SURREY VS SOMERSET SPECSAVERS COUNTY CHAMPIONSHIP

Specsavers County Championship winners        Surrey have named a 15-man squad for this week’s final away trip of the season at Somerset.
Jason Roy    and Gareth Batty have been added to last week’s squad and would make their first Specsavers County Championship appearances of the season if selected.
Sam Curran, Player of the Series in England’s recent 4-1 Test victory over India, is rested.
There is still no place in the squad for Arun Harinath, Stuart Meaker or Jamie Smith.
FULL SQUAD:
Rory Burns (captain)
Gareth Batty
Rikki Clarke
Tom Curran
Jade Dernbach
Dean Elgar
Ben Foakes
Will Jacks
Conor McKerr
Morne Morkel
Ryan Patel
Ollie Pope
Jason Roy
Mark Stoneman
Amar Virdi
Very hard to call the four to miss out but I would be very surprised if Batty and Roy didn't play.
Roy for Jacks and not sure for Batty maybe a well deserved rest for either Morkel or Dernbach  
Also does anyone know what is the criteria for winning a medal?
Over to you chaps  

Cheers Jimbob

There's no need for Morkel to play now that we've won but he may want to play the last two and have a shot at leading wicket taker (he's 7 behind Onions). Taunton's going to take spin so Batty sure to play

Roy for Jacks and Batty for Dernbach.

I can see another innings with for you boys tbh. We seem to have put our feet up since beating Notts in the T20 QF.

JimBob - that's an excellent question about the criteria for an individual Championship medal ... if only because I asked exactly the same question to Spills on Friday! He didn't know which means not many other people will either. However, he reckoned that Surrey would ensure everyone who played at least one game would receive something from the Club even if they don't 'officially' qualify. Meanwhile, I'll see if I can find out anything more - watch this space.

I agree with James on the likely team - Roy and Batty to replace Jacks and Dernbach with Patel and McKerr again on drinks duty.

Afro - it'll be good to get a Somerset take from you on the game during the next 2 days. See what I did there!

I would take it as a joke if it wasn’t a real possibility!!

Our runs in the Blast semi final was more than we have got in 3 of our last 4 CC innings, and only a little less than we got in the other one!

Surrey's team selection a bit unpredictable with the title already won.  But very likely that Batty and Roy will see action.  Some of Surrey's best performances this season have involved an attritional first innings on pitches giving bowlers some help.  Difficult to see either team grafting away for 130 overs on a somewhat difficult pitch.

Looking at batting averages, I was reminded that before his injury Borthwick had made a useful batting contribution to Surrey's quest for the title - with 444 runs at an average of just over 40, including 5 half centuries.

Surrey win the toss and bat first. McKerr and Roy replace Dernbach and Jacks.

Sorry if this proves to be a jinx but the Somerset tail looks very long with the Overtons at 7 and 8. I saw them a few years ago at the Oval when they were 10 and Jack.

Gregory rested - apparently been carrying a niggle for a little while - and no spot for Bess. Sounds like it's a match for seamers with no Batty either. Thought we might have elected to bowl first but can't properly tell from here.

Apart from leach, who is the clear number 11, and Craig Overton who averages 22 and has a top score in first class games of 138, the other 3 have similar batting averages and could have batted in any order.

Think they average somewhere around the 17/18 mark

Looks like Somerset have prepared an actual wicket this week then

Lunch. 109/0, ideal start. Burns on 40 and Stoneman on 66. Everyone knows about Burns atm whilst Stoneman is perhaps starting to remind others about him.

Surrey batsmen benefit this morning from Somerset being on final warning about the low quality of their pitches.  Good to see Stoneman finishing the season strongly after his travails for much of the summer.  He might yet end up with a half decent cc batting average for the season.

153/1. Stoneman goes to an Overton combo for 85. Roy in at 3 - suggestions that may be to do with England.

204 - 1.  Going along well, though Roy looking rather sketchy against Leach.

both openers gone without getting a hundred

jimbobgooner wrote:
...
Also does anyone know what is the criteria for winning a medal?
...

Hi JimBob - I have been very reliably informed that the Club is waiting for confirmation from the ECB but will ensure that all players are properly recognised.

263 - 3 at tea, as Roy falls, LBW for 63. After that sketchy start Roy had worked out how to play Leach and was going really well. Elgar looking good too.

Elgar and Pope have taken it on to 291/3 after around 70 overs. 3rd batting point coming up soon for JimBob and we really should get all 5 from here. Whatever else happens (weather forecast isn't great - right, Corporal?), we've moved the game on well and are comfortably positioned.

guildfordbat wrote:

jimbobgooner wrote:
...
Also does anyone know what is the criteria for winning a medal?
...

Hi JimBob - I have been very reliably informed that the Club is waiting for confirmation from the ECB but will ensure that all players are properly recognised.

cheers Guildford

368 - 4 at stumps. Solid batting down the order means Surrey on target for full batting points. Four half centuries, plus 44 from Pope. Pitch looks placid. Forecast is patchy so a draw may well be the most likely outcome.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:368 - 4 at stumps.  Solid batting down the order means Surrey on target for full batting points.  Four half centuries, plus 44 from Pope.  Pitch looks placid.  Forecast is patchy so a draw may well be the most likely outcome.

Exactly, Corporal. Plus Surrey's unbeaten run looks near certain to continue allowing supporters to relax further.

I am feeling bullish...and feel that another crushing victory is on the cards...(unless the weather intervenes dramatically)..We should get 450 and then with Morkel and scoreboard pressure (benign pitch notwithstanding) and skittle The Cidermen out twice without having to bat again...

485 all out with a ton for Elgar. The BBC described it as ''Somerset's morning'' but I don't really agree. Sure, they took 6 wickets and got us all out but we got full batting points, denied them a second bowling point (the 6th wicket fell after 110 overs) and continued to move the game along.

Two wickets already for Morkel upon the resumption. Looking like the weather is Somerset's best hope.

I refer to my above post.....

Somerset now 11-3...I don’t think it will be a 2 day match but you never know...and GB’s tongue in cheek post above could still prove rather prescient

''Tongue in cheek'' I was deadly serious.

They must have reinstalled the usual Taunton wicket between innings

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:They must have reinstalled the usual Taunton wicket between innings  

122 - 9. Off for bad light. The last couple of wickets have been hanging on a while.

The collapse not totally unexpected after I saw a bit of the early play today on the live stream. Foakes played and missed numerous times during his innings. Very encouraging to see Mckerr in the wickets again.

Make sure you have a look at the wonderful catch by Foakes down the legside.

guildfordbat wrote:''Tongue in cheek''  I was deadly serious.

that last wicket partnership plus the deteriorating weather scuppered our chances of a 2 day win....so will have to be content with either a 3 day or 4 day win instead, dependent upon the weather unless there is a complete washout for the next 2days which doesn’t seem likely...Mind you Leicestershire managed to beat Durham very comfortably within 2days...nice to see Leics winning some matches these days...

Just a note - appears Virdi is improving his batting and fielding. Runs here, and a good outfield catch off McKerr. I note because earlier in the year Guildford posted that Stewart said he needs to work on those aspects of his game to become a player with realistic international ambitions. Appears that work is coming to bear some fruits already!

Play started at 1200. Fortunate that the main bulk of this morning's rain passed just north - and now appears to be heading for the Yorks/Hants match.  Somerset finally all out for 146 after a dogged last wicket stand.  Surrey bag a handy first innings lead of 339.

You'd expect Somerset to show more resistance in the second innings.  Having said that, poor old Trescothick bags a pair, snared again by Morkel! At least he lasted 6 balls this time.

Stop press. Tom Curran gets in on the act, dismissing Banton! 4 - 2 and we haven't even reached the end of second over!

bad light strikes again

jimbobgooner wrote:bad light strikes again

A nuisance but if the weather is going to deny us a win, better now than early next season.

Our 8 bonus points in this game to Somerset's 1 already tells the story.

Wow the covers got blown off last night and the pitch got soaked and no play today.

Incredibly village from Somerset. The cynic in you wonders if it was deliberately done this way...and also since when has having an unfit pitch been a problem at Taunton??

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

Incredibly village from Somerset. The cynic in you wonders if it was deliberately done this way...and also since when has having an unfit pitch been a problem at Taunton??

Ouch. That hurts.

Match abandoned anyway. The covers were doubly secured plus sandbags put in place but it still wasn't enough. What were your expectations - someone to stay there all night to make sure they stayed in place?

I don't for one second think Somerset did this deliberately but I've thought for years that, with all the innovations that have been brought into sport in the 21st century, it's amazing that cricket still relies on the same bit of tin on wheels and flimsy tarpaulins to cover it's wickets.

Blimey, what a farce!

Imagine if this was a title decider (which it was looking like it was a couple of weeks ago!)

what a

I don't understand, how is it a farce?

jimbohammers wrote:Blimey, what a farce!

Imagine if this was a title decider (which it was looking like it was a couple of weeks ago!)

Also, if Somerset had been in the relegation mix, I don't think their fellow candidates for the drop would be too happy with them getting 5 points for the draw given the match situation last night.

I guess the two-part question that emerges is how exceptional was the bad weather last night and should the Club have been better prepared to deal with it? I don't know the answer to the first part and, without that, I can't properly answer the second although, fair to say, I am distinctly unimpressed.

87mph winds and the club took every reasonable measure to try and counter it. (Doubling up on how the covers are normally secured plus adding sandbags to weigh them down) Short of having someone staying there and potentially putting themselves at risk.

Seems like the automatic assumption is that something underhand has occurred. I think we made less of a fuss when Middlesex and Yorkshire contrived a result 2 years ago!

No suggestions from me that it was underhand but it does reek of being ''incredibly village'' as Olly put it. If that's not the case, fair enough and apologies all round but imo it should be reviewed by the ECB, not least to try and prevent something similar occurring in the future and to make clear what is expected of first class grounds to protect a wicket.

Atleast we can all agree that it was fortunate that this has not materially affected relegation or promotion. I’d also just observe that programming county championship matches so late on in Sept is asking for trouble...in terms of weather and the lottery of weather impacting or not on key matches.

Afternoon all, I've been absent from the county boards for a good couple of seasons now as work has just been too busy to follow beyond occasional online commentary and perusing scorecards - both of which I would applaud the Beeb for when it comes to county cricket.

This situation feels quite familiar due to two matches I've been involved in on the coast during bad weather. One was a friendly down in Cornwall, which whilst an irrelevant match both clubs were desperate to have go ahead due to one team travelling from Scotland! The other in Whitby (up the road from Scarborough) and a vital match in a one day knockout cup. On both occasions with a storm coming everything was done from the aforementioned weighing covers down with sandbags and doubling up of covers, to a groundsman parking the roller on a section of covers he felt most under threat then covering the roller with a tarp to protect that!

Come next morning both matches were cancelled as the covers had been blown off and on one occasion the pitch cover (which was held down with effectively foot long camping pegs provided by a local farmer) had been flipped by the wind. Plenty of precautions can be taken but if 87mph winds get under one part of the covers the rest is coming with it.

Voice of the Beehive wrote:I don't for one second think Somerset did this deliberately but I've thought for years that, with all the innovations that have been brought into sport in the 21st century, it's amazing that cricket still relies on the same bit of tin on wheels and flimsy tarpaulins to cover it's wickets.

Sadly the truth of the county circuit is that the cash isn't there. Regular ground redevelopments, digging up whole outfields to improve drainage, hover covers, large ground-staff, new pavilions, consistently expanding stands to improve revenue streams, even incorporating specialist and state of the art media centres into new stands to tempts broadcasters, these are privileges of Test grounds and even then a limited, elite number of those.

The truth for much of the circuit is one man and his dog, plastic chairs you'd associate with school halls not professional sport and simply trying to stay afloat. Olly says, "incredibly village", if anyone attends regular county matches for a few seasons they see that much of the circuit can sometimes comes across that way - although I am not commenting on the playing standards of any counties at all there.

The new 100 ball format has been met with ridicule and cynicism by most, but the ECB are doing it out of simple necessity to find new revenue. If 100 ball games can do that through increased crowds or broadcasting rights then it could be a step in a needed direction.

Much of county crickets charm is how little many aspects have changed. I can go to Chelmsford with the my dad and it takes him back all those years to when he went with his father who was an Essex CCC member for most his life. County cricket needs to change though. For it to strengthen from a playing perspective we need 18 competitive counties, that wont happen on-field if most cant compete economically off it.

Very well put post Carlos

This comment I think is particularly relevant

Regular ground redevelopments, digging up whole outfields to improve drainage, hover covers, large ground-staff, new pavilions, consistently expanding stands to improve revenue streams, even incorporating specialist and state of the art media centres into new stands to tempts broadcasters, these are privileges of Test grounds and even then a limited, elite number of those.

At Taunton we don't have the benefit of a large stadium and money from test matches. It is a struggle to stay afloat and it is only due to success in being able to bring though decent enough young players that we are able to remain competitive.

So apologies if it is a little bit "village", but that's the realities of County Cricket outside the counties with test grounds.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but Somerset do put themselves forward to host England ODIs, don't they?

Hi guildford, hope you are well?

I believe Taunton hosted a T20 international 2 seasons ago but only remember that as it was the first time international cricket had come to Taunton in 34 years.

I also said test grounds specifically rather than international as grounds that get Tests every year also get ODI and/or T20I games every year, hence a different beast economically than those who get the occasional ODI every few years.

I wasn't trying to harpoon Surrey for the privileged position the Ovals wonderful facilities place Surrey CCC in. I am after all a Surrey fan after all and very proud of the academy grads that Stewie has got the most out of this year after many seasons cultivating their development.

I am not suggesting that handing international cricket to grounds without the facilities is in anyway a solution either. Chester-le-Street chasing Test cricket when it wasn't ready arguably played a pivotal role in their financial woes.

I was simply pointing out that whilst covers been blown off may seem ludicrous to fans used to seeing multiple hover covers and dozen strong ground staff running out precautions when rain hits a test match. It feels much more realistic when viewed from the perspective of counties working on far lower budgets.

Thanks, Carlos. Good to hear from you.

I may be wrong but I think Somerset did (unsuccessfully) bid to host ODIs more recently than the one they actually held. I take your point about the difference between ODI and Test grounds.

Being a supporter of Guildford Cricket Club as well as Surrey and the Oval ground, I can appreciate the problem of covers being blown off. As I suggested before, it's very difficult to judge last night's events without properly knowing how bad (and expected) the weather was and how reasonably the Club took steps to try and prevent damage. I do feel though it's reasonable for that to be reviewed, if only to try and reduce future occurrences at all grounds used for county cricket.

In line with other posts, it's fortunate that nothing too much was resting on this game. Had the Championship title, relegation or promotion been involved - not to mention an ODI due to be screened by Sky - I suspect a lot more would be being made of what happened.

Interesting discussion - my main feeling, as others have already well expressed, is one of relief that no more was at stake than the limited difference in prestige and prize money as between coming 2nd or 3rd. (OK, also a bit annoying that Surrey didn't have that 4th day chance to extend their wonderful run of consecutive victories!)

Voice of the Beehive wrote:I've thought for years that, with all the innovations that have been brought into sport in the 21st century, it's amazing that cricket still relies on the same bit of tin on wheels and flimsy tarpaulins to cover it's wickets.  

Sorry to quote myself but I just wanted to clarify that the comment wasn't aimed specifically at Somerset but at cricket in general including most Test match grounds.  Not that I can suggest a better way but surely there must be one.