Surrey at the Oval
Is he Back?
By Grockle et al
May 16 2012
The Championship rolls on despite the horrible weather (114F as I type this) and the lack of players available. Vernon Philander has a late fitness test on a shoulder injury, Nick Compton returns after his Lions duty and rumours are that Jos Buttler is fit as well. These will be welcome bolsters to our batting but the bowling is still being asked to carry a large burden of responsibility on young shoulders.
V SURREY CC1 @ The Oval Wednesday 16 May 2012
No Ramprakash for Surrey is the major news of the day it seems - though not for us however, we have more problems. Dernbach is being rested as well - they can with their resources. We on the other hand haven't got the same situation and the welcome return of Nick Compton is welcome. Buttler not surprisingly has not made it but Philander has made it through his late fitness test and will be back in the bowling unit along with Jamie Overton who was reported as injured but seems to be fine.
The side is;
Suppiah, Barrow, Compton, Hildreth, Kieswetter, Trego, Meschede, Philander, Overton C, Overton J and Dockrell
We have won the toss and have decided to bat and Alex joins Arul taking up their opening positions. It seems to be bright and dry but cold and windy. Both men face up to the opening duo of Lewis and Jordan and both get off the mark with boundaries and after 4 overs they have 14 without loss.
More to come...
Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockles.com (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 11:17
What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:21:07:46:52 by Grockle.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:21:07:46:52 by Grockle.
Surrey vs Somerset
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 13/05/2012 22:22
So, assuming that UCBSA do not try to hand Philander a sick note and that Brian is sufficiently happy with his attitude to pick him;
Changes from CLS?
Compton for Gregory for me. Alex to open with Arul.
And I'd think about J Overton for Max.
Anyone else have different thoughts?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:16:05:53:57 by Grockle.
Changes from CLS?
Compton for Gregory for me. Alex to open with Arul.
And I'd think about J Overton for Max.
Anyone else have different thoughts?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:16:05:53:57 by Grockle.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 07:27
On pragmatic grounds I think I agree with AG. I would like to have a team containing George and Max but I have just watched 2 games at ClS where Max didn't get a bowl and it seems pointless picking him.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 07:38
Well as we have no evidence that UCBSA have ever handed Philander a "sick note" or that Rose has any problems at all with his attitude maybe we should just hope he plays.
Compton needs to be back in to give the old guys some backbone again.
Have to agree about Alex rather than Lewis though I'd even consider Hildreth at 2. Alex strikes me as an early middle order man (as I said somewhere else ala the Wes Durston we never really used consistently).
What happened to Hussain's return which was on the cards?
No point at all in playing Max unless you are going to bowl him so I dn't expect him to feature.
Compton needs to be back in to give the old guys some backbone again.
Have to agree about Alex rather than Lewis though I'd even consider Hildreth at 2. Alex strikes me as an early middle order man (as I said somewhere else ala the Wes Durston we never really used consistently).
What happened to Hussain's return which was on the cards?
No point at all in playing Max unless you are going to bowl him so I dn't expect him to feature.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 08:19
It must be frustrating for Max thinking at last I am getting picked and I still don't get a bowl, all I am in the team for is to make up the eleven.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 09:35
Quote:Mike TA1
It must be frustrating for Max thinking at last I am getting picked and I still don't get a bowl, all I am in the team for is to make up the eleven.
BR has made some pretty good decisions over the past couple of years, but it would be interesting to know what exactly he said to Max to persuade him to sign for 2012, rather than Max seek his fortune elsewhere!
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 09:49
Quote:Grockle
Well as we have no evidence that UCBSA have ever handed Philander a "sick note" or that Rose has any problems at all with his attitude maybe we should just hope he plays.
Compton needs to be back in to give the old guys some backbone again.
Have to agree about Alex rather than Lewis though I'd even consider Hildreth at 2. Alex strikes me as an early middle order man (as I said somewhere else ala the Wes Durston we never really used consistently).
What happened to Hussain's return which was on the cards?
No point at all in playing Max unless you are going to bowl him so I dn't expect him to feature.
Hildreth at two? Really? You've said before on here that you don't see him as a number three? So I cannot see how you could then see him as a number two?
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 09:51
And, yes, Grockle, I am hoping that Philander plays and bends his back.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 11:00
I'd go..
Suppiah, Compton, Barrow, Trego, Hildreth, Kieswetter, Meschede, Philander, C. Overton, Dockrell, J.Overton
Compo can open..he got a 200 there doing it against the students.
Although it shouldn't make much difference, Hildy had his most successful season at 5.
Peter is a class batsman..throw him up the order and see what happens.
Sadly Lewis's bowling has collapsed and as he isn't succeeding as an opener either, I would rest him.
Jamie would come in for Max..he may get some good bounce at the Oval and is fresh from a 4 for yesterday.
Suppiah, Compton, Barrow, Trego, Hildreth, Kieswetter, Meschede, Philander, C. Overton, Dockrell, J.Overton
Compo can open..he got a 200 there doing it against the students.
Although it shouldn't make much difference, Hildy had his most successful season at 5.
Peter is a class batsman..throw him up the order and see what happens.
Sadly Lewis's bowling has collapsed and as he isn't succeeding as an opener either, I would rest him.
Jamie would come in for Max..he may get some good bounce at the Oval and is fresh from a 4 for yesterday.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Botham (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 11:07
I'm beginning to think team selection and tactics is like pinning a tail on a donkey.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 11:10
Hardly! It's more a case of he is fit, plays!!!
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 11:11
I would be the same as Little Bird.
Apparently VP is not fully fit so I have doubts he will play this game and will disappear back to SA. Thats my opinion anyway.
ON Cove, people have compared him with Broad and Pollock. I watched him in the flesh for the first time on Saturday. Reminds me more of Damien Wright. Measured run up to the wicket and all the speed/action comes from the delivery of the ball. He looked good to me, and also looks like a total allrounder, Bowls, bats, fields third slip, catches. He and his brother seem to have a big future.
On Gregory, disappointing. He has lost his run up and his confidence as a result. I dont know whether he should be rested for a while or not but I think he has only been bowling for a couple of years and its actually showing now.
A big disappontment for me which has rarely been touched on is Hussain. Hes had a small Hamstring problem for about 2 months now..where is this guy? Is he coming back or not?
Apparently VP is not fully fit so I have doubts he will play this game and will disappear back to SA. Thats my opinion anyway.
ON Cove, people have compared him with Broad and Pollock. I watched him in the flesh for the first time on Saturday. Reminds me more of Damien Wright. Measured run up to the wicket and all the speed/action comes from the delivery of the ball. He looked good to me, and also looks like a total allrounder, Bowls, bats, fields third slip, catches. He and his brother seem to have a big future.
On Gregory, disappointing. He has lost his run up and his confidence as a result. I dont know whether he should be rested for a while or not but I think he has only been bowling for a couple of years and its actually showing now.
A big disappontment for me which has rarely been touched on is Hussain. Hes had a small Hamstring problem for about 2 months now..where is this guy? Is he coming back or not?
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 11:19
Ronnie - I think Lewis has had to change his action due to the stress fracture of the back. Suffice to say it is not working.
He surely needs one of the following;
a) Time away from the first team to get used to his new action outside the glare of first-team action.
b) To revert to his old action, if this is possible anatomically and within the confines of whatever residual pain he has been experiencing (if any.)
c) To revert to plan A) and try and make his career as a specialist batsman.
Re: Gemaal Hussain... I think one issue is surely that there is no second XI cricket to play.. no opportunity to prove fitness?
He needs a club side or something, surely?
If he doesn't get back soon, he may well find that at least one Overton has overtaken him in the pecking order.
Re: Philander. Like you I suspect that the odds are probably against him lining up at the Oval... if there's any suggestion of a slight injury then I think UCBSA will pull the rug.
Which would mean that one of Max or Lewis would have to stay in the XI...
He surely needs one of the following;
a) Time away from the first team to get used to his new action outside the glare of first-team action.
b) To revert to his old action, if this is possible anatomically and within the confines of whatever residual pain he has been experiencing (if any.)
c) To revert to plan A) and try and make his career as a specialist batsman.
Re: Gemaal Hussain... I think one issue is surely that there is no second XI cricket to play.. no opportunity to prove fitness?
He needs a club side or something, surely?
If he doesn't get back soon, he may well find that at least one Overton has overtaken him in the pecking order.
Re: Philander. Like you I suspect that the odds are probably against him lining up at the Oval... if there's any suggestion of a slight injury then I think UCBSA will pull the rug.
Which would mean that one of Max or Lewis would have to stay in the XI...
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 11:33
Hussain had been lined up to play for the 2nds two weeks ago with a view to making the Durham trip but wasn't fit enough.
With regards to our injured players getting a run out before being considered again for first team action, I think the problem is not only a lack of second eleven cricket but a lack of any cricket at all because of the weather! Even somebody sent to play a few club matches would probably be kicking his heels.
With regards to our injured players getting a run out before being considered again for first team action, I think the problem is not only a lack of second eleven cricket but a lack of any cricket at all because of the weather! Even somebody sent to play a few club matches would probably be kicking his heels.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 11:50
Yes, true, little bird.
Must be frustrating for the club and worse still for injured players trying to make their way back.
It might be that the Pro 40 may become a place which we use to give people a run-out as they come back from injury?
I note that Woakes, out since the start of the season, suddenly appeared in Warks' Pro 40 side, yesterday.
Must be frustrating for the club and worse still for injured players trying to make their way back.
It might be that the Pro 40 may become a place which we use to give people a run-out as they come back from injury?
I note that Woakes, out since the start of the season, suddenly appeared in Warks' Pro 40 side, yesterday.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 11:56
Where did you here he had changed his action AG?
If he has its no wonder he is struggling..such a great prospect too based on last year.
Mesch is now the man. You can actualy see confidence in his bowling to the degree Lewis had it last year. If all 4 of them and the Overtons can come through then the future is really bright.
However, Im more concerned with the present and Wednesday, which is another really really tough game for us.
If he has its no wonder he is struggling..such a great prospect too based on last year.
Mesch is now the man. You can actualy see confidence in his bowling to the degree Lewis had it last year. If all 4 of them and the Overtons can come through then the future is really bright.
However, Im more concerned with the present and Wednesday, which is another really really tough game for us.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 12:31
I read it on (I think) the official site before the season started re: Lewis, Ronnie.
The official term, I believe was "re-modelled."
It looks, to me, a more up-right action. I suppose this would make sense as might put less pressure on the back?
The official term, I believe was "re-modelled."
It looks, to me, a more up-right action. I suppose this would make sense as might put less pressure on the back?
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Railboy (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 12:35
Don't the Overton boys have A levels coming up very soon? I know in the dim & distant past people have taken exams in the changing rooms but i doubt that get past the Ofsted inspectors these days!
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 12:44
Quote:AG
Where did you here he had changed his action AG?
Nowhere. Assumption based on knowledge of earlier back injury.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 12:44
Not sure. They do have a few England Under 19 engagements though, as does George Dockrell.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 13:33
Ref the Hildreth comment AG. Those assessments were based on a full batting line-up being available. Unfortunately we are not in that scenario any more so whatever you refer to related to that isn't particlarly relevant.
We need an innings to start and progress not sputter along until number 5 arrives. As Compton now is settled at 3 then either we put Alex in in the hope he has the technique and confidence from yesterday or we look at our next best option for solidity, with the present set of players that has to be either Craig K or James. I'd take James first and then Craig. Pete reckons he can do it but not at 2 in a CC1 match I persnally don't think.
If you want to refer to comments made at an earlier time why don't you leave them until we have a situation more akin to that earlier time perhaps?
We need an innings to start and progress not sputter along until number 5 arrives. As Compton now is settled at 3 then either we put Alex in in the hope he has the technique and confidence from yesterday or we look at our next best option for solidity, with the present set of players that has to be either Craig K or James. I'd take James first and then Craig. Pete reckons he can do it but not at 2 in a CC1 match I persnally don't think.
If you want to refer to comments made at an earlier time why don't you leave them until we have a situation more akin to that earlier time perhaps?
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 13:39
Lewis has had a couple of poor weeks bowling-wise - but don't write his career off yet! Probably just needs a few more net sessions and it may all click back into place next week or next month.
In the meantime, he can still bat - although again could maybe do with a rest from the opener's slot for a while.
In the meantime, he can still bat - although again could maybe do with a rest from the opener's slot for a while.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 13:49
[www.thisissomerset.co.uk]
In terms of changes to his action, there are quotes from Lewis about "adjustments," in this article.
Admittedly, having looked at it again he does not state that they were because of the injury, but nevertheless some adjustments have been made.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:14:14:19:30 by AGod.
In terms of changes to his action, there are quotes from Lewis about "adjustments," in this article.
Admittedly, having looked at it again he does not state that they were because of the injury, but nevertheless some adjustments have been made.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:14:14:19:30 by AGod.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 13:53
Quote:Grockle
Ref the Hildreth comment AG. Those assessments were based on a full batting line-up being available. Unfortunately we are not in that scenario any more so whatever you refer to related to that isn't particlarly relevant.
We need an innings to start and progress not sputter along until number 5 arrives. As Compton now is settled at 3 then either we put Alex in in the hope he has the technique and confidence from yesterday or we look at our next best option for solidity, with the present set of players that has to be either Craig K or James. I'd take James first and then Craig. Pete reckons he can do it but not at 2 in a CC1 match I persnally don't think.
If you want to refer to comments made at an earlier time why don't you leave them until we have a situation more akin to that earlier time perhaps?
Alex did have some success including a score of 70 or so opening the innings towards the end of last season (away to Yorkshire.) That, for me, is why I think he should probably be given a chance at the top of the order.
I don't personally think that Hildreth is either a natural top three batsman nor, necessarily, in sufficiently good form overall to be thinking about moving around.
Yes, he made the ton that I saw at Trent Bridge but I'm not sure if he has a 50 outside of that in the CC this season?
I certainly take your point about the change in circumstances, though.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 14:04
Gosh how mighty nice of you.... Thanks awfully
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 14:08
My pleasure.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 14:15
... so good to see you two pleasuring each other. Just what we need on a dank and dismal day.
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 14:17
ref the areticle - it refers to "slight" adjustment not an "old" and now a "new" action or any sort of "re-modelling"
But his bowling has not started well.
But his bowling has not started well.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 14:21
Adjustments, plural, but yes.
His action also "looked," different to me at Trent Bridge. Seemed to be keeping the back very straight.
I do note that he also says that he's not had any pain, which is encouraging.
His action also "looked," different to me at Trent Bridge. Seemed to be keeping the back very straight.
I do note that he also says that he's not had any pain, which is encouraging.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 14:26
I'm talking about the procedure not the number I'm afraid :-)
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: cricketjerry-mouse (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 14:27
I read recently that there is now a website devoted entirely to pleasuring as a means of ending world conflict.
As LoL`s comment on recent posting suggests, it shows it can go hand in hand with a healthy dose of humour.
As LoL`s comment on recent posting suggests, it shows it can go hand in hand with a healthy dose of humour.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 14:32
Quote:Grockle
I'm talking about the procedure not the number I'm afraid :-)
Slight adjustments, if sufficient in number, can however add up to a significant change.
If you make one slight adjustment to just one thing it might not make much difference.
On the other hand, 3 or 4 slight adjustments to different facets of the action may have quite signiciantly affect the action as a whole.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:14:14:49:36 by AGod.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 14:44
Simply 'smoke and mirrors' AG.
You were earlier implying re-modelling and significant adjusment and were asked to justify those remarks. In the article you yourself provided the player himself describes them as "slight".
This is the point where a poster says "yep possibly overemphasised it" or becomes a pedant trying to maintain a position the evidence suggests is not a strong one.
Hmmm which way will the poster jump one wonders?
You were earlier implying re-modelling and significant adjusment and were asked to justify those remarks. In the article you yourself provided the player himself describes them as "slight".
This is the point where a poster says "yep possibly overemphasised it" or becomes a pedant trying to maintain a position the evidence suggests is not a strong one.
Hmmm which way will the poster jump one wonders?
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 14:54
I may have mis-interpreted the remarks somewhat. More specifically in assuming that they were related to the injury whereas it appears the adjustments may not be related to the injury.
Nevertheless, the point remains that a number of slight changes can add up to quite a significant difference in the whole. For example, you could make a slight adjustment to the length of run up, a slight adjustment to the angle of approach and a slight adjustment to the head or wrist position at delivery... all individually slight adjustments but collectively they may have a significant impact.
It's also true that both myself and one or two other posters that have seen Lewis this season thought that he looked different.
Regardless, something has gone wrong with Lewis's bowling. And it doesn't sound like it is a slight thing. At Trent Bridge it looked as though he had little control over his length. Reports from the Durham game have him losing his run-up.
Nevertheless, the point remains that a number of slight changes can add up to quite a significant difference in the whole. For example, you could make a slight adjustment to the length of run up, a slight adjustment to the angle of approach and a slight adjustment to the head or wrist position at delivery... all individually slight adjustments but collectively they may have a significant impact.
It's also true that both myself and one or two other posters that have seen Lewis this season thought that he looked different.
Regardless, something has gone wrong with Lewis's bowling. And it doesn't sound like it is a slight thing. At Trent Bridge it looked as though he had little control over his length. Reports from the Durham game have him losing his run-up.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 14:57
And there we have our answer it seems...
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 15:22
Quote:Loyal of Lhasa.
... so good to see you two pleasuring each other. Just what we need on a dank and dismal day.
The thing we need to know - who is winning? who will win? Or do we place an each bet???
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 15:22
Sorry "Each way bet!!!"
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 14/05/2012 15:25
You have to hit it when the odds are high though OB not when they have come down to almost evens.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: RadstockRob (IP Logged)
Date: 15/05/2012 09:09
Surrey 13 bman squad
Rory Hamilton-Brown
Jaques Rudolf
Steve Davies
Jason Roy
Zander de Bryn
Tom Maynard
Chris Jordan
Gareth Batty
Stuart Meaker
Jon Lewis
Jade Dernbach
Tim Linley
George Edwards
Rory Hamilton-Brown
Jaques Rudolf
Steve Davies
Jason Roy
Zander de Bryn
Tom Maynard
Chris Jordan
Gareth Batty
Stuart Meaker
Jon Lewis
Jade Dernbach
Tim Linley
George Edwards
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 15/05/2012 10:23
No Ramps. Beginning of the end?
Sad, if so.
Sad, if so.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 15/05/2012 10:57
Has Jacques Rudolph done a Murali and had the spelling of his name amended then?
Because that's the second time recently that (different) posters have given him the reindeer spelling.
Because that's the second time recently that (different) posters have given him the reindeer spelling.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 15/05/2012 10:59
Quote:Grockle
You have to hit it when the odds are high though OB not when they have come down to almost evens.
You are right of course!! Most of the professionals either don't bet each way or only when the odds are 5 - 1 or greater!!
Even the discussion brightens up the atmosphere during this awful weather. I suppose it is sunshine through and through in Oman!!!
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 15/05/2012 11:01
BJ would of course know far more than me about this kind of thing.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Roger Sweet (IP Logged)
Date: 15/05/2012 11:11
Compo to open (as suggested by Little Bird) is probably the best way he will get into the England test team. Strauss is coming to the end of his career and a right/left combination with Alistair Cook could work very well. He is unlikely to make it as a no 5 or 6 and Trott is so well entrenched at no 3.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 15/05/2012 11:51
Ramps has been dropped by Surrey for tomorrow's match.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 15/05/2012 12:13
I don't really consider that SCCC selection policy should pay too much heed to the scenarios under which players might be able to get into the England team.
Whether or not Compton should open is a decision that should be driven by the question of whether or not it is in our best interests?
There's a school of thought that says if changes (to one's first choice line-up) are forced upon a team they should make sure that they change no more things than they are forced to do. i.e if Tres is out, slot somebody in as a like-for-like replacement, rather than engaging in a wider re-shuffle.
I'm not sure that I subscribe to that school of thinking though. For example, I'd have preferred to have somebody like Kieswetter move up the order to open rather than Gregory being asked to suddenly fill in at the top of the order. I'd have preferred that simply on the basis that I'd think you'd probably get more runs from Craig K at 2 and Lewis 5, than the reverse.
With Barrow, I think it's a bit of a different kettle of fish as he had some experience of opening the batting in the CC when Tres was out at the end of last season.
So, in that case, I think I'd leave Compton where he is at three and let Alex do the job.
Whether or not Compton should open is a decision that should be driven by the question of whether or not it is in our best interests?
There's a school of thought that says if changes (to one's first choice line-up) are forced upon a team they should make sure that they change no more things than they are forced to do. i.e if Tres is out, slot somebody in as a like-for-like replacement, rather than engaging in a wider re-shuffle.
I'm not sure that I subscribe to that school of thinking though. For example, I'd have preferred to have somebody like Kieswetter move up the order to open rather than Gregory being asked to suddenly fill in at the top of the order. I'd have preferred that simply on the basis that I'd think you'd probably get more runs from Craig K at 2 and Lewis 5, than the reverse.
With Barrow, I think it's a bit of a different kettle of fish as he had some experience of opening the batting in the CC when Tres was out at the end of last season.
So, in that case, I think I'd leave Compton where he is at three and let Alex do the job.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 15/05/2012 12:21
I don't think CK opening against a red ball with no fielding restrictions is a good idea at all, personally.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 15/05/2012 12:32
I'm not sure that I can see an issue in terms of red ball vs white ball, FE.
In fact, cricketers claim that the white ball swings more than the red one (disputed by the manufactuers... [news.bbc.co.uk]) so facing the red ball may be easier.
Yes, there'd be more men in catching positions, but so be it.
Regardless, I think it makes sense for Alex Barrow to do the job at the Oval.
In fact, cricketers claim that the white ball swings more than the red one (disputed by the manufactuers... [news.bbc.co.uk]) so facing the red ball may be easier.
Yes, there'd be more men in catching positions, but so be it.
Regardless, I think it makes sense for Alex Barrow to do the job at the Oval.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: hantssabre (IP Logged)
Date: 15/05/2012 12:59
I hope Tractor will be going to the match as I see Surrey are holding a Beer Festival at the ground for the duration of this match featuring 50 beers/ciders!
Looks like Richard Gould has had something to do with it!
Looks like Richard Gould has had something to do with it!
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 15/05/2012 13:01
Good God!!?? Really!
Wow, I was already looking forward to a day at the cricket in (rumoured) sunshine tomorrow, but now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wow, I was already looking forward to a day at the cricket in (rumoured) sunshine tomorrow, but now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: hantssabre (IP Logged)
Date: 15/05/2012 13:08
Well have a merry time!
[www.kiaoval.com]
[www.kiaoval.com]
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 15/05/2012 13:11
The manufacturer of Tractor’s favourite tipple has had a large box container parked in the car park of the county ground for about a week, I saw the side let down one day and it looks like it is a bar for serving the drinks.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 15/05/2012 13:13
We haven't really had too many problems with our batting this season anyway in the CC.
We took significant first innings leads against M'sex, Notts and Durham.
We didn't get chance to do the same against Lancs, because it rained.
We are one of only two sides to get maximum batting points in a match.
Only Warks was a blip.
3 of our top 6 have scored hundreds, two others got in the 90s.
We've also had a 43 and a 38 scored by tail enders.
Crisis..what crisis?
We took significant first innings leads against M'sex, Notts and Durham.
We didn't get chance to do the same against Lancs, because it rained.
We are one of only two sides to get maximum batting points in a match.
Only Warks was a blip.
3 of our top 6 have scored hundreds, two others got in the 90s.
We've also had a 43 and a 38 scored by tail enders.
Crisis..what crisis?
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 15/05/2012 13:19
On balance (given execrable weather) I think the batting has, thus far, been better this season than last.
Given that Marcus has been out, that is pretty encouraging to say the least. May have been too much of a (sub-conscious) leaving it to Marcus over the past couple of seasons.
Given that Marcus has been out, that is pretty encouraging to say the least. May have been too much of a (sub-conscious) leaving it to Marcus over the past couple of seasons.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 15/05/2012 13:24
Tenner admission price also excellent as that's the first 2.5 pints effectively paid for with the £10 that you would save compared to some other grounds, too.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 15/05/2012 13:36
But for 2 more wickets after lunch on the final day at Warks..
and
1 hour's more play up at Durham
We'd probably be top of the table now.
However, we didn't win either of those two games and are mid table..our season in the balance.
Really hope we can win at Surrey (hard) and then do what the weather denied us doing against Durham last time.
I feel a win is just around the corner as the side is starting to gel and realise it's potential.
Shame about the bad weather now forecast until mid June
and
1 hour's more play up at Durham
We'd probably be top of the table now.
However, we didn't win either of those two games and are mid table..our season in the balance.
Really hope we can win at Surrey (hard) and then do what the weather denied us doing against Durham last time.
I feel a win is just around the corner as the side is starting to gel and realise it's potential.
Shame about the bad weather now forecast until mid June
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 15/05/2012 13:53
Nice to see the long-awaited return of "execrable" - isn't mid-May a bit late for its return?
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 15/05/2012 13:54
The fact that the red ball swings less means that it swing, more often than the white one, just enough to beat the bat or take the edge. I think opening against a red ball in proper cricket is a much sterner test of defensive technique than one day opening. And fine player though CK is, I think there are others whose natural style is more appropriate to the role.
Edited for typos.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:15:14:05:38 by Frome Exile.
Edited for typos.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:15:14:05:38 by Frome Exile.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 15/05/2012 14:10
Little Bird - after your first post I was going to mention that you hadn't even mentioned the fact that we failed to clear out the Warks 'tail' for almost the first time since the game.
But before I could post what do you do? You post again and restore my faith that you haven't forgotten about it..... :-)
But before I could post what do you do? You post again and restore my faith that you haven't forgotten about it..... :-)
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: RadstockRob (IP Logged)
Date: 15/05/2012 14:17
I am not aware of any reindeer called Jaques AGod.
It could well be Ramps has a meeting to go to on the first day and he'll turn up on day two pleading to be allowed to bat.
It could well be Ramps has a meeting to go to on the first day and he'll turn up on day two pleading to be allowed to bat.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Botham (IP Logged)
Date: 15/05/2012 14:20
Surely they can't be expecting Tractor to drink and play?
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 15/05/2012 14:21
And I'm afraid whether you have an "issue" with the red v white debate is immaterial AG.
It's whether the players in the middle have an issue that is the factor here.
It's whether the players in the middle have an issue that is the factor here.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 15/05/2012 14:26
Gosh, and I thought the fact that I would not be good enough to nick a swinging ball of either colour was going to save us...
At least until they bowled one that didn't swing.
At least until they bowled one that didn't swing.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 15/05/2012 14:35
Quote:Grockle
Little Bird - after your first post I was going to mention that you hadn't even mentioned the fact that we failed to clear out the Warks 'tail' for almost the first time since the game.
But before I could post what do you do? You post again and restore my faith that you haven't forgotten about it..... :-)
No but there is a difference you failed to notice
This time it was written in a positive way..to illustrate that we've not been far off having an excellent start to our CC campaign. The margins between 3 wins so far and just 1 win so far have been narrow.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Bobstan (IP Logged)
Date: 15/05/2012 20:01
I'm appalled that this year I have heard my first cuckoo before reading my first 'execrable'.
It's not good enough; standards are falling.
It's not good enough; standards are falling.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: RadstockRob (IP Logged)
Date: 15/05/2012 21:10
Best take that clock to the menders Bobs.You're supposed to hear a cuckoo every hour on the hour.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Bobstan (IP Logged)
Date: 15/05/2012 21:26
It was my mum's, Rob.
Don't know what happened to it. When last seen the cuckoo cucked and ooed with the best of them.
Don't know what happened to it. When last seen the cuckoo cucked and ooed with the best of them.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: RadstockRob (IP Logged)
Date: 15/05/2012 21:40
Sounds like manflu but not so bad.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Roger Sweet (IP Logged)
Date: 15/05/2012 22:35
Quote:Botham
Surely they can't be expecting Tractor to drink and play?
What a brilliant idea - it will surele work if he had had a drinking "joust" with Dernbach, Linley, Lewis, Batty "et alia" beforehand!!!
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Roger Sweet (IP Logged)
Date: 15/05/2012 22:46
Some good news ascertained - Jos should be fit for the 4 day game against Durham next week. Sadly, I shall be 2,000 miles away visiting my sister then!!!
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 15/05/2012 23:36
Has the cricket season already started? I only ask because I'm not sure I've not heard any mention of FTM yet.
Re: surrey vs Somerset - Team selection
Posted by: RadstockRob (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 02:55
FTM is injured LoL.
Re: Surrey vs Somerset
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 05:56
No reference to Philander in the early team reports which suggests he is available and is expected to play.
Report on the ECB app says that both Buttler and Compton are also back but Jamie Overton is out.
Report on the ECB app says that both Buttler and Compton are also back but Jamie Overton is out.
Re: Surrey vs Somerset
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 06:31
Buttler back? Really? Marcus said Jos was out for 3 weeks. Very good news if true. Disappointing news re: J Overton. My understanding was that his elbow scan had been negative in terms of finding anything wrong?
I was looking forward to having a look at him. Still very much looking forward to seeing Craig O.
I have woken up to a pristine morning here in zone 5 South. I am about 25 mins from the Oval. I would think that today would be a fine day to win a toss and bat. However we are certainly due to finally lose a CC toss.
Having said that there was some very heavy rain in mid-afternoon yesterday so would not be surprised if ball does a bit for the first hour or so.
I will try to post when I see the pitch as to whether it is at all green.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:16:06:51:38 by AGod.
I was looking forward to having a look at him. Still very much looking forward to seeing Craig O.
I have woken up to a pristine morning here in zone 5 South. I am about 25 mins from the Oval. I would think that today would be a fine day to win a toss and bat. However we are certainly due to finally lose a CC toss.
Having said that there was some very heavy rain in mid-afternoon yesterday so would not be surprised if ball does a bit for the first hour or so.
I will try to post when I see the pitch as to whether it is at all green.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:16:06:51:38 by AGod.
Re: Surrey vs Somerset
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 06:41
Bristol Evening post tells a very different team news story.
They say Philander has a shoulder problem. Buttler is out. J Overton is fine and available.
That was yesterday.
They say Philander has a shoulder problem. Buttler is out. J Overton is fine and available.
That was yesterday.
Re: Surrey vs Somerset
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 06:42
Incidentally very poor that no team news on official site.
Isn't today's team news rather more important than rubbish about who our latest T20 target is?
Isn't today's team news rather more important than rubbish about who our latest T20 target is?
Re: Surrey vs Somerset
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 06:50
[www.thisisbristol.co.uk]
Correction this story dated today.
I don't expect to see Philander if he has even the slightest niggle - suspect the UCBSA phone line will ring.
To be honest, although I would have liked to see him, probably more interesting to see J Overton (who I assume will take his place)
Hussain supposedly one week away from fitness. But then I think Alf gets back next week? And if the Overtons can put down a marker today then Hussain will surely have to work hard to get a place.
Marcus previously said in this May 10 column in Western Daily Press that Kirby was 'not far behind Hussain.'
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:16:06:54:07 by AGod.
Correction this story dated today.
I don't expect to see Philander if he has even the slightest niggle - suspect the UCBSA phone line will ring.
To be honest, although I would have liked to see him, probably more interesting to see J Overton (who I assume will take his place)
Hussain supposedly one week away from fitness. But then I think Alf gets back next week? And if the Overtons can put down a marker today then Hussain will surely have to work hard to get a place.
Marcus previously said in this May 10 column in Western Daily Press that Kirby was 'not far behind Hussain.'
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:16:06:54:07 by AGod.
Re: Surrey vs Somerset
Posted by: RadstockRob (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 07:07
Philander to have late fitness test. Jove and Nick Compton included.
Re: Surrey vs Somerset
Posted by: Reverse Swing (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 07:33
Can't see Philander playing. Isn't this his "one out of three" to sit out anyway?
If his shoulder isn't right (let alone whether his heart is in it), what's the point of having him play. Six over stints when it's prescribed he can bowl, not when we want him too.
If his shoulder isn't right (let alone whether his heart is in it), what's the point of having him play. Six over stints when it's prescribed he can bowl, not when we want him too.
Re: Surrey vs Somerset
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 07:40
In terms of CC games then, yes, it would be the one out of the three.
Re: Surrey vs Somerset
Posted by: hantssabre (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 08:29
Hussain always seems to be a week away from being fit!
Re: Surrey vs Somerset
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 08:35
It doesn't look like England will see much of VP this Summer at this rate if he is going to be doubtful after every match.
.
.
Re: Surrey vs Somerset
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 08:59
Oh, I think England will see plenty of him.
Re: Surrey vs Somerset
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 09:43
Philander facing a fitness test... now why am I not surprised?
Re: Surrey vs Somerset
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 09:51
Well if he is facing a fitness test then one would assume there is a question about his fitness and the back injury he had was not completely healed when he bowled after he had been rested (would answer a lot of questions about his form)
If however this is an excuse (as is implied by some) then our administration are showing a considerable lack of backbone and guts in not publishing the true reason for absence from the game which would be the logical conclusion.
I'm not sure I'd expect that of Rose so, for the time being, I'm personally expecting a fitness test to take place and the chance of him playing to be an option.
Should that not to be proved as the case in the future well that will be an entriely different matter and a probable January AGM question in front of a large audience of supporters.
If however this is an excuse (as is implied by some) then our administration are showing a considerable lack of backbone and guts in not publishing the true reason for absence from the game which would be the logical conclusion.
I'm not sure I'd expect that of Rose so, for the time being, I'm personally expecting a fitness test to take place and the chance of him playing to be an option.
Should that not to be proved as the case in the future well that will be an entriely different matter and a probable January AGM question in front of a large audience of supporters.
Re: Surrey vs Somerset
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 10:02
Said to be a shoulder injury on this occasion, as opposed to back.
Re: Surrey vs Somerset
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 10:37
making it up as they go along.
Re: Surrey vs Somerset
Posted by: RadstockRob (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 10:43
Hildy won toss and we will bat first.
Re: Surrey vs Somerset
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 10:46
Cricinfo have Philander playing. Maybe, just maybe, he had an injury, a real one, had a fitness test and is now OK to play.
Just a thought...
Just a thought...
Re: Surrey vs Somerset
Posted by: Following on (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 10:49
The batting order shown by Cricinfo shows Compo at two and Alex Barrow at three. Is that likely? Lewis Gregory has been taken out of the firing line so someone has to partner Arul.
Re: Surrey vs Somerset
Posted by: RadstockRob (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 10:51
No mention of Jason Kerr.i hope he's not injured!
Re: Surrey vs Somerset
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 10:51
Am I right in thinking we've won ALL six tosses in the CC this season?
Re: Surrey vs Somerset
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 10:57
Quote:Ronniesabre
making it up as they go along.
As Vernon is playing Ron, I'd personally assume they are telling the truth. He had a shoulder niggle that needed checking. It's been checked in a fitness test and been assessed as OK so he plays.
Re: Surrey vs Somerset
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 11:00
Pitch looks as though it has a greenish tinge - although only when the sun is out so might be an optical illusion.
View not as good as at Northampton. Alex opening.
View not as good as at Northampton. Alex opening.
Re: Surrey vs Somerset
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 11:02
And didn't we also win the toss at Surrey and Durham in the CB40? Wow that's 8 out of 8 this season
Regards VP, at Trent Bridge he had twinged his back and would have been considered for selection had the weather been warmer..he wanted to play I believe..but following a phone call back to South Africa, it was decided it was too cold to risk him.
I understand he suffered a shoulder twinge up at Durham..which might explain his underwhelming bowling on the final day..but has been passed fit to play today
I believe we are being told the truth and it's not a problem.
Regards VP, at Trent Bridge he had twinged his back and would have been considered for selection had the weather been warmer..he wanted to play I believe..but following a phone call back to South Africa, it was decided it was too cold to risk him.
I understand he suffered a shoulder twinge up at Durham..which might explain his underwhelming bowling on the final day..but has been passed fit to play today
I believe we are being told the truth and it's not a problem.
Re: Surrey vs Somerset
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 11:04
Early swing for Lewis but line too wide to threaten.
Re: Surrey vs Somerset
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 11:17
Pitch not central. Short boundary to gas holder side.
George D therefore likely to bowl from Pavilion End, I'd guess.
George D therefore likely to bowl from Pavilion End, I'd guess.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 11:25
I agree with yo Little Bird. We are getting the truth about VP and no more than we should expect. I've read his injuries and performances in the same way as you - natural wear and tear if you ask me.
Re: Surrey vs Somerset
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 11:33
Quote:GrockleQuote:Ronniesabre
making it up as they go along.
As Vernon is playing Ron, I'd personally assume they are telling the truth. He had a shoulder niggle that needed checking. It's been checked in a fitness test and been assessed as OK so he plays.
I was referring to CSA as much as Somerset. They say they've concluded an agreement with us that he plays 2 and then rests 1.......we havent or he would have missed this one. The truth of what he is bowling and what has been agreed will probably never come out but I am a little bit scepticle of the whole situation with good reason. Its not ideal. A bowler has to bowl to a match situation in my view.
However, this is probably his last game so hopefully he goes out with a bang.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 11:36
Alex looks excellent.
Think this will be a lot of hard work for the Surrey bowlers if we bat with discipline.
Think this will be a lot of hard work for the Surrey bowlers if we bat with discipline.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 11:37
Nice one Grockle you got your plug in.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: barndoorio (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 11:42
Why no Jade Dernbach? hopefully it's to try and discourage his ridiculous posturing, but I doubt it.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 11:45
Just like up at Durham, so far today it's been a bright and very positive start from a youthful side looking to make their mark.
Keep it up
Keep it up
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 11:45
Can't agree Ron. The fact that Rose said we hadn't agreed any kind of deal and the fact that VP is playingin this game tells me that we are getting the truth of the situation from our own people and the Saffers are just blowing hard.
I don't believe there is any stuff that we haven't been given. Philander has been rested from games I think he was expected to be rested for. Rose may have agreed to not play him in one day games but he may very well have decided not to and Vernon hasn't been fit to do them anyway.
Rose may very well have consulted SA but in the end we have played the man when we wanted to and not when he has been injured. I don't like the idea that UCBSA think they have the power to dictate but I personally do believe that they have not dictated at all.
I don't believe there is any stuff that we haven't been given. Philander has been rested from games I think he was expected to be rested for. Rose may have agreed to not play him in one day games but he may very well have decided not to and Vernon hasn't been fit to do them anyway.
Rose may very well have consulted SA but in the end we have played the man when we wanted to and not when he has been injured. I don't like the idea that UCBSA think they have the power to dictate but I personally do believe that they have not dictated at all.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 11:52
Didn't somebody say in the Durham match they saw what looked like Vernon P indicate he wanted to bowl one more over. if so somebody is dictating how must he bowls.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 11:54
Surrey moaning about the ball.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 11:57
Quote:barndoorio
Why no Jade Dernbach? hopefully it's to try and discourage his ridiculous posturing, but I doubt it.
Bowled in utterly guileless fashion at Northampton on Saturday. Wouldn't be surprised if he has simply not been selected.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: brt1919 (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 11:57
Someone tell Barrow to slow down a bit. I'm just getting on the tube now, he'll have a century at this rate before I get there :-/
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 12:00
with respect you haven't been there Grockle. There is a deal done on what he bowls of that there is no doubt and others have seen it and commented on it.
He bowls max 6 overs per spell with the exception of maybe Warks in the 2nd dig but thats it. If he is your best bowler you need him bowling.
Hes had plenty of rest whilst here (22 overs in 3 and a bit weeks prior to the Durham game) so to use as we like in games would have been nice.
Im not having any go at BR here as his job is difficult enough.......personally I think he handles it well.
He bowls max 6 overs per spell with the exception of maybe Warks in the 2nd dig but thats it. If he is your best bowler you need him bowling.
Hes had plenty of rest whilst here (22 overs in 3 and a bit weeks prior to the Durham game) so to use as we like in games would have been nice.
Im not having any go at BR here as his job is difficult enough.......personally I think he handles it well.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 12:02
Real shame. Ball got a bit big on him and followed it a bit.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 12:04
Scoring likely to dry up for a while but if we could lunch on 90 for 1, I'd be more than happy.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 12:15
Surrey down to 3 main seamers now. Will have to lean on Zander.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Following on (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 12:20
Why what injury has been sufferred?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 12:21
Agod, can I thank you so far for your excellent updates! Much appreciated!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 12:30
F on - Chris Jordan collided with square leg umpire. Think he did his back in.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 12:33
Jordan re-emerged almost as soon as I typed last post.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: cricketjerry-mouse (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 12:38
Talk about back-pedalling.
Rather sad to see those posters who were rubbing their hands in anticipation (I won`t say `delight`) that Vernon Philander wouldn`t be playing today, now trying to pass the buck to the South African authorities.
One other thought - winning the toss yet again today (our one piece of unpredictable good fortune this season) gives VP a longer rest period from his shoulder injury.
Rather sad to see those posters who were rubbing their hands in anticipation (I won`t say `delight`) that Vernon Philander wouldn`t be playing today, now trying to pass the buck to the South African authorities.
One other thought - winning the toss yet again today (our one piece of unpredictable good fortune this season) gives VP a longer rest period from his shoulder injury.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 12:40
How was the umpire?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Roger Sweet (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 12:45
Warwickshire 78/0 and Kerrigan & Keedy have already bowled 11 overs!!! What sort of pitch is that???
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 13:14
The ump was ok.
Two notable features from this morning;
1. How late Alex plays it.
2. The beautiful straightness of Arul's driving. He's really given the bowler the chance to show off their fielding skills!
One other thought. Poor field-setting for Batty. They've left square leg/backward square totally vacant meaning that all that is needed to score a run is to paddle the off-spinner, with the spin, around the corner. Too easy.
If we bat with discipline this afternoon the chance could be there to really plunder some runs after tea.
I was asked to predict the score at close after one ball today. I said 309 for 7. I should like to revise that to 325 for 5.
Two notable features from this morning;
1. How late Alex plays it.
2. The beautiful straightness of Arul's driving. He's really given the bowler the chance to show off their fielding skills!
One other thought. Poor field-setting for Batty. They've left square leg/backward square totally vacant meaning that all that is needed to score a run is to paddle the off-spinner, with the spin, around the corner. Too easy.
If we bat with discipline this afternoon the chance could be there to really plunder some runs after tea.
I was asked to predict the score at close after one ball today. I said 309 for 7. I should like to revise that to 325 for 5.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 13:18
Mr Rose in an interview on the 30th March said “we are aliasing with the South African cricket on what he can do”. And in a few days we will have that set. [www.bbc.co.uk]
I wonder as a result of that discussion they said there is no restriction on how we bowl him?
That’s an odd last post from CJ-M.
I wonder as a result of that discussion they said there is no restriction on how we bowl him?
That’s an odd last post from CJ-M.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: barndoorio (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 13:21
So we're pretending to be the south african cricket board?
Or maybe you meant liase??
Or maybe you meant liase??
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 13:25
Quote:barndoorio
So we're pretending to be the south african cricket board?
Or maybe you meant liase??
You will have to excuse my spelling it isn’t very good, if I worried about it I would never post.
I will leave it otherwise your post will not make sense.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:16:13:27:35 by Mike TA1.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: barndoorio (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 13:30
I was only playing 
my spelling is dreadful, a product of fingers that are faster than my brain.
A bit like Shane Warne I suppose.
my spelling is dreadful, a product of fingers that are faster than my brain.
A bit like Shane Warne I suppose.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 13:33
Jordan's sunglasses lol
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 13:40
Hussain has been bowling at lunch.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Scrumper (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 13:46
What's Nasser's action?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 13:58
If I've got a main bowler carrying a back injury and I want to keep him operating at the best level I can keep him at then bowling him in 6 over spells seems emminently sensible to me.
I don't see how, whether I've been there or not, this is obvious evidence of a deal having been done.
Rose said he was injured for the Lancs game and everything during the Warks game suggested that this was the case.
SA said they had a deal and the evidence shows that they didn't have the deal they specified and Rose said there was no deal.
Rose said he had to have a fitness test today and he had one and was passed fit.
'liaising' with a national management does not mean that Somerset are changing their intentions to cater for the demands of such a body. Rose said there was no deal and therefore one can assume that SCCC's plans were fine with UCBSA
Sorry...to the outside observer the evidence suggests that Somerset control what the bowler does and if he is bowling 6 over spells it is because Somerset want him to bowl six over spells.
I think we've been told the truth.... and I'm happy to accept that because of the evidence. That is until someone shows me some physical alternative stuff to indicate Somerset are lying about the arrangements.
I don't see how, whether I've been there or not, this is obvious evidence of a deal having been done.
Rose said he was injured for the Lancs game and everything during the Warks game suggested that this was the case.
SA said they had a deal and the evidence shows that they didn't have the deal they specified and Rose said there was no deal.
Rose said he had to have a fitness test today and he had one and was passed fit.
'liaising' with a national management does not mean that Somerset are changing their intentions to cater for the demands of such a body. Rose said there was no deal and therefore one can assume that SCCC's plans were fine with UCBSA
Sorry...to the outside observer the evidence suggests that Somerset control what the bowler does and if he is bowling 6 over spells it is because Somerset want him to bowl six over spells.
I think we've been told the truth.... and I'm happy to accept that because of the evidence. That is until someone shows me some physical alternative stuff to indicate Somerset are lying about the arrangements.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 14:11
I think we will only know the exact details about the arrangement between us and South Africa AFTER VP has left us. Only then will it be sensible for the club to reveal what it was.
In the meantime we have him so let's enjoy that!
Terrific cricket by us so far today
In the meantime we have him so let's enjoy that!
Terrific cricket by us so far today
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 14:24
we will see then wont we?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 14:42
Arul's ton! Well done sir!!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 14:42
Congratulations Arul - excellent 100!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 14:43
Congrats to Arul!!!! 2nd CC hundred of the season and his second 50 made off just 40 balls.
Good positive cricket that's put us firmly on the front foot
Good positive cricket that's put us firmly on the front foot
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 14:45
[quote Ronniesabre]we will see then wont we?[/quote
Yep and isn't that the best thing to do?
Yep and isn't that the best thing to do?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 14:47
Second time watching the lads this season. Cumulative score so far?
About 655 for 3...
About 655 for 3...
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 14:50
Another fine running cock up, I'm afraid.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 14:52
Arul gone run out. Please don't collapse please guys.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 14:53
Oh no.........
206-1
Totally on top...
And the curse of the Compton between the wickets strikes again
206-1
Totally on top...
And the curse of the Compton between the wickets strikes again
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: barndoorio (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 14:54
Please tell me it wasn't Compos fault? Can anyone get a stat on number of run outs he's been involved in since he joined.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 14:54
Not looking at all likely, Grockle.
But Compton is yet again in the position of oweing the side a ton after that yes-no that did for Arul.
But Compton is yet again in the position of oweing the side a ton after that yes-no that did for Arul.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: barndoorio (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 14:56
at least one crumb is that it didn't come 7 runs earlier for Arul, who might have been dropped for the next match due to homicide charges.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 14:57
Compton called yes. Waited until Arul got half way down, changed mind.
Frankly, if I was Arul, I would have kept going and let Compton be out. Could certainly be justified given that the Malaysia born man had a ton.
Frankly, if I was Arul, I would have kept going and let Compton be out. Could certainly be justified given that the Malaysia born man had a ton.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 14:58
Sounded like a misjudged run and some excellent fielding. Nick didn't move it seems.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 15:00
You have to say that unless the clouds get very low tomorrow then this match will be a terrific education for Craig M and Overtons because this track is flat, and no mistake.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 15:03
The guy on the radio as summariser is a bit of a ...... isn't he? At least he did realise that it was slightly patronising of Gloucestershire to suggest that Lewis had come from a minor league to the big leagues half way through his statement about his move to Surrey. Arrogant gentleman or is it just me?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: mikeindex (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 15:15
I caught up with the score for the first time today to see we were 187/1 and startled my son by shouting out loud - switched the radio on just too late to catch Arul's 100, dammit. Sounds like an outstanding performance from our boys even if the pitch is a bit of a road.
Must stop now to shout at the commentators.
Must stop now to shout at the commentators.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: mikeindex (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 15:23
That's better.
The summariser guy is apparently Andy Afford, whom I vaguely remember as a left-arm spinner with Notts - according to his Cricinfo profile he took 468 first-class wickets, which is quite a lot, at an average of nearly 33, which is also quite a lot. He also seems to have been a batsman who might have pushed Chris Martin up to no. 10.
All in all his record strongly suggests that he never annoyed an opponent half as much as he does his listeners.
The summariser guy is apparently Andy Afford, whom I vaguely remember as a left-arm spinner with Notts - according to his Cricinfo profile he took 468 first-class wickets, which is quite a lot, at an average of nearly 33, which is also quite a lot. He also seems to have been a batsman who might have pushed Chris Martin up to no. 10.
All in all his record strongly suggests that he never annoyed an opponent half as much as he does his listeners.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 15:44
maybe it will spin later in the game? Lets hope so!!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: BristolBrend (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 15:58
Glad I am not the only one who thinks Afford is a ****. If he mentions Martin Bicknell or Compo's ego any more I think I will explode. The only summariser I have heard who is worse than him is Gareth Batty last year - must be a Surrey thing....
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 16:25
Have you heard Alec Stewart? So anodyne and awful voice.
Compton thought he hit his lbw one, I think. I think he may have got outside the line. Questionable decision.
Compton thought he hit his lbw one, I think. I think he may have got outside the line. Questionable decision.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 16:49
Quote:AGod
.
.
If we bat with discipline this afternoon the chance could be there to really plunder some runs after tea.
I was asked to predict the score at close after one ball today. I said 309 for 7. I should like to revise that to 325 for 5.
With 25 overs left do you fancy another revision?
wish I was there with you
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 16:51
Isn't Andy Afford something to do with the magazine "All Out Cricket?" or am I mistaken? Haven't checked my copy which I've got somewhere.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 17:06
Well he's something to do with the Cricketer now it seems. So sorry to see him pass the mike on.... ahhh shame.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: hantssabre (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 17:06
Sounds like he is now something to do with The Cricketer but was the editor or All Out Cricket.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 17:08
We've now hit 50 boundaries today
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 17:19
Yes it has been rather a good Somerset Day 1 hasn't it? 18 ish over to go as well.... 400 in a day is always good when you aren't in the field.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 17:25
Time to pile on the agony..
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 17:49
Who needs overpaid overseas show ponies when we've got these boys?
Superb.
Superb.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 17:53
James has now made 3 centuries as Somerset captain
The extra responsibility is bringing out the best in his batting.
The extra responsibility is bringing out the best in his batting.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 17:56
Quote:Big Jim
Who needs overpaid overseas show ponies when we've got these boys?
Superb.
BJ
It's a first!! I agree 150% with you!!!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 17:59
Just look at some of our reserves!!
TRESCOTHICK
BUTTLER
KIRBY
THOMAS
and
MAX!!!
TRESCOTHICK
BUTTLER
KIRBY
THOMAS
and
MAX!!!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 18:03
Meaker back on. Attacking bowler.. And Pete will take him on..
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 18:13
I'm sure we agree on much, ob.
It's just that we have different ways of presenting our points of view.
What a team this is.....the best....by far.
It's just that we have different ways of presenting our points of view.
What a team this is.....the best....by far.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 18:25
Sounds like great batting today on the sort of pitch we used to moan about at Taunton a few years ago!
Let's hope it's a case of scoreboard pressure and that, having declared around 500, we can chip away at their batting tomorrow.
Thanks to AG for his regular updates!
Let's hope it's a case of scoreboard pressure and that, having declared around 500, we can chip away at their batting tomorrow.
Thanks to AG for his regular updates!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 18:33
with Trego, Mesch and Philander to bat we should be looking for more than 500. I would say 550-600 and then get into them.
At the rate we have scored we have given a chance to chip away as you say.
At the rate we have scored we have given a chance to chip away as you say.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 18:49
They were all at the party today and well done to everyone, nobody failed today.
Things will look interesting for the future with stroke players like Alex B, Jos B and Craig K batting in the same team.
I was wondering if this might be Somerset’s highest first day match score for a while with a RR of 4.59.
Things will look interesting for the future with stroke players like Alex B, Jos B and Craig K batting in the same team.
I was wondering if this might be Somerset’s highest first day match score for a while with a RR of 4.59.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 19:02
[quote Little Bird]Sounds like great batting today on the sort of pitch we used to moan about at Taunton a few years ago!/quote]
You correct about that, that is why more often captains that wins the toss like to bat first to get the use of a pitch that has had the heavy roller used on it.
The pitch will not be so easy to bat on with no heavy roller flattening the pitch out between inning.
You correct about that, that is why more often captains that wins the toss like to bat first to get the use of a pitch that has had the heavy roller used on it.
The pitch will not be so easy to bat on with no heavy roller flattening the pitch out between inning.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 19:07
It's flat. And slow.
The key, for me, will be overhead conditions. Think they are meant to be favourable for bowling for the rest of the game.
If the ball is swinging around this may be only a 350 track or something like that.
Without assistance through the air then it's a 500+ track.
There have been some signs of dust, so George may also have a large say in this.
The key, for me, will be overhead conditions. Think they are meant to be favourable for bowling for the rest of the game.
If the ball is swinging around this may be only a 350 track or something like that.
Without assistance through the air then it's a 500+ track.
There have been some signs of dust, so George may also have a large say in this.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 19:24
The Oval is killing cricket.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 19:41
It looks like somebody agrees with AG.
Nothing looked more certain than three figures for Compton. He reached 83 with scarcely a false shot and then pushed forward, having put in a decent stride, at medium-pacer Zander de Bruyn as tea beckoned. There were two noises, or so it sounded, but umpire Trevor Jesty was confident that pad came first and raised the finger. [www.espncricinfo.com]
Nothing looked more certain than three figures for Compton. He reached 83 with scarcely a false shot and then pushed forward, having put in a decent stride, at medium-pacer Zander de Bruyn as tea beckoned. There were two noises, or so it sounded, but umpire Trevor Jesty was confident that pad came first and raised the finger. [www.espncricinfo.com]
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grizzers (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 19:47
Great day at the office lads !
Can't ask for better than that. Enjoy the night, get to 500+ & declare tomorrow.
Then the hard work starts !
Grizzzly
Can't ask for better than that. Enjoy the night, get to 500+ & declare tomorrow.
Then the hard work starts !
Grizzzly
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Norwich SCCC (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 19:58
Sounds like an almost perfect batting performance today.
We have scored quickly which enhances our chances of pushing for victory later on in the match.
Do the same tomorrow morning and aim for 550+ and "scoreboard pressure" becomes our 12th man.
We have scored quickly which enhances our chances of pushing for victory later on in the match.
Do the same tomorrow morning and aim for 550+ and "scoreboard pressure" becomes our 12th man.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 19:59
Re: Philander.
The cricket paper contains quotes attributed to Brian.
The substance of them is that Philander has not been fully fit at any point since joining us and is, therefore, bowling within himself. Brian says he's had three or so different niggles.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:16:20:06:04 by AGod.
The cricket paper contains quotes attributed to Brian.
The substance of them is that Philander has not been fully fit at any point since joining us and is, therefore, bowling within himself. Brian says he's had three or so different niggles.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:16:20:06:04 by AGod.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 20:03
Quote:AGod
Re: Philander.
The cricket paper contains quotes attibuted to Brian.
The substance of them is that Philander has not been fully fit at any point since joining us and is, therefore, bowling within himself. Brian says he's had three or so different niggles.
Clearly needs to be a clause in 'overseas' contracts - paid when played? Or maybe there is already?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 20:04
For anyone that did not make it today, but is thinking of it tomorrow, I can report that the ale and cider festival is excellent. 3 pounds a pint or half of that for a half pint. An excellent and varied selection. You have to buy tokens at the gazebo as it is a cashless bar.
If, like me, you are a sandwich man at the cricket, you will need to bring your own. Amazingly for a Test ground, there was not a sarnie for sale in sight. Poor. Don't think there were chips, either.
They are doing burgers and pasties with the beer and there are some ordinary crepes.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:16:20:08:07 by AGod.
If, like me, you are a sandwich man at the cricket, you will need to bring your own. Amazingly for a Test ground, there was not a sarnie for sale in sight. Poor. Don't think there were chips, either.
They are doing burgers and pasties with the beer and there are some ordinary crepes.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:16:20:08:07 by AGod.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 20:25
Three pounds for a pint of flavoured water?
Well I never.
Back in my day you could take a young girl to the pictures, get blind bladdered, buy a fish supper for two and take a taxi home all for under £1.97.
Three pounds for a pint?
Dear me.
Dear me.
That's London for you.
Dick Writhlington and all that malarkey.
Well I never.
Back in my day you could take a young girl to the pictures, get blind bladdered, buy a fish supper for two and take a taxi home all for under £1.97.
Three pounds for a pint?
Dear me.
Dear me.
That's London for you.
Dick Writhlington and all that malarkey.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 20:27
Obviously an excellent day for us.
It was a shame that Alex got out when he did, that Arul was run out and that Compton got a dodgy decision.
Don't think Hildreth or Craig K could complain about their decisions.
Rory H-B maintained very attacking fields for about 55 overs. This included three slips even though a nick to any of them always seemed unlikely.
I'm pretty sure that Marcus would have been more cautious. Unless conditions change markedly tomorrow then I hope James will be too. To me this is a track on which one should bowl full and straight and operate on the 'they miss, I hit,' principle. It's not a track for bowling for nicks to the slips, IMO.
One or two Surrey bowlers - especially Edwards - really struggled.
I think Stuart Meaker needs somebody like Waqar Younis or Simon Jones as a coach. Meaker has real pace and when he pitches it up, real potential. A bit too enamoured of the short ball though. Needs a fellow speed-merchant to get hold of him and explain that just because you are fast does not make short the best option. He should be working extensively on reverse swing as I think he's got the action to achieve it.
I thought Alex Barrow looked really good. He really does play it very late - something which most hold to be the sign of a very good player.
Arul played incredibly straight. A large number of drives were stopped by the bowler. Looked like he may go on past 150 until the run out. Shame.
I thought Craig K and Pete were the only guys today that showed overt aggression. So it tells you something about our dominance that we were able to score so quickly with only two guys taking any risks at all.
I'm starting to think that our batting is beginning to fully realise its potential. I think the work that Brian has done on stressing crease occupation is paying off handsomely.
In the five most recent CC innings that I have seen Somerset play, there have been six tons (3 from Hildreth, 2 from Suppiah and 1 from Craig K) plus a double from Compton.
In fact all of these tons have come in 3 innings.
It was a shame that Alex got out when he did, that Arul was run out and that Compton got a dodgy decision.
Don't think Hildreth or Craig K could complain about their decisions.
Rory H-B maintained very attacking fields for about 55 overs. This included three slips even though a nick to any of them always seemed unlikely.
I'm pretty sure that Marcus would have been more cautious. Unless conditions change markedly tomorrow then I hope James will be too. To me this is a track on which one should bowl full and straight and operate on the 'they miss, I hit,' principle. It's not a track for bowling for nicks to the slips, IMO.
One or two Surrey bowlers - especially Edwards - really struggled.
I think Stuart Meaker needs somebody like Waqar Younis or Simon Jones as a coach. Meaker has real pace and when he pitches it up, real potential. A bit too enamoured of the short ball though. Needs a fellow speed-merchant to get hold of him and explain that just because you are fast does not make short the best option. He should be working extensively on reverse swing as I think he's got the action to achieve it.
I thought Alex Barrow looked really good. He really does play it very late - something which most hold to be the sign of a very good player.
Arul played incredibly straight. A large number of drives were stopped by the bowler. Looked like he may go on past 150 until the run out. Shame.
I thought Craig K and Pete were the only guys today that showed overt aggression. So it tells you something about our dominance that we were able to score so quickly with only two guys taking any risks at all.
I'm starting to think that our batting is beginning to fully realise its potential. I think the work that Brian has done on stressing crease occupation is paying off handsomely.
In the five most recent CC innings that I have seen Somerset play, there have been six tons (3 from Hildreth, 2 from Suppiah and 1 from Craig K) plus a double from Compton.
In fact all of these tons have come in 3 innings.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 20:33
Quote:Big Jim
Three pounds for a pint of flavoured water?
Well I never.
Back in my day you could take a young girl to the pictures, get blind bladdered, buy a fish supper for two and take a taxi home all for under £1.97.
Three pounds for a pint?
Dear me.
Dear me.
That's London for you.
Dick Writhlington and all that malarkey.
Believe me, that's a good price in these parts!!!
Up and down the City Road
In and out of the Eagle
That's where the money goes
Pop goes the weasel.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: RadstockRob (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 20:41
You can tell how long ago it was when Jim bought a round.£3 a pint is cheap in Bath!Locals have to pay tourist prices.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: rodders (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 20:47
Come on Big Jim be honest and admit that you are as old as me - so you should have said one pound nineteen shillings and six pence !
Courage best and a plate of @#$%& and peas for half a crown with a free slice of dry bread'
Sixpence to watch a county fixture at Bath after one o clock.
Ah when we were young......................!
Courage best and a plate of @#$%& and peas for half a crown with a free slice of dry bread'
Sixpence to watch a county fixture at Bath after one o clock.
Ah when we were young......................!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 20:52
We've no intention of batting again in this match, as per Brian.
No chance of a declaration. He wants to just 'bat on and on and on.'
Tend to think that with Pete, Craig M and VP it's unlikely that we'll get remorseless crease occupation.
Think we're more likely to be out for 570 at lunch than 640 at tea.
No chance of a declaration. He wants to just 'bat on and on and on.'
Tend to think that with Pete, Craig M and VP it's unlikely that we'll get remorseless crease occupation.
Think we're more likely to be out for 570 at lunch than 640 at tea.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: rodders (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 20:52
............and why the devil does the auto censor blank out my reference to a ball of meat wrapped in animal gut which you can still buy in a decent butchers.
The world has gone mad when you can't post a plate of fa***ts on a forum !!
The world has gone mad when you can't post a plate of fa***ts on a forum !!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: NW5Somerset (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 21:30
Sounds like an excellent day at the office.
I'm down there tomorrow.
Will try and post updates but will probably get stuck into the beer festival so don't expect any sense.
I'm down there tomorrow.
Will try and post updates but will probably get stuck into the beer festival so don't expect any sense.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 21:36
Keep clear of that beer festival, they seem to be charging £3 a pint...a mistake....shirley?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Streeter (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 21:37
I feel a game coming on. How about discovering the most innocent word the censor censors ? Mind you I would think that @#$%& is pretty high on the list....
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 22:03
I go with...."English Rugby Union".....odds on it gets scrubbed.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: mikeindex (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 22:08
I was - indeed still am - in charge of a (mainly) literary site where the name of a very famous English author (1812-70) was invariably rendered as Thingyens until I changed the default settings - is that in the running?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Wickham (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 22:13
I agree with AG's summary. So, I won't attempt my own. But I will add a couple of observations.
The batsman who I most enjoyed watching today - and that is to take nothing away from the others - was Alex Barrow. He batted beautifully (and was mortified at the misjudgement which cost him his wicket) and really seems to have come on from last year. I think we have a real talent there.
I also greatly enjoyed the batting of the others (against a good bowling attack) - particularly, Suppiah and Hildreth, each of whom thoroughly deserved their centuries. Compton was highly effective: but he really ought to cut out the quick singles/twos - he is not a good judge of a run, so the risk/reward ration is against him (or, more often, his partner) when he thinks about a quick single or two.
All in all, a very enjoyable day, spent in very good company.
The batsman who I most enjoyed watching today - and that is to take nothing away from the others - was Alex Barrow. He batted beautifully (and was mortified at the misjudgement which cost him his wicket) and really seems to have come on from last year. I think we have a real talent there.
I also greatly enjoyed the batting of the others (against a good bowling attack) - particularly, Suppiah and Hildreth, each of whom thoroughly deserved their centuries. Compton was highly effective: but he really ought to cut out the quick singles/twos - he is not a good judge of a run, so the risk/reward ration is against him (or, more often, his partner) when he thinks about a quick single or two.
All in all, a very enjoyable day, spent in very good company.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 22:44
Last match our first day was brilliant when we bowled; this match the first day was brilliant when we batted.what more could we ask for. What of course is most impressive is the run rate.Look at close of play scores in the other matches and compare. We've given ourselves time. I think we shall do well for 550 by lunch and let loose the dogs of Weston Super Mare South Africa and Barnstaple.
thanks AG for your observations
thanks AG for your observations
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 22:51
Lovely cricket at The Oval today and I agree with Wickham about Barrow's innings. Suppiah thoroughly deserved his century, batting at great speed and with customary elegance after a slow start. Hildreth was simply imperial.
But the highlight of the day was a question from my Grocklite neighbour, who asked if I could say "How Big Jim is?". About this big was the obvious reply, as I extended my arms as far as I could.
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
But the highlight of the day was a question from my Grocklite neighbour, who asked if I could say "How Big Jim is?". About this big was the obvious reply, as I extended my arms as far as I could.
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 22:57
Thanks AG, Wickham and others for your observations from up close. Another excellent day for the team - hope they can keep it up till Surrey fly the flag of surrender.
PS Presumably the former Gloucs batsman and long-standing umpire (who I notice shared my birthday, albeit 47 yrs earlier) Jack Crapp will be blanked out?
PS Presumably the former Gloucs batsman and long-standing umpire (who I notice shared my birthday, albeit 47 yrs earlier) Jack Crapp will be blanked out?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 16/05/2012 23:12
He's got a foot like a traction engine is the correct answer.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 06:23
Good morning, BJ.
There were certain passages of play yesterday where it resembled a tour match - Glamorgan vs South Africa or something in terms of one sidedness. Needless to say, we were the Proteas.
Looking forward to the test of our bowling at some point today. Hopefully we'll have a good 550 to bowl at and if we just bowl straight and full then they should miss their share of them. And the umpires were in obliging moods re:lbws yesterday.
It might be that the Overtons may get more bounce than any of the Surrey bowlers, but VP, PT and Craig M should all be bowlers of a similar trajectory and have every chance of lbws.
There were certain passages of play yesterday where it resembled a tour match - Glamorgan vs South Africa or something in terms of one sidedness. Needless to say, we were the Proteas.
Looking forward to the test of our bowling at some point today. Hopefully we'll have a good 550 to bowl at and if we just bowl straight and full then they should miss their share of them. And the umpires were in obliging moods re:lbws yesterday.
It might be that the Overtons may get more bounce than any of the Surrey bowlers, but VP, PT and Craig M should all be bowlers of a similar trajectory and have every chance of lbws.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 08:32
On our way to the Oval today. Looking forward to the cricket and hopefully the increased cloud cover will help us
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Tumbles (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 08:35
Just in Woking today with work, very overcast this morning and feels like it's going to be quiet humid.
Might even be worth declaring first thing if it's likely to move about a bit.
Might even be worth declaring first thing if it's likely to move about a bit.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Bobstan (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 08:45
Whoever phrased their question like that is clearly young, naive and Ernie Wise to your Eric Morcambe, Mr Lhasa.
Do those who give you your feed lines get paid? If so I may apply for the job myself.
Finally it did not look to me as though Marcus will be fit to return any time soon.
Do those who give you your feed lines get paid? If so I may apply for the job myself.
Finally it did not look to me as though Marcus will be fit to return any time soon.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: brt1919 (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 09:28
Looking at some of the threads on here, I swear if Trego comes out to bat with odd socks today, we’d have a 12 page debate on it wondering whether it’s in his contract, what Brian Rose is going to do about it & how many overs he should be able to bowl with them on etc etc 
But looking at the batting performance yesterday & the bowling in the last match, it feels like the overseas player issue is becoming a bit of a sideshow, along with the loan signing debate. As a Somerset fan, with all the messing around we’ve had already this season, I’d be happy if the club said that next year we’re not going to have any overseas players, but instead invest the money into hiring the best batting or bowling coach, to really try & take the likes of Barrow & Meschede or the Overtons up a level, or a spin coach for Dockrell & Waller. But of course, whilst a few hundred hardcore fans might agree with me & would happily fork out to watch yesterday’s team in a 20/20, I guess there are many more people who will only be tempted by the likes of Chris Gayle opening the batting rather than Alex Barrow. No different from a football team I guess, there’s something great about a team of largely home-grown players or cheap signings who complement the team perfectly, but a star foreign signing is what puts bums on seats & sells shirts.
I’m not blaming the club for any of it – all looked quite straightforward not so long ago, signing RVDM for the season & adding Gayle for the 20/20. But whilst I’m no expert on cricket, all of our players yesterday looked decent enough & whilst unfortunately I have to work today & Friday, I’ll be going back to the Oval on Saturday to watch our team finish Surrey off.
One big positive is I’m no longer so worried about what’s going to happen when Tresco retires. Hopefully it’s not for a couple more years yet, but the likes of Suppiah, Hildreth & Compton are looking like they’ll fill the void ok & with Barrow coming through as well, the future is promising.
But looking at the batting performance yesterday & the bowling in the last match, it feels like the overseas player issue is becoming a bit of a sideshow, along with the loan signing debate. As a Somerset fan, with all the messing around we’ve had already this season, I’d be happy if the club said that next year we’re not going to have any overseas players, but instead invest the money into hiring the best batting or bowling coach, to really try & take the likes of Barrow & Meschede or the Overtons up a level, or a spin coach for Dockrell & Waller. But of course, whilst a few hundred hardcore fans might agree with me & would happily fork out to watch yesterday’s team in a 20/20, I guess there are many more people who will only be tempted by the likes of Chris Gayle opening the batting rather than Alex Barrow. No different from a football team I guess, there’s something great about a team of largely home-grown players or cheap signings who complement the team perfectly, but a star foreign signing is what puts bums on seats & sells shirts.
I’m not blaming the club for any of it – all looked quite straightforward not so long ago, signing RVDM for the season & adding Gayle for the 20/20. But whilst I’m no expert on cricket, all of our players yesterday looked decent enough & whilst unfortunately I have to work today & Friday, I’ll be going back to the Oval on Saturday to watch our team finish Surrey off.
One big positive is I’m no longer so worried about what’s going to happen when Tresco retires. Hopefully it’s not for a couple more years yet, but the likes of Suppiah, Hildreth & Compton are looking like they’ll fill the void ok & with Barrow coming through as well, the future is promising.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: just in (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 10:06
brt1919, I am one of those who would very much support your strategy. At this moment in time we have a group of young players who are in the very early stages of their cricketeting careers at a professional level.From what I have seen, they can develop into high class county cricketers for Somerset and they therefore need continued exposure to top level cricket.Overseas players are all very well and I would be very happy if each club had just one.This would allow for further development of the youngsters, save the clubs substantial sums of money and who knows, we might have the next Gayle, du Plessis or Morkel already contracted to Somerset in the form of Meschede, Barrow, Dibble, Gregory or the Overtons.Look how Buttler has quickly become a star in the side.Continued exposure to 1st XI cricket is required and your idea of utilising the overseas money on specilist coaching is worthy of support.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 10:11
Once we stop batting, this will be an excellent test of captaincy for James.
I felt that Rory H-B largely failed the tough test of captaining an attack on a mill-pond yesterday.
Surrey failed to design and/or implement a coherent plan of attack.
My feeling is that, whatever Brian might want, SCCC will probably have to bat again in this match. Therefore, keeping things tight and disciplined in the field will be very important if we don't want to be left with a frantic chase of 200 in 17 overs or something.
I'd like to see straight, full bowling and straight fields e.g. Straightish mid wicket, straightish cover. I think this is especially true when the bowling is from the Vauxhall Road End. From the pavilion end, with a short leg side boundary, there might be more of a case for bowling in the corridor, I suppose. Those situations will reverse to Davies and Rudolph and Maynard, though.
I don't want to see lots of slips. In terms of close fielders I'd prefer to see people designed to stop the batsmen lunging forward, so as to maintain them as lbw candidates. Perhaps a bat-pad man on the leg side and a man on the drive at short-cover on the off.
I felt that Rory H-B largely failed the tough test of captaining an attack on a mill-pond yesterday.
Surrey failed to design and/or implement a coherent plan of attack.
My feeling is that, whatever Brian might want, SCCC will probably have to bat again in this match. Therefore, keeping things tight and disciplined in the field will be very important if we don't want to be left with a frantic chase of 200 in 17 overs or something.
I'd like to see straight, full bowling and straight fields e.g. Straightish mid wicket, straightish cover. I think this is especially true when the bowling is from the Vauxhall Road End. From the pavilion end, with a short leg side boundary, there might be more of a case for bowling in the corridor, I suppose. Those situations will reverse to Davies and Rudolph and Maynard, though.
I don't want to see lots of slips. In terms of close fielders I'd prefer to see people designed to stop the batsmen lunging forward, so as to maintain them as lbw candidates. Perhaps a bat-pad man on the leg side and a man on the drive at short-cover on the off.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 10:48
My usual bleat! I would like James to have access to the full range of attack after such a brilliant show by the batters - seamers plus slow left arm AND Max. I frankly can't visualise this season where BR anticipates using Max if he hasn't been used to date in the 4 day OR 1 day stuff. Which, of course, begs the question - why was he given another years contract??
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 11:12
Pretty sure he'll be used in T20, Old Boy.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 11:36
Maybe that's where Tregs went wrong this morning - came out with the wrong socks on!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Kingston Black (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 11:44
I was just about to post that "It seems that we will deny Surrey their third bowling point" when George goes! - For those of you in attendance how is batting looking this morning? Hopefully it's moving around all over the shop?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: barndoorio (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 11:48
Well, George getting out didn't give them anymore points, Craig Meschede getting out has got them to within 1 wicket of the 3rd bonus point, and they have 2 overs to get that wicket.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Botham (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 11:50
Surely a good strategy would be to declare, as it's clearly difficult to score runs, so we're wasting the excellent bowling conditions and I reckon rain will intervene.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 11:51
Oh dear. Not sure anyone read Brian's 'bat on and on and on,' memo.
Meaker has bowled well, though.
I think the pitch might have quickened up very slightly (could not possibly get any slower than yesterday) and a bit of a breeze is producing a little swing.
Still a good batting track though!
Meaker has bowled well, though.
I think the pitch might have quickened up very slightly (could not possibly get any slower than yesterday) and a bit of a breeze is producing a little swing.
Still a good batting track though!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: barndoorio (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 11:54
When was the last time twins batted together in first class cricket? The Waughs or the Marshalls I'm guessing.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Kingston Black (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 11:55
Quote:barndoorio
Well, George getting out didn't give them anymore points, Craig Meschede getting out has got them to within 1 wicket of the 3rd bonus point, and they have 2 overs to get that wicket.
Which was precisely my concern and which they have now got. I should have kept my big mouth shut...
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Botham (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 11:59
I rest my case, we are undoing much of yesterdays excellent work, giving Surrey impetus.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 12:03
Let's wait and see how we bowl.
Some of the Surrey stuff yesterday was ordinary.
Great leg-whip just now by Joverton.
Some of the Surrey stuff yesterday was ordinary.
Great leg-whip just now by Joverton.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 12:06
Blow on hand for COverton off Meaker. Being really tested from round the wicket.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 12:08
Sorry Botham? Undoing yesterday?
Isn't that going ever so slightly over the top? It's just past midday on Day 2 and we are 480 in front. How much 'impetus' are Surrey getting from this hour? How much of yesterday are they undoing? The century of Suppiah? Hildreth? The batting of Barrow?
I'll believe they've got any impetus if they are over 200 today with less than 3 wickets down.
Whatever time the guys get the ball in their hands they'll have to take 20 so whether they get it in their hands at 11;15 or after lunch they still have that job in front of them and if we pass the psychological barrier of 500 (which we may not) the 'impetus' of taking a few early wickets will disappear as they look up the hill they have to climb and the 350 odd they have to make in order to avoid follolwing on on Day 3/4.
Aren't you curious to see what kind of tail the Overton's make? I certainly am.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:17:12:10:17 by Grockle.
Isn't that going ever so slightly over the top? It's just past midday on Day 2 and we are 480 in front. How much 'impetus' are Surrey getting from this hour? How much of yesterday are they undoing? The century of Suppiah? Hildreth? The batting of Barrow?
I'll believe they've got any impetus if they are over 200 today with less than 3 wickets down.
Whatever time the guys get the ball in their hands they'll have to take 20 so whether they get it in their hands at 11;15 or after lunch they still have that job in front of them and if we pass the psychological barrier of 500 (which we may not) the 'impetus' of taking a few early wickets will disappear as they look up the hill they have to climb and the 350 odd they have to make in order to avoid follolwing on on Day 3/4.
Aren't you curious to see what kind of tail the Overton's make? I certainly am.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:17:12:10:17 by Grockle.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 12:16
Looks like JOverton should possibly come in before Craig O.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 12:19
Grockle - in answer to the question you raised at the end of your post JOverton does not look a tail-ender at all.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Chinaman (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 12:21
By Jove! Astounding antics by our new no. 11!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Chinaman (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 12:23
My wife and I are curious: are the Overtons identical twins? If yes, why do their batting styles appear (at least on the scorecard) to be so drastically different?
All info gratefully accepted.
All info gratefully accepted.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 12:24
Momentum? Jamie will have some to take into his bowling.
So much so that I wonder whether James should throw him the new cherry?
So much so that I wonder whether James should throw him the new cherry?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 12:26
What is that noise? Ahhhh it's the air going out of the Surrey impetus balloon :-)
500 plus is ample for any first innings. Well done Overtons which ever way you come in. AG... maybe they played a twin trick and James DID come in before Craig!
500 plus is ample for any first innings. Well done Overtons which ever way you come in. AG... maybe they played a twin trick and James DID come in before Craig!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: barndoorio (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 12:30
Send Jamie in to open, then when he gets out, send him in again later as Craig...?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: barndoorio (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 12:32
Though Craig is doing his job just fine, faced over 5 overs and keeping it out nicely.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 12:32
Jamie's back foot play through the offside is of a very high standard.
Both twins have also done well to keep out yorkers.
And we've just gone off. Shame. I'd have preferred to keep watching Jamie bat.
Wondering if rain is on way and Brian has seen the radar?
Both twins have also done well to keep out yorkers.
And we've just gone off. Shame. I'd have preferred to keep watching Jamie bat.
Wondering if rain is on way and Brian has seen the radar?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 12:35
Half an hour either side of lunch facing 363 to avoid batting again may have a bit more of an appeal than the weather AG
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 12:44
Certainly a significant departure from the plan from last night, though.
Obviously, Brian wasn't expecting to lose as many early wickets as we did.
I'd say Plan A of only bat once is probably out the window.
Still every chance of winning it by batting twice, though..
Obviously, Brian wasn't expecting to lose as many early wickets as we did.
I'd say Plan A of only bat once is probably out the window.
Still every chance of winning it by batting twice, though..
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 12:49
WOW.
What a ball. Stunning!
What a ball. Stunning!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Tumbles (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 12:52
Overpaid overseas stars pfft who needs em
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 12:57
Quote:AGod
Certainly a significant departure from the plan from last night, though.
Obviously, Brian wasn't expecting to lose as many early wickets as we did.
I'd say Plan A of only bat once is probably out the window.
Still every chance of winning it by batting twice, though..
Blimey, a coach who adapts to what's happenning in front oh him. Who'd have thought.
How do you know we will need to bat again
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 13:00
Wow. Wasted on thee, as F S T would say.
Jamie looks too good for the Surrey top order. He's going to have to keep hitting the stumps, though, because I don't think they are going to be able to nick them outside off.
Jamie looks too good for the Surrey top order. He's going to have to keep hitting the stumps, though, because I don't think they are going to be able to nick them outside off.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 13:04
Quote:Tumbles
Overpaid overseas stars pfft who needs em
Hope that doesn'relate to our choice Tumbles. Don't think he is particularly 'overpaid' and we needed him at the start of the season. If nothing else,
Philander's particular presence takes the pressure off the new guys at the start of their careers and gives them the confidence to just come in and bowl.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 13:10
Quote:Chinaman
My wife and I are curious: are the Overtons identical twins? If yes, why do their batting styles appear (at least on the scorecard) to be so drastically different?
All info gratefully accepted.
I haven't seen them in the flesh but photos would indicate their main similarity is height!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 13:15
Yeah, they do not look identical in their photos.
Cannot remember the last time I was this excited by 12 balls from one bowler.
Cannot remember the last time I was this excited by 12 balls from one bowler.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 13:18
And Nailsea. I do not 'know,' that we won't win by an innings.
But conditions are not such that a first-class team should lose 20 wkts for fewer than 512 runs.
Then again, if Jamie is going to bowl like that after lunch and if his twin can bowl anything like him..
But conditions are not such that a first-class team should lose 20 wkts for fewer than 512 runs.
Then again, if Jamie is going to bowl like that after lunch and if his twin can bowl anything like him..
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Tumbles (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 13:23
Quote:AGod
Wow. Wasted on thee, as F S T would say.
Jamie looks too good for the Surrey top order. He's going to have to keep hitting the stumps, though, because I don't think they are going to be able to nick them outside off.
It was more tongue in cheek over our problems with recruiting T20 overseas players. Just delighted to see young, local, talent, shinning on the first class stage.
The future is bright, the future is Somerset.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 13:27
Yes as a famous old comic used to say...."Turned out nice again".
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:17:13:30:32 by Grockle.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:17:13:30:32 by Grockle.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Chinaman (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 13:31
Thanks, AG and OB. Where are the photos you speak of? Can't find any on the official site, or on Cricinfo.
Talented AND non-identical twins would be very exciting. The possibility of two different skill-sets with similar genetics.
Talented AND non-identical twins would be very exciting. The possibility of two different skill-sets with similar genetics.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Chinaman (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 13:48
It's just occurred to me that based on current form it will be very difficult to decide who to drop from this XI if some of the missing players come back. I guess Alfonso will step in for Philander, so that's a natural swap, but apart from that ... not easy.
Keep them all in, I say.
Keep them all in, I say.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 14:04
Looked for all the world like a collision and drop - what a catch! Stunning!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 14:09
The twins photo - [www.somersetcountycc.co.uk]
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 14:18
Assuming we get a fw more performances before this becomes an issue then there will be some difficult decisions to make regarding the present side and how you improve it.
No doubt at all that the return of the skipper improves the side - but with Arul, James and Nick all making runs and Alex looking so good who will make way? I'd assume it would be Alex but not on the basis of lack of performance quality.
Lewis would/can not get into this side at the moment and should Jos get over his injury for next week who would he come in for? Pete is highly necessary for the bowling, so is Jamie Overton and his brother Craig at the moment and George isn't going anywhere so poor old Craig Meschede would miss out through no fault of his own - unless the return of Jos is not so clear cut.
I presently don't think Adam or Gemaal are considerations for this team until they prove something consistently in the nets or during the ever so rare second team matches.
Steve Kirby is another matter and he would have to be brought back in at the expense of one of the Overton's. Probably Craig because James brings something with the bat.
Who would have thought this would be the situation even 2 weeks ago when we were hearing all about how weak we were going to be and how little these people could take the place of those who were unavailable. Suddenly we have depth to burn and will probably not see some posters for quite a while if progress continues at this rate.
No doubt at all that the return of the skipper improves the side - but with Arul, James and Nick all making runs and Alex looking so good who will make way? I'd assume it would be Alex but not on the basis of lack of performance quality.
Lewis would/can not get into this side at the moment and should Jos get over his injury for next week who would he come in for? Pete is highly necessary for the bowling, so is Jamie Overton and his brother Craig at the moment and George isn't going anywhere so poor old Craig Meschede would miss out through no fault of his own - unless the return of Jos is not so clear cut.
I presently don't think Adam or Gemaal are considerations for this team until they prove something consistently in the nets or during the ever so rare second team matches.
Steve Kirby is another matter and he would have to be brought back in at the expense of one of the Overton's. Probably Craig because James brings something with the bat.
Who would have thought this would be the situation even 2 weeks ago when we were hearing all about how weak we were going to be and how little these people could take the place of those who were unavailable. Suddenly we have depth to burn and will probably not see some posters for quite a while if progress continues at this rate.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 14:30
The thing with Hussain, Grockle, is that he is supposedly on a big contract.
If so, that may have a bearing on selection as club will be very keen to get a return out of him?
If so, that may have a bearing on selection as club will be very keen to get a return out of him?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: edinburghbil (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 14:34
Great to see so many promising performances by the youngsters, but we all know "You don't win anything with kids"!
A shame that Lewis appears to have taken a step backwards, post injury, but hopefully he will bounce back. No-one has mentioned Chris Jones yet either
I suspect we will be prudent to use squad rotation with the young bowlers a bit and give the Irish pair (O'Vertons), Dibble and Craig some games off. Particuarly when/if Alf and
Kirby are available???
A shame that Lewis appears to have taken a step backwards, post injury, but hopefully he will bounce back. No-one has mentioned Chris Jones yet either
I suspect we will be prudent to use squad rotation with the young bowlers a bit and give the Irish pair (O'Vertons), Dibble and Craig some games off. Particuarly when/if Alf and
Kirby are available???
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 14:41
Who cares how big Gemaal's contract is? He has to earn his place and he doesn't do that by how much he gets paid or how long he has on the club's books.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 14:54
We must find a way to dry up some of Davies' runs. Think it might be time to give George a go soon.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 14:57
Come on boys, a little bit of control needed
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 15:06
Surrey treating this as a one day game.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Wickham (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 15:07
Excellent innings by Jove. And Dockers and Cove no mugs with the bat.
Great yorker from Jove to bowl Rudolph. Astonishing catch from Meschede on the boundary: he misjudged a high swirling catch, stuck out his right hand and clung on.
Great yorker from Jove to bowl Rudolph. Astonishing catch from Meschede on the boundary: he misjudged a high swirling catch, stuck out his right hand and clung on.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 15:12
At current rate, they'll be 400 by stumps.
Great shame about the boundary catch by JOverton.
But at the time of typing this one has 'draw,' stamped on it. Just not enough in it for bowlers.
Quite a good, tight, first over from COverton.
Great shame about the boundary catch by JOverton.
But at the time of typing this one has 'draw,' stamped on it. Just not enough in it for bowlers.
Quite a good, tight, first over from COverton.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 15:15
Well let's all hope that James has a bit more about him than Rory and takes no notice of your draw assessment before the game is 50% over.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 15:24
Very good over by COverton to Zander.
Most consistent over by a SCCC bowler today.
Most consistent over by a SCCC bowler today.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Botham (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 15:26
My earlier point about losing impetus, was that we had Surrey on the ropes, overnight and observing that conditions this morning, were helpful to bowlers, we should have surprised them and declared, giving our bowlers more use of the good conditions, prior to the weather clearing. All we did was allow Surrey to gain precious points and momentum.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 15:35
Does anyone ever decalre mid innings based on conditions in the morning
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 15:37
COverton to Zander looking our best shout of a wicket by some distance.
If he can be kept on long enough, I think he'll get him LBW.
If he can be kept on long enough, I think he'll get him LBW.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Botham (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 15:48
Quote:Nailsea_Fizz
Does anyone ever decalre mid innings based on conditions in the morning
It should depend upon what you consider your best option to be to try and win the game. Good captains aren't necessarily the ones who follow protocol.
The way our bowlers seem to be struggling this afternoon, would suggest my idea may well have been a sound one.
Just like ftm in T20, few teams try it, but when it has been done, it works, so lets be brave and uncoventional.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 15:50
Well, we've not bowled that badly. But we have gone for 5 an over which tells you all you really need to know about how easy batting is.
COverton has, I think, been our most consistent bowler. Has generally avoided dropping short.
Craig M bowled a good line.
Force not really with Pete.
Philander a bit unlucky on a couple of occasions.
JOverton seemed to lose a bit of fire over lunch.
COverton has, I think, been our most consistent bowler. Has generally avoided dropping short.
Craig M bowled a good line.
Force not really with Pete.
Philander a bit unlucky on a couple of occasions.
JOverton seemed to lose a bit of fire over lunch.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 16:02
Maybe they (JH, BR, MT if he's there, senior players like CK and PT) discussed it, considered the match, pitch and weather conditions, then decided that wasn't the best way to press for a win.
As I have said before, these guys have played a lot of cricket to get where they are, are generally better at it than us and have first-hand experience of the conditions on the day.
No problem that four quick wickets after tea won't solve
As I have said before, these guys have played a lot of cricket to get where they are, are generally better at it than us and have first-hand experience of the conditions on the day.
No problem that four quick wickets after tea won't solve
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 16:02
Lets hope the break for tea brings us a wicket or two, with two of the best batsmen (except ours) in the country batting any of these two getting out will be good.
.
.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 16:11
Great scalp for George, well done.
Personally, I would not have declared at all, nevermind overnight.
In terms of the weather, Botham, I would say that it has been similar all day until tea. Now it really is clearing up and becoming bright.
Personally, I would not have declared at all, nevermind overnight.
In terms of the weather, Botham, I would say that it has been similar all day until tea. Now it really is clearing up and becoming bright.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 16:14
Well done, Mike, you hexed BOTH out!!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Following on (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 16:18
Quick someone who is at the ground get down to the kitchen and find out what the guys had for tea! 2 wickets for nought in five balls!!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 16:25
I switched to Pavilion end at tea.
Saw 12 wkts in about 163 overs from Vauxhall Road End.
Now 3 in 3 from Pavilion!!
Saw 12 wkts in about 163 overs from Vauxhall Road End.
Now 3 in 3 from Pavilion!!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Following on (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 16:34
Surrey need 162 more to avoid the follow on. And on a comparison front after 44 overs Somerset were 195-1 Surrey 201 - 5.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 16:41
Quote:SheptonPaul
Maybe they (JH, BR, MT if he's there, senior players like CK and PT) discussed it, considered the match, pitch and weather conditions, then decided that wasn't the best way to press for a win.
As I have said before, these guys have played a lot of cricket to get where they are, are generally better at it than us and have first-hand experience of the conditions on the day.
No problem that four quick wickets after tea won't solve
Top Hexing
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Railboy (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 16:49
Can't believe anyone in their right mind expected us to declare overnight! On a flat, unhelpful wicket, would have left them needing less than 300 to avoid the follow on, and not inconcievable that they could have overtaken us by the end of the day and then us[u][/u] being under all sorts of pressure 2nd up.
I imagine they hoped for rather more runs this morning, nevertheless the 70 or so we did score made sure the momentum stayed with us.
I imagine they hoped for rather more runs this morning, nevertheless the 70 or so we did score made sure the momentum stayed with us.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 17:18
Well all that impetus we gave them this morning has meant they have really got us with our backs against the wall this evening!!!
All those points we gave away and all that confidence they got by getting those wickets has turned this into a probable draw situation as AG so logically called it before Tea.
If only we'd known that at 11 we'd have surprised them with a declaration rather than scoring over 500. As it is they find themselves in the dominating position of needing 119 to avoid the follow on with 4 wickets remaining. (TiC)
You know there is a point in time when you've dug the hole, climbed in and have started to bury yourself when either you don't post for a week or simply go "Yep misread that one then" rather than continuing to fill up the shovel and pour it over your own head.
But no.....
All those points we gave away and all that confidence they got by getting those wickets has turned this into a probable draw situation as AG so logically called it before Tea.
If only we'd known that at 11 we'd have surprised them with a declaration rather than scoring over 500. As it is they find themselves in the dominating position of needing 119 to avoid the follow on with 4 wickets remaining. (TiC)
You know there is a point in time when you've dug the hole, climbed in and have started to bury yourself when either you don't post for a week or simply go "Yep misread that one then" rather than continuing to fill up the shovel and pour it over your own head.
But no.....
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Chinaman (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 17:35
Alfonso should be back soon, shouldn't he? His IPL team only has one game left and they're out of contention.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 17:45
Discussed somewhere else China.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Haringey Racer (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 18:24
Quote:Nailsea_Fizz
Does anyone ever decalre mid innings based on conditions in the morning
Langer did something of the sort at Lord's once. 50-8 wasn't it? Didn't work, mind.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: nelliec (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 18:42
According to the SCCC website JObertan got Kallis out with a superb delivery which must have swung a mile from delhi to London
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 19:00
I expect Vernon will blow away the last four within an hour IMO!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 19:04
George is extracting some bounce and a bit of turn.
Still very little in it for pace bowlers.
Hate to say it, Old Boy, but.. You fill in the gap...
Still very little in it for pace bowlers.
Hate to say it, Old Boy, but.. You fill in the gap...
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 19:13
Overall today, I thought C Overton bowled the most consistent spell.
J Overton, in his first two overs, bowled the best individual balls, IMO.
Philander seemed to slip himself a bit more after tea.
Two of the six Surrey wickets were giveaways, IMO, with Roy and Jordan each pulling balls down the throat of deep backward square.
I don't think we should enforce the follow-on, if it arises, but I do think we need a lead of 150ish to help us really try to push for a win in this one.
If it's much closer than that on first innings - say only 80 or 90 runs difference - then that would mean we'd lose 75 mins or so of bowling time at the end.
On balance still suspect a draw may be the most likely outcome as Surrey will presumably be more circumspect second time around. Some rain forecast after lunch tomorrow, too.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:17:19:26:04 by AGod.
J Overton, in his first two overs, bowled the best individual balls, IMO.
Philander seemed to slip himself a bit more after tea.
Two of the six Surrey wickets were giveaways, IMO, with Roy and Jordan each pulling balls down the throat of deep backward square.
I don't think we should enforce the follow-on, if it arises, but I do think we need a lead of 150ish to help us really try to push for a win in this one.
If it's much closer than that on first innings - say only 80 or 90 runs difference - then that would mean we'd lose 75 mins or so of bowling time at the end.
On balance still suspect a draw may be the most likely outcome as Surrey will presumably be more circumspect second time around. Some rain forecast after lunch tomorrow, too.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:17:19:26:04 by AGod.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 19:15
Quote:AGod
George is extracting some bounce and a bit of turn.
Still very little in it for pace bowlers.
Hate to say it, Old Boy, but.. You fill in the gap...
Thanks AG "--- where's MAX??"
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Wickham (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 19:40
We almost had a wicket from the final ball when Arul, at silly point, pushed up a very firm edge by Maynard off Dockrell, but the rebound eluded him.
Dockrell bowled well. There was enough for him in the pitch to ensure that the batsmen couldn't take him lightly.
Philander was, as you would expect, a class above any of the other pace bowlers.
Earlier in the day, Jove played some good shots and all the other batsmen shaped up well.
Not a bad morning for Jove - 34 not out, followed by a wicket in his first over, on his first-class debut.
Dockrell bowled well. There was enough for him in the pitch to ensure that the batsmen couldn't take him lightly.
Philander was, as you would expect, a class above any of the other pace bowlers.
Earlier in the day, Jove played some good shots and all the other batsmen shaped up well.
Not a bad morning for Jove - 34 not out, followed by a wicket in his first over, on his first-class debut.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 19:50
Don't ya just love it?
Loadsa good news amid the predictions of mediocrity. I'm having a good time this year.
Not expecting anything particularly and getting loads in return. Excellent stuff.
Loadsa good news amid the predictions of mediocrity. I'm having a good time this year.
Not expecting anything particularly and getting loads in return. Excellent stuff.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: litlekeithy (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 19:53
There were quite sensible reasons in batting on in the morning, Last week Surrey bounced back from a big first innings deficit, Maynard scored a big ton, and had Worcestershire hanging on at the end, so eating up time is a factor.
Also, it gave the new ball bowlers a run out before lunch, then a rest and another go afterwards with the new ball, in which two wickets fell.
I think there is still ECB guidance on bowling young players, spell limits etc, which must be a factor in considerations along with nursing the few that are fit.
One more injury and the problems will be greatly exacerbated. So using the lunch break to break up spells is a useful tactic.
Also, it gave the new ball bowlers a run out before lunch, then a rest and another go afterwards with the new ball, in which two wickets fell.
I think there is still ECB guidance on bowling young players, spell limits etc, which must be a factor in considerations along with nursing the few that are fit.
One more injury and the problems will be greatly exacerbated. So using the lunch break to break up spells is a useful tactic.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 22:00
226 ahead;4 wickets to fall.We would have bitten off the hand of anyone offering us that on Tuesday night. Let's just enjoy this "feeble" team doing us proud.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Bobstan (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 22:14
Max has been almost the busiest person at the Oval today, ob, bringing out drinks at 90 second intervals.
I exaggerate marginally to emphasise how silly this drinks nonsense has become.
I exaggerate marginally to emphasise how silly this drinks nonsense has become.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Botham (IP Logged)
Date: 17/05/2012 23:14
This site would be so much better, if just because one poster disagrees with another, the OP wasn't met with a sarcastic response.
That is the main reason why I don't post much, as it's difficult to have an intelligent debate with some of you, if I make any critical observations.
If we hadn't had that flurry of wickets this afternoon and they'd closed on 270-2, maybe some would be agreeing with my thoughts, but never mind.
That is the main reason why I don't post much, as it's difficult to have an intelligent debate with some of you, if I make any critical observations.
If we hadn't had that flurry of wickets this afternoon and they'd closed on 270-2, maybe some would be agreeing with my thoughts, but never mind.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 06:17
CJM posted something on here about COverton being thought of as an all-rounder and JOverton a fast bowler.
Brian says that he thought that was the case 'but now we know both can bat.'
A bit odd - has JOverton been denied any real opportunity to have a bat at youth cricket/club level in the past?
COverton was, by some distance, the most parsimonious paceman on either side. He was crucial in helping to peg Surrey back after they'd got off to a flyer, IMO.
Brian says that he thought that was the case 'but now we know both can bat.'
A bit odd - has JOverton been denied any real opportunity to have a bat at youth cricket/club level in the past?
COverton was, by some distance, the most parsimonious paceman on either side. He was crucial in helping to peg Surrey back after they'd got off to a flyer, IMO.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 07:32
Quote:Bobstan
Max has been almost the busiest person at the Oval today, ob, bringing out drinks at 90 second intervals.
I exaggerate marginally to emphasise how silly this drinks nonsense has become.
Thanks Bobstan! Again I do not know Max personally, but one begins to think that he is probably too nice a lad for his own good. I don't know of course, but perhaps he isn't as disappointed as some of his 'fans' that he is not given a 'fair crack of the whip!'. Based on the evidence of the first quarter of the season, I really can't see him being offered a first class contract for us in 2013.
He appears to be a real fan himself and shares the delight of those of us who have been arguing for the youngsters to be given their chance, albeit that it has all happened by accident!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Chinaman (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 07:38
AG, re Cove and Jove: it is probably too early to tell exactly what their long-term strengths will be. They are so young. Let's hope we have two genuine all-rounders on our books!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 08:05
Quote:Botham
This site would be so much better, if just because one poster disagrees with another, the OP wasn't met with a sarcastic response.
That is the main reason why I don't post much, as it's difficult to have an intelligent debate with some of you, if I make any critical observations.
If we hadn't had that flurry of wickets this afternoon and they'd closed on 270-2, maybe some would be agreeing with my thoughts, but never mind.
I think, if you read back Botham you'll find that at least one poster agreed with you that the impetus would be with Surrey if they reached 300 with only 3 down.
I agree with you It is difficult to have an intelligent debate with people who stick to their guns through thick and thin despite the most obvious sillyness of their first argument being put to them by more than one poster.
I do believe that a debate means you have to read and digest the comments of the other and adapt your own argument accordingly rather than just try furiously to prove your intial contention even if the weight of evidence is against it, as in this case, so overwhelmingly.
I think you'll find also that the sarcasm only arrives once this has happened more than once therefore suggesting that the initial poster had no intention of debating anything at all.
So a counter comment might be that "this site would be so much better if people posted views with a willingness to debate with others who may not hold the same perspective"
If you intend to make 'critical observations' then you also should be prepared to defend/amend them if others suggest they are misguided - not simply keep re-iterating them and then getting upset when people don't agree.
However, as you say "never mind" the place is what it is and has been for most of the nearly two decades you've been posting and complaining about it.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:18:08:17:01 by Grockle.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: RadstockRob (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 08:40
It doesn't help when people take threads randomly off topic(Slugs for example).
Enough said.
Enough said.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: cricketjerry-mouse (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 08:49
England Under-19s bat Cove at around 4 to 5, where he has also captained the side at times, and Jove at 10 or 11. It is much the same when they play for North Devon in the Devon Premier League.
But as the evidence at the Oval yesterday suggests, the latter position may not be doing Jove justice.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:18:08:51:05 by cricketjerry-mouse.
But as the evidence at the Oval yesterday suggests, the latter position may not be doing Jove justice.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:18:08:51:05 by cricketjerry-mouse.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 08:54
Off season is fine BR but I do think the point is well made in this case along with posting to provoke response which has happened at least once this season.
However, (although not particularly based in fact in this case) Botham's point about respecting other points of view in initial discussions is also well made and something more than one contributor here could have the occasional think about.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:18:09:06:25 by Grockle.
However, (although not particularly based in fact in this case) Botham's point about respecting other points of view in initial discussions is also well made and something more than one contributor here could have the occasional think about.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:18:09:06:25 by Grockle.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 09:03
Back to the real stuff. It is a problem CJM for people who have ability but because it hasn't shown itself on the field they are placed in a position where they can hardly ever show it.
I have this alternative reality view where Wes Durston finds himself in Alex Barrow's present position, opening for Somerset in the mid 90's rather than playing the odd game as an extra spinner who can bat a bit at 8. Wonder what would have happened if he had had an elongated period of relying on his batting?
And then I snap back to reality and watch Arul Suppiah making another 100. One went down one path and the other went a different way and the rest is history.
I wonder if Alex and James are doomed to follow the same paths? I suppose Gareth Andrew might have been seen as being in the same situation.... Max Waller perhaps?
I have this alternative reality view where Wes Durston finds himself in Alex Barrow's present position, opening for Somerset in the mid 90's rather than playing the odd game as an extra spinner who can bat a bit at 8. Wonder what would have happened if he had had an elongated period of relying on his batting?
And then I snap back to reality and watch Arul Suppiah making another 100. One went down one path and the other went a different way and the rest is history.
I wonder if Alex and James are doomed to follow the same paths? I suppose Gareth Andrew might have been seen as being in the same situation.... Max Waller perhaps?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Railboy (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 09:14
James? I think he is here to stay! ( I may be missing something or someone obvious here!)
Pete, and to an extent Alfonso are of course the opposites - both appeared to be no more than Journeymen until they rocked up here.
Pete, and to an extent Alfonso are of course the opposites - both appeared to be no more than Journeymen until they rocked up here.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Railboy (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 09:20
Mr thicky! sorry, just got it - James = Jamie Overton! I think he is a number of years younger tham Wes was when he started getting opportunities. It's also about making impressions when you get those opportunities - No 11 is hardly an auspicious spot to stake your claim as a batsman but Jove has clearly made a big statement already.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 09:26
Yes I know Rail... I did say 'alternative universe' Wes was already pigeon holed by the time he got the same breaks (possibly in his own head as well by then).
There's a few here who will find themselves out of boxes they may very well have been put in because of this injury period. Craig Meschede as an occasional one dayer, George Dockrell as a holding spinner, Alex Barrow as a batting reserve, Craig Overton as a 'bowler for the future', Jamie Overton as a bowling allrounder.
I'm worried about Lewis being identified as less than we expected and I'm sure that there is a real spur for Adam and Gemaal to get fit and get in here to show that they are equals to people who were below them in the pecking order a month ago!!
There's a few here who will find themselves out of boxes they may very well have been put in because of this injury period. Craig Meschede as an occasional one dayer, George Dockrell as a holding spinner, Alex Barrow as a batting reserve, Craig Overton as a 'bowler for the future', Jamie Overton as a bowling allrounder.
I'm worried about Lewis being identified as less than we expected and I'm sure that there is a real spur for Adam and Gemaal to get fit and get in here to show that they are equals to people who were below them in the pecking order a month ago!!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 09:53
Quote:Railboy
Mr thicky! sorry, just got it - James = Jamie Overton! I think he is a number of years younger tham Wes was when he started getting opportunities. It's also about making impressions when you get those opportunities - No 11 is hardly an auspicious spot to stake your claim as a batsman but Jove has clearly made a big statement already.
Well, Zander De Bruyn came pretty close to throwing his toys hors de pram due to Jamie's batting yesterday. There was some infantile posturing by the former Somerset man at one point after Jamie had dismissed him to the cover boundary. It looked like Jamie was taking none of Zander's attempted sledge either!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:18:09:53:52 by AGod.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 09:58
As for Alex Barrow, he is likely to get quite a few opportunities this season.
Firstly, we don't know when Marcus will back (but does not appear at all imminent.) Secondly Craig K is likely to be playing the ODIs. Thirdly, Jos might well be too.
So not only Alex but, presumably, Chris Jones too will be getting their chances.
Firstly, we don't know when Marcus will back (but does not appear at all imminent.) Secondly Craig K is likely to be playing the ODIs. Thirdly, Jos might well be too.
So not only Alex but, presumably, Chris Jones too will be getting their chances.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 10:18
Exciting times for our young players!! and how we will benefit when those with real staying power, are able to use these opportunities to replace more established players.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 10:20
The current situation and how it has panned out is a real plus for BR and his management team!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: WTE (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 10:33
A very good day at the Oval yesterday. Meaker and Lewis got movement and lift early, I guess from sweating under the covers (the pitch not the players) and early cloud that cleared and the pitch dried (lots of dust later) Joves innings was not chanceless and he rode his luck well Cove played a faultless innings and defended well.
Very impressed with Vernon P. Certainly bent his back and did his bit encouraging/ helping the other bowlers between balls. A very good bowler too.
Thought Dockerell was the real star very good long spell good control troubled all the batsmen.
Beer festival excellent. May add more later but time presses
Very impressed with Vernon P. Certainly bent his back and did his bit encouraging/ helping the other bowlers between balls. A very good bowler too.
Thought Dockerell was the real star very good long spell good control troubled all the batsmen.
Beer festival excellent. May add more later but time presses
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 10:38
It happens quite often that an injury to a player has given the opportunity to an untried player and that player (or in our case players) has surprised a few, sadly all to often that is the only way a player can get into a test team.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 10:45
Welcome to 2012 Will... good to see you have weathered the winter. Taunton this year?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 10:51
I may be wrong, WTE, but if the scoreboard yesterday was to be believed (by which I mean the light indicating which man is on strike) then I believe both Overtons had a bit of luck with attempted pull shots against the shorter balls from Meaker, and not only Jamie.
However, one suspects that neither man will ever have faced a bowler as quick as Meaker.
However, one suspects that neither man will ever have faced a bowler as quick as Meaker.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Bath Bob (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 10:53
Like many others, I'm delighted at the performance of the younger members of the team which bodes so well for the future.
Can any knowledgeable expert out there put the average age of today's Somerset side in context v the average age of the other 2012 First Division sides?
Could be a quite enlightening statistic.
Can any knowledgeable expert out there put the average age of today's Somerset side in context v the average age of the other 2012 First Division sides?
Could be a quite enlightening statistic.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Botham (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 11:02
Quote:BristolRob
It doesn't help when people take threads randomly off topic(Slugs for example).
Enough said.
Point taken
![[:wor kid:]](/phorum-5.1.15/mods/smileys/images/13.gif "[:wor kid:]")
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: barndoorio (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 11:03
Meschede opening the bowling this morning? Is that to change ends for someone, or just a straight choice to open?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: barndoorio (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 11:06
Or... waiting for the new ball aren't they.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Botham (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 11:08
Quote:WTE
A very good day at the Oval yesterday. Meaker and Lewis got movement and lift early, I guess from sweating under the covers (the pitch not the players) and early cloud that cleared and the pitch dried (lots of dust later) Joves innings was not chanceless and he rode his luck well Cove played a faultless innings and defended well.
Very impressed with Vernon P. Certainly bent his back and did his bit encouraging/ helping the other bowlers between balls. A very good bowler too.
Thought Dockerell was the real star very good long spell good control troubled all the batsmen.
Beer festival excellent. May add more later but time presses
Good to hear from you, Will. You and good quality beer are always synonomous with Somerset cricket IMO. I hope that comes across right!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 11:09
Spinners on first, brave.?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 11:19
No, not brave. More in this for spin than anything else, I think. Also not long to go until new ball.
Maynard's just lofted a six but Surrey fans sat behind me yesterday were saying that he "tends to get tempted into errors," by the spinners.
Maynard's just lofted a six but Surrey fans sat behind me yesterday were saying that he "tends to get tempted into errors," by the spinners.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 11:19
Dunno about you but I was quite enjoying the start of the season where bowlers had the edge and even a batsman passing 50 was quite a good achievement.
I think the balance might have swung too far back in favour of the batsmen at the Oval.
Assuming Surrey avoid the follow on, I don't envy James regards a possible declaration tomorrow (assuming we don't have the dreaded third innings nightmare that you often see in cricket).
With a young (though talented) bowling attack that's found keeping the scoring rate down quite hard so far in this match, I'd not want Surrey given even a sniff of victory..YET we could really do with chasing a victory ourselves.
I think the balance might have swung too far back in favour of the batsmen at the Oval.
Assuming Surrey avoid the follow on, I don't envy James regards a possible declaration tomorrow (assuming we don't have the dreaded third innings nightmare that you often see in cricket).
With a young (though talented) bowling attack that's found keeping the scoring rate down quite hard so far in this match, I'd not want Surrey given even a sniff of victory..YET we could really do with chasing a victory ourselves.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 11:20
Well George was getting something and the ball is old.
Think you might see the seamers take over when the new ball becomes available in a few overs.
Think you might see the seamers take over when the new ball becomes available in a few overs.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 11:30
Quote:Little Bird
Dunno about you but I was quite enjoying the start of the season where bowlers had the edge and even a batsman passing 50 was quite a good achievement.
I think the balance might have swung too far back in favour of the batsmen at the Oval.
Assuming Surrey avoid the follow on, I don't envy James regards a possible declaration tomorrow (assuming we don't have the dreaded third innings nightmare that you often see in cricket).
With a young (though talented) bowling attack that's found keeping the scoring rate down quite hard so far in this match, I'd not want Surrey given even a sniff of victory..YET we could really do with chasing a victory ourselves.
I don't believe that we will make a declaration that gives Surrey a sniff. Nor do I believe that we should do.
They gave away two wickets yesterday and we will probably need further bad errors to finish this innings off before lunch as magic balls (other than maybe a yorker) on this track are not at all easy to produce.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 11:33
Get in, Come on boys
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 11:40
See... new ball? Bodes well for the day.
Surrey have to pass the follow on total before these draw discussions become relevant I'm afraid boys. Less than one hundred I know but there are only three wickets to take. If they come easy then it is a "go for the win" option we ought to be discussing. If they don't then maybe we should consider what can only be the secondary option from this position.
Surrey have to pass the follow on total before these draw discussions become relevant I'm afraid boys. Less than one hundred I know but there are only three wickets to take. If they come easy then it is a "go for the win" option we ought to be discussing. If they don't then maybe we should consider what can only be the secondary option from this position.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 11:40
I agree with you AG. That's why I said I don't envy James! Surrey are a very decent batting side who score fast and it could be a tough declaration to judge, if ofc we get that far!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 11:49
Especially with that (somewhat silly) short boundary on the gasholder side of the ground.
Surrey might, possibly, be slightly disadvantaged in a run chase because of the left-handers at the top of their order, with George having some rough to bowl into.
But still.
p.s. Grockle, the prospect of a draw remains relevant whether or not Surrey save the follow-on as we would obviously need time to chase down whatever target they leave. Yes, in theory, they could collapse in a heap for fewer than 150 runs to lose by an innings, but it would have to be phenomenal bowling or utterly witless batting on this track, IMO.
Surrey might, possibly, be slightly disadvantaged in a run chase because of the left-handers at the top of their order, with George having some rough to bowl into.
But still.
p.s. Grockle, the prospect of a draw remains relevant whether or not Surrey save the follow-on as we would obviously need time to chase down whatever target they leave. Yes, in theory, they could collapse in a heap for fewer than 150 runs to lose by an innings, but it would have to be phenomenal bowling or utterly witless batting on this track, IMO.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Tumbles (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 11:57
Let's finish off the tail now and get maximum bonus points.
Looks like Warks are already on course for an innings victory against the 11-3ers. Has a team ever been relegated the season after winning the title?
Looks like Warks are already on course for an innings victory against the 11-3ers. Has a team ever been relegated the season after winning the title?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 12:03
Nice, Meaker gone.
Yes, Tumbles, Notts were relegated. Think Sussex might have gone down the year after their title win, too?
It just goes to show that, these days at least, you can win a CC with a good team-spirit and a bit of luck, plus a handful of players playing above themselves. That, surely, is what Lancs did last year? The luck was with the toss at Aigburth. As Bagpuss has told us, the team that bats second tends to win and I think they won quite a few early tosses there last season.
Yes, Tumbles, Notts were relegated. Think Sussex might have gone down the year after their title win, too?
It just goes to show that, these days at least, you can win a CC with a good team-spirit and a bit of luck, plus a handful of players playing above themselves. That, surely, is what Lancs did last year? The luck was with the toss at Aigburth. As Bagpuss has told us, the team that bats second tends to win and I think they won quite a few early tosses there last season.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Norwich SCCC (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 12:09
Yorkshire were relegated in 2002 after winning the title the year before. We were runners up in that year and went down with them but it does not look as if Warwicks are going to follow suit.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 12:09
Faint praise for winning the league AGod.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 12:09
Tumbles..yes twice..Yorks (we came 2nd to them and went down too)
and Notts!
Warks were my tip for the title..early days but they look strong!
and Notts!
Warks were my tip for the title..early days but they look strong!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Tumbles (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 12:11
I think Lancs success came from playing early games at Liverpool too. They've not repeated that success this year it seems.
What odds would you have got pre season to see Lancs & Durham sat where they are.
What odds would you have got pre season to see Lancs & Durham sat where they are.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 12:19
As Andre Adams put it in the cricket paper, sometimes after you win things you get players who;
"Think they can just turn up and win things and stop working as hard."
Adams said that of his own Notts' team-mates last season (some of them at any rate) and when the interviewer offered the excuse of "perhaps it was inexperience?" Adams replied "No, it's ignorance and there's no excuse for it."
"Think they can just turn up and win things and stop working as hard."
Adams said that of his own Notts' team-mates last season (some of them at any rate) and when the interviewer offered the excuse of "perhaps it was inexperience?" Adams replied "No, it's ignorance and there's no excuse for it."
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 12:32
Treeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeegggggggggggggggggggggggoooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:18:13:58:46 by AGod.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:18:13:58:46 by AGod.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 12:44
A bit excitable Agod, still a win is still on
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 12:51
AG can you edit your O's they have gone through the wall and are in the next room.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 12:52
The draw is very much less relevant than discussing the strategy for a win when you have a side at 367 for 9 needing 412 to avoid the follow on.
Presently, if this isn't a win scenario then what was that post about looking for the win and taking risks all about from Little Bird just a little while ago. Why LB are you considering the options for the draw. Don't you expect James to go for the win? Isn't that what you criticised the club for not doing only about a week ago and here you are discussing the second option.
You don't look at this situation and start planning for the draw!!!
You start doing that when they have scored 200 odd for 4 in their second innings and you are half way through the fourth day!!
AG was assuming that was the scenario at about 4:00 on Day 2 - thank heavens he isn't the captain of this side.
Why by all that is holy are you discussing the strategy James should have for his declaration when presently unless there is a 50 partnership from the 10th wicket it will not be any kind of consideration?
It doesn't mean it can't happen but surely probability suggests that Surrey will not make 412 in their first innings.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:18:13:10:15 by Grockle.
Presently, if this isn't a win scenario then what was that post about looking for the win and taking risks all about from Little Bird just a little while ago. Why LB are you considering the options for the draw. Don't you expect James to go for the win? Isn't that what you criticised the club for not doing only about a week ago and here you are discussing the second option.
You don't look at this situation and start planning for the draw!!!
You start doing that when they have scored 200 odd for 4 in their second innings and you are half way through the fourth day!!
AG was assuming that was the scenario at about 4:00 on Day 2 - thank heavens he isn't the captain of this side.
Why by all that is holy are you discussing the strategy James should have for his declaration when presently unless there is a 50 partnership from the 10th wicket it will not be any kind of consideration?
It doesn't mean it can't happen but surely probability suggests that Surrey will not make 412 in their first innings.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:18:13:10:15 by Grockle.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Norwich SCCC (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 12:56
I think it needs to be 150 Grockle.
Therefore we will bat again next, regardless.
Therefore we will bat again next, regardless.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 12:57
Looks like a late lunch if we don't get the wicket in five minutes.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 13:01
I think your mis-interpretation of the rules is why some are already talking about the draw.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 13:02
Grockle, I think you misunderstood my post.
Half an hour ago, when it seemed likely Surrey would avoid the follow on, I said I didn't envy James if he is in a position to think about declaring.
At some point tomorrow he will hopefully be in that position. And my post was along the lines of 'gosh what sort of dec do you give Surrey bearing in mind they score fast, it's a good pitch and we have a youngish inexperienced attack'.
Of course I want us to win. I'm fed up of draws while Warks go further ahead at the top.
I want us to be attacking and positive in our second innings and I don't want the match to peter out but it's an interesting discussion point as to what we dangle in front of Surrey on this wicket.
The follow on is 150 in a CC match by the way.
Half an hour ago, when it seemed likely Surrey would avoid the follow on, I said I didn't envy James if he is in a position to think about declaring.
At some point tomorrow he will hopefully be in that position. And my post was along the lines of 'gosh what sort of dec do you give Surrey bearing in mind they score fast, it's a good pitch and we have a youngish inexperienced attack'.
Of course I want us to win. I'm fed up of draws while Warks go further ahead at the top.
I want us to be attacking and positive in our second innings and I don't want the match to peter out but it's an interesting discussion point as to what we dangle in front of Surrey on this wicket.
The follow on is 150 in a CC match by the way.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 13:08
LB, this is all assuming we bat well enough in the 2nd innings to dangle anything.
By the way..we need to bowl them out first!!!
By the way..we need to bowl them out first!!!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: JonR (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 13:11
Given the apparent flatness of the pitch, would enforcing the follow on have been the right decision anyway?
I would hope that George would be able to extract some decent turn on the 4th day, with assistance from Ruler.
I would hope that George would be able to extract some decent turn on the 4th day, with assistance from Ruler.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 13:12
Ur right Ronnie. I often believe the 3rd innings of a match to be the hardest, especially when the side batting have a first innings lead. It's easy to have a wobble in such circumstances!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: barndoorio (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 13:13
Yes, the collapse can work in our favour I suppose. All out for 200 on a deterioating spinning pitch sounds like a recipe for a good game.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 13:16
Ahhh I had it in my head we'd made 562 for some stupid reason....it's the heat I tell you!!
That's why I've been babbling on about 412 and getting hot under the cdollar about defeatist talk!!
OK....re-assess the situation.
So we start innings 2 at 124 for 0.... cool. Then it's easy 376 in the second innings by half an hour before lunch tomorrow. Declare and bowl them out in 2 and a bit sessions.
Job done.
That's why I've been babbling on about 412 and getting hot under the cdollar about defeatist talk!!
OK....re-assess the situation.
So we start innings 2 at 124 for 0.... cool. Then it's easy 376 in the second innings by half an hour before lunch tomorrow. Declare and bowl them out in 2 and a bit sessions.
Job done.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 13:18
I'm glad James didn't have make decision ref follow-on. IMO our best chance of winning is batting third and making Surrey have fourth knock.
What a great performance by all the lads!!
What a great performance by all the lads!!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 13:19
Apology accepted
I bet if we set Surrey 380 to win in let's say 80 overs (weather permitting), they'd go for it...
and if we didn't get early wickets, it could be very nerve-racking
I bet if we set Surrey 380 to win in let's say 80 overs (weather permitting), they'd go for it...
and if we didn't get early wickets, it could be very nerve-racking
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Chinaman (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 13:22
I wonder if somebody could kindly explain why my room is full of O's?
Reminds me of that Two Ronnies sketch with the 'fork handles'.
Reminds me of that Two Ronnies sketch with the 'fork handles'.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 13:23
Yep. If things go to plan and we have 400 plus by the start of Day 4 then there is a decision corridor that James can look seriously at. Anything over 450 is going to be hard on Day 4 irrespective of what Surrey have in the batting cupboard or the state of the Oval pitch.
BUT they will go for the win unless something drastic happens during the rest of today.
BUT they will go for the win unless something drastic happens during the rest of today.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 13:24
Quote:Grockle
Ahhh I had it in my head we'd made 562 for some stupid reason....it's the heat I tell you!!
That's why I've been babbling on about 412 and getting hot under the cdollar about defeatist talk!!
OK....re-assess the situation.
So we start innings 2 at 124 for 0.... cool. Then it's easy 376 in the second innings by half an hour before lunch tomorrow. Declare and bowl them out in 2 and a bit sessions.
Job done.
Grockle, Grockle!! Are you cracking up with all that sun??
Surely your analysis means 5 and a half sessions?? Unless there is rain??
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 13:25
NO NO it's me - sorry yes 2 and a half sessions. I am a silly b-gger!!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 13:25
I see the Five but not the half.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: barndoorio (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 13:27
Has everyone been getting free Thatchers with their membership this year? You're all mad.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: NW5Somerset (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 13:31
It will be very difficult to bat this afternoon - very very overcast and the ball will swing.
Let's not throw this position away.
Let's not throw this position away.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 13:44
As we expected, Somerset have just confirmed they have signed Richard Levi.
Another overseas player we can look forward to not seeing this season then
Another overseas player we can look forward to not seeing this season then
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 13:47
No bloody free Thatchers here!! I blame a distinct LACK of it for 9 months for my present madness!
I'm gonna have to be weaned back ON to it next month.
I'm gonna have to be weaned back ON to it next month.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 13:51
Zander opening the bowling. Interesting
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 13:59
Lets go for this win!!!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 13:59
Quote:Ronniesabre
I think your mis-interpretation of the rules is why some are already talking about the draw.
Yes. That and the fact that some of us have been watching a game played on a very flat track.
It's just called being realistic.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 14:00
Quote:JonR
Given the apparent flatness of the pitch, would enforcing the follow on have been the right decision anyway?
I would hope that George would be able to extract some decent turn on the 4th day, with assistance from Ruler.
No. I don't think so. I would not have enforced it.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 14:03
Drat, Arul gone?
It's raining in north London.
Could be a tricky afternoon.
And we may need rather more from Trego, Craig M and Philander with the bat than we got yesterday morning.
It's raining in north London.
Could be a tricky afternoon.
And we may need rather more from Trego, Craig M and Philander with the bat than we got yesterday morning.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 14:06
"Realistic" as a possibility probably AG but no captain in his right mind would not be considering the win first in this position, irrespective of the state of the pitch and the quality of the oposition.
What would be the point of playing the game if you do not consider victory in this situation halfway through Day 3?
It may be taken over by the situation halfway through Day 4 but not after having bowled out the opposition with a 124 deficit with a third of the game to go. It seems to be your only option?
Even with my mind on the edge of sanity I still thank every deity I can think of that you are NOT the Somerset captain.
What would be the point of playing the game if you do not consider victory in this situation halfway through Day 3?
It may be taken over by the situation halfway through Day 4 but not after having bowled out the opposition with a 124 deficit with a third of the game to go. It seems to be your only option?
Even with my mind on the edge of sanity I still thank every deity I can think of that you are NOT the Somerset captain.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 14:08
I think I would have liked to have had the option to enforce the fo and then not taken it. So, where are we at.
We have 60 + overs today. At a maximum 4 an over that is 240 and gives a lead of 365.
Surrey can bat at 4 an over, but the larger the total the more difficult it is to keep the rate up. That is 385 in a full days play. That puts the game in balance. I do not think we will score at the level we did in the first innings and I should be delighted with 300 setting 425 in 90 overs.
We have 60 + overs today. At a maximum 4 an over that is 240 and gives a lead of 365.
Surrey can bat at 4 an over, but the larger the total the more difficult it is to keep the rate up. That is 385 in a full days play. That puts the game in balance. I do not think we will score at the level we did in the first innings and I should be delighted with 300 setting 425 in 90 overs.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 14:12
Now Arul has gone. I would think if there is something good on the board by the time the likes of Pete and Craig M get to the crease we may see some fireworks but we have to get there first.
Nick, Alex and James have to set the pace and tone so our big stick men get a chance to charge late today or early tomorrow.
Nick, Alex and James have to set the pace and tone so our big stick men get a chance to charge late today or early tomorrow.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 14:13
Quote:Grockle
"Realistic" as a possibility probably AG but no captain in his right mind would not be considering the win first in this position, irrespective of the state of the pitch and the quality of the oposition.
What would be the point of playing the game if you do not consider victory in this situation halfway through Day 3?
It may be taken over by the situation halfway through Day 4 but not after having bowled out the opposition with a 124 deficit with a third of the game to go. It seems to be your only option?
Even with my mind on the edge of sanity I still thank every deity I can think of that you are NOT the Somerset captain.
Not sure what you are on about.
I didn't say it was the only option at all.
I said I would not be leaving the sort of target that "dangles a carrot."
If we can get so far ahead that defeat becomes nothing more than a theoretical possibility? Great. Then we should declare and hope to bowl them out.
Think Surrey have been quite clever in NOT opening with Meaker. He and Lewis were their only threats in the first innings so you could set yourself to see those two off and then cut loose against the others. But with Meaker kept back, it's not that simple. Meaker's speed might not be easy in failing light, either.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Chinaman (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 14:17
I agree with GM that we need to try to set Surrey 370-400 to win in around 90 overs. That gives us a decent shot at it.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 14:21
Re the ongoing debate about whether Thomas will be available to play for us next week, the club have today told him 'make sure you're ready for Tuesday'.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 14:28
You've spent most of the last two pages of this thread talking about the draw scenario as if it is the primary one wit any kind of win implied as unlikely. When questioned about this you cite your view of the pitch as almost prime facie evidence that this will be the result.
You may be right but it isn't the most likely scenario until the end of today. Your secondary option is the one James and any other Somerset strategist should be looking at until it is no longer possible. THEN we can all look at your plan I suppose.
That's what I'm going on about... hope it's a little clearer for you now :-)
You may be right but it isn't the most likely scenario until the end of today. Your secondary option is the one James and any other Somerset strategist should be looking at until it is no longer possible. THEN we can all look at your plan I suppose.
That's what I'm going on about... hope it's a little clearer for you now :-)
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 14:28
Well, to be fair to Alf, pretty difficult to do in the absence of any meaningful cricket?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: NW5Somerset (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 14:28
Gemaal Hussain will be available for selection next week.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 14:31
Quote:Grockle
You've spent most of the last two pages of this thread talking about the draw scenario as if it is the primary one wit any kind of win implied as unlikely. When questioned about this you cite your view of the pitch as almost prime facie evidence that this will be the result.
You may be right but it isn't the most likely scenario until the end of today. Your secondary option is the one James and any other Somerset strategist should be looking at until it is no longer possible. THEN we can all look at your plan I suppose.
That's what I'm going on about... hope it's a little clearer for you now :-)
Who says it isn't 'the most likely scenario'? You? Based on what, exactly?
Yes, the draw has looked the most likely scenario for most of this match. And yes, that's based mainly on a very, very flat track.
Now, obviously, overhead conditions can play a part and it looks like they are doing now as we struggle a bit in our second dig.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: NW5Somerset (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 14:31
As predicted, it's hooping round corners here.
Plus the weather tomorrow is sunny and not much cloud cover.
Need to dig in here.
Plus the weather tomorrow is sunny and not much cloud cover.
Need to dig in here.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 14:32
Now that is going to be interesting!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 14:32
We won't know what to do next week..our selectors will actually have CHOICES to make
24-2. As posted earlier, the 3rd innings of a match like this can usually be the hardest.
24-2. As posted earlier, the 3rd innings of a match like this can usually be the hardest.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 14:34
Unless they feel they have to pick Hussain as they don't want to pay somebody lots of money to play in the second XI, then I can see little case for playing him vs Durham, quite frankly.
I hope tomorrow's forecast is wrong.
I hope tomorrow's forecast is wrong.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 14:35
Met Office forecast still showing cloud all day tomorrow.
Also showing less heavily overcast weather for later this afternoon.
Also showing less heavily overcast weather for later this afternoon.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: NW5Somerset (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 14:37
BBC have been spot on with the forecast at The Oval the last few days.
They predict sun tomorrow.
They predict sun tomorrow.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 14:39
Let's hope they are wrong!!!! Would rather sit under heavy cloud cover and see a serious shot of a SCCC win!!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 14:40
Either the conditions are helping the bowler or the bowlers have got their act together a little better. I may have to revise my forecast and think that George and Arul will win it in the fourth inings with Surrey chasing under 4 an over.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 14:42
If it really is going to be sunny tomorrow, we may be better off declaring at tea!! (assuming the skies stay this leaden!!)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:18:14:42:39 by AGod.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:18:14:42:39 by AGod.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 14:45
Whoops - not a great position at 30 for 3! What's happened to this benign pitch you've been watching for two days AG?
And where have you got this idea in your head that we ever play somebody on the basis of how big their contract is?
Do have to agree with you about the merits of picking Hussain unless he has been showing exceptional form in the nets though.
And where have you got this idea in your head that we ever play somebody on the basis of how big their contract is?
Do have to agree with you about the merits of picking Hussain unless he has been showing exceptional form in the nets though.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 14:47
I can be a different positive. If we score 200(stagger towards it at the moment) then we are 325 ahead. That would not be an excessive run rate but anyhting over 300 takes some getting.Time for Nick to dig in.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 14:48
Quote:Grockle
Whoops - not a great position at 30 for 3! What's happened to this benign pitch you've been watching for two days AG?
And where have you got this idea in your head that we ever play somebody on the basis of how big their contract is?
Do have to agree with you about the merits of picking Hussain unless he has been showing exceptional form in the nets though.
Glowering skies. Floodlights on. Nothing has happened to the pitch that I know of.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: JonR (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 14:50
It's OK, the pitch will be a dustbowl by midday tomorrow when we stick them in and George will take 7 wickets to win us the game with 5 overs to spare.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 14:50
I think, Grockle, that sports teams generally are not hugely keen on paying players lots of money to not play in the first XI.
One remembers the infamous saga of Winston Bogarde at Chelsea as an example.
Now, you might be right that SCCC do not give a monkies about it and won't allow the fact that Hussain reportedly earns a big salary to affect selection in any way whatsoever. Indeed, I hope you are right.
One remembers the infamous saga of Winston Bogarde at Chelsea as an example.
Now, you might be right that SCCC do not give a monkies about it and won't allow the fact that Hussain reportedly earns a big salary to affect selection in any way whatsoever. Indeed, I hope you are right.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: NW5Somerset (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 14:51
The pitch is still good, the Surrey bowlers finding a full length though and it is swinging a lot.
Big chance for Craig to impress and Nick to grind out some runs.
This is why I hate 20/20.
Big chance for Craig to impress and Nick to grind out some runs.
This is why I hate 20/20.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 14:53
Third day, no heavy roller.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Botham (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 14:55
Does the 'Fox' share this hatred, NW5?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: barndoorio (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 14:55
Sack everyone, I blame the physio, phil frost, the ecb, the ipl, central contracts, covered pitches, the lack of heavy roller between innings, the little adverts on the sleeves of the players shirts and that time Dominic Cork kicked his own bail off and pretended to retake his guard as an excuse.
(I think that's the right response when it doesn't all go to plan?)
(I think that's the right response when it doesn't all go to plan?)
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 14:56
Yes, this is proper cricket!
No need to panic. Just needs one decent partnership to get the lead close to and then over 300.
That'll still be a tough ask batting last.
First things first, we have to bat well and make sure we are in a position where it's unlikely to lose the match..then see what happens.
Re next week..I'd be sad if there were many changes..this young side has played well over the last couple of matches. Alf obviously gets selected if here..but I don't think Hussain will walk straight back in.
No need to panic. Just needs one decent partnership to get the lead close to and then over 300.
That'll still be a tough ask batting last.
First things first, we have to bat well and make sure we are in a position where it's unlikely to lose the match..then see what happens.
Re next week..I'd be sad if there were many changes..this young side has played well over the last couple of matches. Alf obviously gets selected if here..but I don't think Hussain will walk straight back in.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 15:03
Yup, T20 cannot hold a candle to this sort of thing. Real tension.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 15:06
Quote:barndoorio
Sack everyone, I blame the physio, phil frost, the ecb, the ipl, central contracts, covered pitches, the lack of heavy roller between innings, the little adverts on the sleeves of the players shirts and that time Dominic Cork kicked his own bail off and pretended to retake his guard as an excuse.
(I think that's the right response when it doesn't all go to plan?)
I know your post is (TIC) but I say don't change anything, this make for much more interesting cricket.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: JonR (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 15:19
Nice. A 200 run lead for the loss of just the 3 wickets.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 15:21
A very good fightback. Still have to see Meaker off, though.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 15:24
Quote:Little Bird
Re the ongoing debate about whether Thomas will be available to play for us next week, the club have today told him 'make sure you're ready for Tuesday'.
Who are they going to drop to play him!! Probably after his lack of activity in last two months, he will make a good 12th man!! Even if he plays I would be very disappointed if they took the captaincy off James!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 15:26
Unless jet-lagged to the nth degree/stiff from plane etc etc, then I'd expect Alf to play.
It's possibly a little disappointing that COverton has not bowled more after his success at Durham (and a good spell here)?
I wonder if that's some sort of pointer to selectorial thinking, such that COverton would be most likely to miss out if Alf returns?
It's possibly a little disappointing that COverton has not bowled more after his success at Durham (and a good spell here)?
I wonder if that's some sort of pointer to selectorial thinking, such that COverton would be most likely to miss out if Alf returns?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 15:27
good SHOUT OB..............hadnt thought of that. If Alf comes back who captains? I vote for JH!!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 15:30
I think if you look ever so closely AG I haven't predicted an end result in this game.
All I've said is that no Somerset captain worth his salt would be conisdering that a draw was his main option at this point in a game irrespective of what experts seated in the crowd talking about the wicket or experts on the merits of Meaker or the much vaunted Surrey batting line-up stick in front of him.
I think I did say that you on the other hand have been talking about it and very little else for about a day and therefore I for one am very very very glad you are not in charge of Somerset strategy though I think it might be a job you'd love.
I'll take 209 for 3 at half past 3 on Day 3 and I can guarantee you so would anyone else looking for more than the draw points in this game.
Come back and talk to us all about the draw about this time tomorrow and the reaction may be a little different but for now.... come on guys!!
edited - can't type!!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:18:16:28:41 by Grockle.
All I've said is that no Somerset captain worth his salt would be conisdering that a draw was his main option at this point in a game irrespective of what experts seated in the crowd talking about the wicket or experts on the merits of Meaker or the much vaunted Surrey batting line-up stick in front of him.
I think I did say that you on the other hand have been talking about it and very little else for about a day and therefore I for one am very very very glad you are not in charge of Somerset strategy though I think it might be a job you'd love.
I'll take 209 for 3 at half past 3 on Day 3 and I can guarantee you so would anyone else looking for more than the draw points in this game.
Come back and talk to us all about the draw about this time tomorrow and the reaction may be a little different but for now.... come on guys!!
edited - can't type!!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:18:16:28:41 by Grockle.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 15:36
The heat has scrambled Grockle's maths, I'm afraid.
But I agree that the position remains a promosing one, at 224 for 3 (effectively.)
But I agree that the position remains a promosing one, at 224 for 3 (effectively.)
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 15:38
And, Grockle, I did not say that James Hildreth should 'consider the draw as his main option.'
The fact that I think the game is most likely to be a draw does not mean that I am saying that that is what Hildreth is thinking.
The fact that I think the game is most likely to be a draw does not mean that I am saying that that is what Hildreth is thinking.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 15:40
I think he meant, at the time of posting, NETT 209 for 3.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 15:43
Quote:AGod
I think, Grockle, that sports teams generally are not hugely keen on paying players lots of money to not play in the first XI.
One remembers the infamous saga of Winston Bogarde at Chelsea as an example.
Now, you might be right that SCCC do not give a monkies about it and won't allow the fact that Hussain reportedly earns a big salary to affect selection in any way whatsoever. Indeed, I hope you are right.
Why are you so certain that Hussain earns a big salary
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 15:45
Trying to call a Somerset game is like trying to naila rainbow!!!
We stagger along at less than 1 an over and I think"dificult conditions ,grind to 200=bowl well" and then we start to go at 5.50=6.00 an over. I give up- I'll just enhoy it.
We stagger along at less than 1 an over and I think"dificult conditions ,grind to 200=bowl well" and then we start to go at 5.50=6.00 an over. I give up- I'll just enhoy it.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 15:45
I didn't say "I am so certain." I said it has been reported as such.
The reports are easy to believe because, if you cast your mind back, Hussain was something of a hot property, coming off one spectacular season in division two.
Word was that Notts - Test match county and good payer - were also in for him and that we saw off their interest.
A figure that I had seen bandied about was 80K.
The reports are easy to believe because, if you cast your mind back, Hussain was something of a hot property, coming off one spectacular season in division two.
Word was that Notts - Test match county and good payer - were also in for him and that we saw off their interest.
A figure that I had seen bandied about was 80K.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: JonR (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 15:46
Isn't this Big Vern's final game? I had assumed the returning Alfie would simply fill the void left by his compatriot.
The question for me then would be 'is Hussain a better option than either of the Overtons?' In my opinion the answer would be 'no' based on their excellent early performances, and they fully deserve to keep their first team spots at the moment. However, you can't discount that there maybe a desire to rotate the younger guys in order to avoid fatigue.
The question for me then would be 'is Hussain a better option than either of the Overtons?' In my opinion the answer would be 'no' based on their excellent early performances, and they fully deserve to keep their first team spots at the moment. However, you can't discount that there maybe a desire to rotate the younger guys in order to avoid fatigue.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 15:47
Re the debate over next week...doesn't VP disappear next week? So Alf would replace him.
James would stay captain.
I'm sure none of the Somerset players are contemplating the draw. We are in a great position.
BUT
Is our best chance of victory to set Surrey a target they think they have a sniff of getting? So we can take wickets as they throw bat to the sword?
Otherwise, to get a lead we consider we can't lose from.let's say 400..might not give us enough time to bowl them out?
James would stay captain.
I'm sure none of the Somerset players are contemplating the draw. We are in a great position.
BUT
Is our best chance of victory to set Surrey a target they think they have a sniff of getting? So we can take wickets as they throw bat to the sword?
Otherwise, to get a lead we consider we can't lose from.let's say 400..might not give us enough time to bowl them out?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 15:51
Late tea, we still have 32 overs after tea.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 15:53
Because of drizzle they are taking tea.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 15:54
Hope I'm wrong, but forecast isn't too good - drizzle with no wind is a problem.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 15:59
Quote:geordie moonraker
Trying to call a Somerset game is like trying to naila rainbow!!!
We stagger along at less than 1 an over and I think"dificult conditions ,grind to 200=bowl well" and then we start to go at 5.50=6.00 an over. I give up- I'll just enhoy it.
I hope your observations, and the fact that Surrey have used 6 bowlers already, are not indicative of a declaration deal having been reached!?!?!?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 16:01
The test is still playing, lets hope play in our match will start after tea.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 16:05
I wouldn't leave Surrey a "gettable," target by choice.
I think if you look at their line-up then, with the exceptions of Rudolph and Zander pretty much all of their guys are attacking players?
But how disciplined would they be in a situation where they have no real chance of winning? I think guys like Davies, Roy, Hamilton-B and Maynard can all be the type to throw things away at times. I think that may be more likely if they are bored in a game they do not feel they can win.
I'd rather leave them something ungettable and then get men around the bat with George.
But... if we're going to lose any significant time to drizzle then that may not be possible.
I don't think Marcus would leave them a "gettable," target and I'd be surprised if James does.
I think if you look at their line-up then, with the exceptions of Rudolph and Zander pretty much all of their guys are attacking players?
But how disciplined would they be in a situation where they have no real chance of winning? I think guys like Davies, Roy, Hamilton-B and Maynard can all be the type to throw things away at times. I think that may be more likely if they are bored in a game they do not feel they can win.
I'd rather leave them something ungettable and then get men around the bat with George.
But... if we're going to lose any significant time to drizzle then that may not be possible.
I don't think Marcus would leave them a "gettable," target and I'd be surprised if James does.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 16:07
Quote:Frome ExileQuote:geordie moonraker
Trying to call a Somerset game is like trying to naila rainbow!!!
We stagger along at less than 1 an over and I think"dificult conditions ,grind to 200=bowl well" and then we start to go at 5.50=6.00 an over. I give up- I'll just enhoy it.
I hope your observations, and the fact that Surrey have used 6 bowlers already, are not indicative of a declaration deal having been reached!?!?!?
I think Surrey cycled through their bowlers fairly quickly in the first innings, too. Of course, they were trying to stem a flurry of runs then, though.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Tumbles (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 16:16
235 lead, 7 wickets left, at tea on day 3. I'll take that.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 16:17
Why does it only rain when we're ahead in a match (Notts, Durham, now) and never when we're behind? (Warks)
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 16:20
Three years in a row at Durham.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 16:24
Sorry about all the threes guys - mistyped. I'll go back and sort it. :-)
No-one except Mr God is considering a draw at the moment (or at probably any time during this game).
I certainly don't think anyone suggested that James was doing it... unless you did Mr G.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:18:16:32:35 by Grockle.
No-one except Mr God is considering a draw at the moment (or at probably any time during this game).
I certainly don't think anyone suggested that James was doing it... unless you did Mr G.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:18:16:32:35 by Grockle.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 16:27
At the moment it is like trying to sign a t20 player, in out in out.
They are out.
They are out.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 16:27
You are right. It is surely the case, without doubt, that nobody else at the Oval over the last few days has thought a draw the most likely result... except of course for those I was talking to who were of the same opinion and, very possibly, a good many others...
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 16:34
Surrey hopefuls to a man I bet.
Good job, like you, they aren't in the Somerset dressing room then. :-)
Good job, like you, they aren't in the Somerset dressing room then. :-)
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 16:39
No, there was a mix. Some supporting Somerset, some the home side and a couple of neutrals.
Admittedly, you'd have found the home fans (and some away ones) changed their mind when Surrey lost 3 in 3 overs straight after tea yesterday, but a number had changed it back again by the end of the day, once they realised that those 3 in 3 overs were not going to be a calamitous trend for Surrey.
Admittedly, you'd have found the home fans (and some away ones) changed their mind when Surrey lost 3 in 3 overs straight after tea yesterday, but a number had changed it back again by the end of the day, once they realised that those 3 in 3 overs were not going to be a calamitous trend for Surrey.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: NW5Somerset (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 17:07
This is fascinating cricket.
High quality stuff.
Compton batting very sensibly and the clouds just starting to lift.
Need 30's here from Meschede and Philander.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:18:17:09:38 by NW5Somerset.
High quality stuff.
Compton batting very sensibly and the clouds just starting to lift.
Need 30's here from Meschede and Philander.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:18:17:09:38 by NW5Somerset.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 17:08
Nick is the mainstay once again.. nearer to my 1000 runs I go!
Excellent. But 5 down now... the declaration total may not be an issue at this rate.
Excellent. But 5 down now... the declaration total may not be an issue at this rate.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 17:11
i doubt it will.....Trego doesnt seem to contribute much with the bat these days, not since hes taken on more of the bowling responsibility, which he has done exceptionally may I add.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 17:11
You so often find this eh..the 3rd innings being troublesome when the side batting has the first innings lead. Seen it time and time again...
Sounds good cricket though after all the runs of Wed and Thurs..every run now is being fought for
Sounds good cricket though after all the runs of Wed and Thurs..every run now is being fought for
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: NW5Somerset (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 17:12
Should not entertain any thoughts of a declaration.
With this wicket and the Surrey batting line up I would only declare 350 ahead.
Surrey bowling well and Compton, simply, a class apart.
With this wicket and the Surrey batting line up I would only declare 350 ahead.
Surrey bowling well and Compton, simply, a class apart.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: NW5Somerset (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 17:14
I don't know if it's been mentioned on here but apparently Meschede took an absolute wonder catch on Day 2 off Jason Roy.
People saying around me it was one of the best they had ever seen.
People saying around me it was one of the best they had ever seen.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 17:15
I think I'm back to my "struggle to 200 at close of play"
leaves 325 @ 3.6. Game on.
leaves 325 @ 3.6. Game on.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Clarence Parker (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 17:19
Quote:AGod
I didn't say "I am so certain." I said it has been reported as such.
The reports are easy to believe because, if you cast your mind back, Hussain was something of a hot property, coming off one spectacular season in division two.
Word was that Notts - Test match county and good payer - were also in for him and that we saw off their interest.
A figure that I had seen bandied about was 80K.
In October, 2010, the Nottinghamshire Director of Cricket Mick Newell, stated that Nottinghamshire were “not in the running to sign Gemaal Hussain.”
Clearly, I do not know if Notts. had any discussions / negotiations with him prior to this statement being made.
Perhaps Notts. made the decision that was the right one for them. I may be wrong, but I can not see much of a future at Somerset for him.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 17:27
It certainly is looking like he has a lot of work to do to stay in contention. The problem is there is so little second team cricket to get some work done in.
Though IF Philander is not available for the Durham game
and
IF Thomas is not released by Pune
Then he may get the chance to start the job next week. It's up to the man himself. If he has it then he has to show it. If he hasn't then it is probably best that we know early.
Though IF Philander is not available for the Durham game
and
IF Thomas is not released by Pune
Then he may get the chance to start the job next week. It's up to the man himself. If he has it then he has to show it. If he hasn't then it is probably best that we know early.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 17:32
why has Thomas got to be released by Pune?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 17:39
I don't know Ron is this a trick question?
People are suggesting it is on the cards this weekend? If he is won't he be considered for the Durham game? Am I missing something?
ONe would assume that if Philander AND Thomas were available, the chances of Hussain walking back into the first team would be less likely perhaps?
People are suggesting it is on the cards this weekend? If he is won't he be considered for the Durham game? Am I missing something?
ONe would assume that if Philander AND Thomas were available, the chances of Hussain walking back into the first team would be less likely perhaps?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 17:42
Bad light. Will they get back on?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 17:43
no trick question but your comment made me ask it. They play their last game tomorrow and they are out of it. If he is on a flight after it then he should be available. BR has stated this himself. If hes in no condition to play thats another matter but I wouldnt think its got anything to do with Pune, unless im missing something.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 17:49
Pune hold his contract Ron....
I'm contracted to be here until the 15th of June even though the kids finish on the 13th. I'm leaving on the 10th because the school have OK'd that.
Alf will be contracted until a date I would imagine not the last ball bowled in anger by Pune in the IPL so they very much have a say in when he leaves.
I'm contracted to be here until the 15th of June even though the kids finish on the 13th. I'm leaving on the 10th because the school have OK'd that.
Alf will be contracted until a date I would imagine not the last ball bowled in anger by Pune in the IPL so they very much have a say in when he leaves.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 17:50
Earlier today Marcus told Alf 'look forward to having you back on Tuesday'
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 17:53
Twitter?
Maybe he knows something we don't (wouldn't be at all surprised). Hopefully that will be confirmed sometime soon by someone official.
Not good news for Hussain though.
Maybe he knows something we don't (wouldn't be at all surprised). Hopefully that will be confirmed sometime soon by someone official.
Not good news for Hussain though.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 18:00
we also hold a contract with him Grockle, which is reduced pro rata when he is not with us. It allows him to take up his Pune contract and he is paid in part based on games played there. So when that runs out (at the end of he tournament) its finished and he comes back.
Im well aware of how contracts work and when the end date is and what needs to be done, but I also know that each contractual position can be different and doesn't automatically follow the norm.
Im well aware of how contracts work and when the end date is and what needs to be done, but I also know that each contractual position can be different and doesn't automatically follow the norm.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Scrumper (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 18:01
Well done Nick, a daisy among dandelions today.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 18:03
You know a lot more than most of us Ron.
When is the 'end of the tournament' Don't think it's today?
I'm personally not sure what contract Alf is on. I'm not certain he has a yearly one with us or there is any kind of pro rata arrangement. If you do then fine.
Whatever the situation, Pune have to agree to it and it looks like, for us, they have. So yippeee!
When is the 'end of the tournament' Don't think it's today?
I'm personally not sure what contract Alf is on. I'm not certain he has a yearly one with us or there is any kind of pro rata arrangement. If you do then fine.
Whatever the situation, Pune have to agree to it and it looks like, for us, they have. So yippeee!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 18:05
Remember last season when Worcs made 500 + against us and still lost..because they collapsed in their 2nd innings?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 18:06
excellent..............lets hope we see him Tuesday then, and playing.
Looks like we may need him!! Collapsing like a pack of cards here
Looks like we may need him!! Collapsing like a pack of cards here
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 18:11
Been falling in twos all day.
May not get ahead by 300 at this rate. Then the work will be in the bowlers hands again.
The individual batting might be good this year but we are still too damn inconsistent as a unit.
Is this poor shot selection on a benign pitch or is this suddenly becoming a minefield?
May not get ahead by 300 at this rate. Then the work will be in the bowlers hands again.
The individual batting might be good this year but we are still too damn inconsistent as a unit.
Is this poor shot selection on a benign pitch or is this suddenly becoming a minefield?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 18:14
Conditions are much more favourable for bowlers..alot of movement and the ball seaming about.
I suggest we also seem in two minds as to how we should have been playing it.
And as for that Mr Meaker..wish he'd stayed in Rentaghost.
I suggest we also seem in two minds as to how we should have been playing it.
And as for that Mr Meaker..wish he'd stayed in Rentaghost.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Scrumper (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 18:17
I seem to remember we scored over 500 against NZ and still lost.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Tumbles (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 18:20
Not great batting but conditions must be having an effect surely?
Can we limp to 350ish? 300 even.
Can we limp to 350ish? 300 even.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 18:22
Quote:Grockle
Been falling in twos all day.
May not get ahead by 300 at this rate. Then the work will be in the bowlers hands again.
The individual batting might be good this year but we are still too damn inconsistent as a unit.
Is this poor shot selection on a benign pitch or is this suddenly becoming a minefield?
Not being there I can't help, but from the commentary, the continuous offs and ons due to rain and light can't be ideal for the batsmen's concentration!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: mikeindex (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 18:23
Rentaghost - love it.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 18:25
part of playing cricket in England Im afraid.
Lets get to 310/320 in the morning. That will give them around 80 odd overs to get them. If they want them they cant just defend so we have a Chance.
Great fightback by Surrey after us getting 500 odd though. Two games in a row they've fought back well. We need to do the same tomorrow.
Lets get to 310/320 in the morning. That will give them around 80 odd overs to get them. If they want them they cant just defend so we have a Chance.
Great fightback by Surrey after us getting 500 odd though. Two games in a row they've fought back well. We need to do the same tomorrow.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 18:26
But AG has been goIng on about the pitch having little or nothing in it. Is this atmospheric then?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:18:18:29:16 by Grockle.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:18:18:29:16 by Grockle.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 18:33
Too True Ron.
If the condtions have worked for them then they can work for us.
But you do have to give them credit for the fightback as you say. You don't get anything for nothing in this game.
If the condtions have worked for them then they can work for us.
But you do have to give them credit for the fightback as you say. You don't get anything for nothing in this game.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 18:37
Heavily overcast and floodlights. We have been very unlucky with weather.
Unless heavily overcast tomorrow then it looks like you were right, Grockle, and might not be a draw. If high cloud tomorrow, Surrey will be favourites unless last 3 wkts can last 25 overs or so.
Unless heavily overcast tomorrow then it looks like you were right, Grockle, and might not be a draw. If high cloud tomorrow, Surrey will be favourites unless last 3 wkts can last 25 overs or so.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 18:48
Well there ya go... so much for Day 2 predictions and the pitch giving nothing to the bowlers (you know that one you've been watching so intently for two days).
Well it looks like it'll be all down to the situation tomorrow and how all 22 players play to the conditions.
Game on I'd say... how much more satisfying that is for everyone spectating and listening in.
What a great game cricket is if you just let it take you where it wants to rather than trying to tell it where it should go.
Well it looks like it'll be all down to the situation tomorrow and how all 22 players play to the conditions.
Game on I'd say... how much more satisfying that is for everyone spectating and listening in.
What a great game cricket is if you just let it take you where it wants to rather than trying to tell it where it should go.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 18:51
I suspect/hope that Big Vern will want to sign off in style. So I won't make Surrey favourites just yet, whatever tomorrow's weather.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 18:54
It's the old thing of having the runs on the board and the other side having to get them I suppose FE
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 18:58
300 batting last on a 4 day pitch never easy. Need to get a couple early though to put them under pressure early.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Wickham (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 19:16
For what it's worth, if we had got the last four wickets this morning, I would have favoured enforcing the follow-on.
Conditons favoured the bowlers this afternoon. As LB has said there was a lot of swing under heavy clouds. At times, the batsmen couldn't lay a bat on Meaker, who was bowling fast out-swingers. The first three batsmen looked to have received decent balls; CK got a leading edge; and PT looked to have played too early at a tennis ball bouncer.
NW Somerset: I remarked on Meschede's catch at the time. Fielding at deep backward square-leg, he misjudged a high swirling hook, never got in position, stuck out his right hand at the last minute and astonishingly held on.
Conditons favoured the bowlers this afternoon. As LB has said there was a lot of swing under heavy clouds. At times, the batsmen couldn't lay a bat on Meaker, who was bowling fast out-swingers. The first three batsmen looked to have received decent balls; CK got a leading edge; and PT looked to have played too early at a tennis ball bouncer.
NW Somerset: I remarked on Meschede's catch at the time. Fielding at deep backward square-leg, he misjudged a high swirling hook, never got in position, stuck out his right hand at the last minute and astonishingly held on.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 19:36
Wickham - if I had known in advance what the PM weather was going to be then, yes, I too would have enforced the follow-on.
I share FE's hope that VP will slip himself tomorrow. Other than that, I think George will be our best hope.
Still think we were very unlucky with the weather.
If it ends up going their way then I'm not sure we could/should have done much differently.
I share FE's hope that VP will slip himself tomorrow. Other than that, I think George will be our best hope.
Still think we were very unlucky with the weather.
If it ends up going their way then I'm not sure we could/should have done much differently.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 20:27
I'm sure after having a think about it over night you'll find something AG don't despair. :-)
But you may not have to find something to explain it away because we still have as much chance as them of winning it.
But you may not have to find something to explain it away because we still have as much chance as them of winning it.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 20:34
So, here I go again,almost where I was shortly after we started batting.
If we bat for 12 overs in the morning Surrey should have to make about 320 in 82 overs. that is virtually 4 an over and they scored at 3.7 in the first innings. Chasing 300+ in the 4th innings is never easy. I still think we are in pole position, although the balance is fine. Grockle is right-this knocks 20/20 into a cocked hat.
If we bat for 12 overs in the morning Surrey should have to make about 320 in 82 overs. that is virtually 4 an over and they scored at 3.7 in the first innings. Chasing 300+ in the 4th innings is never easy. I still think we are in pole position, although the balance is fine. Grockle is right-this knocks 20/20 into a cocked hat.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Bagpuss (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 20:52
Joining in late to the 'how identical are the Overton twins' debate, this picture was posted on Twitter by Alex Barrow when the team flew down to London at the beginning of the week
[twitter.com]
[twitter.com]
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Norwich SCCC (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 20:52
I am very much of the opinion that anything over 320 will be hard to get but I do think we need those 40 odd runs.
Anything under 300 would be a disappointment given our first day but would not necessarily mean the end of our chances if we get early wickets.
Lets hope for a bit of cloud and a full days cricket.
Anything under 300 would be a disappointment given our first day but would not necessarily mean the end of our chances if we get early wickets.
Lets hope for a bit of cloud and a full days cricket.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Wickham (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 21:00
Cove seems (at least to me) slightly broader in the beam than Jove, Baggers.
I agree that we need cloud cover tomorrow. And I certainly expect that VP will slip himself - as he has throughout the match.
I agree that we need cloud cover tomorrow. And I certainly expect that VP will slip himself - as he has throughout the match.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 21:10
I thought that in the first dig VP slipped himself from the Pavilion End.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Bagpuss (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 21:16
The day 3 report on CricInfo mentions that Vernon was hit on his bowling hand by Jordan late in the day. Hope it doesn't affect his bowling tomorrow.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 18/05/2012 22:44
COverton was also hit on the hand on day two by Meaker.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Scrumper (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 00:18
Meaker's solicitor blames Tory government.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 01:40
We'll be ok, no heavy roller means batting last on this track is going to be most difficult.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 07:02
Good morning from 'sarf Landin.
The news is that the cloud is probably not as high as Surrey would like but nor is it quite the gloaming of yesterday afternoon.
There is, mercifully, no sign whatsoever of the sunshine forecast by the Beeb.
As to the roller, with the exception of the odd delivery from George that has leapt out of the rough and one solitary delivery to Craig K, I'm not sure there has been any suggestion of uneven bounce at all.
The news is that the cloud is probably not as high as Surrey would like but nor is it quite the gloaming of yesterday afternoon.
There is, mercifully, no sign whatsoever of the sunshine forecast by the Beeb.
As to the roller, with the exception of the odd delivery from George that has leapt out of the rough and one solitary delivery to Craig K, I'm not sure there has been any suggestion of uneven bounce at all.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 07:16
Brian thinks it would take a big effort to get past 300 and successfully defend that. Confirms it was the gloaming and lights that did for us (plus, in his view, some shoddy shots) and that the pitch remains excellent.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: RadstockRob (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 07:24
I doubt it would have been " the gloaming" responsible unless there was an extraordinary early sunset in London last night.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 07:39
I'm not sure that you need a visible sunset to get dusk (gloaming.)
To me dusk is simply the period immediately before night falls.
To me dusk is simply the period immediately before night falls.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 07:57
I think Brian was talking about the bad light rather than actual 'dusk'.
I know there are about 3 hours to go but you are surely not going to have a debate about what constitutes 'dusk'?
I know there are about 3 hours to go but you are surely not going to have a debate about what constitutes 'dusk'?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 08:17
Yes. It was me talking about dusk, not Brian.
Before we need VP to sign off with the ball, I think we shall need some lusty blows with the bat.
I'd guess the plan will be VP to play shots whilst COverton holds up an end. Then JOverton to fill the VP role if VP is out.
If we get down to George and COverton in partnership then Craig may have to become the aggressive one.
Before we need VP to sign off with the ball, I think we shall need some lusty blows with the bat.
I'd guess the plan will be VP to play shots whilst COverton holds up an end. Then JOverton to fill the VP role if VP is out.
If we get down to George and COverton in partnership then Craig may have to become the aggressive one.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 08:35
Does anyone know if its definite that VP will NOT play agianst Durham?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 08:49
In a way slightly surprised that Brian hasn't plugged a new overseas in for two games to cover VP with a view to that player then being signed for second half of season if we like him and he likes us.
Am I right in thinking that the Middx game takes place in the midst of T20?
If so, could Morkel play that one for us?
Am I right in thinking that the Middx game takes place in the midst of T20?
If so, could Morkel play that one for us?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 08:59
I think Brian's comments about today are spot on. 320 in 80 overs is the minimum... so bat for 14 overs and score 40.Simple!!!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 09:18
Brightening up.
Not what we want when we bowl, though I suppose gives us a better chance of adding a few with the willow before that.
Meaker's pace likely to be the main threat again. He troubled both Overtons with bouncers first time out and I guess that is again likely to be his game-plan.
If it's relatively clear I'd like to see us go after Jon Lewis. If it's not swinging and seaming then he becomes just another medium pacer, IMO. We destroyed him in that 40 over game the other week. I'd like to think VP could give him some stick.
(apologies in advance if Lewis promptly takes 3-0 to end our innings.)
Not what we want when we bowl, though I suppose gives us a better chance of adding a few with the willow before that.
Meaker's pace likely to be the main threat again. He troubled both Overtons with bouncers first time out and I guess that is again likely to be his game-plan.
If it's relatively clear I'd like to see us go after Jon Lewis. If it's not swinging and seaming then he becomes just another medium pacer, IMO. We destroyed him in that 40 over game the other week. I'd like to think VP could give him some stick.
(apologies in advance if Lewis promptly takes 3-0 to end our innings.)
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: wsm fan (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 09:41
A little while back Vernon tweeted to say he'd be back in Capoe Town on May 21st, so i assume at that point plan was to depart tomorrow at some point, be surprised if we'd managed to extend it given wat SA have treated us.....
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 09:52
Cheers WSM - tends to suggest he's expecting to be out of England before the end of the weekend. Shame.
Would be nice to win one for us before he @#$%& off though!
Would be nice to win one for us before he @#$%& off though!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 10:06
He certainly looked good when he switched to the Pavilion End after tea.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 10:45
Arul tweaking them nicely in this morning's warm up.
Craig M hitting the lone stump.
Craig M hitting the lone stump.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 10:55
Increasingly gloomy and cool here as the bell tolled.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Clarence Parker (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 11:02
For whom does the bell toll though?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 11:08
Surrey have very kindly gifted us EIGHTEEN runs already this innings in no balls.!
Thank You very much. Easy runs for us that could still be vital
Thank You very much. Easy runs for us that could still be vital
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: just in (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 11:15
I am finding these two commentators rather irritating...raising their voices as if something dramatic has happened when, infact, the batsman has left the ball...not too interested in the corset that one of the guys says he is wearing either!!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 11:19
Flat-footed drive by Vernon, I'm afraid, after things had started fairly promisingly.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Wickham (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 11:28
Now for the Overteenies to build on the promise they have shown so far.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 11:28
Gemaal is playing for Taunton Deane today in their match at Bath.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 11:34
Quote:just in
I am finding these two commentators rather irritating...raising their voices as if something dramatic has happened when, infact, the batsman has left the ball...not too interested in the corset that one of the guys says he is wearing either!!
They seem to feel they MUST say something, and probably better than other commentators on the 'net' who only speak when a ball is bowled - otherwise total silence!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 11:36
Very, very good yorker by Meaker.
If they win this, he'll be the main reason why.
A few rain drops now in the air.
If they win this, he'll be the main reason why.
A few rain drops now in the air.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Wickham (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 11:39
I am not there today. But having been at the Oval for the first three days, i agree with AG that Meaker is the difference between the sides - so far!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 11:39
And a Waqar calibre yorker to finish off the other twin.
Outstanding bowling and I doubt we have enough I'm afraid.
Outstanding bowling and I doubt we have enough I'm afraid.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: brt1919 (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 11:40
I'll be arriving shortly & I guess we'll discover in a few hours time whether we have a young side with the talent to perform in Div 1 but have to learn how to finish games off from dominant positions (re last week as well) or whether this pitch is a 200-250 4th innings score with Philander looking to finish the game off in style. Either way, it's been a useful & promising few days, who would have expected Overton's & Barrow to slot in so well,with the more senior players also doing their bit to shrug off any injury crisis
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 11:44
The curse of the 3rd innings again
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 11:46
The pitch certainly isn't a 250 pitch.
The question will be whether the cloud is low enough and heavy enough for our bowlers to get much swing.
The question will be whether the cloud is low enough and heavy enough for our bowlers to get much swing.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 11:47
So a little under my requirement. 305 at 3.6 is significantly diferent to 320 @3.7 but is over 300. We now need VP to say goodbye by doing a Meaker.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 11:58
We will also need George on top form, GM.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 12:01
No foot movement from Davies and chops it into his stumps. A bonus wicket and very gratefully received.
There is a big problem with the bowler's footholes at the Vaux Road End.
There is a big problem with the bowler's footholes at the Vaux Road End.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 12:03
Remember Surrey at Lords last month!!
They are an incredible side at coming back from the dead in matches..and right now I agree they are hot favourites to win this one and extend our winless run..BUT..they did cock up against Middlesex chasing a much smaller target!
Agod..any idea why Rudolph isn't opening?
They are an incredible side at coming back from the dead in matches..and right now I agree they are hot favourites to win this one and extend our winless run..BUT..they did cock up against Middlesex chasing a much smaller target!
Agod..any idea why Rudolph isn't opening?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 12:03
That's a start
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 12:11
No idea why Rudolph did not open. Maybe wanted right/left hand combo?
VP certainly fired up now.
VP certainly fired up now.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 12:17
Morons sitting under the sight-screen again. What is wrong with these people?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 12:24
Let’s be thankful for any commentaries we get BBC Bristol are not doing any for county matches.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 12:27
Quote:Little Bird
The curse of the 3rd innings again
Again? Wasn't it the curse of the first innings last year?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 12:28
Good, probing stuff from both opening bowlers.
Weather threatening to brighten up though.
Weather threatening to brighten up though.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 12:41
Rudolph a jammy bleeder. Pete deserves to get him soon.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 12:45
Jammy batsmen get runs unfortunately and chances to get them don't keep coming I'm afraid.
We need early stuff with only just over 300 to defend.
We need early stuff with only just over 300 to defend.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 12:58
Yeah. An irritating session. Things not quite going to hand. Chinese cuts past the stumps. A couple of costly misfields, yielding six extra runs.
Pete is definitely shaping the ball but the cloud cover is in danger of dissipating over lunch.
Think we have bowled very, very well, IMO.
Pete is definitely shaping the ball but the cloud cover is in danger of dissipating over lunch.
Think we have bowled very, very well, IMO.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 13:06
I'm sure I'm not the only one who remains very very disappointed that, having scored 500+ in our first innings, we remain favourites to lose this match. That sort of thing should not happen
Yes we have been hugely unlucky this season so far with injuries and the weather (I note there is no hint of rain around now we are on the back foot in a match)....BUT...
if our bowlers can't do the business this afternoon, we are sadly looking at realistically being out of 2 competitions already before the end of May.
COME ON SOMERSET.
Yes we have been hugely unlucky this season so far with injuries and the weather (I note there is no hint of rain around now we are on the back foot in a match)....BUT...
if our bowlers can't do the business this afternoon, we are sadly looking at realistically being out of 2 competitions already before the end of May.
COME ON SOMERSET.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 13:07
Thanks for that.
The problem is that they are over 20% of the way there with 90% of their wickets still in hand and we don't want that.
We need some of the luck our way after lunch with a little flurry of wickets to smash up this base that Roy and Rudolph have established.
Plenty still in this match but the nagging feeling is in the old gut in Oman I'm afraid.
Think we've let this get away from us, excellent cricket match though it is, that Botham impetus is finally with Surrey and needs snatching back.
The problem is that they are over 20% of the way there with 90% of their wickets still in hand and we don't want that.
We need some of the luck our way after lunch with a little flurry of wickets to smash up this base that Roy and Rudolph have established.
Plenty still in this match but the nagging feeling is in the old gut in Oman I'm afraid.
Think we've let this get away from us, excellent cricket match though it is, that Botham impetus is finally with Surrey and needs snatching back.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Botham (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 13:50
Great start to the match, but to be all out at the Oval on a decent pitch, is woeful and will probably be the reason why we lose, but these occasions are ripe for a hero, so maybe one of our youngsters will step up to the plate?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 13:51
The advantage of being the bowling side is that we only need another 9 balls. If Surrey score 4 off every ball they still need another 50 + balls. If we take a wicket that is more than 10% of our present target. Arun for Surrey is less than.5%
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 13:55
Sick to death of Rudolph. Another fluke this time vs George. 1 short in the running.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Norwich SCCC (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 14:09
This one seems to be slipping away. We need 2 quick wickets!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 14:11
Getting some good bounce it seems?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 14:21
Bouncing like a bomb, LB.
Rudolph fortunate to survive the previous ball.
This, Grockle, is why I feel the loss of George is a significant adverse event for SCCC's CC campaign.
Rudolph fortunate to survive the previous ball.
This, Grockle, is why I feel the loss of George is a significant adverse event for SCCC's CC campaign.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 14:23
Well done George. Good to see the back of Rudolph. Big moment for the game now..can these two re-build or can we keep our foot on the pedal
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 14:25
We now only need 7 more balls. 4 byes often indicates turn. Time for Arul??
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 14:26
Meschedeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 14:30
As I said, bowling means you can change the game in far shorter a time than when batting. 6 left.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 14:34
This could be the make or break partnership..
How ironic too...two ex Millfield School boys trying to deny Somerset a victory...
How ironic too...two ex Millfield School boys trying to deny Somerset a victory...
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 14:37
Must be time to consider Arul soon?
If Surrey still hope to get these runs, they won't be getting them from George's end.
If Surrey still hope to get these runs, they won't be getting them from George's end.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 14:45
We have to break this partnership soon. Two classy young batsmen who could win the game for Surrey
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 14:50
Quote:AGod
Must be time to consider Arul soon?
If Surrey still hope to get these runs, they won't be getting them from George's end.
4, 4 and now a 6 since you posted that
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 14:53
PETEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 14:54
I'd like to see the back of Maynard soon. Looked great in first dig.
Edit
ete's just ripped him out.
Bet BJ's doubly pleased as he's probably endured a lifetime of Welshmen banging on about Matthew Maynard being the Welsh answer to Viv and other manifest nonsense.
Edit
ete's just ripped him out.
Bet BJ's doubly pleased as he's probably endured a lifetime of Welshmen banging on about Matthew Maynard being the Welsh answer to Viv and other manifest nonsense.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 14:57
If if if we do win this..
would we be the first side in Div One to get MAXIMUM points in a match all season? I think we would...
would we be the first side in Div One to get MAXIMUM points in a match all season? I think we would...
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 15:18
I'm still sitting here polishing my specs (rose coloured) What a wonderful game.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 15:29
Funny story: 5 mins ago I asked Arul if he expected to bowl. He said no 'hope we'll have won before we get to that.'
5 mins later, James has thrown him the cherry...
Less amusingly, Surrey are threatening to climb back into this one.
It's also gone very sunny.
5 mins later, James has thrown him the cherry...
Less amusingly, Surrey are threatening to climb back into this one.
It's also gone very sunny.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 15:34
Please don't let this be another Edgbaston
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 15:40
Well if it is, LB, you can look to one of the same causes - Arul Suppiah again run out by Compton when going well.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: rodders (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 15:48
Whichever way you look at it, we really shouldn't lose from this position at tea.
If we do then there can be no excuses IMO - we just will not have been good enough overall !
If we do then there can be no excuses IMO - we just will not have been good enough overall !
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 15:55
Don't panic Corporal Jones! It is clearly us v Hamilton-Jones. If we can get him, we should OK. If we don't, well played Surrey! Humour me - Leg breaks and Goolies would help now!!!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 15:56
Well if we lose, by that fact, your assessment is spot on Rodders.
Back to that Warwickshire match LB - just can't let it alone can you... it's like a scab you have to pick :-)
Back to that Warwickshire match LB - just can't let it alone can you... it's like a scab you have to pick :-)
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 16:02
Quote:old boy!
Don't panic Corporal Jones! It is clearly us v Hamilton-Jones. If we can get him, we should OK. If we don't, well played Surrey! Humour me - Leg breaks and Goolies would help now!!!
Sorry - protect your goolies, I did mean googlies!!!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 16:03
Clouded over again and VP back. I'd suggest that this spell might be decisive one way or the other...
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 16:04
Is Craig O injured?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 16:11
RHB is such an impressive man and cricketer..we had talk about signing him once
No Grockle I can't. Warks was a match we should have won and at 148-6, this is one we should win too..
No Grockle I can't. Warks was a match we should have won and at 148-6, this is one we should win too..
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 16:13
I'd like to see him bowl, GM.
Bowls a similar line to Pete - might get lbws.
This remains a track where batsmen do not nick seamers. Accordingly, Hildreth has posted only himself at slip.
Bowls a similar line to Pete - might get lbws.
This remains a track where batsmen do not nick seamers. Accordingly, Hildreth has posted only himself at slip.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Chinaman (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 16:13
OB, you were right first time: all those with a good strong set of goolies and a steely stomach should stand up now.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 16:18
I'd try and get over it LB. We aren't going to win that game now because it's gone. You have to leave it and live for the days in front rather than those behind.
At least you seem to have stopped making it our fault for not knocking over the tail and have accepted that their tail is actually probably the best in the league.
Anyway back from the past.... you're right about this one but whoever wins this game... what a stonking game of cricket it has been. Real ebb and flow by both sides.
At least you seem to have stopped making it our fault for not knocking over the tail and have accepted that their tail is actually probably the best in the league.
Anyway back from the past.... you're right about this one but whoever wins this game... what a stonking game of cricket it has been. Real ebb and flow by both sides.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 16:22
I think James should possibly start mixing up the bowling a bit.
Or possibly George should come over the wicket. The ball has stopped bouncing as much off the main strip, due to age, but I bet it would still jump out of the rough.
Or possibly George should come over the wicket. The ball has stopped bouncing as much off the main strip, due to age, but I bet it would still jump out of the rough.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 16:27
VP visibly directing our fielders with George bowling.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 16:29
And George has now switched to over the wicket at, I think, the suggestion of VP.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 16:29
Sorry if I've missed this elsewhere, but can anyone confirm the maximum overs possible in this innings?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 16:33
85, FE.
A few spots of rain in there.
A few spots of rain in there.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 16:34
It's perfectly relevant on today of all days to refer back to Edgbaston because it was a match where we could not quite get over the line, needing just 2 wickets for victory while our opponents needed 52.
Today we had our opponents 148-6, still needing 160 to win. If we don't win this match today, it will be another example of getting into a winning position but not being able to finish a side off.
Today we had our opponents 148-6, still needing 160 to win. If we don't win this match today, it will be another example of getting into a winning position but not being able to finish a side off.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 16:45
Agod any word on Craig M? Hope he won't be a doubt for next week
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 16:51
And you'll be able to blame the side for it so you can leave the Warks one behind.
Remember to put all the blame on Somerset and refer very very little to the cricket played by the other side in your analysis.
Sometimes you play good sides for four days and come down the wrong side of a result. Good cricket is like that one side only just beats the other or falls short. Which would you rather we do? Lose by an innings? What goes around comes around.
We've been told for four days that this wicket had nothing in it yet we are one hour away from the end of the game with three results still possible. That is down to TWO sides not one and although there are things that can be improved in this performance please be aware that this is a side with few alternative options (and a bowler off the pitch I think).
So when you start to rip into them and talking about their weakenesses just remember some of that this time perhaps?
Remember to put all the blame on Somerset and refer very very little to the cricket played by the other side in your analysis.
Sometimes you play good sides for four days and come down the wrong side of a result. Good cricket is like that one side only just beats the other or falls short. Which would you rather we do? Lose by an innings? What goes around comes around.
We've been told for four days that this wicket had nothing in it yet we are one hour away from the end of the game with three results still possible. That is down to TWO sides not one and although there are things that can be improved in this performance please be aware that this is a side with few alternative options (and a bowler off the pitch I think).
So when you start to rip into them and talking about their weakenesses just remember some of that this time perhaps?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 16:51
It looked like he had mobility in the shoulder.
I fear this one is slipping away, though.
Don't look like we are about to take a wicket, let alone four.
I fear this one is slipping away, though.
Don't look like we are about to take a wicket, let alone four.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 17:04
I must have been dreaming yesterday when I read a post saying about respecting other people's opinions.
In the circumstances, a draw isn't a bad result here and there were some encouraging performances. Surrey deserve credit too.
That'd be 7 without a win though.
In the circumstances, a draw isn't a bad result here and there were some encouraging performances. Surrey deserve credit too.
That'd be 7 without a win though.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 17:11
Have Surrey quit?
Starting to look that way.
No great intent at the moment.
Starting to look that way.
No great intent at the moment.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 17:18
Quote:old boy!Quote:old boy!
Don't panic Corporal Jones! It is clearly us v Hamilton-Jones. If we can get him, we should OK. If we don't, well played Surrey! Humour me - Leg breaks and Goolies would help now!!!
Sorry - protect your goolies, I did mean googlies!!!
If I may be so immodest my post above has summed it up pretty well! Except that if RHB was still there I would have expected Surrey to be much closer. Nevertheless it appears to have been a marvelleous game of cricket with honours even. We can be proud of our players - those senior ones AND the youngsters!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Bagpuss (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 17:19
If I had to pick the match we could've/should've won I'd say Durham - we created chances that weren't taken, all be they difficult chances, the catches were dropped. Have only been listening to the commentary here for the last 45 mins but seems there's nothing for the bowlers. The Surrey batters have abandoned all idea of going for the win, so are happy to leave or pad away the ball whenever they can.
Incidentally my commentary sounds like Bernie clifton, with laryngitis.
Hopefully a burst with the new ball will bring about a rapid collapse in the dying stages.
Incidentally my commentary sounds like Bernie clifton, with laryngitis.
Hopefully a burst with the new ball will bring about a rapid collapse in the dying stages.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 17:24
I hope the match soon ends because the radio commentary is terrible. Horrible, uninformative self-indulgent gibberish. So what if one of the commentators has a bad voice today? Either do the job you're getting paid to do, comment on the cricket and stop going on and on about your bad throat as if you are the reason people are listening to the feed. Or take a sickie and let somebody else do it. Very poor BBC rubbish.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 17:25
I wonder why no Overtons after the opening?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 17:25
surrye want 7 runs an over with 4 wickets left and 2 batsmen set. Are they going to go for it? If it was us we we wan us to go for it??
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 17:25
If we get as far as the new ball they'd be better giving it to George because he'll get it bounce.
Seamers look very unlikely to get a nick.
Seamers look very unlikely to get a nick.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Tumbles (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 17:27
Doooooockrell. Hurrah.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:19:17:28:02 by Tumbles.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:19:17:28:02 by Tumbles.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 17:38
Hildreth erring, I feel. Not trying to save one near end of over with RHB on strike. Left men back on boundary. Should have been trying to set up a full over of VP to Lewis.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: rodders (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 17:42
Not unhappy with a draw ( nor happy either ) as my big fear was us losing a game we should never have lost.
All in all I would say that we are not going to win much this season ( again, sigh ) but we will do fairly well in all competitions. The story of supporting Somerset it seems and been like this for many years.
Is there an answer - I don't have one but will listen eagerly to anyone else who does !
All in all I would say that we are not going to win much this season ( again, sigh ) but we will do fairly well in all competitions. The story of supporting Somerset it seems and been like this for many years.
Is there an answer - I don't have one but will listen eagerly to anyone else who does !
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Tumbles (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 17:44
It's clear Surrey can't win from here, get 10 men around the bat
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 17:48
We've got the new ball in 6 balls time!!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Tumbles (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 18:06
I think it's over. Our inability to polish teams off is somewhat frustrating, we could be 40 points clear at the top of the table with a bit more luck
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 18:07
Quote:Little Bird
I must have been dreaming yesterday when I read a post saying about respecting other people's opinions.
In the circumstances, a draw isn't a bad result here and there were some encouraging performances. Surrey deserve credit too.
That'd be 7 without a win though.
I respect your opinion LB. Doesn't mean a) I have to agree with it or b) I'm not allowed to mention its failings in my opinion.
As it is it seems that maybe our conversation has added a little balance to your opinion so I feel the conversation was definitely worth having.
This side were being written off as being the end of our season by some only a week ago and here we are disappointed because they can't win a game with only three standing bowlers because we can't take three wickets in about two overs.
I'm very very pleased by this side's work and I personally couldn't give a monkeys whether we have won 27 or lost the same.
This side has guts and things will come or there is no justice.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:19:18:15:46 by Grockle.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 18:12
Tumbles... just remember who is in this side and how many bowlers we have had for the last hour or so.
Craig Meschede seems to be unable to turn his arm over I think.
The Overton's have bowled 5 overs in the second innings between them. No idea why.
Gargantuan effort from Pete, George and Vernon.
ALso before we start going down that third day batting collapse - we probably wouldn't have got this close if we hadn't been bowled out for 180. Still a worry when the batting cannot produce consistent results and that is the issue from this game IMHO.
Looks like there might be places for Alf and Gemaal on Tuesday.
Craig Meschede seems to be unable to turn his arm over I think.
The Overton's have bowled 5 overs in the second innings between them. No idea why.
Gargantuan effort from Pete, George and Vernon.
ALso before we start going down that third day batting collapse - we probably wouldn't have got this close if we hadn't been bowled out for 180. Still a worry when the batting cannot produce consistent results and that is the issue from this game IMHO.
Looks like there might be places for Alf and Gemaal on Tuesday.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Botham (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 18:13
Might even get some decent weather at Taunton next week.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 18:17
A reminder that if you are coming on Tuesday, the match will start at MIDDAY.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Bagpuss (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 18:19
On the bright side - both of the other CC1 matches ended in draws.We were the only team to achieve maximum bonus points. Onwards to Tuesday, Durham (and don't forget its a midday start on day 1)
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 18:24
Quote:rodders12
Not unhappy with a draw ( nor happy either ) as my big fear was us losing a game we should never have lost.
All in all I would say that we are not going to win much this season ( again, sigh ) but we will do fairly well in all competitions. The story of supporting Somerset it seems and been like this for many years.
Is there an answer - I don't have one but will listen eagerly to anyone else who does !
Getting the squad fit and keeping it that way might help Rodders :-) This won't be like more recent Somerset seasons because here we are seeing a side performing ABOVE expectations not at a level BELOW their best.
Admittedly still the same result though which seems to be the only objective for some posters. (not including you in that Rodders before you take it personally) :-)
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: SheptonPaul (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 18:25
Great effort lads, and a great game. Don't get that in the IPL!
On the Cricinfo blog, David Lloyd (don't think it's that David Lloyd) surmises that Roy opened instead of Rudolph because he's more of a dasher and Surrey wanted, at least initially, to chase the target; and that Meschede injured his shoulder in taking the catch that dismissed Zander.
On the Cricinfo blog, David Lloyd (don't think it's that David Lloyd) surmises that Roy opened instead of Rudolph because he's more of a dasher and Surrey wanted, at least initially, to chase the target; and that Meschede injured his shoulder in taking the catch that dismissed Zander.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Tumbles (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 18:26
Quote:Grockle
Tumbles... just remember who is in this side and how many bowlers we have had for the last hour or so.
Craig Meschede seems to be unable to turn his arm over I think.
The Overton's have bowled 5 overs in the second innings between them. No idea why.
Gargantuan effort from Pete, George and Vernon.
ALso before we start going down that third day batting collapse - we probably wouldn't have got this close if we hadn't been bowled out for 180. Still a worry when the batting cannot produce consistent results and that is the issue from this game IMHO.
Looks like there might be places for Alf and Gemaal on Tuesday.
I know, its more 'what if' - we don't seem to get the breaks with weather or finishing off teams. I'm delighted that in all but the Lancs game we've probably had the chance to win every game.
Lets hope that run of home fixtures later in the season gives us chance. We are still in touch with the top
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 18:26
Quote:GrockleQuote:Little Bird
I must have been dreaming yesterday when I read a post saying about respecting other people's opinions.
In the circumstances, a draw isn't a bad result here and there were some encouraging performances. Surrey deserve credit too.
That'd be 7 without a win though.
I respect your opinion LB. Doesn't mean a) I have to agree with it or b) I'm not allowed to mention its failings in my opinion.
As it is it seems that maybe our conversation has added a little balance to your opinion so I feel the conversation was definitely worth having.
This side were being written off as being the end of our season by some only a week ago and here we are disappointed because they can't win a game with only three standing bowlers because we can't take three wickets in about two overs.
I'm very very pleased by this side's work and I personally couldn't give a monkeys whether we have won 27 or lost the same.
This side has guts and things will come or there is no justice.
My opinions don't include failings. I want us to win the CC. After match day one I was happy because we'd bucked our usual trend of losing the opener. After match two I was frustrated because we lost a match we should have won. I realised at that point that we still had a lot of work to do. Then the injuries started and dreams of winning the CC were put to one side and instead great pleasure was dervived by the performances of the new players. At both Notts and Durham we performed admirably, denied only by the weather. And now we have got a decent draw at the Oval. I would have been gutted to have LOST from 148-6 and it would have brought up the concerns again that surfaced at Edgbaston about losing from a winning position.
Ok only 6 games in and never say never but at the moment the season is looking more like one of consoladation, of building for the future and for our terrific crop of young players to show us more and more of what they can do. That's disappointing when you think back to the Middlesex match and being top of the table..but you realise that in sport, targets and ambitions have to change accordingly as each match is played.
That said, I really hope we can win one/both of the two matches at Taunton next week..firstly so we don't get dragged in to a possible dogfight near the bottom..and secondly because this terrific young side of ours really deserves a win of some sort.
Well played at the Oval and thanks to Agod for his informatie updates.
See you all on Tuesday
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 18:27
Yet another superb effort from the boys, heaven help the rest of them when we can field a "full strength" eleven.
What a brilliant season this is proving to be.
What a brilliant season this is proving to be.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 18:39
So when even when you are frustrated your opinions don't include "failings" as perceived by others? Well you're far more perfect than I am LB.
However if I feel there are, in my opinion, I have the right to highlight them on here because if we all didn't have "failings" there'd be nothing to talk about or disagree about would there. ;-)
On to Taunton... and a biggie!
However if I feel there are, in my opinion, I have the right to highlight them on here because if we all didn't have "failings" there'd be nothing to talk about or disagree about would there. ;-)
On to Taunton... and a biggie!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 18:46
It's not a failing to want the county you support to win both matches and trophies.
It's not a failing to be disappointed to see other counties being more ruthless than we are at times.
It was certainly not a failing to be gutted after Edgbaston. However, that does not mean I am incapable of praising the opposition or indeed of standing back and trying to see the bigger picture, of seeing the positives too from a near miss.
I think in the scheme of things a draw at the Oval..with 8 bonus points..and against a very decent Surrey team isn't a bad result. Unlike Edgbaston, we did not throw a victory away. We competed well..and even dug in yday when conditions really favoured the Surrey bowlers..Compo nudged us towards 180 when it could have been 150.
Craig M has hurt his shoulder and didn't field after taking the catch..worrying. Alf is back but unsurprisingly is rusty. Look forward to hearing how Hussain bowled today.
It's not a failing to be disappointed to see other counties being more ruthless than we are at times.
It was certainly not a failing to be gutted after Edgbaston. However, that does not mean I am incapable of praising the opposition or indeed of standing back and trying to see the bigger picture, of seeing the positives too from a near miss.
I think in the scheme of things a draw at the Oval..with 8 bonus points..and against a very decent Surrey team isn't a bad result. Unlike Edgbaston, we did not throw a victory away. We competed well..and even dug in yday when conditions really favoured the Surrey bowlers..Compo nudged us towards 180 when it could have been 150.
Craig M has hurt his shoulder and didn't field after taking the catch..worrying. Alf is back but unsurprisingly is rusty. Look forward to hearing how Hussain bowled today.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Bagpuss (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 18:47
I can't see need for gloom and doom yet - all this talk of consolidation and avoiding relegation battles. We are in 3rd place in the CC table. We are only 19 points behind the leaders. The two teams ahead of us have only won 3 matches to our 1. We are 32 points ahead of last year's champions and 39 points ahead of many people's pre-season title favourites.
If Manchester City can turn things around, then so can we!
If Manchester City can turn things around, then so can we!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 18:47
It looks like the ground staff need that extra hour on Tuesday to get the ground back the way it was.
There is not one advertising board relating to cricket to be seen they have either been removed or covered up for the Olympic Torch day at the ground.
There is not one advertising board relating to cricket to be seen they have either been removed or covered up for the Olympic Torch day at the ground.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Bagpuss (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 18:54
Can't risk a random Blackacre Farm Eggs advertising board getting on camera. Someone somewhere will have paid a lot of money to to be the "Official Egg of London 2012"
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Wickham (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 19:05
I think that's a very fair reflection of the season so far, LB. Like you, I enjoyed the performances of our young - and not so young - players. While the return of some of our injured players will strengthen the team, it is very encouraging that we have a number of talented youngsters (each of whom will have gained valuable experience), who will be pushing hard for a place in the future.
We were unlucky in having to bat in the most difficult conditions of the match yesterday. And we came across a bowler who bowled (mainly) fast outswingers which would have tested the very best batsmen.
I had thought, when our final wicket fell this morning, that a Surrey win was the most likely result. Today was a day for our more experienced bowlers - and they can take a lot of credit for their part in staving off a Surrey win.
We were unlucky in having to bat in the most difficult conditions of the match yesterday. And we came across a bowler who bowled (mainly) fast outswingers which would have tested the very best batsmen.
I had thought, when our final wicket fell this morning, that a Surrey win was the most likely result. Today was a day for our more experienced bowlers - and they can take a lot of credit for their part in staving off a Surrey win.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 19:29
Pretty realistic assessment guys and gal.
And..... on to Taunton with that all in mind and the welcome return of some of the squad.
Things is looking up.
Thanks to Vernon. Go with God and don't burst England's bubble over the summer.
And..... on to Taunton with that all in mind and the welcome return of some of the squad.
Things is looking up.
Thanks to Vernon. Go with God and don't burst England's bubble over the summer.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 19:45
We probed and fought but nought availeth I'm afraid.
The pitch won in the end.
Dockrell and Pete excellent. The latter luckless.
Disappointed that COverton got not a single over.
Even if Meaker had not torpedoed our second dig then I still do not think we would have won.
The pitch won in the end.
Dockrell and Pete excellent. The latter luckless.
Disappointed that COverton got not a single over.
Even if Meaker had not torpedoed our second dig then I still do not think we would have won.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 19:50
Nah we needed them to follow on I think but a worthy effort nevertheless especially with what seemed to be second dig bowling problems.
Hope we don't get our wrists slapped by SA for asking Vernon to bowl a lot
Hope we don't get our wrists slapped by SA for asking Vernon to bowl a lot
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 19:53
I think the only bowling issue was Craig M being off the field. Not sure James would have handed him many more overs than he did JOverton if he had been on the field.
Apart from that James simply chose not to bowl anyone much bar George and the experienced seamers.
Apart from that James simply chose not to bowl anyone much bar George and the experienced seamers.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 19:57
It gave James no options though whichever way it was decided and two seamers plus George was always gonna make it difficult.
Thought he might have spelled George with Arul but I suppose he is very much a 'feel' bowler. If it's there you use him and if it isn't you don't
Thought he might have spelled George with Arul but I suppose he is very much a 'feel' bowler. If it's there you use him and if it isn't you don't
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 20:11
Wow, over 580 posts on this match thread so far, I believe that is the second time a match thread has gone over 500 this season.
Well done to everyone for keeping it interesting and all those at the match for their reports.
Well done to everyone for keeping it interesting and all those at the match for their reports.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: cricketjerry-mouse (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 20:29
How to assess Vernon Philander`s time with Somerset?
Well, in bare statistics he won only one championship match for us - and that with no little help from George D.
Overall, VP took 23 wickets in five matches at just over 21, and with an economy rate of 2.71. Average these wickets out over a full 16-match season and theoretically he would have totalled 73 - 20 more than any Somerset bowler last season.
You might reduce that 73 by a few, though, to factor in drier wickets as the sun comes out.
The importance of his economy rate shouldn`t be overlooked, At The Oval this aftenoon, for example, it was below two an over, when the oppostion, known for its cavalier batting, needed just 121 runs in a minimum of 36 overs after the tea interval.
So perhaps not world-beating performances to match his phenomenal early Test career - but a pretty good return, especally remembering our number of victories to date has most likely been reduced by the wet weather.
Well, in bare statistics he won only one championship match for us - and that with no little help from George D.
Overall, VP took 23 wickets in five matches at just over 21, and with an economy rate of 2.71. Average these wickets out over a full 16-match season and theoretically he would have totalled 73 - 20 more than any Somerset bowler last season.
You might reduce that 73 by a few, though, to factor in drier wickets as the sun comes out.
The importance of his economy rate shouldn`t be overlooked, At The Oval this aftenoon, for example, it was below two an over, when the oppostion, known for its cavalier batting, needed just 121 runs in a minimum of 36 overs after the tea interval.
So perhaps not world-beating performances to match his phenomenal early Test career - but a pretty good return, especally remembering our number of victories to date has most likely been reduced by the wet weather.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 20:45
Thanks for the stats of VP CJ-M.
A special mention should also go to Peter Trego who isn’t far behind with the same number of wickets. [stats.espncricinfo.com]
A special mention should also go to Peter Trego who isn’t far behind with the same number of wickets. [stats.espncricinfo.com]
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: brt1919 (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 20:54
There was a point today when I started to fear that declaring our 1st innings was a mistake & another 10 rubs might be priceless. But in the end we weren't let down by our batting at all, but held at bay by a very good, if drab, knock by Hamilton-Brown. He was just that bit better than our bowlers this afternoon & protected the other batsman very well.
Might have been different if at 200 they really gave it a go, but I guess when the 6th wicket went down they probably knew it was a risky tactic.
Last few games will hopefully be a good learning experience for our young players
Might have been different if at 200 they really gave it a go, but I guess when the 6th wicket went down they probably knew it was a risky tactic.
Last few games will hopefully be a good learning experience for our young players
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: litlekeithy (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 21:13
i just arrived back home after a drink with a couple of Surrey friends who were spitting blood about their post-tea approach to the game. One was calling for Chris Adams's head saying he was the most boring cricketer ever (he cited several other examples of his safety-first approach).
The only things I would question about our own performance on the final day was the limited bowling of the Overtons, i would have thought a few more overs bowled by tall guys who might get a bit more bounce from the pitch would have been worth a go. Then I suppose Meschede's injury might have forced Hildreth's hand in not risking another injury.
Also i thought George bowled too much over the wicket, which for a left arm spinner can be a negative line even if you're turning out of the rough. The ball can be booted away and there is less chance of an LBW.
(In the end a lot turned on not getting Surrey to follow on, where they would have been batting in last evening's poor light.)
One thought. Given the rain affected nature of so many matches with teams walking away with 5 or 6 points, chancing a win where you might walk away with a loss with 7 or 8 points could be a more profitable route.
So far we are third with only a good result behind Warwickshire, who hopefully we can beat in the return fixture. All to play for.
The only things I would question about our own performance on the final day was the limited bowling of the Overtons, i would have thought a few more overs bowled by tall guys who might get a bit more bounce from the pitch would have been worth a go. Then I suppose Meschede's injury might have forced Hildreth's hand in not risking another injury.
Also i thought George bowled too much over the wicket, which for a left arm spinner can be a negative line even if you're turning out of the rough. The ball can be booted away and there is less chance of an LBW.
(In the end a lot turned on not getting Surrey to follow on, where they would have been batting in last evening's poor light.)
One thought. Given the rain affected nature of so many matches with teams walking away with 5 or 6 points, chancing a win where you might walk away with a loss with 7 or 8 points could be a more profitable route.
So far we are third with only a good result behind Warwickshire, who hopefully we can beat in the return fixture. All to play for.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 21:15
Littlekeithy - were your pals the ones yelling 'disgrace,' at the top of their voice as the teams walked off?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 21:26
I'd have been mighty miffed if we hadn't gone for it. All that credit I gave to surrey goes out the window. Scared to win? Don't deserve anything if that's the attitude. A word for George . Well bowled and Peter too. Vp what I will say is England having nothing to fear from this guy. A word to agod too. Well called mate. Despite all the hecklers you got it spot on. A draw!! And you were at the game too.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 21:35
Well looked doubtful for a while although mainly because of what happened under the floodlights yesterday which I did not forsee.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: litlekeithy (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 21:55
AGOD.
No they are far too polite. One admitted he might have done but his partner correctly pointed out that most of the players would have had little to do with the decision.
But there was some discontent among the fans. Someone pointed out that teams are usually clapped off the field but that didn't happen, only a cursory clap at the end of play.
RHB puts his defence of not chasing less than 3.5 an over here
[">vimeo.com]
No they are far too polite. One admitted he might have done but his partner correctly pointed out that most of the players would have had little to do with the decision.
But there was some discontent among the fans. Someone pointed out that teams are usually clapped off the field but that didn't happen, only a cursory clap at the end of play.
RHB puts his defence of not chasing less than 3.5 an over here
[">vimeo.com]
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 22:02
Yeah and there was plenty of slow hand-clapping and whistling during the final 15 overs.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 19/05/2012 22:07
I'm not sure whether or not Surrey were right to shut up shop.
But I think it's pretty assinine for RHB to make the statement as part justification that 'We lost the right to win the game on day one'
But I think it's pretty assinine for RHB to make the statement as part justification that 'We lost the right to win the game on day one'
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 20/05/2012 08:13
It isn't easy to judge things from afar, and one has to make some assumptions. BUT based on the stats and the fact that no one else seemed to be winning, I was very surprised that Surrey didn't pursue the run chase, because I felt after the session they had up to lunch, we were going to be lucky to stop them winning.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 20/05/2012 08:28
I don't think you were on your own 'Old Boy'
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: RadstockRob (IP Logged)
Date: 20/05/2012 08:32
Not the sort of comments you would expect from a lad with a Somerset education,even though it is alleged that he abused his stay at Millfield.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 20/05/2012 08:55
Apologies to other DBNs, but Double Barrelled Names do bring some baggage very often!!!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 20/05/2012 09:06
Having thought about the game I think it had more twists and turns than a country lane. Incidentally , don't forget that we "lost" the Warwick game twice before giving ourselves a chance to win it.
Here at the Oval. if the follow on had happened we might have won, but some decent batting from Surrey avoided it.If we had had a good third innings we would have been in no better a position to try for a win than we were. If for example we had set 400 in 100 overs then we would have had an extra 15 overs bowling but no real incentive to Surrey to even try to attack. I feel we did fine but if I was a Surrey member I would be furious at such a timid approach to gain 3 points rather than going for 14. I hope in their situation even with 6 wickets down with say Buttler and Meschede atthe crease we would have aimed for the win.
Here at the Oval. if the follow on had happened we might have won, but some decent batting from Surrey avoided it.If we had had a good third innings we would have been in no better a position to try for a win than we were. If for example we had set 400 in 100 overs then we would have had an extra 15 overs bowling but no real incentive to Surrey to even try to attack. I feel we did fine but if I was a Surrey member I would be furious at such a timid approach to gain 3 points rather than going for 14. I hope in their situation even with 6 wickets down with say Buttler and Meschede atthe crease we would have aimed for the win.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 20/05/2012 09:09
I fancy this game will get a mention at their AGM.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 20/05/2012 09:12
If they had followed on we would probably have won as they would have had to bat in very bad weather under the lights on Friday pm.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 20/05/2012 09:23
How bad was meschedes injury AG? U think he will miss any cricket? I think he is a real talent. Also think tommo and hussain will definitely play v Durham and maybe buttler too if fit. If not it will be important that meschede is!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Clarence Parker (IP Logged)
Date: 20/05/2012 09:35
Quote:Little Bird
RHB is such an impressive man and cricketer..we had talk about signing him once
I think there was Little Bird but, if I am correct, his father (who had connections with Surrey) stepped in to ensure that his son joined them - the first time around that is!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 20/05/2012 09:43
Quote:Ronniesabre
How bad was meschedes injury AG? U think he will miss any cricket? I think he is a real talent. Also think tommo and hussain will definitely play v Durham and maybe buttler too if fit. If not it will be important that meschede is!
He managed to whirl his arm around a couple of times before he left the field. So I'd assume we can rule out a dislocated shoulder, a broken shoulder or a broken clavicle.
I would guess that possibilities may include a heavily bruised shoulder or a pinched nerve. There is also a muscle that runs from the base of the neck to the shoulder. This muscle may have constricted more than it is designed to as Craig M took the catch.
The worst case scenario, assuming we can rule out the things in my first para, might be a rotator cuff injury or something like that.
If it's any guide there was initially quite a bit of concern from other players but once the physio got out there and Craig M was on his feet, concern seemed to dissipate.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:20:09:50:20 by AGod.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 20/05/2012 10:18
Point of order Ron.
Few people were heckling AG about the possibility of a draw but for emphasising it as the main possible result from before the end of Day 2.
You may also note that one of the heckling idiots had got his numbers completely wrong and gave Somerset 50 more runs than they ctually got and therefore thought a draw was being discussed before the follow on total had been past. Idiots!!
As it was, as we both have pointed out, once Surrey passed the follow on position the best thing we did was collapse in the second innings.
I'm also surprised that Surrey didn't make more of a go at it and that given that they weren't going for it we bowled a period of negative legside bowling to reduce their scoring rate - though that could have been because of our bowling problems.
It is amazing really that in the space of a month Craig Meschede had moved from a possible reserve CC allrounder if we were pushed to a very important part of the CC bowling attack support. It's all looking very good long term.
Few people were heckling AG about the possibility of a draw but for emphasising it as the main possible result from before the end of Day 2.
You may also note that one of the heckling idiots had got his numbers completely wrong and gave Somerset 50 more runs than they ctually got and therefore thought a draw was being discussed before the follow on total had been past. Idiots!!
As it was, as we both have pointed out, once Surrey passed the follow on position the best thing we did was collapse in the second innings.
I'm also surprised that Surrey didn't make more of a go at it and that given that they weren't going for it we bowled a period of negative legside bowling to reduce their scoring rate - though that could have been because of our bowling problems.
It is amazing really that in the space of a month Craig Meschede had moved from a possible reserve CC allrounder if we were pushed to a very important part of the CC bowling attack support. It's all looking very good long term.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 20/05/2012 10:30
I do remember grockle. What I was trying to point out though is that AGOd was actually there and could see first hand what was happening. It's difficult for anyone to say otherwise without that first hand knowledge. It sounds like the game was a cracker and our young boys do look good and the future is bright. But we have won only 1 game this season and I for one would like to see some victories now, not just in the future.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 20/05/2012 10:37
We've had this debate many times Ron.
AG wasn't the only one there and was assessing the pitch and conditions with a differing perspective to others at the same time.
Being there is always the best position to be in but others are quite within their rights to question what is happening when the eye witness is saying one thing and the fall of wickets or the level of run scoring is saying something else.
The benign wicket was not being benign and it didn't seem full of runs at all on Day 3. Surely that was worth a question or two - what I assume you call 'heckling'. The commentators (when they could be bothered talking about the cricket) were also not giving the same picture of the game and I assume they were both watching the game as well.
I'll happily defer to the people who are there when I'm not if they are all singing from the same songsheet.
AG wasn't the only one there and was assessing the pitch and conditions with a differing perspective to others at the same time.
Being there is always the best position to be in but others are quite within their rights to question what is happening when the eye witness is saying one thing and the fall of wickets or the level of run scoring is saying something else.
The benign wicket was not being benign and it didn't seem full of runs at all on Day 3. Surely that was worth a question or two - what I assume you call 'heckling'. The commentators (when they could be bothered talking about the cricket) were also not giving the same picture of the game and I assume they were both watching the game as well.
I'll happily defer to the people who are there when I'm not if they are all singing from the same songsheet.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 20/05/2012 10:50
The wicket won in the end though with not quite enough in it for us to prise them out. It made for some good tough cricket though which is just how it should be. Hopefully see the same this week. I'll be there so hopefully I'll report a balanced view at the end of each day. I predict a Somerset win 
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 20/05/2012 11:14
Yep must have been a bloody good match to watch because you never knew who was in the driving seat.
I'm almost hoping we don't get back to full strength before I get home in June or I may miss some of these blokes - hopefully some will be given a good run in the T20, especially if the Saffers aren't arriving until a couple of weeks in.
I'm almost hoping we don't get back to full strength before I get home in June or I may miss some of these blokes - hopefully some will be given a good run in the T20, especially if the Saffers aren't arriving until a couple of weeks in.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 20/05/2012 11:48
I'm not all that sure that there was anyone from this board at the game, Grockle, that was disputing the notion that the pitch was really flat.
It's also true that Brian Rose - in his comments - consistently said it was.
It's also true that Brian Rose - in his comments - consistently said it was.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Wickham (IP Logged)
Date: 20/05/2012 12:02
At the risk of going round in circles, I thought that the pitch was a typical Oval belter for the first three days (the days which I watched).
The ball swung a good deal on the third day - much more so than on the first two days - and this, together with the quality of the bowling by Meaker (in particulsar) and Lewis and the poor light made batting pretty challenging.
Meaker bowled reasonably well in the first innings - though there was too much rather ill-directed short-pitched bowling. In the second innings, he pitched the ball up more, bowled as quickly as amyone currently playing county cricket and batsmen appeared to be beaten as much by pace as by late swing. Towards the end of the third day, one ball after another zipped past the outside edge of Meschede's bat. I am not surprised that the England selectors are interested in him.
The ball swung a good deal on the third day - much more so than on the first two days - and this, together with the quality of the bowling by Meaker (in particulsar) and Lewis and the poor light made batting pretty challenging.
Meaker bowled reasonably well in the first innings - though there was too much rather ill-directed short-pitched bowling. In the second innings, he pitched the ball up more, bowled as quickly as amyone currently playing county cricket and batsmen appeared to be beaten as much by pace as by late swing. Towards the end of the third day, one ball after another zipped past the outside edge of Meschede's bat. I am not surprised that the England selectors are interested in him.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Bobstan (IP Logged)
Date: 20/05/2012 13:02
I was at the Oval for days 1,2 & 4.
I must agree that were I a Surrey member or supporter I should be totally nonplussed. They (presumably H-B and or Adams) seemed suddenly to decide for no discernable reason that the match was not one they could win. Nobody around where my young friend, Loyal old Lhasa, and I were seated could make sense of it.
After a couple of overs where nothing seemed to happen - apart from some very decent bowling from Pete and Dockers - Surrey virtually put up the white flag when H-B played 5 balls of George's next over with the pad. Very odd, as many have pointed out.
I wasn't too keen on the aggressive abuse from one or two Surrey members in the pavilion. I wouldn't dream of doing such a thing, although at one stage a sound did come from roughly my direction which went:
Treeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeegooooooooooooooo
I thought that on Day 4 Pete bowled really, really well, with thought and discipline. Ditto Dockers, especially when you think at what a late age most spinners mature.
A truly wonderful cricket match which ended in bathos.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:20:13:20:27 by Bobstan.
I must agree that were I a Surrey member or supporter I should be totally nonplussed. They (presumably H-B and or Adams) seemed suddenly to decide for no discernable reason that the match was not one they could win. Nobody around where my young friend, Loyal old Lhasa, and I were seated could make sense of it.
After a couple of overs where nothing seemed to happen - apart from some very decent bowling from Pete and Dockers - Surrey virtually put up the white flag when H-B played 5 balls of George's next over with the pad. Very odd, as many have pointed out.
I wasn't too keen on the aggressive abuse from one or two Surrey members in the pavilion. I wouldn't dream of doing such a thing, although at one stage a sound did come from roughly my direction which went:
Treeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeegooooooooooooooo
I thought that on Day 4 Pete bowled really, really well, with thought and discipline. Ditto Dockers, especially when you think at what a late age most spinners mature.
A truly wonderful cricket match which ended in bathos.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:20:13:20:27 by Bobstan.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 20/05/2012 13:17
Pete was very unlucky. Bowled his heart out.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Little Bird (IP Logged)
Date: 20/05/2012 13:26
It seemed so out of character too for Surrey. Only a week ago, they nearly won a match after following on, through agressive, front-foot cricket.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 20/05/2012 13:29
I doubt I would have commented had you said something and it turned out to be true AG so we'll have to disagree on what you said and what happened. You certainly told us all in no uncertain terms that you had been looking at the pitch for two days and it was going to do x and it went on to do y. I think I pointed that out a couple of times.
Had all the people had the same views of the pitch there wouldn't have been any disagreements would there? Why don't you spend the next two days going through the 30 pages of comments to find backups to your view and prove you were right all along and people who disagreed with you were wrong.
Or we could just move on to the next game and you can tell us all about that.
Had all the people had the same views of the pitch there wouldn't have been any disagreements would there? Why don't you spend the next two days going through the 30 pages of comments to find backups to your view and prove you were right all along and people who disagreed with you were wrong.
Or we could just move on to the next game and you can tell us all about that.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 20/05/2012 13:51
Which people? I think the lone source of disagreement was you.
Nevermind
Nevermind
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 20/05/2012 17:06
I hope you had something nice, some Radox or something similar to put in the tub, Bobs.
You can't beat a good scrub at the end of a hard days cricket watching.
Or an easy one either.
You can't beat a good scrub at the end of a hard days cricket watching.
Or an easy one either.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Bobstan (IP Logged)
Date: 20/05/2012 22:34
I'd forgotten bathos is a Welsh word, Jimbo. Scrubbers in Wales? I can't believe that.
In fairness to AG I think he made it clear that the pitch was giving no help to the quicker bowlers, and that any problems they caused were down to movement in the air, plus in the case of Meaker sheer speed. Clearly by day 4 George was finding the pitch much to his liking.
In fairness to AG I think he made it clear that the pitch was giving no help to the quicker bowlers, and that any problems they caused were down to movement in the air, plus in the case of Meaker sheer speed. Clearly by day 4 George was finding the pitch much to his liking.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 21/05/2012 07:18
George got a lot of bounce, especially with newer ball.
There was some turn allied to it. I wasn't sure how much, which was why I asked Arul Suppiah whether he was expecting a bowl and how much turn there was. Arul said it was a 'bit,' of turn.
But when you are getting it bounce over the shoulder of the bat, as George was at times, I guess you do not need much turn.
It was another odd facet of this final day that Surrey tried to take on George more than our seamers even though it was still not conducive to seam.
There was some turn allied to it. I wasn't sure how much, which was why I asked Arul Suppiah whether he was expecting a bowl and how much turn there was. Arul said it was a 'bit,' of turn.
But when you are getting it bounce over the shoulder of the bat, as George was at times, I guess you do not need much turn.
It was another odd facet of this final day that Surrey tried to take on George more than our seamers even though it was still not conducive to seam.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Bobstan (IP Logged)
Date: 21/05/2012 07:31
Yes, the bounce was a major help to Dockrell.
I think that Pete's line, length and controlled hostility contributed greatly to Surrey's decision not to take him on.
I think that Pete's line, length and controlled hostility contributed greatly to Surrey's decision not to take him on.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 21/05/2012 07:37
Quote:Bobstan
Yes, the bounce was a major help to Dockrell.
AND would have been for a good LEGGER!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grizzers (IP Logged)
Date: 21/05/2012 07:46
Been travelling so missed the fun at the Oval.
Seems a near repeat of the previous CC game. Good in parts & encouraging re the efforts of our youngsters.
Although we still struggle to get over the finish line, I suppose given our injury list, we did well even to see it !
Grizzzly
Seems a near repeat of the previous CC game. Good in parts & encouraging re the efforts of our youngsters.
Although we still struggle to get over the finish line, I suppose given our injury list, we did well even to see it !
Grizzzly
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Bobstan (IP Logged)
Date: 21/05/2012 08:41
You're right, old boy. Warnie would have loved that Day 4 pitch.
It was him you had in mind, wasn't it?
It was him you had in mind, wasn't it?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 21/05/2012 11:20
I tell you who really would have loved it - Anil Kumble.
If we'd had him at the other end - even now - from George, I would imagine that we would have won!
If we'd had him at the other end - even now - from George, I would imagine that we would have won!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 21/05/2012 19:21
Quote:Bobstan
You're right, old boy. Warnie would have loved that Day 4 pitch.
It was him you had in mind, wasn't it?
No Bobstan!! as you know you rascal - a younger version!!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Clarence Parker (IP Logged)
Date: 21/05/2012 20:04
Unusually, since probably the 1960's, Somerset had two English leg - spinners on their staff a few years ago.
There was of course Max, and someone whom I considered to be the better prospect of the two - namely Michael Munday.
One has already been lost to the first - class game, and I fear that the other may well go the same way - sooner, rather than later.
Of the two, Michael Munday was the one who was capable of giving the ball a real 'rip', but perhaps did not have the same level of control that Max appears to have.
If only one were able to combine the talents and skills of them both into a single player, then I think we would have had someone really special.
How I would have loved to have seen either, or both of them, have a long and successful career with Somerset.
I imagine that leg - spin is perhaps the most difficult form of bowling that there is, and probably takes many years for a county professional to hone this particular art.
Sadly, I feel that in this day and age, counties want instant success, and thus there is no room for such young players on a county's staff for anything other than a short period.
Just my opinion of course, but I doubt whether I will ever see another Johnnie Lawrence baffling and beguiling batsmen again.
There was of course Max, and someone whom I considered to be the better prospect of the two - namely Michael Munday.
One has already been lost to the first - class game, and I fear that the other may well go the same way - sooner, rather than later.
Of the two, Michael Munday was the one who was capable of giving the ball a real 'rip', but perhaps did not have the same level of control that Max appears to have.
If only one were able to combine the talents and skills of them both into a single player, then I think we would have had someone really special.
How I would have loved to have seen either, or both of them, have a long and successful career with Somerset.
I imagine that leg - spin is perhaps the most difficult form of bowling that there is, and probably takes many years for a county professional to hone this particular art.
Sadly, I feel that in this day and age, counties want instant success, and thus there is no room for such young players on a county's staff for anything other than a short period.
Just my opinion of course, but I doubt whether I will ever see another Johnnie Lawrence baffling and beguiling batsmen again.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 21/05/2012 20:14
It does seem strange that after spending what seemed like an age allowing Michael to mature and then realising his heart didn't seem fully in it, we seem to operate with a seeming disregard for what Max can offer. Do you think that the experience with Munday has coloured the way the club deals with Waller?
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Bobstan (IP Logged)
Date: 21/05/2012 20:42
A lovely and thought-provoking post, CP.
You have summed up exactly how I felt about MM. I have to be honest and say that I only saw him bowl twice, both times away from home, so my view is partly based on what I read.
It was always said that he was not a very good fielder. I must have caught him on good days because each time he made a number of very good stops in the field, and certainly looked no liability.
You have summed up exactly how I felt about MM. I have to be honest and say that I only saw him bowl twice, both times away from home, so my view is partly based on what I read.
It was always said that he was not a very good fielder. I must have caught him on good days because each time he made a number of very good stops in the field, and certainly looked no liability.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 21/05/2012 21:01
I saw him in all his good home performances... unfortunately in his more ineffective ones as well.
There were times when you really thought that all the time taken had been worthwhile. I didn't know about the fielding, he always seemed effective when I saw him though I knew he wasn't a great batsman.
He could bowl the absolute beauty but certainly needed control at the other end because he didn't have Max's. I do wonder why, after being willing to spend so much time developing one player they seem ambivalent to another player with more to his game in the three skills... but I can't say I've seen as much of Max because they really do not let him go in CC games.
There were times when you really thought that all the time taken had been worthwhile. I didn't know about the fielding, he always seemed effective when I saw him though I knew he wasn't a great batsman.
He could bowl the absolute beauty but certainly needed control at the other end because he didn't have Max's. I do wonder why, after being willing to spend so much time developing one player they seem ambivalent to another player with more to his game in the three skills... but I can't say I've seen as much of Max because they really do not let him go in CC games.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 21/05/2012 22:32
BR has done some very good things, but IMO he ought to come clean on the Max situation, and what he said to persuade him to stay for a year!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 21/05/2012 22:36
I also thought that MKM was a good prospect, CP.
I saw him bowl against South Africa a few years ago and whenever he got his flight right even players of that calibre (Kallis, Amla) did not look 100 percent confident.
Unfortunately there were also numerous balls where he failed to get the ball above the batsmen's eyeline. And if as a spinner you fail to get it above the eyeline then you simply must land your ball with pin-point accuracy which, I'm afraid, he did not seem capable of achieving regularly.
I saw him bowl against South Africa a few years ago and whenever he got his flight right even players of that calibre (Kallis, Amla) did not look 100 percent confident.
Unfortunately there were also numerous balls where he failed to get the ball above the batsmen's eyeline. And if as a spinner you fail to get it above the eyeline then you simply must land your ball with pin-point accuracy which, I'm afraid, he did not seem capable of achieving regularly.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 21/05/2012 23:53
My life has been so full in recent days that I have not had time until now to comment on a hugely absorbing four-day game of which I saw virtually every ball. So by now virtually all has been said that needs to be said, though I have a theory that BJ was able to secure massive odds against drawing a match that 99% of us thought, until the last hour, must result in a win for one of the protagonists, and then dangled said odds in front of RHB. A less alarming scenario is that Dockrell and Trego started to bowl so tightly that the Surrey captain accepted that there was no longer any possibility of maintaining a scoring rate that had initially seemed relatively manageable.
The staff at The Oval are very courteous and the beer festival was an inspiration.
It was very good to meet AngellFace for the first time - a true son of Somerset.
As for the Magnificent Overtons: one of them is clearly identical, but I am not sure about the other - or in fact which one of them is actually the identical one.
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
The staff at The Oval are very courteous and the beer festival was an inspiration.
It was very good to meet AngellFace for the first time - a true son of Somerset.
As for the Magnificent Overtons: one of them is clearly identical, but I am not sure about the other - or in fact which one of them is actually the identical one.
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 22/05/2012 07:37
Come on LoL it's the one you can't identify.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: RadstockRob (IP Logged)
Date: 22/05/2012 07:45
My mum is a twin but she looks nothing like her brother.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grizzers (IP Logged)
Date: 22/05/2012 07:48
Bowl one of them from both ends and see if the umpires notice !
Grizzzly
Grizzzly
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 22/05/2012 07:56
A good thought Grizzzly, but it is rare sight to see that they also have their initial on their shirts.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Grizzers (IP Logged)
Date: 22/05/2012 08:01
Minor detail Mike !
Grizzzly
Grizzzly
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 22/05/2012 08:07
Quote:Loyal of Lhasa.
The staff at The Oval are very courteous and the beer festival was an inspiration.
As for the Magnificent Overtons: one of them is clearly identical, but I am not sure about the other - or in fact which one of them is actually the identical one.
Clearly Lol, you were inflenced greatly by the service from the beer festival in your identification formula! In your own little way, you are trying to confuse us all!!
Obviously, if they have big noses, squinty eyes, large ears, and square chins it must depend on their hairstyles??? It would be so helpful if one had a mohican and the other was bald!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 22/05/2012 09:15
Big noses, squinty eyes, large ears and square chins?
Sounds like three quarters of the population of Bridgwater.
Sounds like three quarters of the population of Bridgwater.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 22/05/2012 09:53
Quote:Mike TA1
A good thought Grizzzly, but it is rare sight to see that they also have their initial on their shirts.
But surely, Mike, that is to enable one of them to know which one is the other one.
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 22/05/2012 09:58
It must be difficult when looking into the mirror to know which one is looking back at him.
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 22/05/2012 10:01
I said that the beer festival was an excellent idea not that I enjoyed its fruits. As it happens, I had decided, because of other demands on my social life, not to drink much at the ground and only actually drank one pint from those on display. Being offered a "Naked Lady" by the man at the barrel was a nice offer; the beer was even nicer.
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 22/05/2012 10:15
Quote:Big Jim
Big noses, squinty eyes, large ears and square chins?
Sounds like three quarters of the population of Bridgwater.
OK boyo!! De lads will be round to get you!! De have big mits!!
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 22/05/2012 10:27
Sounds like eight men of Wales to me...
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Surrey at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 22/05/2012 10:40
It was indeed a SUPERB idea, LoL.
And rather well exectuted too..
And rather well exectuted too..
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.