SURREY VS NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ROYAL LONDON CUP FINAL

Surrey have named a fourteen-man squad for tomorrow’s Royal London One Day Cup final against Nottinghamshire at Lord’s.
The squad is the same as that which beat Worcestershire in the semi-final, with all-rounder Scott Borthwick, fast bowler Stuart Meaker and batsman Dominic Sibley joining the XI that lined up at New Road.
The game starts at 11am at Lord’s and will be broadcast live on Sky Sports 2
Full Surrey Squad
Gareth Batty (captain)
Scott Borthwick
Rory Burns
Sam Curran
Tom Curran
Jade Dernbach
Ben Foakes (wk)
Stuart Meaker
Ollie Pope
Ravi Rampaul
Jason Roy
Kumar Sangakkara
Dominic Sibley
Mark Stoneman
Sibley and Meaker pick themselves so it comes down between Burns or Pope to miss out for the final spot.
For me Pope has to play it will be hard on the vice captain but Pope gives the innings some momentum when it is in danger of being bogged down.
Over to you chaps

Cheers, JimBob.

Sibley to definitely miss out. Meaker as well provided Rampaul has recovered from his ankle injury which prevented him making the trip to Yorks.

I go along with you too about Pope playing in place of Burns. However, it could be Borthwick on drinks duties if we risk going with no back up for the 5 frontline bowlers. I feel that would be too risky and wouldn't do it but it'll probably at least be considered.

How fit do we think Rampaul is? I'm not sure I'd be comfortable going in with him as one of the 5 bowlers considering earlier this week he couldn't even make the trip. I wouldn't be surprised to see him miss out for Meaker today personally.

I'm not about much today so will check in periodically on my phone - lets do it this year The Rey!

So it is indeed Sibley, Meaker and Burns who miss out. A bit hard on Meaker and Burns who've made important contributions in this campaign - but a big vote of confidence in the youthful Pope.

Boy that Notts side is good! Stacked full of talent, no weak spots!

Surrey win the toss and Rampaul hasn't finished breakfast yet so we'll bat

[quote="Good Golly I'm Olly"]Boy that Notts side is good! Stacked full of talent, no weak spots!

Surrey win the toss and Rampaul hasn't finished breakfast yet so we'll bat[/quote]



Going back to the Corporal's post, Batty referred to Borthwick coming in for Burns. No mention of Pope which suggested his place in the eleven was well nailed on. Quite right too.

Surrey 23/0 off 2.2, considerably helped by Wessels dropping Roy off Fletcher first ball of the game. Bad miss in every way.

3 fours from Roy off Fletcher's last over. Lovely footwork from the batsman for the final boundary moving wide of his off peg and then directing the ball to the legside.

55/0 off 6. Wonderful start by Surrey but some very ordinary cricket at times already from Notts.

Olly - go well this afternoon.

Mullaney drops an absolute gift from Rocky off Gurney.

66/0 off 8. Terrible cricket from Notts.

Have to agree with comms here - why on earth wasn't Pattinson given the new ball?

Notts have reined in the scored rate considerably - Surrey going through a period of steady consolidation with Stoneman and Sanga. Flow of boundaries more or less dried up - tho Sanga brings up 50 partnership with a couple of fours against Broad.

Sanga gone! 141/2 at the end of the 23rd. Crucial period now over the next dozen overs. Reassess then ....

Surrey have more or less ground to a halt since departure of Sanga (four overs at just over 2 an over)

Poor dismissal and poor innings from Borthwick. Chipped up off Patel, he's done well and takes his second wicket.

Been disappointed by Borthwick in his first season. A too typical knock today, lacking fluency and power.

Hi guys, commentators (Atherton I think) asking whether Sam Curran will be a bowler who can bat or a batsman who can bowl.
I thought this was pretty ridiculous a question. I've always thought he is an opening bowler but can contribute with the bat.
What are your thoughts?

jimbohammers wrote:Hi guys, commentators (Atherton I think) asking whether Sam Curran will be a bowler who can bat or a batsman who can bowl.
I thought this was pretty ridiculous a question. I've always thought he is an opening bowler but can contribute with the bat.
What are your thoughts?  

Hi Jimbo - I understand you being puzzled - he was opening the bowling for Surrey first XI at the age of 17 so it's a bit odd to be questioning his bowling. His batting though is highly regarded although it hasn't yet gone beyond the ''having potential'' stage; a mix of giving his wicket away unselfishly going for quick runs for the team and immaturely getting carried away and holing out.

His brother Tom is definitely a bowler who contributes with the bat. No more than that for him with the bat. Sam's batting could go further although I'm not as convinced by some as to his (Sam's) bowling; he's got a nice whippy action which can keep the ball low surprising batsmen and winning lbw decisions but is sometimes too short and wide.

Sorry if I'm talking round your question rather than clearly answering it but Sam's career still has a lot of unfolding to do.

guildfordbat wrote:Sanga gone! 141/2 at the end of the 23rd. Crucial period now over the next dozen overs. Reassess then ....

215/5 off 38. Last 15 overs won by Notts. 3 wickets taken and only 74 runs scored.

I had hoped we would still have 7 wickets in hand at this stage.

Still want 300 minimum. Certainly possible if Rocky and Sam stay in longer but a couple more quick wickets and we'll look like wasting a fantastic early position.

Can't Sky get shot of this WASP thing? It's meaningless.

7 down with 5 and a half overs left. We could end up chucking some of our 50 overs away here. 257/7. Surrey have faded badly.

6 singles off the 46th over bowled by Fletch. The lack of wickets in hand costing Surrey dear.

297 is it enough?

Surrey finish on 297/9. Stoneman sees it through and finishes unbeaten on 144 . Wonderful effort although he lacked the power to do anything more than work the decent balls in the closing overs (when Notts bowled much better than at the start) around for ones and twos rather than blitz boundaries. Not helped one jot by the middle order of Borthwick, Foakes and Pope all going cheaply and, in Borthwick's case, taking too long about it as well. Other than the mix up with Tom, Stoneman actually ran his and the team's runs very well.

Real weakness in the Surrey innings was that the second top scorer (Sanga) managed only 30.

jimbobgooner wrote:297 is it enough?

Afternoon, JimBob. You there?

I don't know if it's enough. It's definitely competitive but still disappointing if you go back to where we were immediately before Sanga was out. Patel getting all the plaudits on Sky but Mullaney's dismissal of Sanga was key in putting Notts back in contention. Mullaney's no wizard with the ball but he more than did an important job.

Crazy start by Notts! 104/3 off 15. Hales has scored 85 of them and is still there. Maddeningly, he was dropped on 6 by Pope off Sam. Pretty straightforward chance which should have been taken.

A couple of wickets for Rampaul. He does have that knack in this tournament. Surrey are going to need a lot more though with Notts and Hales going at such a lick ....

guildfordbat wrote:

jimbohammers wrote:Hi guys, commentators (Atherton I think) asking whether Sam Curran will be a bowler who can bat or a batsman who can bowl.
I thought this was pretty ridiculous a question. I've always thought he is an opening bowler but can contribute with the bat.
What are your thoughts?  

Hi Jimbo - I understand you being puzzled - he was opening the bowling for Surrey first XI at the age of 17 so it's a bit odd to be questioning his bowling. His batting though is highly regarded although it hasn't yet gone beyond the ''having potential'' stage; a mix of giving his wicket away unselfishly going for quick runs for the team and immaturely getting carried away and holing out.

His brother Tom is definitely a bowler who contributes with the bat. No more than that for him with the bat. Sam's batting could go further although I'm not as convinced by some as to his (Sam's) bowling; he's got a nice whippy action which can keep the ball low surprising batsmen and winning lbw decisions but  is sometimes too short and wide.

Sorry if I'm talking round your question rather than clearly answering it but Sam's career still has a lot of unfolding to do.

Thought I would flag the above as no one else is going to. Second wicket and lbw decision for Sam Curran. Notts 154/5 off 26. Our old nemesis Read joining Hales at the crease ....

Brilliant batting from Hales taking Notts home but extremely good support as ever from Read until almost the end. Without Read's innings which began at 150/5, we might have got through the tail and left Hales stranded. No one gave that sort of support to Stoneman; a second top score of 30 (from Sanga) just isn't up to scratch in a 50 over game and final.

Stoneman apart, Surrey players were ordinary at best. In head to heads, Patel's slow bowling came up trumps against Batty's whilst Mullaney against Borthwick as the sixth bowler would have been stopped in round one had it been a boxing match.

Hales...

Different gravy

Have to feel sorry for Surrey 3 final defeats in a row, however Hales played an incredible knock, and Notts deserved their win

Had a bad feeling about today's match. At least Surrey were in with a chance of victory when 5th Notts wicket fell. Currans + Batty about par with the bat, but real damage done, as has been said, by failure of Borthwick, Foakes and Pope before that to register a solid score. In the end Surrey well beaten.

guildfordbat wrote:

jimbobgooner wrote:297 is it enough?

Afternoon, JimBob. You there?

I don't know if it's enough. It's definitely competitive but still disappointing if you go back to where we were immediately before Sanga was out. Patel getting all the plaudits on Sky but Mullaney's dismissal of Sanga was key in putting Notts back in contention. Mullaney's no wizard with the ball but he more than did an important job.

sadly I was

the only thing surrey were better than notts in was the ground fielding sadly

Haven't managed to catch the highlights yet, but looking at the scorecards it appears only a few Surrey players turned up! Disappointing to lose again, but Notts were probably the better side throughout the tournament, and it seems Hales played a ridiculous knock yesterday?

Just seen the highlights and that Hales was dropped on 6 - the mostly costly drop in domestic one day cricket history!

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Just seen the highlights and that Hales was dropped on 6 - the mostly costly drop in domestic one day cricket history!

you have to feel for young pope