SURREY VS YORKSHIRE/SOMERSET SPECSAVERS COUNTY CHAMPIONSHIP

SURREY HAVE NAMED A 13 MAN SQUAD, INCLUDING MARK STONEMAN AND KUMAR SANGAKKARA, FOR THE VISIT OF YORKSHIRE IN THE SPECSAVERS COUNTY CHAMPIONSHIP, STARTING ON TUESDAY 12 SEPTEMBER.
Surrey, however, will now be without Jason Roy and Tom Curran for the rest of the season due to their England white ball commitments.
Conor McKerr will be unavailable for the remainder of the campaign having sustained an ankle injury.
There is no place in the squad for Scott Borthwick after a run of poor form but there is for Freddie Van den Burgh
THE FULL SQUAD IS:
Gareth Batty (c)
Rory Burns
Rikki Clarke
Sam Curran
Jade Dernbach
Ben Foakes (wk)
Stuart Meaker
Ryan Patel
Ollie Pope
Kumar Sangakkara
Mark Stoneman
Freddie van den Bergh
Amar Virdi
The burger van plus either Dernbach or Virdi to miss out need the corporal for a weather update to decide the last spot.
Over to you chaps

Cheers, JimBob.

Seems a bit odd for us to include 3 spinners in the squad if we are only going to play one. Burger Van would improve the batting but I don't see that anything has happened to put him ahead of Virdi with the ball which should be the main consideration. Perhaps Batty is carrying an injury?

I'll say Freddie and Meaker to miss out but suspect we don't know the full story.

Yorks missing Root, Bairstow, Rashid and Plunkett on England ODI duty.

I'm going on day one. For those unable to make it, coverage is available on a live stream with comms. 10.30 start, remember!

BURGER VAN PLAYS THE END IS COMING FOLKS HE ACTUALLY PLAYS

Virdi and Dernbach miss out

Slap in the face for Virdi that

That was a somewhat unexpected selection! Freddie's been doing OK in the second team of recent times - albeit nothing particularly to suggest he will be a stellar performer in the first team.  Will be interesting to see where he bats - no doubt he'll be ahead of Batty, but he might also come in ahead of Clarke, whose batting has faded a lot in recent times. Difficult to see our bowling attack dismissing Yorks twice.  Remarkable that one of Yorks' opening bowlers - Ryan Sidebottom - is only a few months short of age 40.

Maybe it was a slap in the chops for Virdi but Burger Van has had to put up with more for longer.
Freddie's inclusion even seems a bit of a surprise here at the Oval. He's not listed on the scorecard (Dernbach shown) and is only shown in the team line up on the electronic scoreboard at number 11.
Burns and Stoneman batting well and sensibly. 36/0 off 11. Sidebottom looking well down on pace.

I wonder if this is a bit of a "showcase" for Freddie? Is his contract up after this season? I wonder if the club might be doing him a favour if it is...for his service (and playing which will aid him getting a contract with another county potentially)

Olly - yes, Freddie's contract is up at the end of this season. Understand your thinking about doing him a favour for his services but I'm not sure Stewart would do that.

Meanwhile, Rocky closing in on a deserved 50.

Maybe we're having a look at him to see if his contract is worth renewing then? Especially if they know Batty might be retiring?

Stoneman moves onto 53* - he's been magnificent to watch at my desk whilst doing as minimal work as possible!!

50* to Stoneage Man. With 11 boundaries.

Agree with Guildford - I doubt that Surrey would pick Freddie as a favour. I suspect it's partly a defensive move to bolster the batting. Probably the thinking goes that Surrey are struggling to bowl any side out twice - whoever they pick. But should be reasonable safe from relegation if we pick up a draw and a decent haul of batting points.

Excellent morning for Surrey - 126 - 0 at lunch, Stoneman 72* and Burns 50* scored at a decent rate with 22 boundaries between them. (Stoneman has now scored exactly 900 runs in the cc this season, and Burns is only three runs away from doing that.)

Interesting to note that Sibley doing what he does best this morning - battled to 17* off 80 balls as Warks struggle (75 - 3) against Essex.

Rory Burns triggered off his leg for 75 - didn't look out to me on the stream...

Century for Stoneman. Shame that, as so often, Burns didn't make it all the way to three figures as well - but 75 in an opening parnership of 178 was still a very fine effort.

Top three run scorers in division one this season

The King - 1086
Stoneman - 929 (and going)
Burns - 922

Sangakkara is top of the run scorers by over 150 runs despite playing at least 5/6 less innings than everyone else

Stoneman falls for a fine 131 after a useful partnership of 55 with Ryan Patel, (who is rather digging in with 15* off 46 balls) 233 - 2. Hopefully, King Sanga will keep the momentum going.

Stoneman departs for a lovely 131, Surrey are 233-2 off 56.4 overs. Really no excuses for not gaining full batting points from here, especially as with Batty/Meaker/Burger Van we have no "rabbits" like we did when Mr Footitt was playing

Patel out for 27. Pity that, as he seemed to be steadily building a solid innings. Important we don't squander the excellent start. Foakes in next, ahead of Pope. 255 - 3.

Rafiq off injured with a pulled calf. That's a real blow for Yorks. Foakes was missed off him at slip by Bresnan 2 or 3 overs earlier. If that had been taken, it could have got Yorks back in the game. As it is, Surrey looking comortably in charge with Sanga masterful. Leaning takes over from Rafiq and looks very much the lightweight against these two. 19 overs left today, 307/3 - if we don't self destruct, we should be very well placed at stumps.

Another 50 for King Sanga - including some cracking boundaries. Foakes going along well too. 325 - 3. New ball taken...

398 - 3 at the close. Great day's batting topped off really well by unbroken partnership between the peerless Sanga and Foakes. Good batting strip but commentators critical of the number of boundaries conceded by the Yorks bowlers. That should be the full set of batting points achieved first thing tomorrow. Important we have done well batting wise as Somerset have three batting points and may yet achieve another with their last pair at the crease.

I imagine Surrey will be wanting really to press on tomorrow to at least 550 plus. Tho there could be something to be said for not going overly adventurous with the stroke play in the first hour tomorrow, in order to restrict Yorks to just one bowling point.

I think we can call that a good day right?

Personally I would look to get through to 110 overs without losing anymore wickets to restrict Yorks wicket bonus points - then look to try and push onto make 550-600 and declare sometime before tea.

Either way, we've put ourselves in a position where we shouldn't lose, which is ultimately all that is needed to survive...

Although I was at the ground, I also listened on an ear piece to Church and co (the Radio York guy Dave Callaghan has a beautifully soothing voice - I'm a bit concerned I find it so appealing! ). Anyway, agreed with them about the number of boundaries. Yorks' bowling was good in parts but there were just too many four balls. With a short boundary on the Gasholder side, Stoneman, Sanga and (towards the end with his confidence growing) Foakes made sure they did not miss out.

Sanga was majestic and I adore his continuing hunger to scamper runs but my man of the day was Stoneman. Very impressed by his cutting, driving and especially general placement. So often the ball would be hit to the side of a fielder and then win the race to the rope. One area of Patel's game where imo he could learn from Stoneman is in regard to placement. His innings contained some decent strokes but too often picked out a fielder and went unrewarded. Patel was actually starting to look as if he might crack on when he fell to a beaut from Sidebottom, Yorks' best bowler in one of his final games (Church said he retires at the end of this season).

Along with Stoneman, a good morning's work from Burns to set things up so well. A shame Burns didn't fully go on - he was unhappy about being out but I was unsure if that was his shot or the decision.

I agree with Olly as to what we should try to achieve from here although another 150 / 200 might be some way off if we lose one or two wickets quickly in the morning. Need to keep our wickets, be prepared to be patient early on and then power on.

Anyway, a really good day. Just wish we could have had more like it earlier in the season.

King Sanga duly completes an apparently effortless century. Currently averaging over 400 against Yorks this season according to Churchy We're certainly going to miss him.

Can we start a fundraiser to stop Sanga from retiring? A petition to parliament? SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:King Sanga duly completes an apparently effortless century.              Currently averaging over 400 against Yorks this season according to Churchy  We're certainly going to miss him.

Think Olly in particular might like this one from Churchy - Sanga has now scored centuries against Yorks in red, white and pink ball cricket.

We've lost a wicket or two more than we would have preferred this morning but the most important thing was to move the score on by lunchtime and we've achieved that well. Keep going for a bit this afternoon and then set about them with the ball.

Good to already have no worries of defeat. A minimum of 10 points virtually assured although I'm looking for a lot more here. I apologise now for the jinx but the Yorks batting line up looks nothing special.

Gary Ballance 179 (413) incoming now thanks to guildfords last comment

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:I think we can call that a good day right?

Personally I would look to get through to 110 overs without losing anymore wickets to restrict Yorks wicket bonus points - then look to try and push onto make 550-600 and declare sometime before tea.

Either way, we've put ourselves in a position where we shouldn't lose, which is ultimately all that is needed to survive...

Just looking in and seeing you Surrey chaps have reason to be happy about the situation - and fair enough.

But : the fact that the points system and the promotion/relegation thing rather compels teams to take this approach of restricting bonus points for their opponents . Instead of trying to win the match might suggest that the system isn't perfect for breeding cricketers for the international game ?
I can see why bonus points are important , with the threat of bad weather fairly constant But it bothers me a bit that they can prove so decisive as to distort team tactics away from the primary purpose of playing to win...

Perhaps I'm nitpicking ...if so , apologies. I've played in club leagues with and without bonus points ; but never in one where the maximum points for a draw can reach such a high level as against those awarded for a modest victory : is it possible they need a bit of a tweak to encourage attacking play throughout rather than getting a great start to a match and then seeking safety ?

Alfie - that's probably fair although I feel the comments here relate to the points system as it is rather than what we would necessarily like it to be.

The current system does tend to encourage the mentality of retaining any points advantage over your opponents and not losing the match rather than seeking to win it. That can then all go out of the window at the very end of the season as some teams are desperate for the extra few winning points to try for the Championship title, secure promotion or avoid relegation.

The biggest issue though imo is the scheduling of fixtures. Extremely little 4 day stuff is now played in July and August when the weather is normally at its best. If there were more matches then, I feel we would see a more positive mindset adopted, knowing that the game would be more likely to reach a proper conclusion.

Yeah I am not meaning to knock Surrey for this game : as you say , it is what it is - and frankly you'd be mad not to play it the way suggested above (especially given your attack hasn't done very well this year in terms of dismissing opponents cheaply)

Just noting in passing the flaws I see in the points system. I certainly agree the scheduling could be better ! Though with the money men and their love-in with the limited over game that may not be about to change...

Alfie

To emphasise your point, look at the CC table as currently stands - Surrey are 10 points better off than Yorkshire having only won 1 CC match to Yorkshire's 3. The differences are that Surrey have drawn 9 matches and only lost 1 compared with Yorkshire having drawn 4 and lost 4, and Surrey have eleventy billion more batting points.

Conclusion: You can achieve a respectable mid-table position by preparing absolute roads, scoring bags of runs and never win or lose a match.

Borthwick has scored a 100 for the 2's

Maybe we should have let him go and get some runs under his belt a month or so back?

70-0 off 16 in reply. Either a very good pitch or our lack of decent bowlers is again evident.

Hi again Alfie - I forget the details but there's been a right stink in one of the English Northern leagues recently where a team leading the league batted first and declared on something like 20/2 in the last game of the season. The team concerned knew their opponents and nearest title challengers could only catch them if they (their opponents) won and picked up a few bonus points in that final game. Although the team declaring lost the match as a consequence (obviously), they ensured that no bonus points were available and appear to have won the league by one point.

In my book, never mind winning the league - they would have been thrown out of that and every league going! However, they maintain they acted within the rules. As far as I'm aware, the row continues to simmer on. I appreciate this is moving on from your original post but it does show the absurd priority being given by some to points rather than wins.

Guildford

I'd put the actions of the club you describe there as totally against the spirit of cricket, in the same way as the incident in the CPL game recently where the bowler (Pollard?) bowled a no ball to lose the match and deny the opposing batsman the chance to complete a century. Both cases should involve heavy fines and bans for those involved in making these decisions. Surely somewhere there is a 'bringing the game into disrepute' or similar clause.

Your situation at the Oval is somewhat different, in that pitches have become easy batting tracks as they've lost the edge of pace and bounce of a decade or so ago, and so you inevitably are playing out a lot of high scoring draws where the edge in bonus points is important. A bit of strategy may occasionally be justified to maximise the points you get and minimise those of your opponents, but not to the significant detriment of the overall match situation. BTW, I notice that Surrey got off to a flyer this morning anyway, so didn't heed the advice above regarding trying to protect wickets until the end of the bonus point period (and Yorkshire didn't take any further wickets anyway).

Dummy - yes, I would totally have expected a 'bringing the game into disrepute' charge to kick in. It seems to be taking its time if that is going to happen.

I am told (reliably, I believe) that the current roads at the Oval are not the result of any deliberate planning and whilst the ground staff are endeavouring to get a better balance between bat and ball, that is not a speedy process. I think it's also fair to say that management, players and supporters want the risks that go with a Championship challenge far more than semi-guaranteed mid table security.

79 for the last 7 wkts is disgraceful should have got well over 700 on that wkt no chance of 20 wkts on that
match drawn

Watching on the stream.

Freddie flipping a few and not giving much away. The odd ball keeping low. 20 wickets is a heck of a long way off but I feel 1 may lead to 2 etc. In other words, not confident of the win but - unlike JimBob - still hoping.

Guildford

If I remember rightly, around the late 80s (perhaps early 90s) there was a move to 'improve' the wickets at England's (then) Test venues by using an imported loam soil similar to that found in the West Indies (where wickets were fast and bouncy at the time). The Oval was the one that took best at the time hence the reputation as a good fast bowlers / batting wicket, but over time the soil has degraded and has resulted in a loss of pace without gaining much by way of lateral movement or spin. I'm not aware of them having done much on-going work more recently.

I agree that something needs to be done - it's not as though you have a bad bowling line-up, but it seems that taking 20 opposing wickets is pretty much a thankless task on this surface.

Alfie - I think in many ways Surrey are the exception that proves the rule.  

In general teams at the top of the Div 1 table have won quite a few matches, and teams at the bottom have won very few - and lost plenty.  I very much doubt that Surrey are setting out aiming for draws - it's just that their batting has been very strong (when star players available), their bowling lacking penetration, and pitches too good for results.  

I actually think the balance overall achieved in the current points system is quite good. After all, Somerset had had an appalling season - but they beat Warks recently and may now beat Lancs for just their second victory of the season. If so, that will put them right back in the mix for avoiding relegation.

If you look back a few seasons when there were minimal points for a draw (only 3 points - as at 2013) the criticism then (and valid in my view) was that too many teams simply gave up the ghost and folded when they were down in the match. Whereas now you get some really good final day finishes with teams fighting hard for the draw. Surrey themselves have featured in a number of games this season when either they or the opposition has had to fight really hard on day 4 before the draw was secured. A number of those games might well have ended in a positive result.

Van den Bergh's first ever Championship wicket! A nicely tossed up ball outside off and an edge to point.

Yay - a wicket! Well done, Freddie!

Good effort from Freddie. 1/37 from 17, that's proper bowling on this track.

A shame for us that Yorks didn't send in a nightwatchman (I rarely like them).

Can we stop them avoiding the follow on? Probably not but let's give it a go!

Burger van served up a good batch there

Shame he couldn't do it when it really mattered against Southampton Solent University, eh.

JDizzle wrote:Shame he couldn't do it when it really mattered against Southampton Solent University, eh.

We all have our irrational county cricketer hatred JDizzle - for me it is Callum Taylor of Essex - yours truly got him caught and bowled in a school game and had the last laugh though

JDizzle wrote:Shame he couldn't do it when it really mattered against Southampton Solent University, eh.

Jimbo H has been banging on for two days about Uxbridge and now you pop up whinging about the student Burger Van!

Today looks a more difficult batting day and Yorks still need 270+ to avoid the follow on. Just saying. #hopethatgetsyou

THE BURGER VAN IS ON FIRE

1st and final bowling point

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:THE BURGER VAN IS ON FIRE

Burger van ten wicket haul incoming