Surrey vs Sri Lanka Development X1 at Guildford

All I will say is that batting at the top of the order as well as keeping isn't easy work whomever you play for, whether this is Smith putting his hand up and getting some practice in I don't know, but he's certainly got the game for it.

Nice to see Reifer also get some runs on the board, whilst his opportunities over the past few years have come in white ball cricket, it's good to see him put a case forward whenever we have players missing through various means

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.

I was also going on the batting order shown on the BBC website, which read Patel, Steel, Geddes, Reifer, Smith... Steel obviously didn't open and the plan may have been to bat Smith at no 3 all along but the mere fact of him coming in in that position with 227 on the board (against what appears from previous matches to be a sub-2nd XI bowling attack) is not exactly conclusive evidence that he would also have come in at 0-1. If someonbe saw him padded up throughout, fair enough! No way am I knocking Smith, who appears to be a fine player.

Whatever way you look at it I'm not sure games like this are very relevant. I mean can you really judge a batsman 's capabilities on these tracks even with an average bowling attack? It's like an extended net. And coming in at 227/1 is completely different than coming at 3/1.

Well might eat my words here. Sri Lanka 5 down and 71 behind. I suspect one man and his dog are watching.

Ryan Patel's been called up for a County select XI against New Zealand starting at Chelmsford on Friday. Congrats to him, but from a squad of 12 they've picked 4 openers in him, Compton, Haines and Sibley.

Considering he's not required for T20 duty, this is a good test for him against international opposition if he gets selected.

offdrive4 wrote:Why do you think he is not in the T20 running, I would think him quite suitable if not nailed on.

I would have thought he will be playing T20 once Pope and Foakes have left us for England duty. His batting is now at least as suited to the format as Jamie Smith, and more so than Rory Burns, both of whom were regulars in the competition last season. Not sure his bowling would be, though.

Even without Foakes and Pope, we're going to have a lineup like

Roy, Jacks, Narine, Evans, Smith, Pollard, SCurran, Overton/Clark, Jordan, Moriarty, Topley

No chance of him getting a look in as far as I'm concerned

Alex! wrote:Even without Foakes and Pope, we're going to have a lineup like

Roy, Jacks, Narine, Evans, Smith, Pollard, SCurran, Overton/Clark, Jordan, Moriarty, Topley

No chance of him getting a look in as far as I'm concerned

Do we know about Roy's availability? Thanks.

Alex! wrote:Even without Foakes and Pope, we're going to have a lineup like

Roy, Jacks, Narine, Evans, Smith, Pollard, SCurran, Overton/Clark, Jordan, Moriarty, Topley

No chance of him getting a look in as far as I'm concerned

Alex

That is indeed a good line up
however, I will still have Patel in the squad as he could cover a number of bases should someone pull out last minute
i also notice that your line up includes 8 bowlers, 3 of which are spinners