SURREY VS WARWICKSHIRE SPECSAVERS COUNTY CHAMPIONSHIP

Surrey have named a squad of 13 for this week’s Specsavers County Championship match against Warwickshire at The Kia Oval.
This week’s squad is the same as the 13 that were named to play against Yorkshire.
There is so no place in the squad for Amir virdi while Sam Curran and Jade Dernbach are still not considered fully fit.
FULL SQUAD
Rory Burns (c)
Gareth Batty
Scott Borthwick
Jordan Clark
Rikki Clarke
Matt Dunn
Dean Elgar
Ben Foakes
Will Jacks
Morne Morkel
Ryan Patel
Jamie Smith
Mark Stoneman
Going By form Elgar and Jacks should miss out, more likely to be Jacks and Clark
Over to you chaps

Thanks as ever for the thread, JimBob.

Yeah, Jacks looke ripe for the chop. The other one for the axe is tricky to call. Assuming Burns is definitely now fit to play, it could well be Clark as you say. However, I'll go for Patel also getting drinks duty.

Sam Curran comes in with Dunn injured. Stoneman and Elgar keep their places ahead of Patel and Jacks

Hopefully Dunn’s injury is minor

James100 wrote:Sam Curran comes in with Dunn injured. Stoneman and Elgar keep their places ahead of Patel and Jacks

so Sam Curran wasn't fit yesterday but he is today

such a dreadful bowling attack and we make them look like world beaters

Not a great 1st session that

jimbobgooner wrote:Not a great 1st session that

I’d say it’s pretty even, think Warwickshire would’ve wanted more than 3 wickets at lunch having bowled first, and we’ve scored at a decent rate. Crucial we don’t throw it away after lunch tho

Elgar flops again enough is enough now

2 in 2 balls

Foakes gone another defeat confirmed

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

jimbobgooner wrote:Not a great 1st session that

I’d say it’s pretty even, think Warwickshire would’ve wanted more than 3 wickets at lunch having bowled first, and we’ve scored at a decent rate. Crucial we don’t throw it away after lunch tho

6 needed for a batting point 1wkt left

Never judge a pitch until both sides have batted on it...(seeing a lot of tweets saying it looks a “result” wicket)

But disappointing not to make a batting point

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Hopefully Dunn’s injury is minor

As I understand it, Dunn rolled his ankle in training yesterday and it swelled up overnight. However, there's no ligament damage and he might even have played today with painkillers but, sensibly, no one was keen on that.

I was at the game today until about 5 o'clock - I left then when there was a stoppage for bad light. I was always going to have to get away before the end and, as it happened, only missed about 10 overs.

A key point to make is where the wicket is. I've never known it to be so near to the School side. Although the rope was brought in on the opposite (Gasholder) side, there was still a lot of room there to run twos and sometimes threes.

Now a word about the conditions. Cloudy and humid in the morning encouraging the ball to nip around and help the bowlers. The general view was that if we could get to lunch with only 2 down, we would be in a decent position and ready to tuck into some runs when the sun came out in the afternoon. Even though we lost 3 when Stoneman went 20 minutes before the break, we weren't too upset.

However, a real surprise - and problem -  was that the sun never came out and the clouds never went away. Batting in the afternoon was thus as difficult as in the morning and we lost our last 7 wickets in the second session.

Due to the positioning of the wicket, there were easy runs to be had if bowlers weren't on the money. Lester was too short and wide in his opening over and went for two School side boundaries. However, he found his range after that and settled into a rhythm alongside the surprisingly effective and miserly Hannon-Dalby. Lamb's first over as the fourth seamer was far too legside and conceded 13, including 5 wides. However, poor bowling by Warks was the exception and so we had little opportunity to cash in on the short boundary and the large spaces on the other side.

Foakes was the most fluent of our batters but didn't go on. Stoneman and Elgar battled stubbornly but were also unable to make it count.

Whilst the conditions didn't change when Warks batted - other than getting gloomier and the lights coming on - they opted for the heavy roller between innings and that seemed to take some life out of the wicket. Furthermore, we bowled badly from the start and the runs quickly piled up. Morkel was wide and short while Curran veeered too much towards leg. Rikki Clarke brought some control but by then it was already another bad day at the office.

PS The wicket was very green and geared towards the seamers. Understandably, we didn't want to provide a surface that would help Jeetan Patel after he wrecked us in Brum recently. However, the Warks seamers beat ours hands down today.

Well batted Extras

Great report Guildford, pity it's about another Surrey horror show

36 run deficit, could've been worse, we can knock that off in extras

FFS Burns goes to a shocker from the umpire

50 for rocky

its the Patel show again

jimbobgooner wrote:FFS Burns goes to a shocker from the umpire

That along with Elgar’s decision in the first innings were shockers.

A much better day today I’d say - shame Rocky got a good one near the close, otherwise I’d say we were just on top. Completely even at the moment though I’d say, and plainly obvious to say the morning session tomorrow is crucial!

I managed to get along yesterday. A much better Surrey performance. We had the better of the conditions - overcast when we were bowling whilst the sun came out when when we batted. However, we made it count.

It looked towards lunch that Warks would get a 100+ lead which would almost certainly have been decisive. We did well to restrict them to 36. Some naggingly accurate bowling. Best I've seen Jordan Clark with the ball by some way.

We were positive with the bat from the start of our second dig never allowing Lester and then Miles to settle. We didn't completely turn to jelly against Patel but we were never fully in control against him and he deservedly claimed a couple of wickets. I see Olly and JimBob hotly dispute Burns' lbw - I haven't seen the highlights yet and appreciate the stream would have shown it better than my angled view at the ground but it didn't raise any complaints from the crowd. Certainly Burns was all at sea in what he was trying to do with the ball - that doesn't mean he should have seen the finger raised but, fair to say, Patel is a canny performer and works for his wickets.

We need to try and show some respect towards Patel today without letting him totally dominate. We can't afford to go completely into our shells from one end. Similar approach as well with Hannon-Dalby, by far the best of the Warks seamers. Once he is off, there should be runs to be had against the other seamers, especially given the short boundary on the School side as mentioned on day one.

Unable to get along today. Day 3. Moving Day.


PS My own highlight of the day - do try and watch on the Club website - Sam Curran getting Ambrose lbw and flooring the batsman in the process!

Good morning for the Rey that, only Foakes and Elgar gone and the lead now up and over 200 with 5 wickets remaining. Curran and Smith score quickly, so if they hang around for an hour after lunch we could see us progress into a decent position, in the balance at the moment though...

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Good morning for the Rey that, only Foakes and Elgar gone and the lead now up and over 200 with 5 wickets remaining. Curran and Smith score quickly, so if they hang around for an hour after lunch we could see us progress into a decent position, in the balance at the moment though...

As Olly says.

Get the lead anything north of 300 and we'll be in the pound seats.

Apparently according to twitter, MDV has said Sam Curran has an ECB restriction of bowling only 30 overs in this game - not sure how accurate, but if so he only has 13 overs in this second innings to bowl (and might explain why he wasn't in the original squad?)

One to keep an eye on.

Warwickshire will need 290 to win - I'd have us as slight slight favourites...will need to bowl well though

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Warwickshire will need 290 to win - I'd have us as slight slight favourites...will need to bowl well though

Agree again.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Apparently according to twitter, MDV has said Sam Curran has an ECB restriction of bowling only 30 overs in this game - not sure how accurate, but if so he only has 13 overs in this second innings to bowl (and might explain why he wasn't in the original squad?)

One to keep an eye on.

That could be right. I was told yesterday that he was restricted to 15 overs per day but 30 in the game could be the case. I'm certain there is a restriction on how much he can bowl, just not sure what it is.

all out a lead of 290
through it away with the last 6 wkts not scoring more than a hundred

No early wkts

umpires turning down everything

another defeat

Warks 148/3. They need 142 more for the win.

I'm not as despondent as JimBob but going from the scoreboard now plus what I saw on days one and two I reckon we're at least 1 wicket shy of being at a par position.

Going tomorrow, hopefully not the kiss of death.

Weathers grim again Guilford, starting to clear up so I hope you get a nice couple of sessions on a dry seat! 
Should be a tight finish

Nightwatchman gone early, but pretty clear this game rests on the wicket of Sibley - if Surrey don't get him soon, he will guide Warks home

SAMMY CURRAN!

the rey doing absolute bits

8 down, Sibley gone....do I see a fat lady approaching the mic?!.....please!!

Norah wins it! Great turnaround from day one

jimbobgooner wrote:another defeat

Crikey jimbob, can tell you're an arsenal fan...

Warwickshire 4 down were always a couple of wickets away from a collapse and with a world class bowler like Morne Morkel with ball in hand you'd fancy
Surrey to get those wickets.

Great win, hopefully that kick-starts the season. I see Sam bowled exactly 30 overs for the match

Excellent win never in doubt
Corporal time to open the bar

Short but sweet this morning. Mind you, the first hour seemed long - we only got the nightwatchman in that time. Things were not looking so good at 185/4 at 12 noon. However, the last 6 wickets fell in just 45 minutes.

Sam Curran's two wickets in an over really turned things round whilst Morkel's caught and bowled of Sibley was outstanding and almost guaranteed the win. In between, we got a real bonus with Ambrose being run out in stupid fashion - he seemed overly hesitant when Sibley seemed overly keen for a single having pushed the ball to Borthwick who swooped to deadly effect.

It was fitting that Batty took the last two wickets. He was the pick of the bowlers and seemed to demonstrate commitment with every delivery. He put a lot of pressure on Sibley and the other batsmen appearing not to believe umpire Middlebrook as he continued to turn down shrieks for lbw.

Not the complete performance by any means - we were poor with the bat first dig and too many didn't go on enough after starts in the second - but a big improvement and a much needed win.