Surrey vs Sri Lanka Development X1 at Guildford

According to the Oval website the "lunch" break is at 2.30pm for 30 minutes. Not sure they realise it's a 4 day game and not a One Day!
It's the same playing conditions as the Championship.
I may go for one day, but interested to see who we put out. Perhaps Virdi and Moriaty will get a look in.

nothing out yet, but there are some good memories of Guildford games in this link

https://www.kiaoval.com/guildford-first-class-matches/

Cant believe the Martin Bicknell game was 22 years ago

Brett Hutton has joined on loan from Notts.

why do we need another bowler. Its 2 of our top 5 that we will be missing in the next few weeks
also Jamie Smith still cant be fully fit, as this would have been a good opportunity to get some keeping practice in

https://www.kiaoval.com/surrey-name-an-exciting-side-to-take-on-the-sri-lanka-development-xi/

With all due respect to the "Sri Lankan Development Eleven", why on earth are we playing them when the New Zealand tourists are scheduled to play Sussex starting tomorrow? We are a first division side. Surely it would have been better preparation for them and a real opportunity for some of our players such as Ryan Patel and the two spinners to gain experience of playing against a good international side? Surely it would have been a much more fitting fixture to mark Guildford's 100th first-class match.

I would have gone to see some of us v the kiwis, either at The Oval or Guildford, but I really can't be arsed with this underwhelming offering.

We never play touring sides in 3/4 day games. If we have I don't recall one. In the 1950s we regularly played the Australians to huge crowds. The second division sides typically play them with second 11s, really a waste of time.
Actually the side we've put out for Guildford could make it a half decent game, but one day enough for me.

Jackers wrote:With all due respect to the "Sri Lankan Development Eleven", why on earth are we playing them when the New Zealand tourists are scheduled to play Sussex starting tomorrow? We are a first division side.  Surely it would have been better preparation for them and a real opportunity for some of our players such as Ryan Patel and the two spinners to gain experience of playing against a good international side? Surely it would have been a much more fitting fixture to mark Guildford's 100th first-class match.

I would have gone to see some of us v the kiwis, either at The Oval or Guildford, but I really can't be arsed with this underwhelming offering.

It's almost as if the ECB wishes to give major touring teams the poorest possible preparation against the flimsiest available opposition.

Coatesy wrote:why do we need another bowler. Its 2 of our top 5 that we will be missing in the next few weeks
also Jamie Smith still cant be fully fit, as this would have been a good opportunity to get some keeping practice in

https://www.kiaoval.com/surrey-name-an-exciting-side-to-take-on-the-sri-lanka-development-xi/

I guess Hutton becomes the replacement for De Grandhomme/Roach. We're playing mostly T20 for the next month and he's barely featured in that format for his other teams. In fact I think that's the main reason he left Notts for Northants a few years ago, before returning.

I'm sitting here in rural Suffolk where's pissing it down. Doesn't look much better down at Guildford!

Coatesy wrote:why do we need another bowler. Its 2 of our top 5 that we will be missing in the next few weeks
also Jamie Smith still cant be fully fit, as this would have been a good opportunity to get some keeping practice in

https://www.kiaoval.com/surrey-name-an-exciting-side-to-take-on-the-sri-lanka-development-xi/

Seems like Smith is keeping as we speak...

Coatesy wrote:why do we need another bowler. Its 2 of our top 5 that we will be missing in the next few weeks
also Jamie Smith still cant be fully fit, as this would have been a good opportunity to get some keeping practice in

https://www.kiaoval.com/surrey-name-an-exciting-side-to-take-on-the-sri-lanka-development-xi/

either my eyes must have been deceiving me a coupe of days ago, or I need a new pair of glasses. I could swear that Jamie Smith wasnt in the original squad, but its good to see him playing and with the gloves

Tom Lawes 3-6, not bad for someone born on 25/12/22 (according to Cricinfo)!

Not bad for a 99 year old.

That Jamie Smith stuff will be because he was misspelt as “Sam” in the squad announcement…

Will be interesting come Monday when Surrey also have a second xi T/20 game. Will it be a first team or a third one i wonder.

Not sure Virdi and Moriarty have really staked their claim to be the spinner ahead of Jacks on this performance. Virdi too expensive, Moriarty not effectual.

As we're playing at Taunton next and we'll be into June then we should be looking to play two.

While I am not yet fully convinced that Jacks has developed into a bona-fide spinner, he did well against Kent and will be needed regardless as a batsman now that Pope and Foakes are missing. Virdi and Moriarty are competing for one place in the next match.

On another note seeing Somerset get absolutely spanked again is funny

Anybody go today? Looks like a typical Guildford road. Don't think I'll go tomorrow.

Some friends went yesterday, and yes it's a road. Some 300 There apparently.

Well, I'm pleased that Ryan Patel has made some runs in a period where he's likely to be playing 2s and club cricket for a month or so

Yes, pleased to see Ryan Patel making hay. I bet he wishes he could play at Guildford all the time.

I'm even more pleased to see Jamie Smith in at 3. Even if Amla manages to get through the season it is a key position we are going to need filled in the future. Jamie seems to have the technique and temperament to fill it, though I think it would be too much to expect him to bat there and keep wicket on a regular basis, at least while he is still developing.

Jackers wrote:Yes, pleased to see Ryan Patel making hay. I bet he wishes he could play at Guildford all the time.

I'm even more pleased to see Jamie Smith in at 3. Even if Amla manages to get through the season it is a key position we are going to need filled in the future. Jamie seems to have the technique and temperament to fill it, though I think it would be too much to expect him to bat there and keep wicket on a regular basis, at least while he is still developing.

Not sure that coming is at 227-1 has much to do with batting number 3 in a real match!

As an aside, Brooke Guest bats number 3 and keeps wicket for Derbyshire and he is young but it is Div 2.

adelaide wrote:

Jackers wrote:Yes, pleased to see Ryan Patel making hay. I bet he wishes he could play at Guildford all the time.

I'm even more pleased to see Jamie Smith in at 3. Even if Amla manages to get through the season it is a key position we are going to need filled in the future. Jamie seems to have the technique and temperament to fill it, though I think it would be too much to expect him to bat there and keep wicket on a regular basis, at least while he is still developing.

Not sure that coming is at 227-1 has much to do with batting number 3 in a real match!

As an aside, Brooke Guest bats number 3 and keeps wicket for Derbyshire and he is young but it is Div 2.

Give it a fucking rest, Adelaide. The significant thing is that Smith was chosen to bat at 3 which, as Jackers stated, is a key position we are going to need filled before long. He could just as easily have been coming in at 0-1.

guildfordbat wrote:

adelaide wrote:

Jackers wrote:Yes, pleased to see Ryan Patel making hay. I bet he wishes he could play at Guildford all the time.

I'm even more pleased to see Jamie Smith in at 3. Even if Amla manages to get through the season it is a key position we are going to need filled in the future. Jamie seems to have the technique and temperament to fill it, though I think it would be too much to expect him to bat there and keep wicket on a regular basis, at least while he is still developing.

Not sure that coming is at 227-1 has much to do with batting number 3 in a real match!

As an aside, Brooke Guest bats number 3 and keeps wicket for Derbyshire and he is young but it is Div 2.

Give it a fucking rest, Adelaide. The significant thing is that Smith was chosen to bat at 3 which, as Jackers stated, is a key position we are going to need filled before long. He could just as easily have been coming in at 0-1.

To be fair, Adelaide's point is a valid one, in fact I think it tends to underline mine. It is a rare luxury for number 3 to come in with over 200 on the board. They are much more likely to be called on in the first hour of the innings, while the ball is new and the bowlers are fresh. I wasn't necessarily looking for any conclusive evidence of Smith's suitability in this particular match (he is out for a respectable 45, I see). Rather, I was pleased to see evidence of Surrey thinkng that way.

I know about Brooke Guest - he is in my fantasy team! I don't know enough about Derbyshire's circumstances to know what other wicket-keeping options they have, or whether Brooke is deputising (I was going to say "guesting") in the number three slot. But he is clearly very much the exception. I can think of very few examples of regular wicket keepers who have made a career out of batting in the top four. Alec Stewart, of course, though his average as opener or number three with England was noticeably higher when he did not keep wicket. The other factor is that many of us already see Jamie Smith as a potential Surrey captain: to bat at the top of the order, captain and keep wicket would be unrealistic. We have to hope that Ben Foakes is with us more than England in the next few years, or find another gloveman.