have batted first last week and Lancs should have bowled first today.

If he keeps this up Footitt is going to find himself back in England contention

Dernbach must be gutted

Don't know much about Clark but he's playing very well. Sensible aggression. Looking for a boundary and a single most overs.

Chanderpaul just dropped by Borthwick on 47 off TC.

Can't understand our not playing a 4th seamer. Meaks and Dernbach sharing 12th man duties - such a waste!

Don't agree with Sir Fred above. Conditions good for bowling but track also looks good for batting. It was very fine bowling and ordinary batting imo that did for Lancs.

I just don't understand the selection policy today - why change the formula that worked so well last week to one that failed so badly at the start of last season?

Looks like I was wrong about batting first as Clark scorches to a century!

Lancs on top after day one - just I'd say. Guildford - did the three seamers tire as the day went on? Seems like it...

Back home. Left a bit after bad light stopped play, so missed the last 8 of the 79 overs bowled today.

From a Surrey perspective, I certainly saw the best of the play That was undoubtedly this morning when we were near top form with the ball and in the field. The 3 seamers bowled well and shared equally 27 overs with the one maiden from Ansari to finish the first session. Mind you, we were aided by some ordinary batting from Lancs. Vilas appeared the most gormless, sticking a pad in front of a straight one from Footitt. Unlike Sir Fred, I thought it was that sort of batting that let Lancs down and not Livingstone's choice on winning the toss. Even though the weather was grey and overcast, the track (I saw it close up at lunch) looked good - not last week's wicket (much closer now to the Gasometer) so no cracks at this stage, hardly any green either, just smooth and brown.

However, where we massively goofed was not playing the 4th seamer. As Olly said earlier, that served us so well against Warks and the conditions suited seam bowling even more today. Replacing Dernbach with Ansari made little sense. Admittedly that should strengthen the batting but surely the priority has to be the taking of 20 wickets.

Batty and Ansari were bowling in tandem at 2:45 this afternoon - first day, still grey and overcast and bl**dy cold! They probably had to do that as the seamers needed a break but it was still a ridiculous state of affairs.

I was very impressed by Clark. Full of aggressive intent but sensible at the same time. Often he seemed to hit the first ball of the over to (or above) the ropes and he nearly always did that with any bad ball as well. However, he didn't get too carried away and seemed comfortable at taking singles and blocking the good ball. At the other end, Chanderpaul was full of moving arms and legs but played the part of the wily old pro and stuck in there. Expensive miss when Borthwick dropped him at slip off Tom Curran.

Footitt was Surrey's best bowler as his 3 wickets suggest. However, if he is to fulfil Test ambitions, he needs more consistency with his deliveries. A few too many deliveries were very leg side - that wouldn't be tolerated at the highest level of the game. Also cost the excellent Foakes 4 byes.

Very difficult to say what a par score is having seen only one side bat but my guess on this track and in the current conditions (which probably won't change much) is circa 320. A bit concerning that Lancs are almost there.

That's the Surrey we know and love

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Lancs on top after day one - just I'd say. Guildford - did the three seamers tire as the day went on? Seems like it...

Hi Olly - just seen your post here. To confirm and in line with my main post - yes, they all did tire. I think both Tom Curran and Footitt bowled their 9 overs in the morning on the reel. That was at least one too many and probably two for each of them. To try to correct that, Ansari and Batty bowled together in the afternoon which just didn't work. We were then left trying to get 4 seamers' work out of 3. Would have been worse but for the    overs lost to bad light.

PS Also agree about Lancs narrowly being on top as per my guess at a par score of 320.

I would have gone for the Currans, Footitt and Meaker. Borthwick bowls spin and needs to be bowling. You could say that Lancs have just got Jarvis. I don't see how the rest of our bowlers are able to take 50 wickets a season. 6 spin options in the teams but last match the Surrey seam bowlers took 19 and 1 to spin. Is it a different pitch?

Jetty wrote:I would have gone for the Currans, Footitt and Meaker. Borthwick bowls spin and needs to be bowling. You could say that Lancs have just got Jarvis. I don't see how the rest of our bowlers are able to take 50 wickets a season. 6 spin options in the teams but last match the Surrey seam bowlers took 19 and 1 to spin. Is it a different pitch?

Hi Jetty - it's a different pitch. I commented a bit about the pitch in my main post of yesterday evening above. One thing to emphasise is that it's a short boundary on one side, for those who know the ground - by the Gasometer. Livingstone will presumably take that and all our top 4 being left handers into account as best he can when giving Parry and Kerrigan a bowl.

Given the one side short boundary, I'll revise my very rough and ready par score to 340. Lancs still ahead in the game in my book although that could turn about to be a goof (another one, eh Chichester?! ).

329/6 after the first hour today. We haven't bowled and fielded badly at all but these two are batting really well. Partnership now above 200 and it's brighter weather than yesterday - gulp!

guildfordbat wrote:329/6 after the first hour today. We haven't bowled and fielded badly at all but these two are batting really well. Partnership now above 200 and it's brighter weather than yesterday - gulp!

If only Surrey had a bowler who can break big partnership and prize out wickets on batting wickets with pure pace....

Oh no wait a minute they do - they're just not playing him

Chanderpaul noticeably limping (? Hamstring) and has a runner. We should be sticking some fast stuff up his nose and making him hop about even more but still persist with Batty and Ansari in tandem.

Lunch today at 1:15 as we play extra overs (8, I think) today to partially make up for y'day.

390/7.

5 wkts for Footitt

Lancashire firm favourites now who would have thought that at lunch yesterday

Frustratingly I could see our attack letting sides off the hook a few times this season. We have a very talented group of seamers with plenty of depth but our best bowlers will likely lack some consistency and/or experience:

Footit - A tendency to go for a few if conditions aren't running for him. He's also a rhythm bowler with frequent injury problems which hopefully he can overcome.

Currans - Both hugely talented and our most important bowlers in my opinion if looking at the squad across three formats. Consistency, pressuring set partnerships and ruthlessness will only come with experience though.

Dernbach - Well documented consistency issues and he's frequently lacked wicket taking threat in the longer form for a few seasons.

Rampaul - A more experienced and willy bowler who's very useful in the right conditions. The limited amount of cricket he's played at 32 years old sums up his consistency and fitness issues though.

Meaker - Well known injury and consistency problems have hampered his progress. He can be devastating in form though and I'm very happy he's still at the club.

Dunn - Injury has hampered his progress. Plenty of talent there but it will take time for him to find rhythm again in 1st XI cricket.

Add to that a reliable but unspectacular spin department and I think we may see a few games this season in which our bowlers fortunes change drastically from session to session.

All that negativity out the way it's an attack which overall I'm very happy with and I think can keep developing very well with good coaching! Rotation to keep those seamers fresh will be vital as well.

Back to the game at hand. Our batsmen are now under some pressure to make this game safe over the 2 sessions.

I hope to see that done with significant contributions from Burns and/or Sibley. In these pressure situations too much responsibility has often fallen on Sangakarra. Hopefully our younger top 5 players can stand up to the challenge at hand.

I think we have the bowlers to win the championship personally - but if we're going to make silly selection decisions like this match, then theyre going to struggle.

Zaf needs some runs to justify his selection really

Borthwick

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:I think we have the bowlers to win the championship personally - but if we're going to make silly selection decisions like this match, then theyre going to struggle.

Zaf needs some runs to justify his selection really

I'm not as optimistic as Olly about our Championship chances but certainly agree with what I've put in bold.

I thought the silly decisions continued today when Lancs went 9 down. At the wicket, we not only had a number 11 Kerrigan but with him an injured batsman, Chanderpaul, hobbling around. Footitt was then on fire. It seemed natural to partner him with one of the Currans. Bowl with pace from both ends and stick it up 'em! Instead, Ansari stayed on and remained toothless helping Kerrigan to settle and Chanderpaul to push on further, compiling a useful partnership. When Ansari was finally taken off, he was replaced by Borthwick who got tonked for 25 off his 4 overs. Dreadful - not so much the bowling but the thinking behind it!

Anyway, showers forecast for tomorrow which will increase our chances of a draw. That realistically seems the best result we can get now.

As a minimum, we should be aiming for 321 to avoid the threat of following on. Sorry, JimBob, but I think more than 3 batting bonus points may be tricky. 350 in 110 overs from our current 112/2 off 41.5 doesn't look a cake walk.

We battled pretty well today but having got Lancs' noses in front, Chanderpaul was never going to let that lead slip without a fight. Massive credit to him and also, mainly for his efforts yesterday, Clark.

A couple more wickets today for Footitt from two very good deliveries - fast and taking the edge. However, in line with Carlos' overview, he's still inconsistent - a bit too much too leg side. In contrast, Tom Curran bowls few bad balls but doesn't seem to have many ''blow the batsman away'' deliveries in his locker. It was disappointing that neither (Tom came on eventually) could send Kerrigan on his way. Although not the worst ever number 11 by any means, he should still be meat and drink to a speedster with genuine Test ambitions.

Also disappointing that Borthwick fell after I'd left for the day. I've commented / grumbled recently about Burns getting useful scores but not the big ones that really count. Tomorrow would be a good time to change that.

guildfordbat wrote:

Jetty wrote:I would have gone for the Currans, Footitt and Meaker. Borthwick bowls spin and needs to be bowling. You could say that Lancs have just got Jarvis. I don't see how the rest of our bowlers are able to take 50 wickets a season. 6 spin options in the teams but last match the Surrey seam bowlers took 19 and 1 to spin. Is it a different pitch?

Hi Jetty - it's a different pitch. I commented a bit about the pitch in my main post of yesterday evening above. One thing to emphasise is that it's a short boundary on one side, for those who know the ground - by the Gasometer. Livingstone will presumably take that and all our top 4 being left handers into account as best he can when giving Parry and Kerrigan a bowl.

Given the one side short boundary, I'll revise my very rough and ready par score to 340. Lancs still ahead in the game in my book although that could  turn about to be a goof (another one, eh Chichester?! ).

Thanks guildfordbat. We have used 7 bowlers already. McLaren the overseas going at 5.71 an over.

A family day for me so no cricket watching today. Still keeping up with the score as Mrs Bat cooks the turkey crown!

Solid start by Surrey in the first hour as Burns and Sanga take it to 160/2 off 57 overs. Burns on 74 - want him to double that total today.

Still much that can happen but I suspect JimBob may be sweating on our getting a 4th batting point later on.

177 - 2 at exactly 3 an over.  Good start this morning.  Lots more batting to be done

Burns falls for 91. Frustrating that he didn't get to the century - but in the context of this match, an innings of 91 from 215 balls is a very solid effort.  Burns and Sanga put on 97 - so again not the really heavy scoring partnership that Lancs found - but still a very useful one.

209 - 3.  Deficit 271.

Very much as the Corporal says.

Again Burns makes a very decent contribution. That's admirable but not enough to make the England selectors take notice as some at Surrey feel should be happening.

Goat out in the last over before lunch what is it with our players concentration

And 1 wicket leads to 2 as Sanga falls to Parry. The morning looked like being all Surrey's but it's probably now even or slightly edged by the visitors.

Sanga falls as well, for 46.  Backs to the wall time - now on 216 - 4. Foakes comes in ahead of Ansari.  Could have gone either way - but a clear risk that the scoring in a Sibley/Ansari partnership could grind to a halt and invite ever more pressure.

I believe it's lunch at 1315 today - on account of the lost overs yesterday.

jimbobgooner wrote:Goat out in the last over before lunch what is it with our players concentration

Hi JimBob - well, we've got Solanki on the coaching staff now and he always used to specialise in getting out 5 minutes before or after lunch!

224/4 at lunch (a late lunch as attempts commendably continue to be made to make up the overs lost to bad light on Friday).

Surrey have scored 12/2 in the last 10 overs.

Need to come out and play positively this afternoon - can't have Sibley getting bogged down especially with Zaf next in

guildfordbat wrote:

jimbobgooner wrote:Goat out in the last over before lunch what is it with our players concentration

Hi JimBob - well, we've got Solanki on the coaching staff now and he always used to specialise in getting out 5 minutes before or after lunch!