Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Compton to open?
By Grockle et al
May 4 2012
The one day season starts at 20 minutes to 4 for Somerset at the Oval. Injuries have created a very different side than the one we would have expected to send to London. Captain James Hildreth has a squad of the walking without his new ball attack, his number one opener and a bunch of youngsters with limited or no 40 over first team experience. Mighty interesting.....
v SURREY CB40 @ Kennington Oval Friday May 4 2012
The squad for this game will include obvious absences. No Trescothick (6 weeks at least), no Kirby (about the same), no Philander (rested for four dayers), no Hussain (nearly back but not yet), no Dibble (at least a month). So our bowling is either new - the Overtons - or based around our batting allrounders with Peter Trlego and George Dockrell offering the established threat. Hildreth has some work to do. The opening pair seems to have settled on Nick Compton and Craig K probably and Arul may find himself being used a little before the usually useless number 8 spot.
Presently one would expect the side to look like this;
Kieswetter, Compton, Trego, Hildreth, Buttler, Suppiah, Meschede, Gregory, Dockrell, Overton C, ??
The last place you can perm from Max Waller, James Overton or Andy Sutton. I'd go for Max myself but we'll have to wait and see. It is an extra added frisson to this fixture that it was Surrey that beat us to the trophy last season when we under performed to the nth degree in the Final. Most people assume that if James gets the option he will chase so we have an idea where we are at half time.
As it turned out Max got the nod as the eleventh man and it was James Overton who was handed his one day debut instead of his allrounder brother.
We won the toss and not surprisingly Hildreth chose to chase and field first. We however lost the game when we failed to keep the Surrey front line in check and allowed them to get off to a 163 run flyer and their captain to get a 100 first up. Hamilton-Brown made 101 and Davies added 72 and we were up against it from there on. Max was the cheapest bowler and under used with only 4 overs (21 for 1) but the average was over 7 per over and a massive 295 was what we faced at the turnaround.
The strongest aspect of our side on paper whould have been able to cope with that but when half your front 6 fail to get into double figures (they only just managed that together) then the pressure is on and despite a 50 from Compo at the front end and some battling by Jos at the rear we lost wickets regularly and eventually lost heavily by 105 runs.
This wasn't a weak side capitulating, this was a fairly strong batting side capitulating after being put under some pressure by a poorer than expected bowling performance. We were 80% full strength and performed at about 40% of capability, our fielding was sloppy though admittedly the luck wasn't with us when it would have been significant.
Down but not out, it's a 'learn and move on' report at the beginning of a competition... never done one of those before!!!
Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Grockles.com (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 14:24
What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:06:08:45:40 by Grockle.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:06:08:45:40 by Grockle.
One day stuff at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 03/05/2012 06:50
The second and most marginal competition of the summer will get off to a not so bright or breezy start for Somerset at the Oval tomorrow. Here is the match thread.
I hope to spend the afternoon watching this if Liveonline.... works and if the UK weather does not turn the 'Pro40' (or whatever it is called this year) into more of a damp squib than it already is.
I hope to spend the afternoon watching this if Liveonline.... works and if the UK weather does not turn the 'Pro40' (or whatever it is called this year) into more of a damp squib than it already is.
Re: One day stuff at the Oval
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 03/05/2012 08:30
We do have the rain back again after a nice warm sunny day yesterday.
Re: One day stuff at the Oval
Posted by: barndoorio (IP Logged)
Date: 03/05/2012 10:58
What's the latest on the bowling front? We're without Philander, Dibble, Kirby at least, Is Archie back yet?
Possible line up?
Kieswetter
Trego
Compton
Hildreth
Buttler
Suppiah
Meschede
Gregory
Dockrell
Overton
Overton / Sutton?
Possible line up?
Kieswetter
Trego
Compton
Hildreth
Buttler
Suppiah
Meschede
Gregory
Dockrell
Overton
Overton / Sutton?
Re: One day stuff at the Oval
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 03/05/2012 11:03
.Who's Archie???
Dry in Newcastle
Dry in Newcastle
Re: One day stuff at the Oval
Posted by: Botham (IP Logged)
Date: 03/05/2012 11:32
I assume Archie is Alfonso?
The game is live on Sky, but I doubt Sky reaches Oman.
The game is live on Sky, but I doubt Sky reaches Oman.
Re: One day stuff at the Oval
Posted by: barndoorio (IP Logged)
Date: 03/05/2012 11:33
Archie Gemaal...
Re: One day stuff at the Oval
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 03/05/2012 11:37
I thought it was Gareth Andrews nickname.
Re: One day stuff at the Oval
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 03/05/2012 11:40
No, that is MINE!!!
Re: One day stuff at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 03/05/2012 11:48
liveonlinefooty.com does Botham so my PS3 will be primed as long as there isn't too much footy on.
Re: One day stuff at the Oval
Posted by: Clarence Parker (IP Logged)
Date: 03/05/2012 12:15
Quote:old boy!
No, that is MINE!!!
Nice one, old boy, and I never even saw your lips move.
Re: One day stuff at the Oval
Posted by: JonR (IP Logged)
Date: 03/05/2012 12:20
I'm hoping that Max is in contention for a place along with the Overtons and Sutton.
Re: One day stuff at the Oval
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 03/05/2012 13:05
Quote:JonR
I'm hoping that Max is in contention for a place along with the Overtons and Sutton.
Hear Hear!!
Re: One day stuff at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 03/05/2012 13:18
Well if he isn't then one wonders what was discussed in the off season to make Max stay.
Re: One day stuff at the Oval
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 03/05/2012 16:10
The forecast I have for the Oval is dry but overcast. I would play Dockrell Waller and Suppiah,
and go with
Kieswetter
Trego
Compton
Hildreth
Buttler
Suppiah
Meschede
Gregory
Dockrell
Overton
Waller
and go with
Kieswetter
Trego
Compton
Hildreth
Buttler
Suppiah
Meschede
Gregory
Dockrell
Overton
Waller
Re: One day stuff at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 03/05/2012 16:29
I agree entirely with you, JM.
And I'd think that James will probably field first if we win the toss as I think you want to put the pressure on your stronger suit.
And I'd think that James will probably field first if we win the toss as I think you want to put the pressure on your stronger suit.
Re: One day stuff at the Oval
Posted by: cricketjerry-mouse (IP Logged)
Date: 03/05/2012 18:39
Twenty-year-old all-rounder Zafar Ansari, who played against Somerset in the CB40 final at Lord`s in September, has been given leave by Cambridge University to join the Surrey squad tomorrow.
Jacques Rudolph and Jon Lewis are included in the 13 for the first time:
Davies, Hamilton-Brown, Roy, Maynard, de Bruyn, Rudolph, Spriegel, Batty, Ansari, Lewis, Meaker, Dernbach and Wilson.
Jacques Rudolph and Jon Lewis are included in the 13 for the first time:
Davies, Hamilton-Brown, Roy, Maynard, de Bruyn, Rudolph, Spriegel, Batty, Ansari, Lewis, Meaker, Dernbach and Wilson.
Re: One day stuff at the Oval
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 08:12
Nick Compton is going to open the batting!!!
Both the O twins are in the squad.
Both the O twins are in the squad.
Re: One day stuff at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 08:21
I wonder where that idea came from. Somerset? England? (TiC)
Re: One day stuff at the Oval
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 08:37
If Nick bats through the innings, he will probably face 120 balls. With a strike rate of 5 that's his hundred. He can score quickly ( 2nd hundred at T
but as I keep saying
"3 2's and a single every over gives you 280".
Time for intelligent batting methinks.
but as I keep saying
"3 2's and a single every over gives you 280".
Time for intelligent batting methinks.
Re: One day stuff at the Oval
Posted by: Railboy (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 11:25
Quote:geordie moonraker
If Nick bats through the innings, he will probably face 120 balls. With a strike rate of 5 that's his hundred. He can score quickly ( 2nd hundred at T
"3 2's and a single every over gives you 280".
Time for intelligent batting methinks.
Yeh, but with all that running between the wickets, someone is going to cop it at the other end
![[:wor kid:]](/phorum-5.1.15/mods/smileys/images/13.gif "[:wor kid:]")
Boundries only may be the much safer option!Re: One day stuff at the Oval
Posted by: Blub (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 12:59
Whatever 11 out of the 12 they choose, that is an incredibly green attack.
If I understand correctly, one of the O's is a pacier bowler who bats a bit, whilst the other is a medium pacer all/rounder.
If this is the case, albeit a broad categorising, I can't see any reason why Waller would not be picked ahead of either.
If Dockrell was to be left out (not that he would be) we would presumably be playing with two batsmen, 2 wicket-keepers and 7 all-rounders?
If I understand correctly, one of the O's is a pacier bowler who bats a bit, whilst the other is a medium pacer all/rounder.
If this is the case, albeit a broad categorising, I can't see any reason why Waller would not be picked ahead of either.
If Dockrell was to be left out (not that he would be) we would presumably be playing with two batsmen, 2 wicket-keepers and 7 all-rounders?
Re: One day stuff at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 13:05
I think you'll find both wicket keepers can also bat but you are right. It's a young lot though I'm not sure I'd classify it as 'green' as that.
Some of the players there have been through competition in short format matches that some of the Surrey boys have been nowhere near. Time to prove some of the guys are not one day 'virgins' any more.
Some of the players there have been through competition in short format matches that some of the Surrey boys have been nowhere near. Time to prove some of the guys are not one day 'virgins' any more.
Re: One day stuff at the Oval
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 13:09
I think it's less green in one-day terms than it would be in CC terms, for sure.
Still debating whether to sack off the second half of the day and head to Oval but it is very cold and very heavily overcast and I notice that they've been off for bad light at Lord's.
Would I be correct in assuming that they have the floodlighs in place at the Oval and are permitted to use them in the Pro 40?
Still debating whether to sack off the second half of the day and head to Oval but it is very cold and very heavily overcast and I notice that they've been off for bad light at Lord's.
Would I be correct in assuming that they have the floodlighs in place at the Oval and are permitted to use them in the Pro 40?
Re: One day stuff at the Oval
Posted by: hantssabre (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 13:37
With a 3.40 start, I hope they're going to use the floodlights!
Re: One day stuff at the Oval
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 13:46
Not sure I'm going to see it floodlights or not as the game is being covered on SKY4 and that suggests it won't be on liveonlinefooty.
Have to put up with the radio I think.
Have to put up with the radio I think.
Re: One day stuff at the Oval
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 14:13
Quote:hantssabre
With a 3.40 start, I hope they're going to use the floodlights!
I can't reply to that without it sounding sarcastic.
Re: One day stuff at the Oval
Posted by: Blub (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 14:27
Grockle, I have not posted on here for some time, but during that time, I have noticed that our 'keepers can bat :-)
My comment was made very much with tongue in cheek.
My comment was made very much with tongue in cheek.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 14:50
Welcome back Blub. I realised that. So was mine.
It was the list of "...2 batsmen, 2 keepers...". I'm not sure Jos would classify himself as a keeper before a batsman.
The batting doesn't actually look all that bad but the bowling looks very very uncertain when you list it. We don't have our first choice new ball attack. We don't even have most of our second choice version!!
If we'd asked people to predict the first bowlers to play in our one day opener in order of preference I'd expect our new ball starter to be at best third or fourth on that list and others would be at numbers close to double figures.
It was the list of "...2 batsmen, 2 keepers...". I'm not sure Jos would classify himself as a keeper before a batsman.
The batting doesn't actually look all that bad but the bowling looks very very uncertain when you list it. We don't have our first choice new ball attack. We don't even have most of our second choice version!!
If we'd asked people to predict the first bowlers to play in our one day opener in order of preference I'd expect our new ball starter to be at best third or fourth on that list and others would be at numbers close to double figures.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Blub (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 15:00
Indeed - I am sure that there were games last year that saw todays (probable) opening bowler go through a whole innings without turning his arm over.
Trego
Meschede
Overton
Dockrell
Waller
Gregory
Wouldn't strike fear through an experienced batting line-up on a traditional Oval track.
having said that, I feel strangely excited about such a green (imho) attack. Fair play (and good luck) to them.
Trego
Meschede
Overton
Dockrell
Waller
Gregory
Wouldn't strike fear through an experienced batting line-up on a traditional Oval track.
having said that, I feel strangely excited about such a green (imho) attack. Fair play (and good luck) to them.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 15:18
We won the toss and will bowl - as we would also have done had James called incorrectly.
Max plays alongside George and Jamie O.
Max plays alongside George and Jamie O.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 15:20
I do wonder if Surrey might underestimate our bowling, and James has just won the toss and is bowling. I have a feeling that we shall not let ourselves down andwho knows what will happen.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 15:20
Yep. Lewis needs to show the one day form of last year and Peter needs to keep going the way he has this year. Those two on fire could be a handful to an overconfident Surrey line-up. But after them we need very tight spin and/or tighter seam from Overton and Meschede.
Batting wise - pray that Jos fires when called upon to do so and Marcus may not be missed overmuch.
But it could all go horribly wrong as well..... Oooooeeeerr Missus!
Batting wise - pray that Jos fires when called upon to do so and Marcus may not be missed overmuch.
But it could all go horribly wrong as well..... Oooooeeeerr Missus!
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 15:40
Quote:Frome Exile
We won the toss and will bowl - as we would also have done had James called incorrectly.
Max plays alongside George and Jamie O.
Probably the right decision - need to put the pressure on your stronger suit in the second half of a one-day game.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 16:04
After 6 overs not a lot wrong with the bowling, by Jove, but some excellent one day batting from Ham=B and Davies
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 16:14
Does it look a good track, GM?
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Sloop John B (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 16:26
A very good batting strip. No movement for seamers.
Batters can hit through the line.
George now into the attack.
Batters can hit through the line.
George now into the attack.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Frome Exile (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 16:26
Slowish but true.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 16:29
From my vantage point 300 miles away (but with a big screen!!) there don't seem to be any gremlins.One difficult chance dropped and a run out not taken.At the oval with this attack I would be happy to chase 280 and hope.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 16:40
I think we will be chasing a lot more than 280. Need wickets to slow em down.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 16:41
Well, the thing is Ronnie that these two might, arguably, be their quickest scoring players?
So assuming they do not stay in throughout, there might not be THAT much acceleration!? (fingers crossed!)
So assuming they do not stay in throughout, there might not be THAT much acceleration!? (fingers crossed!)
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 16:54
Realistically I think Ronnie is right. We could be chasing 350.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Sloop John B (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 17:06
Things are not going to plan at all!
Jos makes a great leaping stop over the boundary and gets it back into play - and the umpires give four!!! After do8bts....they correct it.
Max takes brilliant stop/catch and the square leg umpire who was close can't call it. Replays inconclusive.
AT LAST Trigger mangles Davies stumps.
Jos makes a great leaping stop over the boundary and gets it back into play - and the umpires give four!!! After do8bts....they correct it.
Max takes brilliant stop/catch and the square leg umpire who was close can't call it. Replays inconclusive.
AT LAST Trigger mangles Davies stumps.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Sloop John B (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 17:30
Another umpire b***s up! Roy tries to reverse sweep Max and is given lbw. Only prob was it hit his forearm.
Our fielding is below par today. George has now missed a caught and bowled.
Our fielding is below par today. George has now missed a caught and bowled.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 17:58
Whatever the final score this match is very very much part of our young players education. If they can come out of it without too much damage, it will be a huge plus for BR and the coaches.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 18:01
Playing Kids is great in theory but you need experience to guide them through!!
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 18:18
Max Waller most economical bowler.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 18:23
yes and he bowled only 4 overs.
Be surprised if we get anywhere near this score.
Be surprised if we get anywhere near this score.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Angell Face (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 18:38
RS - as a doom merchant, you are the tops. You might have waited a few overs to see how we got on!
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 18:42
Is RS Scottish?? His favourite expression!! We're doomed, doomed! Reminds of a funeral director from Dads Army.
We might lose - however we might win! Whatever happens it is only a game of cricket, and nobodys dead!
We might lose - however we might win! Whatever happens it is only a game of cricket, and nobodys dead!
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 18:51
Angell face can you not do better than that?
Old Boy you dont know me and what my favourite expressions are.... or anything about me so you can retract that straight away. Or if you want to get personal send me a PM and we can deal with it that way!! Either way Im happy!!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:04:18:53:14 by Ronniesabre.
Old Boy you dont know me and what my favourite expressions are.... or anything about me so you can retract that straight away. Or if you want to get personal send me a PM and we can deal with it that way!! Either way Im happy!!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:04:18:53:14 by Ronniesabre.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 18:53
I started off expecting us to have to chase 280= the average first innings score at the Oval is nearly 270- and I think this is a little bit too far.Let's see how well we do.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Ronniesabre (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 18:55
Is GM another doom merchant Angell man?
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 18:57
Just got in to watch reply.
What was the bowling like?
How did Gregory bowl? Did he pitch it up?
How was J Overton?
What was the bowling like?
How did Gregory bowl? Did he pitch it up?
How was J Overton?
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 19:02
Already miles behind the rate.
Are we going to give this chase a real go or just bat normally and then see if there's any chance of going beserk in the last 10?
I'd think it would take a Jos ton to win this from here.
Are we going to give this chase a real go or just bat normally and then see if there's any chance of going beserk in the last 10?
I'd think it would take a Jos ton to win this from here.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 19:02
Hello RS - no offence intended of course. The doom word reminded me of Dads Army - I am also fond of Don't panic, don't panic!
For me the opportunity for so many youngsters to be tested in the heat of a real battle, is great for them. If they fail, there is always tomorrow!
For me the opportunity for so many youngsters to be tested in the heat of a real battle, is great for them. If they fail, there is always tomorrow!
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 19:04
Now that's more like it. Lovely from Compton.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Angell Face (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 19:06
RS. No - GM thinks it's a little bit too far. You think we won't get anywhere near it!
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 19:11
Every one knows I'm the resident pessimist!!
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 20:01
Arul/Jos pairing likely to be last realistic chance, I'd imagine.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 20:02
Quote:Ronniesabre
Playing Kids is great in theory but you need experience to guide them through!!
This isn't theory Ron... this is it. If you have another solution to the present problem given the resources that are available that will be a positive improvement and which could have been put into practice tonight I'm sure Somerset would love to hear it.
The "kids" are it and there ain't no other "experience" to call on I'm afraid. I'm not sure moaning about it is gonna help but hey whatever floats yer boat.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 20:08
There is a question though over the policy decision to go with zero experienced players in reserve.
We can complain about injuries but actually there are probably only 3 guys injured that would have played - Marcus, Kirby and then Dibble, with the latter not a certainty.
The unavailability of Alf and the overseas player have, of course, compounded it.
I don't know whether the policy was because nobody worth signing was available or whether there was no money to spend or whether it was more a statement of unswerving faith in the younger players?
We can complain about injuries but actually there are probably only 3 guys injured that would have played - Marcus, Kirby and then Dibble, with the latter not a certainty.
The unavailability of Alf and the overseas player have, of course, compounded it.
I don't know whether the policy was because nobody worth signing was available or whether there was no money to spend or whether it was more a statement of unswerving faith in the younger players?
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 20:09
We were doing reasonably but we are not having the rub og the green. Arul unlucky and Jos liekwise. This one has gone I'm afraid but it has been a learning experience I'm sure.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 20:09
Game over with Jos out.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 20:32
Hindsight is of little use here AG.
We could have done tons of things, had no injuries and then wondered why we bothered. Knowing what the situation is and then suggesting things that could have been done to solve this specific problem months ago is a as much use as making tea in a chocolate teapot. And then suggesting we should have used a steel one instead.
We didn't 'go with zero experienced players in reserve'.
Our first line bowling attack was backed up by extra seamers and a range of all rounders plus an extra spinner.
Show me the county who lose both their front line seamers AND the backups and would not be using inexperienced men - what the hell is Ansari for heaven's sake?
Overton was NOT the first choice should there be an injury. At one day level we should have Dibble, Hussain and Gregory to back up Kirby and I suppose Philander. We have one of those. Overton was 4th choice and only because Trego and Meschede had to cover for the loss of two more so Overton was our 6th choice.
Didn't people spend the winter worrying about batting cover? We can cover Marcus and again the cover is not "zero experience" especially at one day level.
We could have done tons of things, had no injuries and then wondered why we bothered. Knowing what the situation is and then suggesting things that could have been done to solve this specific problem months ago is a as much use as making tea in a chocolate teapot. And then suggesting we should have used a steel one instead.
We didn't 'go with zero experienced players in reserve'.
Our first line bowling attack was backed up by extra seamers and a range of all rounders plus an extra spinner.
Show me the county who lose both their front line seamers AND the backups and would not be using inexperienced men - what the hell is Ansari for heaven's sake?
Overton was NOT the first choice should there be an injury. At one day level we should have Dibble, Hussain and Gregory to back up Kirby and I suppose Philander. We have one of those. Overton was 4th choice and only because Trego and Meschede had to cover for the loss of two more so Overton was our 6th choice.
Didn't people spend the winter worrying about batting cover? We can cover Marcus and again the cover is not "zero experience" especially at one day level.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 20:39
It's all but no experience and in terms of first-class cricket which is really more of the worry, questions were raised about this over the winter so it's not purely a question of being wise after the event.
As i say, maybe the cupboard was bare in terms of funds in which case we had no choice other than to go with the squad as it was? Or maybe sod all even half decent experienced players were available?
Perhaps the ECB payment mechanism was also influential? I doubt we get payments for either Dockrell or Meschede, though, which somewhat neutralises the benefit of payments for guys like Gregory and Overton, though.
As i say, maybe the cupboard was bare in terms of funds in which case we had no choice other than to go with the squad as it was? Or maybe sod all even half decent experienced players were available?
Perhaps the ECB payment mechanism was also influential? I doubt we get payments for either Dockrell or Meschede, though, which somewhat neutralises the benefit of payments for guys like Gregory and Overton, though.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 20:50
For G-ds sake! We've lost by a 100 runs - first game of a batch. I think it is much too early to start analysing too much. PLEASE lay off the lads and lets see where we are after another few games!
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: rodders (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 20:51
Tend to agree with AG - think you are being overly protective of the club Grockle.
Today we only really had one batsman out with injury and we got nowhere near a decent total.
Even if our inadequate bowling resources had come good ( relatively ) we would still have lost.
I fear it is going to be a long hard season apart from the village green stuff ! Happy to be proved wrong in the fullness of time in which case I will eat humble pie with a good grace. Just don't think we will be up there in the competitions that count ( again, sigh ) !
Today we only really had one batsman out with injury and we got nowhere near a decent total.
Even if our inadequate bowling resources had come good ( relatively ) we would still have lost.
I fear it is going to be a long hard season apart from the village green stuff ! Happy to be proved wrong in the fullness of time in which case I will eat humble pie with a good grace. Just don't think we will be up there in the competitions that count ( again, sigh ) !
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 21:06
Questions were raised and put aside with a backup of young bowlers. An extra seamer was suggested and we all smiled when Philander was signed - many also identified that the seamer cupboard elsewhere was bare.
I don't remember you suggesting huge amounts of names of the seamers we could buy in to provide the massive increase in experience from the kolpak and domestic hordes - we already have the international who it seems we either did not plan to use as a one dayer or who has been interferred with by his country board.
The list was Kirby, Dibble, Hussain, Gregory, Meschede, Trego plus Dockrell, Waller and Suppiah with possbily Burke I think you mentioned - though he has no experience either that I know of. This is the one day line-up. Overton wasn't even considered as an option.
There is experience there but there is inexperience as well but I question that it's nearly "zero experience" but I don't know...was it you who suggested that Buttler's first season wasn't really his first season because he had started it late and therefore it wasn't a full one? - apologies if I have that wrong.
Gregory would I assume be in your one day bowling side even if Alf was back? If Dibble was fit I assume you would play him? Trego would also play and bowl should he be required? Kirby would definitely be in. Would that be a side with nearly zero experience because Gregory and Dibble were in it? Would you also play Meschede if Trescothick was unavailable?
Gregory is playing in this game and so is Trigger and Craig. They have all played before and done well. Kirby, Hussain, Philander, Dibble are all out - where do you expect to go for your seam attack? If we had the kolpak/domestic you now say we all discussed and decided we needed in the winter, where would you go for your others? If not to the second team then where? The only player to miss out would have been Overton but suddenly this side with most of the players who were in it last year has 'zero experience' or as near as damn it.
Talk about first class NEXT week, the game today is ONE DAY. the four day will be another problem for another thread and some more incredibly logical hindsight.
I don't remember you suggesting huge amounts of names of the seamers we could buy in to provide the massive increase in experience from the kolpak and domestic hordes - we already have the international who it seems we either did not plan to use as a one dayer or who has been interferred with by his country board.
The list was Kirby, Dibble, Hussain, Gregory, Meschede, Trego plus Dockrell, Waller and Suppiah with possbily Burke I think you mentioned - though he has no experience either that I know of. This is the one day line-up. Overton wasn't even considered as an option.
There is experience there but there is inexperience as well but I question that it's nearly "zero experience" but I don't know...was it you who suggested that Buttler's first season wasn't really his first season because he had started it late and therefore it wasn't a full one? - apologies if I have that wrong.
Gregory would I assume be in your one day bowling side even if Alf was back? If Dibble was fit I assume you would play him? Trego would also play and bowl should he be required? Kirby would definitely be in. Would that be a side with nearly zero experience because Gregory and Dibble were in it? Would you also play Meschede if Trescothick was unavailable?
Gregory is playing in this game and so is Trigger and Craig. They have all played before and done well. Kirby, Hussain, Philander, Dibble are all out - where do you expect to go for your seam attack? If we had the kolpak/domestic you now say we all discussed and decided we needed in the winter, where would you go for your others? If not to the second team then where? The only player to miss out would have been Overton but suddenly this side with most of the players who were in it last year has 'zero experience' or as near as damn it.
Talk about first class NEXT week, the game today is ONE DAY. the four day will be another problem for another thread and some more incredibly logical hindsight.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 21:15
How did Gregory go with the ball today?
It seems to have been a struggle for him bowling in the CC. Last season he was brilliant in the short stuff. But how did he look today? I fear that the back injury has really set him back. If so that is a big blow to our one day side.
It seems to have been a struggle for him bowling in the CC. Last season he was brilliant in the short stuff. But how did he look today? I fear that the back injury has really set him back. If so that is a big blow to our one day side.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 21:17
Sky sucking up to Surrey rather too much for my taste.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 21:27
Show me where I'm defending a poor batting performance Rodders? Our batting wasn't weak and losing by 105 runs is below par on any day with the batting we have.
If you look back a few posts you'll find me saying I don't think we have to cover Trescothick at all if Buttler fires so please don't criticise me for things I haven't tried to defend.
My argument is that even with hindisght the loss of over half the bowling resources of a club would put people in the firing line who weren't prepared for it. To blame that on the club for not covering for a 60% bowling inury list is downright daft and gets us nowhere.
Do the analysis if you want. Take away 60% of the bowling resources of every county and see if you've heared of every bowler they then have to use and measure their first team experience. It might be interesting to try and see what comes out ofd the woodwork. Maybe we could have brought some of them in on loan in advance?
It's the wise after the fact men I have problmes with. We have been weakened by injury and factors beyond our control but it doesn't create a side with 'zero experience' and it isn't solved by negative comments about what we should have done in December 2011 when there seems to have been oodles of bowlers just begging to sign as seam attack and we didn't pick them up.
And before we get into it. Charl Willoughby would not have played today had he stayed, except as a stop gap for the injured, and his past one day performances do not suggest he definitely would have done any better.
If you look back a few posts you'll find me saying I don't think we have to cover Trescothick at all if Buttler fires so please don't criticise me for things I haven't tried to defend.
My argument is that even with hindisght the loss of over half the bowling resources of a club would put people in the firing line who weren't prepared for it. To blame that on the club for not covering for a 60% bowling inury list is downright daft and gets us nowhere.
Do the analysis if you want. Take away 60% of the bowling resources of every county and see if you've heared of every bowler they then have to use and measure their first team experience. It might be interesting to try and see what comes out ofd the woodwork. Maybe we could have brought some of them in on loan in advance?
It's the wise after the fact men I have problmes with. We have been weakened by injury and factors beyond our control but it doesn't create a side with 'zero experience' and it isn't solved by negative comments about what we should have done in December 2011 when there seems to have been oodles of bowlers just begging to sign as seam attack and we didn't pick them up.
And before we get into it. Charl Willoughby would not have played today had he stayed, except as a stop gap for the injured, and his past one day performances do not suggest he definitely would have done any better.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 21:33
Never said loads of guys were out there to be signed. Don't know who was available nor if there was any money to spend.
I think Willoughby - a medium fast swing bowler would have done about as well today as Surrey's equivalent, Jon Lewis.
I think Willoughby - a medium fast swing bowler would have done about as well today as Surrey's equivalent, Jon Lewis.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 21:44
It is certainly not an unfair point Grockle re
ther counties and their resources.
Most Div One counties seem to operate with about 16 players who are either experienced or young guys firmly established at first-team level (a la Kieswetter.)
That is still a few more than us, though.
But it's true that there isn't oodles of experience doing the rounds. One wonders where it has all gone? Perhaps squeezed out, first by the Kolpaks and then by the change to the ECB central grant structure?
ther counties and their resources.
Most Div One counties seem to operate with about 16 players who are either experienced or young guys firmly established at first-team level (a la Kieswetter.)
That is still a few more than us, though.
But it's true that there isn't oodles of experience doing the rounds. One wonders where it has all gone? Perhaps squeezed out, first by the Kolpaks and then by the change to the ECB central grant structure?
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 21:51
Kieswetter
Trego
Compton
Buttler
Hildreth
Dockrell
Meschede
Gregory
Suppiah
I personally would have expected all these players to be in line for selection in a one day side we put out with a full squad to choose from. Craig Meschede would have missed out if the skipper was fit.
I would have expected Max Waller to be an option on a turning pitch (though Arul could have operated as the second spinner) some suggested going with a possible three spin attack at Surrey.
So our one day side - with a full squad would have included Trescothick (at the expense of Meschede) plus Kirby and either Dibble or Waller. Instead Meschede played and Overton came in for Kirby because the fourth option Hussain was also not available.
The 'zero experience' of Craig Overton was the reason for our 105 run loss to Surrey? Do me a favour.
An 80% strength side batted poorly and bowled poorly as a unit and that is why we lost to Surrey. The bowlers went for 7.3 an over.... you can't win 40 over games giving that advantage away unless you bat all 40 overs and someone does a Hamilton-Brown. Kieswetter, Trego and Suppiah in the top 6 contributed 10 together and without Marcus that can't happen.
Surrey - at home, bowled better and batted better and on top of that we underperformed as a unit. The defeat was because of the first and the size of it was because of the second.
Learn from it and move on. If better players become avalable then draft them in and do better next time. That's about it really. Nite.
Trego
Compton
Buttler
Hildreth
Dockrell
Meschede
Gregory
Suppiah
I personally would have expected all these players to be in line for selection in a one day side we put out with a full squad to choose from. Craig Meschede would have missed out if the skipper was fit.
I would have expected Max Waller to be an option on a turning pitch (though Arul could have operated as the second spinner) some suggested going with a possible three spin attack at Surrey.
So our one day side - with a full squad would have included Trescothick (at the expense of Meschede) plus Kirby and either Dibble or Waller. Instead Meschede played and Overton came in for Kirby because the fourth option Hussain was also not available.
The 'zero experience' of Craig Overton was the reason for our 105 run loss to Surrey? Do me a favour.
An 80% strength side batted poorly and bowled poorly as a unit and that is why we lost to Surrey. The bowlers went for 7.3 an over.... you can't win 40 over games giving that advantage away unless you bat all 40 overs and someone does a Hamilton-Brown. Kieswetter, Trego and Suppiah in the top 6 contributed 10 together and without Marcus that can't happen.
Surrey - at home, bowled better and batted better and on top of that we underperformed as a unit. The defeat was because of the first and the size of it was because of the second.
Learn from it and move on. If better players become avalable then draft them in and do better next time. That's about it really. Nite.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 22:09
"Most Div One counties seem to operate with about 16 players who are either experienced or young guys firmly established at first-team level (a la Kieswetter.)"
You are comparing the likes of Ansari to Kieswetter then are you? Craig Kieswetter is an international in his fourth full season as an established first team regular (he isn't a fringe player under any definition) and you are suggesting that many other counties have players of that calibre just sitting around playing second team cricket and waiting to come into the first team on a moment's notice?
Well that does not seem to fit with the domestic game that you suggested existed when discussing the development of the English T20 setup versus the IPL arrangment.
I'd be very very interested to look at the CV's of these firmly established 'fringe players' English counties seem to have lots of... mostly bowlers I assume?
And what does one of these counties with a squad of 16 do when it loses its captain and opening batsmen, both of it's new ball bowlers and it's two seam backup men? I suppose it can still operate because there are 11 men still available who will fit all the roles required because of their "firmly established" credentials?
I would still suggest that there are counties in our division who would find coping with our present situation extremely difficult and you would see people drafted in with little more experience than Craig Overton, the only person actually drafted into this side that was not a well established member of our usual 12 or 13 man one day squad.
You are comparing the likes of Ansari to Kieswetter then are you? Craig Kieswetter is an international in his fourth full season as an established first team regular (he isn't a fringe player under any definition) and you are suggesting that many other counties have players of that calibre just sitting around playing second team cricket and waiting to come into the first team on a moment's notice?
Well that does not seem to fit with the domestic game that you suggested existed when discussing the development of the English T20 setup versus the IPL arrangment.
I'd be very very interested to look at the CV's of these firmly established 'fringe players' English counties seem to have lots of... mostly bowlers I assume?
And what does one of these counties with a squad of 16 do when it loses its captain and opening batsmen, both of it's new ball bowlers and it's two seam backup men? I suppose it can still operate because there are 11 men still available who will fit all the roles required because of their "firmly established" credentials?
I would still suggest that there are counties in our division who would find coping with our present situation extremely difficult and you would see people drafted in with little more experience than Craig Overton, the only person actually drafted into this side that was not a well established member of our usual 12 or 13 man one day squad.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Botham (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 22:10
I don't think we are learning,judging by our wayward bowling. I'm glad i was out.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 22:23
I have to admit so am I Botham :-)
Difficult to learn and then improve with only one, one day game of the season gone but you are right, we have to get it a hell of a lot better than this.
Difficult to learn and then improve with only one, one day game of the season gone but you are right, we have to get it a hell of a lot better than this.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 22:26
No, not comparing Ansari to Kieswetter.
Did not mention Ansari.
Did not mention Ansari.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: ronnies (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 22:47
Grockle I was making a general statement into the way youngsters should be brought through, and not all at once. Just answering general comments about others comments about playing youngsters not about our position specifically.
What floats my boat is Somerset winning not getting gubbed and generally putting in a poor performance. Apart from Middx we have been dominated by the weather, interference, injury, bad luck and inexperience. Never has a county club been so badly affected and no matter what the players say you are bound to be affected. We need a boost. Dont know what that is be it signing Shazhad or whatever, but I tell you this the next 2 CC games are massive and we MUST perform and they wont be easy. We will be second favourites in each I would suspect. With Warks so dominant we would be playing catch up again which is exactly what Rose said he didnt want............but here we are
Angell fizog try watching the game in front of you rather than making comments of other posters. If you ever want your expectations managed give me a shout, happy to oblige at any time.
On to Durham....I will be there so hopefully see first hand an improved performance.
What floats my boat is Somerset winning not getting gubbed and generally putting in a poor performance. Apart from Middx we have been dominated by the weather, interference, injury, bad luck and inexperience. Never has a county club been so badly affected and no matter what the players say you are bound to be affected. We need a boost. Dont know what that is be it signing Shazhad or whatever, but I tell you this the next 2 CC games are massive and we MUST perform and they wont be easy. We will be second favourites in each I would suspect. With Warks so dominant we would be playing catch up again which is exactly what Rose said he didnt want............but here we are
Angell fizog try watching the game in front of you rather than making comments of other posters. If you ever want your expectations managed give me a shout, happy to oblige at any time.
On to Durham....I will be there so hopefully see first hand an improved performance.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Wickham (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 22:57
It was Jove (rather than Cove) who played today - and I thought that he acquitted himself well, in all the circumstances, and showed a good deal of promise.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Grizzers (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 23:26
Out all day - so just catching up.
Well, the season certainly has potential. Which way is quite another question.......
Grizzzly
Well, the season certainly has potential. Which way is quite another question.......
Grizzzly
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 23:27
I have to say that the Durham faithful don't think of us as second favourites next week. They have been comprehensively turned over by Warwick (we weren't- we lost by 2 wickets and were in it to the end) and are picking from a full squad. They are worried but I don't think they need be because there is serious underperforming going on . What did I see tonight.
I said pre game that I expected Surrey to get 280 and they did- and not too many more over. We didn't bowl too badly. Surrey got off to a flyer ,we failed to hang on to 2 difficult chances and missed a possible run out. Surrey batted well, but 2 early wickets and the way we came back and it could have been a different story. Craig K looked ill at ease and the only batsmen who seemed happy were Nick James and Jos. There are 11 more games to play. I'm not anticipating us winning this competition this year, but I do think Surrey will be the side to beat-and our last match is against them at Taunton.
I said pre game that I expected Surrey to get 280 and they did- and not too many more over. We didn't bowl too badly. Surrey got off to a flyer ,we failed to hang on to 2 difficult chances and missed a possible run out. Surrey batted well, but 2 early wickets and the way we came back and it could have been a different story. Craig K looked ill at ease and the only batsmen who seemed happy were Nick James and Jos. There are 11 more games to play. I'm not anticipating us winning this competition this year, but I do think Surrey will be the side to beat-and our last match is against them at Taunton.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Botham (IP Logged)
Date: 04/05/2012 23:36
It doesn't matter how young or inexperienced players are, if you bowl short and wide, you will suffer, especially during the fielding restrictions. That is an area we need to improve on and quickly.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Roger Sweet (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 01:11
Tonight was not a huge surprise. The biggest disappointment was our fielding. Chasing 295 was always going to be a very large target. It has been a great experience for our younger players. Re the Overton twins, isn't Craig the all-rounder more suited to one day and Jamie the bowler for 4 day???
Re the lbw decision for Roy, surely it does not matter what part of his body the ball hits as long as it is not the glove to be given out. Looking at the TV replays, very diificult to say whether the ball hit the glove or the arm just above the glove. Hawkeye showed the ball hitting the stumps and in my opinion the umpire's decision was not bizarre.
Should we have another couple of early losses in the 40/40, I would advocate using this competition to continue to blood our young academy players. It will be great for our future and leave us to concentrate on the County Championship and the 20/20
Re the lbw decision for Roy, surely it does not matter what part of his body the ball hits as long as it is not the glove to be given out. Looking at the TV replays, very diificult to say whether the ball hit the glove or the arm just above the glove. Hawkeye showed the ball hitting the stumps and in my opinion the umpire's decision was not bizarre.
Should we have another couple of early losses in the 40/40, I would advocate using this competition to continue to blood our young academy players. It will be great for our future and leave us to concentrate on the County Championship and the 20/20
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 04:36
Thanks Wickham. I just assumed we would play the man who had already done his debuting rather than his brother and I also assumed we'd play the allrounder version of an Overton. Whoops.
AG is your counter argument from now on going to be references to things you didn't mention? I know you didn't mention Ansari (I did in fact. Thought you would have picked that up while readind) but you mentioned these 5 players on the edge of county first teams ready to drop in at a moments notice and with first team experience and firmly established credentials.
I simply assumed that Ansari was one of those for Surrey (and therefore used him as an example) as he had been brought in from the fringe for this game. I just thought the comparison with a player like Craig Kieswetter was a little over the top to say the least as he has neither the experience or the firmly established quality even though he did well.
Just for a little guidance. What you specifically refer to and what is inferred by your statements are not always the same and sometimes people will use analogy to counter. They might, in doing so, mention things or individuals that you didn't without actually inferring that you did.... therefore stating that you didn't mention something when no-one suggested you did does not counter an argument. Hope this helps you get your head around things in the future.
AG is your counter argument from now on going to be references to things you didn't mention? I know you didn't mention Ansari (I did in fact. Thought you would have picked that up while readind) but you mentioned these 5 players on the edge of county first teams ready to drop in at a moments notice and with first team experience and firmly established credentials.
I simply assumed that Ansari was one of those for Surrey (and therefore used him as an example) as he had been brought in from the fringe for this game. I just thought the comparison with a player like Craig Kieswetter was a little over the top to say the least as he has neither the experience or the firmly established quality even though he did well.
Just for a little guidance. What you specifically refer to and what is inferred by your statements are not always the same and sometimes people will use analogy to counter. They might, in doing so, mention things or individuals that you didn't without actually inferring that you did.... therefore stating that you didn't mention something when no-one suggested you did does not counter an argument. Hope this helps you get your head around things in the future.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 07:01
Quote:Roger Sweet
Tonight was not a huge surprise. The biggest disappointment was our fielding. Chasing 295 was always going to be a very large target. It has been a great experience for our younger players. Re the Overton twins, isn't Craig the all-rounder more suited to one day and Jamie the bowler for 4 day???
Re the lbw decision for Roy, surely it does not matter what part of his body the ball hits as long as it is not the glove to be given out. Looking at the TV replays, very diificult to say whether the ball hit the glove or the arm just above the glove. Hawkeye showed the ball hitting the stumps and in my opinion the umpire's decision was not bizarre.
Should we have another couple of early losses in the 40/40, I would advocate using this competition to continue to blood our young academy players. It will be great for our future and leave us to concentrate on the County Championship and the 20/20
Well said! I agree!
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 07:45
Quote:Roger Sweet
Re the lbw decision for Roy, surely it does not matter what part of his body the ball hits as long as it is not the glove to be given out. Looking at the TV replays, very diificult to say whether the ball hit the glove or the arm just above the glove. Hawkeye showed the ball hitting the stumps and in my opinion the umpire's decision was not bizarre.
I agree with you on that, you can be given out lbw if it hits any part of the body if the umpire feels it would have gone on and hit the stumps, providing it is not off the glove or bat which the umpire didn't think it did.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 08:01
Right, Grockle, so you were assuming that Ansari was somebody that Surrey were forced into picking - one ov their cover players.
I think they simply chose to pick him. Certainly two very experienced guys, Rudolph and Ramprakash, were not picked. Another guy more experienced than Ansari that could have been picked was Chris Jordan and another Tim Linley.
My point with the 16 players was not that there are 16 hugely experienced players but that there are 16 who either are very experienced or who are proven younger men and Craig K was an example of the latter. Ansari is an example of neither.
I think they simply chose to pick him. Certainly two very experienced guys, Rudolph and Ramprakash, were not picked. Another guy more experienced than Ansari that could have been picked was Chris Jordan and another Tim Linley.
My point with the 16 players was not that there are 16 hugely experienced players but that there are 16 who either are very experienced or who are proven younger men and Craig K was an example of the latter. Ansari is an example of neither.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 08:28
Last seasons first CB40 match team.
Trescothick, Kieswetter, Trego, Compton, Hildreth, Buttler, Suppiah, Gregory, Hussain, Mendis and Kirby.
This season first CB40 match team.
Compton, Kieswetter, Trego, Hildreth, Buttler, Suppiah, Meschede, Gregory, Waller, J Overton and Dockrell.
Out – Trescothick, Hussain, Mendis and Kirby.
In – Meschede, Waller, J Overton and Dockrell.
Looking at last nights team it was less experienced than the previous year. Last year we won this year we lost.
Trescothick, Kieswetter, Trego, Compton, Hildreth, Buttler, Suppiah, Gregory, Hussain, Mendis and Kirby.
This season first CB40 match team.
Compton, Kieswetter, Trego, Hildreth, Buttler, Suppiah, Meschede, Gregory, Waller, J Overton and Dockrell.
Out – Trescothick, Hussain, Mendis and Kirby.
In – Meschede, Waller, J Overton and Dockrell.
Looking at last nights team it was less experienced than the previous year. Last year we won this year we lost.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 08:34
I'm assuming nothing about Ansari - I'm not trying to make a point about this strong 16 man cohort counties have. That's your general theory.
I'm simply pointing out that a) Kieswetter is not a good example for your 'young gun' and b) Ansari doesn't fit your profile as you have admitted.
It's your theory you get it to fit however you like.
Based on it Somerset have a core of 15 as far as I can see and 5 of them are unavailable 4 on the injury list and 1 for other reasons (both the original and his replacement) so we bring in one player from outside that core and we have lost most of our experience (I think you only went to 'near zero'). We really are completely out of synch with all the other counties aren't we? Simply my assessment of the inference under your theory.
(AG DIDN'T ACTUALLY SAY THIS EVERYONE)?
I'm simply pointing out that a) Kieswetter is not a good example for your 'young gun' and b) Ansari doesn't fit your profile as you have admitted.
It's your theory you get it to fit however you like.
Based on it Somerset have a core of 15 as far as I can see and 5 of them are unavailable 4 on the injury list and 1 for other reasons (both the original and his replacement) so we bring in one player from outside that core and we have lost most of our experience (I think you only went to 'near zero'). We really are completely out of synch with all the other counties aren't we? Simply my assessment of the inference under your theory.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 08:36
They were saying last night that you need 9 or 10 wins from this game to go through, so we will probably be 'playing for pride,' quite quickly as neither Tres nor Alf will be back in time to save us and I doubt Philander will play any part in our Pro 40 team.
But more important by far is the CC. Think we'll need a crackerjack effort from Philander to get by Durham both because our pace bowling depth is suspect beyond the new ball pair and because our batting will probably be suspect minus Tres and Compton.
I assume that Onions is at least playing in the same game as Compton? Gregory and Barrow would face a really tall order in the top three against him.
But more important by far is the CC. Think we'll need a crackerjack effort from Philander to get by Durham both because our pace bowling depth is suspect beyond the new ball pair and because our batting will probably be suspect minus Tres and Compton.
I assume that Onions is at least playing in the same game as Compton? Gregory and Barrow would face a really tall order in the top three against him.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 08:50
Now that is a problem and if Shahzad is coming he'd better get his skates on.
But also the batting had better get it's backside in gear for EVERY GAME because we can't be relying on the bowling to get us out of the mire like it had to on more than one occasion last season because the willow men did not pull their weight.
But also the batting had better get it's backside in gear for EVERY GAME because we can't be relying on the bowling to get us out of the mire like it had to on more than one occasion last season because the willow men did not pull their weight.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Bobstan (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 08:52
I do think that we must give some credit to Surrey and their coaching staff.
I thought Surrey's fielding was exceptional and that their batsmen's very quick first run was always putting pressure on our fielders.
Their opening batsmen played beautifully, clearly seeing the ball very early.
I too thought, as per Wickham, that Joverton showed quite a lot of promise.
In answer to one of AGod's questions my impression was that Lewis G has lost an edge of speed, hopefully temporarily, and that he was not bending his back quite as much as when I saw him bowl last season.
I thought Surrey's fielding was exceptional and that their batsmen's very quick first run was always putting pressure on our fielders.
Their opening batsmen played beautifully, clearly seeing the ball very early.
I too thought, as per Wickham, that Joverton showed quite a lot of promise.
In answer to one of AGod's questions my impression was that Lewis G has lost an edge of speed, hopefully temporarily, and that he was not bending his back quite as much as when I saw him bowl last season.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 09:07
Yes, Bobstan, Lewis looked somewhat stiff at T Bridge.
I assume his action has been re-modelled so as to put less strain on his back - hence the back being straighter.
I think, unsurprisingly, that it will take him time to adjust to his new action.
I assume his action has been re-modelled so as to put less strain on his back - hence the back being straighter.
I think, unsurprisingly, that it will take him time to adjust to his new action.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 09:11
I can't believe the people of London returned Boris the Fop to office.
What on earth is going on over there?
We lost a game.
Big deal.
Move on.
What on earth is going on over there?
We lost a game.
Big deal.
Move on.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 09:14
Grockle - i think the point is that in first class terms then, if you include Hussain as part of the first 12 then SCCC literally only have those 12 - including an overseas player - before we are down to guys with very little CC experience.
To wit;
Marcus
Arul
Compton
Hildreth
Craig K
Buttler
Trego
Alf
Kirby
Hussain
An overseas
Dockrell ( who to be fair also has little CC experience)
And..er... That's it.
Reservres being Jones, Barrow, Gregory, Meschede, Dibble, Waller and the Overtons.
I'd be very, very surprised if that does not constitute the least experienced CC squad in Div One. And probably by some distance.
To wit;
Marcus
Arul
Compton
Hildreth
Craig K
Buttler
Trego
Alf
Kirby
Hussain
An overseas
Dockrell ( who to be fair also has little CC experience)
And..er... That's it.
Reservres being Jones, Barrow, Gregory, Meschede, Dibble, Waller and the Overtons.
I'd be very, very surprised if that does not constitute the least experienced CC squad in Div One. And probably by some distance.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Bagpuss (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 10:43
Post-match discussions with my Surrey friends in the pub centered around Somerset's decision to bowl first - they thought this was a big mistake. Decided to try to look up some stats.
Since 2009 Surrey have played 14 list A matches at the Oval. They have only won the toss 4 times, but have chosen to bat on every occasion. Visiting teams have tended to do the same - in ten matches the team who won the toss chose to bat first. On the four occastion that the team who won the toss chose to field first, the team that won the toss lost the match.
Four teams who won the toss and chose to bat did lose; one of these was Scotland, another, Glamorgan was victim to a Duckworth-Lewis result. That may have influenced them when they returned the following year, won the toss and chose to field. Surrey openers Rory HB and Davies put on an opening partnership of 190 runs as Surrey amassed 386-3 in their allotted 38 overs.
Since 2009 Surrey have played 14 list A matches at the Oval. They have only won the toss 4 times, but have chosen to bat on every occasion. Visiting teams have tended to do the same - in ten matches the team who won the toss chose to bat first. On the four occastion that the team who won the toss chose to field first, the team that won the toss lost the match.
Four teams who won the toss and chose to bat did lose; one of these was Scotland, another, Glamorgan was victim to a Duckworth-Lewis result. That may have influenced them when they returned the following year, won the toss and chose to field. Surrey openers Rory HB and Davies put on an opening partnership of 190 runs as Surrey amassed 386-3 in their allotted 38 overs.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Bobstan (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 10:52
I would agree with your political comment had I not not seen the alternatives, BJ. Devils and Deep Blue Seas spring to mind.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: rodders (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 11:07
Re AG post at 09.14 - to me that is pretty frightening - even more so when you exclude Alf from the list during IPL time.
I admit that I had never really thought about it but now that I have I fear we are a bit short of resources whichever way you look at it !
I admit that I had never really thought about it but now that I have I fear we are a bit short of resources whichever way you look at it !
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Sloop John B (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 11:21
I take back what I said about the Roy decision. Sky (and I) thought initially it had hit his wrist but replays showed it was the arm which as posters have rightly pointed out can be candidate for LBW. Sorry Ump!
We didn't field too well and there were two missed runouts and a few half chances grassed. But I think we were playing catch up all along as they got off to a flyer and as soon as they had posted their total we were up against scoreboard pressure and Craig K, Pete and co did not seem to be in any control of the situation. They bowled and fielded rather better than us and we just have to say 'Well done Surrey' They do look a very good one day team.
I shall start to worry only when we are back to full strength and still put in weak performances!
We didn't field too well and there were two missed runouts and a few half chances grassed. But I think we were playing catch up all along as they got off to a flyer and as soon as they had posted their total we were up against scoreboard pressure and Craig K, Pete and co did not seem to be in any control of the situation. They bowled and fielded rather better than us and we just have to say 'Well done Surrey' They do look a very good one day team.
I shall start to worry only when we are back to full strength and still put in weak performances!
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Big Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 12:04
Anything...anything is better than a Tory, Bobs.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Nailsea_Fizz (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 12:09
Quote:AGod
Grockle - i think the point is that in first class terms then, if you include Hussain as part of the first 12 then SCCC literally only have those 12 - including an overseas player - before we are down to guys with very little CC experience.
To wit;
Marcus
Arul
Compton
Hildreth
Craig K
Buttler
Trego
Alf
Kirby
Hussain
An overseas
Dockrell ( who to be fair also has little CC experience)
And..er... That's it.
Reservres being Jones, Barrow, Gregory, Meschede, Dibble, Waller and the Overtons.
I'd be very, very surprised if that does not constitute the least experienced CC squad in Div One. And probably by some distance.
In that case i'm going to cross my fingers close my eyes and hide away until September - We've got no chance
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 13:03
It was horribly cold and Somerset didn't bowl or bat very well and I had a lovely day. It didn't actually rain and Surrey's openers were a delight to watch, as was the fielding of their whole side. Overton looked good, as did Max and there were glimpses of good batting from Compton, Hildreth and Buttler and a few good strokes from some of the others.
It was cricket, for goodness sake, my first of the summer, spent in the excellent company of Bobstan and Wickham and others, with a fine view from the pavilion and friendly Surrey supporters to banter with. There's lots more to come and one day the sun will shine.
And I much enjoyed a pre-match pint (or two) with the new slimline Tractor.
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
It was cricket, for goodness sake, my first of the summer, spent in the excellent company of Bobstan and Wickham and others, with a fine view from the pavilion and friendly Surrey supporters to banter with. There's lots more to come and one day the sun will shine.
And I much enjoyed a pre-match pint (or two) with the new slimline Tractor.
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 13:33
One of these days a few of our youngsters will come good, either batting or bowling (fielding is a big plus already with them) and we will be asking what was all the fuss about?
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 13:51
Quote:Bobstan
I would agree with your political comment had I not not seen the alternatives, BJ. Devils and Deep Blue Seas spring to mind.
To be honest the post is not that much more than the purely ceremonial post that it once was.
There was a very low turnout. Livingstone was dishonest about his tax affairs and that did for him, quite frankly.
There is, BJ, one silver lining .. This was a bad result for one Gideon Osborne as it puts Boris in a stronger position to eventually succeed the wonderful Mr Cameron.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 15:06
How much is 'experience' then AG?
If you include Dockrell even though his CC experience is low you have to include Waller whose short form experience measures over 50 games
Both Meschede and Gregory have at least a season of first team involvement ( 67 first team starts between them) - maybe they need to have served far more according to your 'experieometer' but one thing you don't identify is the relative age of our players and the amount of first team experience they have.
This is a starting point BUT these players have (we hope) significant cricketing lives before them and are already into it in their late teens and early twenties. How do you become the Craig Kieswetter at his age without being the Lewis Gregory or Meschede at theirs?
Once more, all the negative factors.... none of the positives. I don't believe we are the least experienced squad. We could be the youngest most experienced however especially in short form cricket.
Anyway, it isn't what they've done, it is what they do surely? You don't rate them? Don't support them. If you support them then give the youngsters some credit for working at this level at their age and possibly some time to master their trade in difficult circumstances? A single one day match and you are already writing the side off.
The Championship is a more significant issue and why Shahzad would be a bonus BUT only until the players we expected to be starting the season actually start the season. Philander is a very important factor... but you seem to ignore the fact that he is here because the administration you seem to suggest made mistakes in not covering the bowlers actually signed him to be here.... as cover.
If you include Dockrell even though his CC experience is low you have to include Waller whose short form experience measures over 50 games
Both Meschede and Gregory have at least a season of first team involvement ( 67 first team starts between them) - maybe they need to have served far more according to your 'experieometer' but one thing you don't identify is the relative age of our players and the amount of first team experience they have.
This is a starting point BUT these players have (we hope) significant cricketing lives before them and are already into it in their late teens and early twenties. How do you become the Craig Kieswetter at his age without being the Lewis Gregory or Meschede at theirs?
Once more, all the negative factors.... none of the positives. I don't believe we are the least experienced squad. We could be the youngest most experienced however especially in short form cricket.
Anyway, it isn't what they've done, it is what they do surely? You don't rate them? Don't support them. If you support them then give the youngsters some credit for working at this level at their age and possibly some time to master their trade in difficult circumstances? A single one day match and you are already writing the side off.
The Championship is a more significant issue and why Shahzad would be a bonus BUT only until the players we expected to be starting the season actually start the season. Philander is a very important factor... but you seem to ignore the fact that he is here because the administration you seem to suggest made mistakes in not covering the bowlers actually signed him to be here.... as cover.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 15:18
It's the CC that I am talking about, Grockle, NOT one day. I'd have thought I'd have made that clear by now.
I did not 'ignore,' Philander. I listed an overseas player as part of the squad. For a couple more games it will be Philander, then maybe nobody for a couple of games, then A N Other for the rest of the season.
In CC terms it is surely the least experienced squad in CC1.
I did not 'ignore,' Philander. I listed an overseas player as part of the squad. For a couple more games it will be Philander, then maybe nobody for a couple of games, then A N Other for the rest of the season.
In CC terms it is surely the least experienced squad in CC1.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: old boy! (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 15:32
Quote:AGod
In CC terms it is surely the least experienced squad in CC1.
So, is your contention that the "experienced" teams would do better?? What would be the theory about why the "experienced" county champions are rubbish at present??
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 15:39
My contention, very simply, is that we would be likely to do better in the forthcoming CC games if we had more guys with a proven track record available to us.
I really do not regard it as a very radical contention.
I really do not regard it as a very radical contention.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 15:49
Then why is all your blather about experience on the thread about a one day game? We were talking about the side playing the game that was relevant you seemed to be involved in that discussion - gosh were you talking about the four day game? Wow!
Great to see your support for the signing of Philander... sorry I thought you were saying we'd not bought people in to supplement the bowling cover which you had forseen so early was very (near zero) inexperienced... silly me.
Great to see your support for the signing of Philander... sorry I thought you were saying we'd not bought people in to supplement the bowling cover which you had forseen so early was very (near zero) inexperienced... silly me.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 15:52
That is why I said FIRST CLASS right at the start, so bit of a giveaway as to what I was talking about.
No idea what you are talking about Re
hilander. I suggested we sign him before it was announced.
But he can't bowl first and second change, as well as new ball, nor cover for Tres or (next week) Compton.
So what's your point?
No idea what you are talking about Re
hilander. I suggested we sign him before it was announced.
But he can't bowl first and second change, as well as new ball, nor cover for Tres or (next week) Compton.
So what's your point?
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 16:27
You don't know what my point is? Gosh don't things change quickly?
All your conversations about the ONE DAY game were actually about the FOUR DAY game we weren't playing then? I posted that we were discussing the Surrey game and discussion of the four day was for another time... did you miss that then - I thought that would have equally been a 'giveaway' :-)
You seem to have wanted us to buy kolpak bowlers and domestic bowlers as well. Or at least that was my impression of your hindsight posting at the start of this thread relating to the injuries. I seemed to get the impression that you understood the issues of us losing half our bowling well before it actually happened and there was implied criticism that we hadn't covered (except with zero experience players) that contingency. But all the time it seemed you were extremely supportive and applauded the county's purchasing of cover.
Maybe that supportive aspect threw me.
Ref cover, Well we'll have to go to one of our batting players to cover for Tres and James will have to play the Compton role - though he hasn't had a lot of experience in that role so may be unable to do it. Looks like Alex or the Overtons' will have to step up again - damn they are so weak and inexperienced why do we pay them to do this - surely it would be far better for them to come fully developed to these situations as happens at every other county it seems.
We'd better hope our seam bowler with 26 first class games behind him is fit and shows some of that ability that got him his contract. But he isn't rated by you so maybe we'd better hope he isn't available because in his case experience doesn't count it seems because I think you explained last year that it was the wrong kind??
All your conversations about the ONE DAY game were actually about the FOUR DAY game we weren't playing then? I posted that we were discussing the Surrey game and discussion of the four day was for another time... did you miss that then - I thought that would have equally been a 'giveaway' :-)
You seem to have wanted us to buy kolpak bowlers and domestic bowlers as well. Or at least that was my impression of your hindsight posting at the start of this thread relating to the injuries. I seemed to get the impression that you understood the issues of us losing half our bowling well before it actually happened and there was implied criticism that we hadn't covered (except with zero experience players) that contingency. But all the time it seemed you were extremely supportive and applauded the county's purchasing of cover.
Maybe that supportive aspect threw me.
Ref cover, Well we'll have to go to one of our batting players to cover for Tres and James will have to play the Compton role - though he hasn't had a lot of experience in that role so may be unable to do it. Looks like Alex or the Overtons' will have to step up again - damn they are so weak and inexperienced why do we pay them to do this - surely it would be far better for them to come fully developed to these situations as happens at every other county it seems.
We'd better hope our seam bowler with 26 first class games behind him is fit and shows some of that ability that got him his contract. But he isn't rated by you so maybe we'd better hope he isn't available because in his case experience doesn't count it seems because I think you explained last year that it was the wrong kind??
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 16:44
Hussain is not a proven CC1 bowler, Grockle. That was what I said. Hopefully, as you say, he will get fit and then I hope he will prove himself at CC1 level.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 16:52
"I don't think I said he was" AG just that he had experience and had got a contract on the basis of it.
I think you said he'd bowled with the wrong ball and on the wrong wickets actually but I agree with your hopes as a supporter of Somerset.
I think you said he'd bowled with the wrong ball and on the wrong wickets actually but I agree with your hopes as a supporter of Somerset.
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: rodders (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 17:21
Sorry gang but perhaps we could create another forum for Grockle and AG.
As an occasional poster I sometimes agree with one and sometimes with the other but I am beginning to find their endless debates rather tiresome. Let's talk opinions about the club, team and players and not opinions about the English language and who said what and who meant what and who didn't say what but meant to !
I don't know about other forum users ( feel free to post your opinions ) but I would rather they carried on their personal vendettas by PM. Gets boring it does !
As an occasional poster I sometimes agree with one and sometimes with the other but I am beginning to find their endless debates rather tiresome. Let's talk opinions about the club, team and players and not opinions about the English language and who said what and who meant what and who didn't say what but meant to !
I don't know about other forum users ( feel free to post your opinions ) but I would rather they carried on their personal vendettas by PM. Gets boring it does !
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Loyal of Lhasa. (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 17:45
Rodders:I don't like to speak ill of our moderator and I strongly respect the right of him and AGod to express themselves in great detail and at great length here, but my practice whenever I see a dialogue between them is simply to scroll down (which I think may also be a right). They may be saying some extremely profound things, but I feel at my age that life is too short to seek to digest the entirety of their combined wisdom, so much of there is it. I am probably thus denying myself access to some real gems, particularly when, as happens not infrequently, AGod's main antagonist is AGod, but that is the noble sacrifice that I make.
I've never tweated and am not sure it should be allowed between consenting adults, but the idea of a limit on how long a posting can be is not unattractive. And perhaps one's computer should shut down automatically (cybernetic castration one could call it) if one attempts more than half a dozen postings an hour.
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:05:18:42:00 by Loyal of Lhasa..
I've never tweated and am not sure it should be allowed between consenting adults, but the idea of a limit on how long a posting can be is not unattractive. And perhaps one's computer should shut down automatically (cybernetic castration one could call it) if one attempts more than half a dozen postings an hour.
LoL
Sixty-six Seasons a Somerset Supporter
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:05:05:18:42:00 by Loyal of Lhasa..
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Grockle (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 18:05
And you know LoL I don't feel at all offended by that in any way at all.
Rodders, read it if it doesn't bore you, don't read it if it does... is all I can really offer as advice. LoL seems to be able to identify when we're off on one... you'll just have to try to develop the same skill I'm afraid :-)
Rodders, read it if it doesn't bore you, don't read it if it does... is all I can really offer as advice. LoL seems to be able to identify when we're off on one... you'll just have to try to develop the same skill I'm afraid :-)
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: Botham (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 22:32
It's so peaceful in Dorset.............
Re: Surrey seems to be the place we're at
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 05/05/2012 22:55
In terms of this Surrey game, I suppose one point is that our attack featured a lot of medium pace. The only medium pacer that Surrey bowled, Jon Lewis, got savaged.
Oval is often a bad place to bowl medium pace.
This bowling attack of medium pacers may fare better elsewhere in one day games, especially on slower tracks.
Oval is often a bad place to bowl medium pace.
This bowling attack of medium pacers may fare better elsewhere in one day games, especially on slower tracks.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.