SURREY VS KENT SPITFIRES ROYAL LONDON CUP

SURREY HAVE NAMED A FOURTEEN MAN SQUAD FOR THEIR OPENING GAME IN THE ROYAL LONDON ONE DAY CUP AGAINST THE KENT SPITFIRES ON SUNDAY.
The Surrey squad to play the Kent Spitfires in the Royal London One Day Cup at Beckenham on Sunday 5th June:
Sadly there is no Dwayne Bravo in the 50 over format
Gareth Batty (capt)
Zafar Ansari
James Burke
Rory Burns
Sam Curran
Tom Curran
Steven Davies
Ben Foakes
Stuart Meaker
Mathew Pillans
Jason Roy
Kumar Sangakkara
Dominic Sibley
Gary Wilson
foakes,meaker and sibley possibly to miss out.
over to you chaps

Cheers, JimBob.

As you say, a shame Bravo isn't playing in this format. Whilst Wilson and Burns tend to just tick over in the middle order, he gave us some really useful welly last night.

Tricky about the three to miss out but I'll go with your choices. Don't expect Pillans or Burke to bowl a full 10, reckon they'll be part of a combo.

Would rather see Meaker in the XI. He may go for as many as Burke/Pillans but is more likely to pick up wickets as he does so. I'd rather see 3-70 off 10 overs than 0-65.

Simon - understand that about Meaker. He might still edge Pillans or, more likely, Burke out. That would be my own temptation - just not convinced that Stewie/MDV will see it the same way.

I would try Meaker in preference to Pillans.

Burns, Wilson and Pillans would miss out for me

Roy
Davies
Sanga
Sibley
Foakes
Ansari
Curran S
Curran T
Burke
Batty
Meaker

Would be my XI - Sibley/Burke combining to be the 6th bowler

Olly - I appreciate that's your chosen team and that no selection is without some risk. However, I doubt that Stewart/Di Venuto will see it the same way. I think the risk for them of one of Sibley/Burke being expensive at outset and then having to rely on the other for 7 or 8 overs plus the 4 main bowlers having to each bowl a full allotment of 10 would be too great.

As always, no issue with being shown to be wrong.

guildfordbat wrote:Olly - I appreciate that's your chosen team and that no selection is without some risk. However, I doubt that Stewart/Di Venuto will see it the same way. I think the risk for them of one of Sibley/Burke being expensive at outset and then having to rely on the other for 7 or 8 overs plus the 4 main bowlers having to each bowl a full allotment of 10 would be too great.

As always, no issue with being shown to be wrong.

Think you may have misread my team Guildford, got Meaker, the Currans, Batty and Ansari as my main five bowlers with Burke/Sibley as the 6th bowler combined

My reservation with that side is lack of big hitters down the order

Whoops! Sorry, Olly - my fault entirely. Scrub my previous post. I read Sibley/Burke as being a 5th bowler combo. Having one or both of them as 6th/7th bowler options provides additional security and makes a lot of sense. Still doesn't mean that Stewie/MDV will go with it though!

I agree with you about the lack of big hitters down the order. That's something we've often suffered from in this format. Too regularly, we've seemed in a decent position only to fizzle out in the last dozen overs. The Irish guy O'Brien was signed a season or two back with that purpose but rarely came off.

Both Meaker and Pillans playing - no Burke. It'll be interesting to see how Meaker goes, given his reputation as an expensive limited-overs bowler.

Surrey win the toss and bat

Side is

Roy
Davies
Sanga
Burns
Wilson
Ansari
Curran S
Curran T
Pillans
Batty
Meaker

From 4 onwards, batting looks as if it could be a bit light. Not too surprised by the side (it's what I thought bar Meaks edging out Burke) although I prefer Olly's earlier choice.

Surprised they keep picking Burns/Wilson over Foakes in the one day stuff

56-0 off 10, good start for the Rey

Thanks for that jinx, Olly, as Davies goes in the 11th!

Decent enough start but we don't want to lose another one now.

Of course we then lost Roy and Davies....

Going out for a while now. Interesting to see how this plays out.

My man Tredders (I used to be one of the few who stuck up for him on the England threads a year or two back) has started well. We'll probably need to get after the other spinner Cowdrey - beware though, he's one of those ordinary cricketers who often does well against us. Coles is another. And that's without mentioning the real Surrey nemesis - Stevens ....

MORNING ALL

Burns painful innings comes to a end

50 for kumar

jimbobgooner wrote:Burns painful innings comes to a end

52 balls for 30 runs - a strike rate of 57 not good enough in modern one day stuff - Wilson under pressure as well to justify his selection over Foakes too

The awful cowdrey gets kumar

Sanga goes taking on Cowdrey for 58...

Now need Wilson to step up

Oh dear olly you won't be happy with that

Just isn't good enough, I know people on here rate him but I just don't see what Wilson brings to the side to be playing ahead of Foakes - a fine reserve keeper, but shouldn't be near the first xi

191 with 10 overs left

Must be a case for moving baby face to four

Need something special in the last 6 overs

A lot of starts but nobody making a match defining score, if we can eek out 250 at least we'll have something to defend - 220 not enough

Another pathetic performance

Innings finishes on 255 at least 50 short on that ground

255-8 off 50

You'd think that's about 30/40 below par, but at least we have a defendable total on the board. Will obviously need to bowl well

Why is Pillans bowling ahead of Meaker? Why is Pillans still playing at this point?

Hey look Meaker has a wicket! Almost like he's a much better bowler than Pillans eh...

Injuries means we have no choice olly unless you prefer Burke

jimbobgooner wrote:Injuries means we have no choice olly unless you prefer Burke

I like Burke but at this point I'd be tempted to play someone like Kapil or Sibley ahead of Pillans - guy must shot of all confidence

Kent now 5 down! No celebrating until Stevens is out tho...

Norah gets Stevens! There's only one County that could lose from this position

Kent need 100 off 15 overs with four wickets left. Hmm. So far, Pillans has not done a lot.

Kent playing the extra batsman has seen them home

Kent need 18 off 3 with 2 wickets left

Over 50 runs short batting, even fluking ourselves into a winning position at 147-6 did anyone seriously think we'd win?

Ok, so it's another one wicket defeat but it feels very different from last Monday. We very nearly defended a total that was at least 20 short of what was needed and of what we should have reached being almost 200 with 10 overs to go. No shame in losing to a very good knock from a genuine front line batsman. A five man attack of The Bun, Baby Face, Norah, Son of Boris and Meaker did ok against a side with genuine batting ability right down to 10.

Talking of last Monday, it suddenly doesn't feel so bad when you see what Somerset, with T Groenewald batting at 11, did - again! - today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/scorecard/ECKO39723

That is serious disappointment for the bowling side!

Another defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.

Plz someone explain why Mat Pillans continues to play to me

I'm sure he's a nice bloke who does his best, but we cannot continue to play with 10 men every game

Need to sort out positions 4 & 5 and drop Pillans

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Plz someone explain why Mat Pillans continues to play to me

I'm sure he's a nice bloke who does his best, but we cannot continue to play with 10 men every game

I can't give Olly the explanation he's after and doubt the stats below do either.

In all first XI formats (Championship, t20 and RL50) for Surrey this season, Mat Pillans has bowled 104.2 overs and taken 1 wicket at a cost of 421 runs.

guildfordbat wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Plz someone explain why Mat Pillans continues to play to me

I'm sure he's a nice bloke who does his best, but we cannot continue to play with 10 men every game

I can't give Olly the explanation he's after and doubt the stats below do either.

In all first XI formats (Championship, t20 and RL50) for Surrey this season, Mat Pillans has bowled 104.2 overs and taken 1 wicket at a cost of 421 runs.

Telling that Pillans was trusted to bowl only 3 overs in this match. The dilemma is that it's doubtful whether Burke or Dunn would do much better at the moment, and Dernbach and Footitt are also unavailable.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Plz someone explain why Mat Pillans continues to play to me

I'm sure he's a nice bloke who does his best, but we cannot continue to play with 10 men every game

I can't give Olly the explanation he's after and doubt the stats below do either.

In all first XI formats (Championship, t20 and RL50) for Surrey this season, Mat Pillans has bowled 104.2 overs and taken 1 wicket at a cost of 421 runs.

Telling that Pillans was trusted to bowl only 3 overs in this match.  The dilemma is that it's doubtful whether Burke or Dunn would do much better at the moment, and Dernbach and Footitt are also unavailable.

 

My argument would be that we could strengthen the batting with Sibley - who if needed could bowl 3/4 overs