SURREY VS LANCASHIRE SPECSAVERS COUNTY CHAMPIONSHIP

For the last time this year
Surrey have named a fourteen man squad for the final Specsavers County Championship match of the summer, against Lancashire at Emirates Old Trafford.
The game starts tomorrow at 10.30am, with the squad containing all eleven players that beat Somerset at the Kia Oval last week as well as spin pair Amar Virdi and Freddie van den Bergh and all-rounder Scott Borthwick.
It will be Kumar Sangakkara’s final first-class match, with the Sri Lankan legend leaving the club and retiring from long form cricket at the end of the season.
Full Surrey Squad
Gareth Batty (captain)
Scott Borthwick
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
Thank you to everybody who has contributed over the year
Over to you chaps

JimBob - it's us who owe you many thanks for all the match threads over the season.

You've ducked out though this final time on the eleven. You've been doing well with the predictions. Cashing in while you're ahead, eh?!

I wouldn't be amazed to see Borthwick come back in for Patel. Otherwise, probably an unchanged team.

I'm refusing to accept Sanga is retiring.

Guildford spot on with suggestion of Borthwick for Patel. Clearly Borthwick should be a nailed on selection for the first team - it's just that he's been woefully out of form. Hopefully his runs for the second team will have restored his confidence.

Olly in denial about Sanga. I guess we'll all have to go through that bereavement process. Lancs won the toss and Surrey are batting. Burns needs 22 to complete his 1000 runs in the cc this season.

39 - 0 after 17 overs. Digging in.

Sanga comes in and hits his second ball for six.

WE CANNOT LET HIM RETIRE

BBC is broken. It has just posted that Sangakarra is out.

As if

Afro wrote:BBC is broken. It has just posted that Sangakarra is out.

As if

Unlike one of our posters, I'm facing up to the reality of Sanga's retirement. For that reason, it's more important Borthwick gets some runs in this game.

TBH My first thought was, why couldn't he get out for 14 last week.

awful toss to lose

guildfordbat wrote:JimBob - it's us who owe you many thanks for all the match threads over the season.

You've ducked out though this final time on the eleven. You've been doing well with the predictions. Cashing in while you're ahead, eh?!

I wouldn't be amazed to see Borthwick come back in for Patel. Otherwise, probably an unchanged team.

I thought it was time to let others have the glory

jimbobgooner wrote:awful toss to lose

Hi JimBob - yeah, we did lose the toss but we wanted to bat anyway. As the away side, we could have opted to put Lancs in.

guildfordbat wrote:

jimbobgooner wrote:awful toss to lose

Hi JimBob - yeah, we did lose the toss but we wanted to bat anyway. As the away side, we could have opted to put Lancs in.

batty needs a slap then

Watch Stoneman's wicket on Lance twitter account - huge turn on day one. Suggests maybe not the worst toss to lose (but also suggests we've picked the wrong team with one too many seamers)

pope

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Watch Stoneman's wicket on Lance twitter account - huge turn on day one. Suggests maybe not the worst toss to lose (but also suggests we've picked the wrong team with one too many seamers)

On the Surrey twitter account just before the start, Batty refers to Borthwick's inclusion for Patel as ''tactical'' and refers to possibly needing spin on the last day. I wasn't fully convinced by that. Seemed more like a way of crowbarring Borthwick back in. If we were serious about the need for an extra spinner, Freddie or Virdi as mainline spinners would have seemed a better bet to come in with probably Dernbach being benched.

jimbobgooner wrote:pope

Just going from the scorecard - being stumped when we were already 5 down and up against it doesn't seem too clever.

50 for baby face

If someone can explain why we've declared I'd like to know plz

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:If someone can explain why we've declared I'd like to know plz

All I can think olly is we don't want Lancashire to get a 3rd bowling point

Very odd looking decision to declare with only 200 on the board. Conceivable if we were 9 down with Dernbach batting. But I'd have thought realistic chance that Curran and Meaker might well have scored another 20/30.

jimbobgooner wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:If someone can explain why we've declared I'd like to know plz

All I can think olly is we don't want Lancashire to get a 3rd bowling point

I hope that's not the reason! These days a team faces the risk of a points deduction if a declaration is made just to deny their opponents the opportunity of gaining bowling points; the declaration has to be for the purpose of helping the team declaring to win or save the game.

Our case will have to be that we gave Lancs a few overs to face tonight in the genuine belief that it would be easier to take wickets now than tomorrow. We might just be able to get away with that argument. However, that still doesn't mean it's the right approach to have taken. It's utterly daft imo. We haven't got enough runs on the board and should have tried to eke out as many more as possible. It's not even impossible that we could have got Jimbo a second batting point! Sam was going well and Meaker is not a total mug with the bat.

In the distant past (even before I had a bar tab! ), Stuart Surridge was a Surrey captain who successfully pulled off a few quirky and innovative declarations. However, I think the main reasons then were due to a dodgy wicket and/or time running out. I don't see a valid reason today. Hope I'm wrong but Batty's decision strikes me as trying to be too clever by half.

Even for an end of season game there's been some bizarre goings on in this game so far.

Di Venuto has admitted they misread the wicket but, even from 200 miles away, it seemed very odd not to play either Freddie or Amar having taken them in the squad. I suppose bringing in Borthwick does give an extra spin option but it still seemed odd.

That being said the conditions at the start of play did look seamer friendly so again it seemed strange not to insert the opposition. Should the wicket deteriorate of course then the decision will have been fully justified and I will give credit where it's due.

Now we come to the declaration. I suppose you could call it imaginative and attacking but in a potentially low scoring game, every run may be valuable and if the wicket is helpful then that wasn't going to change from day one to day two. To be fair overhead conditions may improve of course.

Not Surrey's finest day and not the end of the world but I'm glad we're battling Lancashire for second place not anything more significant.

Lancs 58/0.

An hour into day two and it is looking more and more like we have made a right mess of things. Not opting to bowl from the start and then declaring when every run is likely to be vital.

Lancs aren't going like a train and the scoreboard will obviously look a lot better if we can get a couple of wickets soon. However, that only shows up more yesterday's mistakes.

Good job this match ultimately means nothing really cos as Guildford says, we've mucked it up big style

Batty with a wicket, Livingstone gone for 1

And Clarke gets Davies too. Lancs now 74/3 with two new batters in (albeit one is Chanderpaul).

84 - 5 at lunch, and Lancs lost 5 wickets for 15 runs to Clarke and Batty. So that is some comeback after Lancs had reached 69 - 0.

Right back in the game - although noteworthy that Meaker hasn't bowled a ball yet. Maybe they are saving him up to have a blast at the tail.

excellent session wonder if Lancashire will declare when 8 down?

jimbobgooner wrote:excellent session wonder if Lancashire will declare when 8 down?

An excellent second hour this morning for Surrey. However, I don't see that the declaration played any part in that. This morning has shown more than anything that every run is likely to be vital in a low scoring game.

That's assuming we can actually take 8 wickets!

184/6.

Going down the tubes again as Lancs close in on a first innings lead.

bang goes 2nd

Why is Dernbach still bowling?! Hopefully this is his last match as well

Need a clear-out in the summer of the bowling deadwood and need to get in players who can mop up a tail. How many years has this been going on for?

can't see anyone being released tbh

jimbobgooner wrote:can't see anyone being released tbh

Not even Dernbach, Meaker and Batty? Noooooooooo!!!!

Lancs lower order in process of batting us out of the game. Decision to declare early looked silly at the time. It looks more and more daft as this afternoon has gone on.

I think the only player whose contract is up at the end of this season is Freddie.

Quite a few at the end of next season including Batty, Harinath, Pillans and Dunn. Probably a few others as well but not sure.

Meanwhile, Lancs extend their lead to 50+ with 3 wickets still left.

264/8 now but they haven't declared - that ain't fair!

67 lead

shocking figures from meaks

So effectively a one innings shoot out with us starting on minus 67.

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for the declaration this dig.

1,000 championship runs for third degree

we've taken the lead

Very pleased for Burns that he's passed 1,000 cc runs again.

Stoneman and Burns have really put their skates on in the second innings and have just wiped out deficit. 69 - 0 after only 14 overs.

Btw - impressive effort by Sibley to carry his bat today. He's had a good few failures opening for Warks, so his average probably won't be that good at the end of the season - but he has certainly shown evidence of his ability to dig in.

3 overs left tonight

last over

stumps lead of 12

so glad we have the best two opening batsmen after cook playing for us