SURREY VS YORKSHIRE ROYAL SPECSAVERS COUNTY CHAMPIONSHIP

Surrey have named a fourteen-man squad for this week’s floodlit Specsavers County Championship with Yorkshire at Headingley.
Both Jason Roy and Conor McKerr are selected in a first-class squad for the first time this season, with fast bowler Ravi Rampaul missing out on selection due to a minor ankle injury that and the canteen not being up to much.
All three of Surrey’s successful England Lions: Ben Foakes, Mark Stoneman and Sam Curran, return to the Surrey squad after defeating South Africa A in Canterbury and Tom Curran is also available for selection, joining up with the squad alongside Roy following England’s final T20 match against South Africa in Cardiff this afternoon.
There is no place in the squad for Jade Dernbach or Ollie Pope.
In a first for domestic cricket in this country, the game will be played using a pink ball, with the action starting every day at 2pm.
Full Surrey Squad:
Gareth Batty (captain)
Scott Borthwick
Rory Burns
Sam Curran
Tom Curran
Ben Foakes (wk)
Mark Footitt
Conor McKerr
Stuart Meaker
Jason Roy
Kumar Sangakkara
Dominic Sibley
Mark Stoneman
Amar Virdi
unless we give Baby face a rest I would see Mckerr,Sibley and Virdi missing out
over to you chaps  

Cheers, JimBob.

My guesses on the team: Roy comes in and Sibley drops out (although as an outside shot Borthwick could be the one to make way); McKerr replaces Meaker; Virdi pushing Batty hard but suspect the skipper will keep his place - doubt we''ll play two front line spinners here with an unknown pink ball, we will play them together soon though.

For Yorks, Ballance only plays days one and two - then he's off to skipper the Lions and a named replacement will take over from him in this match.

With most of their England players available to Yorks, this will be a very tough challenge. Lose again and we'll be looking over our shoulders at the drop zone. Weather could be iffy from day two onwards which might be our best chance of going home with something.

PS Liked the crack about Ravi and the canteen.

YORKSHIRE’S 13-MAN SQUAD TO FACE SURREY:

Gary Ballance ©
Tim Bresnan
Jonny Bairstow (W)
Harry Brook
Jack Brooks
Ben Coad
Peter Handscomb
Alex Lees
Adam Lyth
Steven Patterson
Adil Rashid
Joe Root
Ryan Sidebottom


My guess is Patterson misses out, and young Brook will replace Ballance for the second half of the game.

Thanks, Tiger. You know far more on this but Brook stood out to me as the most likely sub coming off the bench at the start of day three. I'll be guided by you as to the other one missing out altogether.

PS I assume you're down south working now. Any of your family or friends at the match? Always particularly interested in first hand observations. Think this game was originally lined up to be shown by Sky but that seems to have fallen through. Cheers.

I've heard they might give one Sam Curran a rest - unconfirmed of course, but what the grapevine is saying...

guildfordbat wrote:Thanks, Tiger. You know far more on this but Brook stood out to me as the most likely sub coming off the bench at the start of day three. I'll be guided by you as to the other one missing out altogether.

PS  I assume you're down south working now. Any of your family or friends at the match? Always particularly interested in first hand observations. Think this game was originally lined up to be shown by Sky but that seems to have fallen through. Cheers.

My parents will be at the game, but at their age unlikely to stay for the last session, as their journey back northern most Yorkshire takes 90 minutes or so. I will be getting feedback from them (probably) so will try and post any insights they have - though usually it comprises of grumpiness and details on the sale of books from the stall supporting the academy.

Tiger - reports of grumpiness amongst spectators are always most welcome. No need for your folks to hold back here, quite the opposite in fact.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:I've heard they might give one Sam Curran a rest - unconfirmed of course, but what the grapevine is saying...

Thanks, Olly. Even though unconfirmed, definitely interesting.

The lad probably could do with a break and, as I've been banging on about for a while, we're too reliant on him but we have no one else to properly fill the number 7 spot since Ansari walked out.

None of the other bowlers could sensibly be considered to go in at 7. Could this mean that we play 6 batters plus Foakes and only 4 frontline bowlers?

guildfordbat wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:I've heard they might give one Sam Curran a rest - unconfirmed of course, but what the grapevine is saying...

Thanks, Olly. Even though unconfirmed, definitely interesting.

The lad probably could do with a break and, as I've been banging on about for a while, we're too reliant on him but we have no one else to properly fill the number 7 spot since Ansari walked out.

None of the other bowlers could sensibly be considered to go in at 7. Could this mean that we play 6 batters plus Foakes and only 4 frontline bowlers?

Turns out my rumour was incorrect - Sam Curran plays. I do believe it was strongly considered resting him tho

Good call Guildford on the team line up

Well, I was wrong. Patterson in, Sidebottom out.

Yorkshire list McKerr playing for Surrey. I assume they mean Meaker!!

LondonTiger wrote:Yorkshire list McKerr playing for Surrey. I assume they mean Meaker!!

No it's young Conor McKerr - I too am surprised he plays ahead of Meaker

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Yorkshire list McKerr playing for Surrey. I assume they mean Meaker!!

No it's young Conor McKerr - I too am surprised he plays ahead of Meaker

Aha just noticed him in the OP

Coad beats the bat of Burns with a decent level of regularity - but it is Stoneman who is in much better form who manages to nick one that moves a little.

Worrying times for Meaker

jimbobgooner wrote:Good call Guildford on the team line up

Thanks, JimBob.

Particularly for Tiger - McKerr recently went on loan to Derbys, initially planned to be for a month incorporating 3 CC matches. However, he did so well in the first 2 games (14 wickets in total including a match tenfer the last time out, the youngest Derbys bowler to take one) that he was recalled early. That didn't guarantee him a Surrey debut here but I thought it would have been a bit odd to get him back sharpish and then leave him on the bench.

Didn't really see Batty and Virdi both playing in a day/nighter with little known about how much a pink ball will spin and with the weather forecast dodgy. Although Virdi is pulling up trees in the stiffs, I could understand Stewart sticking with the experience of the skipper. Think they'll play together soon though.

Sibley was always the most likely fall guy for Roy although I haven't been that impressed by Borthwick - his batting appears a bit scratchy and the kindest description of his bowling - per Stewie - is ''work in progress''.

Borthwick again disappointing and with Rocky in the hutch. 86/2. Surprised Roy joining grinder Burns at the crease before Sanga.

Afternoon all. Pity both Stoneman and Borthwick got in and out. Agree with Guildford that Borthwick's batting can look rather scratchy.

Borthwick has 377 runs (including this innings) across 11 innings, at an average of 37.7 by my calculations. By no means exceptional, but not too bad either. He seems to get himself in, and then out every time...which is annoying, but something to be said for consistently getting some runs at least

Hopefully he improves as the summer goes on

Meanwhile Roy races to 41 off 42 balls - showing us what we've been missing in the middle order this year - some oomph other than Sangakkara in the batting line up

50 for roy

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Meanwhile Roy races to 41 off 42 balls - showing us what we've been missing in the middle order this year - some oomph other than Sangakkara in the batting line up

Yeah, if Sibley bats for 35 overs, you feel he'll probably be 40 odd. Useful but not normally game changing. However, if Roy bats for a similar length, he may have got to 3 figures and already influence the look of the game.

50 for third degree
can he push on?

guildfordbat wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Meanwhile Roy races to 41 off 42 balls - showing us what we've been missing in the middle order this year - some oomph other than Sangakkara in the batting line up

Yeah, if Sibley bats for 35 overs, you feel he'll probably be 40 odd. Useful but not normally game changing. However, if Roy bats for a similar length, he may have got to 3 figures and already influence the look of the game.

And as we speak Roy hits the first six of the game off Rashid - you feel this is either gonna end up with Roy on a hundred quickly, or out soonish. He won't allow himself to be bogged down by the spinner

Very good partnership between Burns and Roy.  Roy   racing along and Burns - after digging in first session - has now lifted his scoring rate to 40 - which is fine if you've got Roy batting at the other end.

Another six to Roy

200 - 2 and a first batting point.

Tim Bresnan has the slightly mad figures of 10-5-35-0 - so five maidens, but his other five went for 7 an over!

Roy triggered for 87

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Roy triggered for 87

A shame he didn't go on further but still very handy. Just under 33 overs were bowled in total whilst he was batting and he scored 87 - ties in with my earlier view that if he batted 35, he would be pushing 3 figures. Unlikely to be game changing by itself but it's certainly moved things on.

Sanga is not hanging around! 250 up and second batting point. New partnership already on to 37....

Gutted for Jason you just know root and bairstow will reach three figures

jimbobgooner wrote:Gutted for Jason you just know root and bairstow will reach three figures

JimBob - if you find a quid down the back of the sofa, you might do worse than putting it on McKerr to get one of them. Just a hunch and definitely not advised to go beyond a quid.

Meanwhile, over in Div 2, a first ever CC wicket for Mat Pillans playing on loan for Leics against Northants. He's been very ordinary for Surrey even on a good day but he's stuck at it and I like that.

jimbobgooner wrote:50 for third degree
can he push on?

No

BLAST AND BLAST AGAIN!!

Burns out in the last over before tea (? evening break, not sure of the terminology for this match). Dismissed for 90. Yet again, he does well but doesn't quite nail it.

270 odd for 4. That Burns wicket gives the scoreboard a slightly different look and provides decent hope to Yorks. We really need to make things count in this first dig and not end up folding for 345.

All of the top four have got a start and not gone on it's simply not good enough

jimbobgooner wrote:All of the top four have got a start and not gone on it's simply not good enough

JimBob - we can say ''not fully gone on'' but we shouldn't get too mad with scores of 80 and 90.

In particular, as Olly suggested earlier, Borthwick's scores generally are not bad but they have a tendency to be ''annoying''.

It really boils down to our aims and ambitions. We're probably doing enough atm to stay in Div One but do need to step up if we are going to hope to seriously challenge for the title. Olly - the latter is what I want and why I suspect I come over to you sometimes as a hard taskmaster.

3rd batting point

50 for Kumar

That's all gone

jimbobgooner wrote:3rd batting point

That's good but Foakes now back in the hutch for 20 odd. That is annoying. Foakes needs to be doing a bit more this season with the bat for us and for his own Test ambitions (in line with recent posts from leading international poster Alfie ).

We want 5 batting bonus points from this one.

4th batting point

Baby face gone with only 5 overs left

374 - 6 at stumps. Hmm... On the one hand Surrey have scored more than any other team batting first in this round of matches (in both divs). On the other hand somewhat disappointing that so many partnerships have made modestly useful contributions but then not fully delivered.

Looks likely there will be rain around at some point - in which case I guess it's useful to have posted a first innings score of around 400. Have to hope tho we don't get all out for 399, as in another recent match..

Stumps 374 for 6
26 needed off 14 overs guildford
Kumar needs just 14 more for 1,000 championship runs

jimbobgooner wrote:Stumps 374 for 6
26 needed off 14 overs guildford
Kumar needs just 14 more for 1,000 championship runs

Cheers, JimBob. Yep, the amount of overs left to get a 5th batting point isn't an issue at all, thanks largely to Roy and Sanga cracking on. The only worry after the Guildford fiasco (understandably alluded to by the Corporal - welcome back! ) is whether the next 3 wickets can put on 26 to get us there; you'll note from that I've already taken it as read that the last wicket partnership will be 0 with Footitt immediately failing to trouble the scorers!!

Anyway, although a few frustrations along the way that meant we didn't totally seize the day, still a very good showing against a strong side. At the start, I would have more than settled for our score now.

Whilst I know its annoying nobody has made a century, I think that is a really damn good day for Surrey - considering the pink ball, its at Headingley, and its a very good bowling attack. The note about us being the best placed of all the batting first sides of the pink ball matches is a big one imo - Burns played a big role, almost anchoring the innings, allowing Roy and Sanga to attack without the pressure of losing wickets from the other end.

Need to push on beyond 400 tomorrow - and then bowl well - although in all eventuality it is likely to end in a draw with the forecasted rain.

I should also note the title expectations are a bit high aiming for me - without Ansari in the mix anymore. If Zafar was still playing I'd be buying in, but later in the summer without him, too much rests on Batty for me

After heavy rain they are planning to start at 1700. I imagine conditions will be dank and gloomy if they do manage to start....

1,000 championship runs for kumar

Another century for Sanga - and a fifth batting point! What a legend