surrey vs kent lv county championship

First topic message reminder :

Surrey have named a twelve man squad for the LV=County Championship game against Kent starting on Sunday at Canterbury.
Tom Curran is unavailable for the game due to School exams and Gary Wilson is on International duty with Ireland for their two One Day International’s against Sri Lanka.
Aneesh Kapil who has been playing for the 2nd XI and trialing at the club has been registered and comes into the squad for the first time.
Gareth Batty will be unavailable for 4 - 6 weeks due to a broken finger sustained in 2nd XI game v Gloucestershire last week.
Chris Tremlett has not been considered for selection due to a back complaint still.
Vikram Solanki is currently not with the Surrey squad due to family reasons which are of a private nature.
The Surrey squad to play Kent in the LV=County Championship match at Canterbury on Sunday 4th May, Monday 5th May, Tuesday 6th May and Wednesday 7th May :
Graeme Smith (Capt)
Zafar Ansari
Rory Burns
Steven Davies
Jade Dernbach
Matthew Dunn
Arun Harinath
Aneesh Kapil
Jason Roy
Tim Linley
Stuart Meaker
Dominic Sibley

17 more for kent to bat again 3 wkts left   

Smith throws his wicket away. 

good job there is'nt a division 3   

Dunn (4*) has equalled his highest first class score.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Dunn (4*) has equalled his highest first class score.

  

Wow we are really bad aren't we? Fair play to Meaker for sticking around for 76 balls for his 12 before getting out just now and Dunn for his 4* from 42. I'm sure Jade will value his wicket just as much...

a lead of 20 if jade can support clive who knows what might happen tomorrow   

Riley has 56-16-142-8 from the match with another wicket still up for grabs.

I know this is a new concept for Surrey fans to absorb, but I think we may be short a decent first choice spinner...

Obviously the Glamorgan match wasn't a blip, and this is how poor we are!
We're weak in every department. Is it worth keeping Tremlett? Dernbach continues to prove he isn't worth a place in a very average team, Meaker, as from debut, still continues to be more miss than hit, Clive has shown a bit of form, Kapil could be a good signing, but why just 7 overs?! Our (in my opinion) most consistent bowler, Viscount, continues to be 12th man.
Batty was lucky if he could spin at coin, Ansari surely has to be our best option, but they are reluctant to give him an elongated go, bowling Roy smacks of desperation! As king carlos pointed out, this was our main concern, and a 'top' overseas spinner would surely have been more preferable than Smith, who will probably have his thoughts on Sunday at Anfield rather than the Oval!
At this rate we'll have Depressed Surrey Fan back!

thegooch7 wrote:Obviously the Glamorgan match wasn't a blip, and this is how poor we are!
We're weak in every department. Is it worth keeping Tremlett? Dernbach continues to prove he isn't worth a place in a very average team, Meaker, as from debut, still continues to be more miss than hit, Clive has shown a bit of form, Kapil could be a good signing, but why just 7 overs?! Our (in my opinion) most consistent bowler, Viscount, continues to be 12th man.
Batty was lucky if he could spin at coin, Ansari surely has to be our best option, but they are reluctant to give him an elongated go, bowling Roy smacks of desperation! As king carlos pointed out, this was our main concern, and a 'top' overseas spinner would surely have been more preferable than Smith, who will probably have his thoughts on Sunday at Anfield rather than the Oval!
At this rate we'll have Depressed Surrey Fan back!

All very true and depressing.

Rain stopped play! Anyone near Cantebury know how heavy it is?! You wonder how/why Dernbach got out stumped if there was rain in the air! It'll be a travesty of justice if we escape with a draw from this game though!!

Once again we are struggling to take wickets and so the team for this match was a bit bizarre going in with just 3 proper bowlers plus Ansari, Kapil and Roy who at this point are no more than bit part bowlers. I'd have played Linley instead of Harinath personally even if he did bat OK in the first innings. Linley, Meaker and Dunn would be my first 3 choices of bowling and if everyone was available I'd have Curran as a 4th at the moment who also offers decent batting although he has yet to show it for us in First Class cricket. I'd then have Kapil at 7 after his showing today who can be a 5th seamer and Ansari still offers a spin option and has shown some ability at number 4.

I notice that we have Michael Rippon on trial who has been taking wickets in the seconds - I think I'm right in saying he's a left arm chinaman bowler once of Sussex? I'd like to think we'll take him on as we'll need another spin option in the one day stuff if nothing else

Agree with that Carrot - though Curran is away for A-levels.

1.Smith
2.Burns
3.Sibley or Harinath if he's at school
4.Ansari
5.Davies
6.Roy
7.Kapil or Wilson
8.Curran or Jewell
9.Meaker
10.Dunn
11.Linley

Looks light on batting I won't deny but it doesn't matter how many runs we score if we can't buy 20 wickets.

Curran or Jewell at 8 offer a 4th seamer that it looks like we will desperately to start bowling sides out.

Dunn remained unbeaten on 13 meaning he has not yet been dismissed in his 10 First Class innings’ equalling the record in this country.
can we take that as a positive from this match   

 

Carrotdude wrote:Once again we are struggling to take wickets and so the team for this match was a bit bizarre going in with just 3 proper bowlers plus Ansari, Kapil and Roy who at this point are no more than bit part bowlers. I'd have played Linley instead of Harinath personally even if he did bat OK in the first innings. Linley, Meaker and Dunn would be my first 3 choices of bowling and if everyone was available I'd have Curran as a 4th at the moment who also offers decent batting although he has yet to show it for us in First Class cricket. I'd then have Kapil at 7 after his showing today who can be a 5th seamer and Ansari still offers a spin option and has shown some ability at number 4.

I notice that we have Michael Rippon on trial who has been taking wickets in the seconds - I think  I'm right in saying he's a left arm chinaman bowler once of Sussex? I'd like to think we'll take him on as we'll need another spin option in the one day stuff if nothing else

Hi Carrot - if Kapil is a ''proper bowler'' (and with 4 of the 12 wickets we managed there's a possibility he might be), it's a pity Smith didn't know that going into the game. Kapil was only permitted 2 overs before Kent had 400 on the board.

You're spot on about Rippon. Believe he's got an EU passport and is a Dutch international which means he's not classed as 'overseas' even though he's originally from Australia. I heard Sussex were sorry to see him go but didn't have the money to give him - effectively a limited overs squad player - another contract. He might be useful for us but I would still expect him to be behind Batty (assuming his broken finger mends soon) in the one day pecking order.

Batty should also come into CC contention at number 8 / second spinner as the sun hopefully comes out more.

As regards the game just finished, probably only fair to give credit to Key, Nash and Riley so   to them. However, we hardly seemed to challenge them properly. By all accounts, Riley varied his flight and pace well but - adding to Goochie's point about Dernbach's dismissal - 3 of his wickets were down to stumpings, all at times when survival was paramount. Things like that shouldn't be happening, particularly against a young offspinner still learning his trade.

All in all, very disappointing at the moment. I too would like to see Linley back but fear this season's team selections are going to resemble deckchairs on the Titanic ....

Linley took 70+ wickets when we went up last time, yet is constantly overlooked in favour of Dernbach who rarely takes any wickets. I'd really like to know what has gone on at Surrey since last Summer when it was obvious we had a lot of problems, problems which don't seem to have been addressed.

king_carlos wrote:Agree with that Carrot - though Curran is away for A-levels.

1.Smith
2.Burns
3.Sibley or Harinath if he's at school
4.Ansari
5.Davies
6.Roy
7.Kapil or Wilson
8.Curran or Jewell
9.Meaker
10.Dunn
11.Linley

Looks light on batting I won't deny but it doesn't matter how many runs we score if we can't buy 20 wickets.

Curran or Jewell at 8 offer a 4th seamer that it looks like we will desperately to start bowling sides out.

I'd go along with this too, probably Batty to compete for the number 8 spot when he's fit and Wilson as a possible number 3 for Sibley's absences or to challenge anyone who isn't performing. I would still personally have Ansari at 6/7. However if Kapil can be a genuine 4th seamer then he can bat at 8 and allow us to play the side as we did for this game but he might need to bowl more than 2 overs before a team reaches 400 as guildford points out!

guildfordbat - starting to come round to your way of thinking re: Smith, it's not a big thing but during the game this week his only tweets have been about Liverpool, the Kaizer Chiefs football team and voting day in South Africa. Something even remotely sounding like he was disappointed with his form/the game/another defeat wouldn't have gone amiss, just some indication that this is more than just a paycheck for him would be nice.

Carrotdude wrote:

guildfordbat - starting to come round to your way of thinking re: Smith, it's not a big thing but during the game this week his only tweets have been about Liverpool, the Kaizer Chiefs football team and voting day in South Africa. Something even remotely sounding like he was disappointed with his form/the game/another defeat wouldn't have gone amiss, just some indication that this is more than just a paycheck for him would be nice.

Carrot - cheers although I still desperately hope I'm wrong.

jimbobgooner wrote:Dunn remained unbeaten on 13 meaning he has not yet been dismissed in his 10 First Class innings’ equalling the record in this country.
can we take that as a positive from this match   

Hi Jimbob - do you know re the other player(s) who achieved 10 whether it was any 10 consecutive not outs (ie at any point in the career) or remaining not out in first 10 first class innings?

guildfordbat wrote: 

I notice that we have Michael Rippon on trial who has been taking wickets in the seconds - I think  I'm right in saying he's a left arm chinaman bowler once of Sussex? I'd like to think we'll take him on as we'll need another spin option in the one day stuff if nothing else

He's an interesting one is Rippon. Came from nowhere to pick up loads of wickets for a period in the Sussex 2nd XI and in his first couple of T20s for Sussex a couple of years ago and then faded. He hasn't been particularly wonderful for the Netherlands either. My impression is that he's a 'strike whilst the iron's hot' bowler who is often expensive but will take wickets if he gets on a roll. He can bat a bit though - he has opened on occasion for the Dutch - so as you say he could be useful for Surrey as a limited-overs option.

Surrey confirmed to me on twitter that Dunn's jointly held record relates to number of innings undefeated at start of batting career.  (I suppose it does help if batsman at the other end is likely to have been Jade or the Viscount!   )

In his interview Ford sounded fairly cautious / realistic about of work that Surrey needed to do.

Carrotdude wrote:

guildfordbat - starting to come round to your way of thinking re: Smith, it's not a big thing but during the game this week his only tweets have been about Liverpool, the Kaizer Chiefs football team and voting day in South Africa. Something even remotely sounding like he was disappointed with his form/the game/another defeat wouldn't have gone amiss, just some indication that this is more than just a paycheck for him would be nice.

Carrot - we probably both overlooked that Graeme Smith's wife (Morgan Deane Smith) tweeted this about Kent yesterday afternoon,

''Bye Kent, we goin home! Bye hotel room thank god   back to London!''.

That's all good then.

  Carrot - it's not that bad living in Kent is it?

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:

In his interview Ford sounded fairly cautious / realistic about of work that Surrey needed to do.

Morning Corporal - yes but Ford does seem to be playing the ''inexperienced young players'' card a lot. That's fair and understandable but only to a point. It certainly doesn't explain or justify the poor showings from the likes of Smith, Davies, Dernbach and Tremlett. I also don't think Meaker is firing properly.

Hi Guildford - that is very fair comment. With the bowling there is probably quite a strong psychological element. Both Tremlett and Dernbach continued to get picked for England squads beyond the point when this was at all justified by their performance.