SURREY VS GLOUCESTERSHIRE/SUSSEX/ESSEX ROYAL LONDON CUP

Jason Roy    features in a 14-man squad that also includes youngster Jamie Smith that
will travel to Bristol to take on Gloucestershire in Surrey’s Royal London One-Day opener on Wednesday 17th April.
Injuries have ruled out Scott Borthwick (side), Jordan Clark (knee), Jade Dernbach (calf), Matt Dunn (illness) and Amar Virdi (back)    while Sam Curran remains unavailable due to his IPL commitments. Dean Elgar will join up with the group after next Thursday’s London Derby with Middlesex.
Gareth Batty, and Conor McKerr  have also been named in the squad after missing out on last week’s Specsavers County Championship match with Essex.
There is no place in the squad for Stuart Meaker  ( wonder if his future lies elsewhere)
FULL SQUAD:
Rory Burns (C)
Gareth Batty
Rikki Clarke
Tom Curran
Ben Foakes
Will Jacks
Conor McKerr
Morne Morkel
Liam Plunkett
Ollie Pope
Jason Roy
Jamie Smith
Mark Stoneman
Freddie van den Bergh
Ryan Patel  
Stuart Meaker
Burger van, McKerr and Smith to miss out imo
Over to you chaps  

Thanks, JimBob. Agree with you on the three most likely to miss out.

Important we do well tomorrow. We mucked up badly at the start of last year's competition and were then always playing catch up until we went out.

Gloucs win toss and bat.

Surrey team as we predicted with Smith, McKerr and Fred missing out.

That's a bloody good looking one day side that fellas

Jacks the only one who hasn't played international cricket I think

Plunkett bowling well aga....ah

James100 wrote:Jacks the only one who hasn't played international cricket I think

Hes played age grade and Lions!

Shows how much respect this compeition has though when key members of the England world cup squad are off playing in the 20 over Indian domestic comeptition rather than with their counties playing 40 over cricket with the same ball and coditions they will face in the WC.

Gooseberry wrote:

James100 wrote:Jacks the only one who hasn't played international cricket I think

Hes played age grade and Lions!

Shows how much respect this compeition has though when key members of the England world cup squad are off playing in the 20 over Indian domestic comeptition rather than with their counties playing 40 over cricket with the same ball and coditions they will face in the WC.

Have you read what's likely to be coming? My last post on the ''England - the winters tour thread'' refers.

guildfordbat wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

James100 wrote:Jacks the only one who hasn't played international cricket I think

Hes played age grade and Lions!

Shows how much respect this compeition has though when key members of the England world cup squad are off playing in the 20 over Indian domestic comeptition rather than with their counties playing 40 over cricket with the same ball and coditions they will face in the WC.

Have you read what's likely to be coming? My last post on the ''England - the winters tour thread'' refers.

Yep.

And tbf thats long been touted as a thing, just noone thought theyd be mad enough to try it.

The oddest part is that Bayliss and others are against T20 internationals outside the world cup, yet here we are putting all our development potential domesticaly into shorter and shorter formats.

Then again we are looking at Jofra as a serious option for the 50 over world cup and hes played 14 list A games in his whole life.

Surrey peg Gloucs back after they were threatening to post a huge total. Plunkett again very expensive.

Surrey innings starts badly - 24/2 with Stoneman falling early and Jacks hit wicket after brief flourish.

49-4

Ouch. This next partnership between Foakes and Pope will need to be a big one...

Have to hope this is our worst batting performance of the season.

Ouch.

I accept that the batting should be my focus after that. However, Plunkett's bowling figures are put in very stark contrast when compared to every other player from either side who had a bowl today.

Shocking for that batting line-up to get rolled for 88 though.

Roy is a star batsman heading into a home world cup. Stoneman, Burns, Pope and Foakes are test players. To top it off Jacks is an outrageous talent.

With only 8 games in the RLC group stages, between today and 7th May, a poor start to this tournament can kill any hopes of qualifying for knockouts very early.

king_carlos wrote:Ouch.

I accept that the batting should be my focus after that. However, Plunkett's bowling figures are put in very stark contrast when compared to every other player from either side who had a bowl today.

Shocking for that batting line-up to get rolled for 88 though.

Roy is a star batsman heading into a home world cup. Stoneman, Burns, Pope and Foakes are test players. To top it off Jacks is an outrageous talent.

With only 8 games in the RLC group stages, between today and 7th May, a poor start to this tournament can kill any hopes of qualifying for knockouts very early.

This is just like a repeat of last year when we were rolled over at the Oval by Somerset in our opening game. We never caught up from that and didn't go beyond the group stage.

Agree with all other comments and concerns. Expect the wallpaper site to be bubbling.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:That's a bloody good looking one day side that fellas

jimbobgooner wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:That's a bloody good looking one day side that fellas

The maddening thing though is that what Olly wrote is correct.

We now need to play like we look - and be quick about it.

In the scheme of that capitulation this is a mute point, but I do feel the absence of Sam and Jordan Clark at the same time makes us look like a side of two halves. You've got 6 players who are batsman (and wicketkeeper in Foakes case) and then 5 who are bowlers.

Rikki Clarke has good batting figures across all formats but in recent years he has become very much the bowling all rounder. His bowling has remained evergreen and his batting less reliable. I'm not questioning his value to the squad, he's a vital member across three formats, but I do feel that 7 is too high in the order for Rikki these days.

Plunkett and Tom being able to hit a very long ball at 8 and 9 helps offset it but the side would look more balanced with Clark or Sam at 7, Clarke offering experience and depth to the lower order.

A mute point in the scheme of the top and middle order capitulation but there is a sudden drop off from 6 to 7 in the order, in both the CC sides and now the RLC side, so far this season.

king_carlos wrote:In the scheme of that capitulation this is a mute point, but I do feel the absence of Sam and Jordan Clark at the same time makes us look like a side of two halves. You've got 6 players who are batsman (and wicketkeeper in Foakes case) and then 5 who are bowlers.

Rikki Clarke has good batting figures across all formats but in recent years he has become very much the bowling all rounder. His bowling has remained evergreen and his batting less reliable. I'm not questioning his value to the squad, he's a vital member across three formats, but I do feel that 7 is too high in the order for Rikki these days.

Plunkett and Tom being able to hit a very long ball at 8 and 9 helps offset it but the side would look more balanced with Clark or Sam at 7, Clarke offering experience and depth to the lower order.

A mute point in the scheme of the top and middle order capitulation but there is a sudden drop off from 6 to 7 in the order, in both the CC sides and now the RLC side, so far this season.

Agree with you, Carlos. Clarke is one place too high at 7 whilst both T Curran and Plunkett are decent number 9s but neither is an 8 for me.

As you say, not the reason we lost so badly today. Furthermore, it probably wouldn't be noticed if the top 6 were firing properly. However, it remains a fair point.

guildfordbat wrote:

king_carlos wrote:In the scheme of that capitulation this is a mute point, but I do feel the absence of Sam and Jordan Clark at the same time makes us look like a side of two halves. You've got 6 players who are batsman (and wicketkeeper in Foakes case) and then 5 who are bowlers.

Rikki Clarke has good batting figures across all formats but in recent years he has become very much the bowling all rounder. His bowling has remained evergreen and his batting less reliable. I'm not questioning his value to the squad, he's a vital member across three formats, but I do feel that 7 is too high in the order for Rikki these days.

Plunkett and Tom being able to hit a very long ball at 8 and 9 helps offset it but the side would look more balanced with Clark or Sam at 7, Clarke offering experience and depth to the lower order.

A mute point in the scheme of the top and middle order capitulation but there is a sudden drop off from 6 to 7 in the order, in both the CC sides and now the RLC side, so far this season.

Agree with you, Carlos. Clarke is one place too high at 7 whilst both T Curran and Plunkett are decent number 9s but neither is an 8 for me.

As you say, not the reason we lost so badly today. Furthermore, it probably wouldn't be noticed if the top 6 were firing properly. However, it remains a fair point.

Honestly this is the key point. When you ahve the strongest top 6 oin the comeptition you should be abel to rely on them delivering. Runs from 8 down are a luxury, and its not like they wewre chasing a huge total that required England style all or nothing batting down to 10. Plunkett averages about 20 in list A / ODI cricket, thats not too bad for an 8 at this level and on a par with what Sam Curran delivers (averaging 7 in the IPL with the bat this season).

Getting 5 quality bowling options should be a higher priority IMO. The argument after that of course would be if this seasons Plunkett really counts as one (one game etc but this red flag was orange last season)

Sure the tail is a weak point in the team, but its not such a one that with the level of quality they have in other areas they should be getting so utterly butthumped at this level.

If this is your biggest problem then youre doing OK. But based on that fiasco it isnt the biggest problem they have (spinners? pressure to succeed?)

Same squad for Sussex, I don't expect any changes after one game.
The game will be shown live on sky sports cricket channel.

Gooseberry wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

king_carlos wrote:In the scheme of that capitulation this is a mute point, but I do feel the absence of Sam and Jordan Clark at the same time makes us look like a side of two halves. You've got 6 players who are batsman (and wicketkeeper in Foakes case) and then 5 who are bowlers.

Rikki Clarke has good batting figures across all formats but in recent years he has become very much the bowling all rounder. His bowling has remained evergreen and his batting less reliable. I'm not questioning his value to the squad, he's a vital member across three formats, but I do feel that 7 is too high in the order for Rikki these days.

Plunkett and Tom being able to hit a very long ball at 8 and 9 helps offset it but the side would look more balanced with Clark or Sam at 7, Clarke offering experience and depth to the lower order.

A mute point in the scheme of the top and middle order capitulation but there is a sudden drop off from 6 to 7 in the order, in both the CC sides and now the RLC side, so far this season.

Agree with you, Carlos. Clarke is one place too high at 7 whilst both T Curran and Plunkett are decent number 9s but neither is an 8 for me.

As you say, not the reason we lost so badly today. Furthermore, it probably wouldn't be noticed if the top 6 were firing properly. However, it remains a fair point.

Honestly this is the key point. When you ahve the strongest top 6 oin the comeptition you should be abel to rely on them delivering. Runs from 8 down are a luxury, and its not like they wewre chasing a huge total that required England style all or nothing batting down to 10. Plunkett averages about 20 in list A / ODI cricket, thats not too bad for an 8 at this level and on a par with what Sam Curran delivers (averaging 7 in the IPL with the bat this season).

Getting 5 quality bowling options should be a higher priority IMO. The argument after that of course would be if this seasons Plunkett really counts as one (one game etc but this red flag was orange last season)  

Sure the tail is a weak point in the team, but its not such a one that with the level of quality they have in other areas they should be getting so utterly butthumped at this level.

If this is your biggest problem then youre doing OK. But based on that fiasco it isnt the biggest problem they have (spinners? pressure to succeed?)

Goose - Carlos and I were chewing the fat. We both know it's not the biggest problem. I might say more as to what is when I return from Hove tomorrow.

274 for 9after 50 that might be a good score on another slow wkt

A stuttering innings that. Nos 2 to 6 all got starts but none properly went on. Foakes and Jacks getting valuable half centuries in the context of the game though.

It's a much stronger Sussex bowling attack than batting line-up though. It should be a reasonable score on a slow wicket as jimbob says.

Morkel, Tom, Plunkett and Clarke should be an experienced enough seam attack to take the early wickets needed to break down a shallow batting lineup.

Brown has a very respectable CC record but nothing much in one day. Evans is a talent but has shown it more consistently in T20 than List A. Then you have two inexperienced, albeit talented youngsters and Luke Wright whose white ball only deal means he hasn't played any cricket yet this year.

Wiese is capable of thrilling hitting with the bat but if the bowlers can get to him reasonably early at 6 in the order then you negate that finishing power somewhat.

If this bowling attack fail to deliver here then you'd expect some very stern words from Stewie and MdV in the changing room.

Rikki serving up some utter dross

Clarke and Plunkett 3 overs for 41 runs 

Thankfully it sounds like Tom has picked up where he left off against Gloucs.

So aside from Plunkett what exactly is the issue here? On paper Surrey should do better in this competition

Gooseberry wrote:So aside from Plunkett what exactly is the issue here? On paper Surrey should do better in this competition

To give deserved credit to Sussex, they fielded like tigers and never let our batters get away. They also played with 6 frontline bowlers, all of whom did at least a decent job. Garton was certainly more hostile and accurate than I expected.

I thought our 274 was maybe 15 to 20 light of the score we should have been aiming for but wasn't too worried at the interval. I expected that them having gone with 6 bowlers and therefore a long tail would be their undong. Got that wrong, didn't I! Clarke uncharacteristically was too short and got clobbered on the fairly small Hove ground. Plunkett seems to have been well down on pace ever since he joined us and also suffered. Whilst I will always give a proven top class act like Morkel some leeway for his Championship success last year, I do think he's a better red ball bowler than a white one. Curran did bowl well and merited the best figures of the Surrey attack whilst Batty was not too far behind with a typically pugnacious display.

Incredibly well as Wiese batted, we let them off the hook with too much ordinary bowling and far too much sloppy fielding. This Surrey side is not well equipped for fielding in 50 over games - some are a bit too big and/or old for nimble, athletic displays. However, yesterday even the usually more reliable younsgsters had a bad day at the office.

I also didn't go a bundle on some of Burns' bowling changes - in particular, it had seemed clear for a little while that the game would be finished one way or the other within 48 overs and so it proved. To leave Morkel with one in the locker when it was all about wickets and instead keep Clarke going at the end was not the call I would have made.

I am not saying we are not trying. However, I do wonder if we felt - even unconsciously - that it would be pretty easygoing this year. We should already know it won't be.

Ryan Patel added to the squad for Essex maybe the club don't realise its a 50 overs match

Cheers, JimBob.

According to cricinfo, Patel has never played a RL 50 or t20 game at first eleven level. His selection seems more about frustration with the others than anything else.

We'll need to be on form tomorrow - my high regard for Tendo and his outfit has been posted here more than once.

Btw, I hear Dernbach may be out for a time with his calf injury.

Meaker in the squad too...any rumblings Plunkett could be dropped after his horror start to the season? It would be a he'll of a thing to get named in the world cup squad then dropped by a county!

Gooseberry wrote:Meaker in the squad too...any rumblings Plunkett could be dropped after his horror start to the season? It would be a he'll of a thing to get named in the world cup squad then dropped by a county!

cheers goose added to the squad

If Roy was ok enough to bat why didn't he come in earlier? Or is there some rule against that?

Dan Lawrence returning 10-0-52-2 would suggest that Batty and Jacks are going to need to get through a few overs defending that score...

A much better all round bowling performance brings the vital win.

Morkel 8-1-23-4
Plunkett 8.5-0-50-4

Much better performances from two of the experienced seamers. Morkel in particular laid the ground work with a very economical opening spell that removed Cook and Westley.

A win for Surrey - although at various points Essex looked to have their run chase more or less under control. Plunkett returning to bowling form, with Morkel outstanding.

Looks like there'll be a bit of a queue in the treatment room as Surrey had to use three substitute fielders.

his holiness injury looks the most serious

jimbohammers wrote:If Roy was ok enough to bat why didn't he come in earlier? Or is there some rule against that?

He opened the batting then went off with the back spasm. He then returned later once they were sure he was OK.
Denly also had a back spasm and wasnt deemed fit to bat at all in the Kent game

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:A win for Surrey - although at various points Essex looked to have their run chase more or less under control.  Plunkett returning to bowling form, with Morkel outstanding.

Looks like there'll be a bit of a queue in the treatment room as Surrey had to use three substitute fielders.

I was at the game yesterday. The Corporal is spot on with his military assessment.

We weren't perfect by any means and the winning margin rather flattered us but it was a vast improvement upon the shambles at Hove.

Foakes led the way with the bat and others contributed too but Clarke, Plunkett and McKerr at 7, 8, 9 all look one place too high. We probably left 20 to 30 runs out there. Given Roy did come back to bat, it seemed odd that he didn't do so a bit earlier as the tail started to fall quickly in the final overs. Fine fast bowling from Morkel and a much improved performance from Plunkett - definitely the quickest I've seen him bowl for Surrey. A word for Batty also - a typically punchy performance, very little flight but plenty of fight as he screamed at his team matches to ''get it!''.

The odd fumble in the field but our catching was top notch. Two outstanding takes, from Pope and Plunkett.

Essex had their chances and looked in reasonable positions at times when chasing but twice lost 2 wickets in 2 balls (think that's right) to give us the desperately needed win.

3 injuries as has been said. In line with JimBob's post, Pope's looked nasty. He hurt his shoulder diving in vain to make a boundary stop and landed on the rope. Our physio and the Essex guy went to him and helped him off. Hopefully, just bruising but might be more serious.

guildfordbat wrote:
Foakes led the way with the bat and others contributed too but Clarke, Plunkett and McKerr at 7, 8, 9 all look one place too high. We probably left 20 to 30 runs out there. Given Roy did come back to bat, it seemed odd that he didn't do so a bit earlier as the tail started to fall quickly in the final overs. Fine fast bowling from Morkel and a much improved performance from Plunkett - definitely the quickest I've seen him bowl for Surrey. A word for Batty also - a typically punchy performance, very little flight but plenty of fight as he screamed at his team matches to ''get it!''.

https://www.cricbuzz.com/cricket-news/107686/liam-plunkett-relieved-after-rediscovering-lost-pace-england-world-cup-2019

Plunkett's changed something in his run up in the last week that he hopes will allow him to get back his pace. He says he noticed he'd changed his approach to the crease while playing the four day game and has been working on it since.

James100 wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:
Foakes led the way with the bat and others contributed too but Clarke, Plunkett and McKerr at 7, 8, 9 all look one place too high. We probably left 20 to 30 runs out there. Given Roy did come back to bat, it seemed odd that he didn't do so a bit earlier as the tail started to fall quickly in the final overs. Fine fast bowling from Morkel and a much improved performance from Plunkett - definitely the quickest I've seen him bowl for Surrey. A word for Batty also - a typically punchy performance, very little flight but plenty of fight as he screamed at his team matches to ''get it!''.

https://www.cricbuzz.com/cricket-news/107686/liam-plunkett-relieved-after-rediscovering-lost-pace-england-world-cup-2019

Plunkett's changed something in his run up in the last week that he hopes will allow him to get back his pace. He says he noticed he'd changed his approach to the crease while playing the four day game and has been working on it since.

Sounds very much like what Wood did, that payed rapid dividends too. This really hots up the competition for bowling spots at the world if his revival is sustained. Tom Curran looks to be kicking on nicely too and making an impact at county level. Its really good to see a player responding to his form in this way rather than just relying on playing the "Im the established player" card. Both England and Surrey seem to have managed this well too, backed him but made it clear he needs to step back up and deliver.