SURREY VS KENT BOB WILLIS TROPHY

SURREY HAVE NAMED A SQUAD OF TWELVE FOR TOMORROW’S BOB WILLIS TROPHY CLASH WITH KENT AT THE KIA OVAL – FEATURING WICKET KEEPER BEN FOAKES FOR THE FIRST TIME THIS SUMMER.
There is also a return for Adam Finch, on loan from Worcestershire, who missed last weekend’s game at Arundel with a slight thigh strain.
Rory Burns, Sam Curran and Ollie Pope are all playing in the ongoing Test with Pakistan, whilst Jason Roy, Tom Curran and Reece Topley are all going back into the ‘bubble’ ahead of England’s upcoming One Day commitments.
Jordan Clark, Liam Plunkett, Nicholas Kimber and Jade Dernbach remain on the sidelines.
Gus Atkinson has been rested after playing back to back to games in recent weeks.
There is no place in the squad for Daniel Moriarty or James Taylor
Full Squad:
Scott Borthwick
Rikki Clarke
Matt Dunn
Laurie Evans
Adam Finch
Ben Foakes (wk)
Will Jacks
Morne Morkel
Ryan Patel
Jamie Smith
Mark Stoneman
Amar Virdi
Interestingly no captain named for this game, wonder if they toss a coin in the changing room before the start
It looks like it comes down to a straight choice between Dunn and Patel for this one, for me it would be Patel but with Rikki coming in at 7 does that make the tail too long so maybe sadly for Guildford it could by Dunn.
Over to you chaps

Cheers, JimBob.

Good spots about Moriarty and Taylor being left out. I had forgotten about Taylor when I read the preview on the Club site.

I don't really understand why we've brought Finch back on loan. However, having done so, I would guess we're pretty much obliged to play him. Finch didn't look bad when I saw him on the stream but I don't regard him as better than Dunn and I would always prefer to play ''one of our own'' all things being fairly equal.

I reluctantly agree it looks like Dunn will be on drinks duty. As you say, if you leave out Patel who seems the other choice for the bench, that would mean Clarke batting at 7 and then a hopeless tail.

Also, if you did leave out Patel, I'm not sure who would go up the order to open. All in all, a bit of a mess - again.

Sam Curran has been released from the bubble and is eligible to play vs Kent now.

We have actual players now

JDizzle wrote:Sam Curran has been released from the bubble and is eligible to play vs Kent now.

JD - thanks for that.

So who gets left out of what is now a Surrey 13? I would guess Dunn and Patel or Finch. I'll say Patel - if so, there's just a chance Sam could open the batting.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:We have actual players now

No longer any excuses if we have another embarassing loss...

Morkel and Patel left out

James100 wrote:Morkel and Patel left out

James and all - do you know of any reason given for Morkel's omission?

Haven't seen anything Guildford, though still haven't heard anything about the Clarke omission last week either

Excellent opening spell from Dunn (6-3-7-1) which sees Cox who scored a double ton recently gone lbw.

Kent currently 24/1.

Kent 34/1 off 19.

Surrey's 4 seamers all bowling testing spells and keeping it dry. However, we need at least one more wicket by lunch to justify Stoneman's decision (strange imo) to bowl first.

56/1 off 28 at lunch.

Surrey's seam quartet have bowled well and kept it tight, Dunn especially so. However, Bell-Drummond and Leaning have battled hard with a gutsy performance to get to the break and shave the session.

I can't help feeling it was a lack of confidence in our batting rather than the conditions which led to Stoneman choosing to field upon winning the toss.

guildfordbat wrote:56/1 off 28 at lunch.

Surrey's seam quartet have bowled well and kept it tight, Dunn especially so. However, Bell-Drummond and Leaning have battled hard with a gutsy performance to get to the break and shave the session.

I can't help feeling it was a lack of confidence in our batting rather than the conditions which led to Stoneman choosing to field upon winning the toss.

I wonder if it would be uncharitable of me to suggest Stoneman might have good reason to entertain some doubts about the Surrey batting

alfie wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:56/1 off 28 at lunch.

Surrey's seam quartet have bowled well and kept it tight, Dunn especially so. However, Bell-Drummond and Leaning have battled hard with a gutsy performance to get to the break and shave the session.

I can't help feeling it was a lack of confidence in our batting rather than the conditions which led to Stoneman choosing to field upon winning the toss.

I wonder if it would be uncharitable of me to suggest Stoneman might have good reason to entertain some doubts about the Surrey batting

Alfie - I think it would be entirely reasonable of you to suggest that. However, as we will have to bat at some time in this match, there seems no point in putting it off and especially as day one is usually the best for batting.

Yeah I generally subscribe to the bat first maxim...especially as Surrey can't make the final from their current position (I think that's right ?) so not a lot of point in trying to engineer something spectacular in case of bad weather.

Yep, with 3 losses from our 3 matches, there's no way we can reach the final.

Tea. 170/5 off 38.

Very different session. 4 wickets but Kent going at almost 4 an over.

Marginally our session but we should be looking to get them all out for around 220 or less to make it count.

I still cant get my head around the Morkel omission, rumours that he is being rested have to be a joke

3rd wkt for baby face

jimbobgooner wrote:3rd wkt for baby face

But irritating runs now being added by Stewart and Podmore as they move the score on to 222/6 off 68.

guildfordbat wrote:

jimbobgooner wrote:3rd wkt for baby face

But irritating runs now being added by Stewart and Podmore as they move the score on to 222/6 off 68.

Podmore finally gone

We really have balls this up

jimbobgooner wrote:We really have balls this up

I don't think John Arlott could've put it better. Have a good night, JimBob and all. Till the morning.

Curate's egg of a performance from Surrey, which is marginally better than the usual garbage performance. How can Morkel be 'rested'?! We only bowled once last week! Very strange selection decisions and keeping every one in the dark! We lost by an inns to 290 last week, so +300 is going to be a 'challenge'!

Stoneman already gone. Brings our only in form batsman to the crease in the first over

31 for 1 at lunch in our case a good start

Of course Stevens takes a wicket...73-3, need 120 to save follow on

thegooch7 wrote:Of course Stevens takes a wicket...73-3, need 120 to save follow on

2nd wkt as a painful innings from Jacks comes to a end

Hi folks - just back and catching up.

4 down and still need about 60 to avoid the follow on.

Terrible shot by Borthwick to get out to a loose delivery from Stevens.

At least Foakes is showing some composure and ability with the bat.

101 for 4 at tea Borthwick and Jacks dismissals particularly awful

EVANS above

50 for Foakes

jimbobgooner wrote:50 for Foakes

I've only been watching occasionally today but from what I've seen Foakes has looked good and assured.

At least we won't lose this game by an innings.

Never mind avoiding the follow on.... we've got a batting bonus point....nose bleeds all round if we reach 250...and a second

thegooch7 wrote:Never mind avoiding the follow on.... we've got a batting bonus point....nose bleeds all round if we reach 250...and a second

A bonus point in the County Championship used to be like a rare steak to a starving man as far as JimBob was concerned. I'm not sure if it's the same having lost 3 on the bounce in the Bob Willis Trophy and having zippo chance of qualifying for the final.

Guildford - a lot of people say they saw Sam Curran developing into a batting all rounder, do you still agree?

For me looks like batting at 8 at test level is as high as he will go. 6/7 in the county game

103 behind at stumps
Foakes finishes on 88 not out

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Guildford - a lot of people say they saw Sam Curran developing into a batting all rounder, do you still agree?

For me looks like batting at 8 at test level is as high as he will go. 6/7 in the county game

Hi Olly - I'm inclined to agree. I just had a look at his stats on cricinfo to check my thinking that he has still to score a first class ton. I was right on that; 96 is his best score from 105 innings, 13 of which have been not out. I was surprised though that he's scored as many as 18 fifties. Whilst he won't always have had the opportunity to go on as shown in part by the number of not outs, it still seems odd to have got so many half-centuries but not one century.

All this backs up my prior perception of him being a busy player who is often good for a quickish 20 or 30 odd and sometimes beyond but not a match shaping innings. It also tallies with him having a first class average around 28 which in turn is in line with your places for him in the order. If runs were needed for a victory charge, he would be one of those I would be looking to promote up the order but that would be the exception rather than the rule and doesn't detract from your viewpoint.

The only caveat I would give is that he's still young - he was only 22 in June - and so we can't definitively determine yet how his future career may develop. However, there are enough signs for me to say you're probably right and the evidence (from the stats and from what I've seen of him at the crease) so far supports that.

A 2nd batting point this morning as Foakes led the way with a splendid 118. However, we still conceded 64 on first dig.

6 of the top 8 reached 18 but only Foakes pushed on beyond 30. Not good enough.

Kent leading by 99 on 35/1 at lunch. Borthwick bowled the final over. I just don't get the obsession with so regularly giving him the ball this season.

Haven't watched much of the game so this may not be news to others, but Church on commentary just mentioned Morkel having twisted an ankle.

Clarke's taken three in no time and Dunn now got Stevens too. Kent 69/5

James100 wrote:Haven't watched much of the game so this may not be news to others, but Church on commentary just mentioned Morkel having twisted an ankle.

Clarke's taken three in no time and Dunn now got Stevens too. Kent 69/5

it's the hope that kills you

102-7...not sure why we've persisted with Dunn here, he's gone for 54 off 12... It looks promising...but I'm in Jimbob's camp regarding the hope!

5 wkts for Rikki

Rikki Clarke for England!

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Rikki Clarke for England!

A 'Michelle' for Rikki!

tea Kent lead by 166 with 2wkts left can we dream?

jimbobgooner wrote:tea Kent lead by 166 with 2wkts left can we dream?

Darren Stevens 6-35 incoming

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

jimbobgooner wrote:tea Kent lead by 166 with 2wkts left can we dream?

Darren Stevens 6-35 incoming

Thanks Olly, me and Jimbob were forgetting this is Surrey