Dom Sibley

Seems like we are getting DS back from next season.

The article mentioned Ryan Patel being out of contract so he could be moving on as Sibley
will open with Burns.

Steve

where have you seen this.

I would be disappointed if Ryan wasnt offered a new contract

George Dobell and Will Macpherson have written articles
on Twitter for the Cricketer and Evening Standard so it
must be happening.

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/cricket/surrey-dom-sibley-warwickshire-b1009369.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1656582723

This is such a backwards move; he left after demanding assurances on where he'd bat in the team, and Stewart rightfully told him to do one.

If this does happen I can only assume Patel will get fresh terms and we'd move him to #3 if we're not going to keep Hashim Amla on. Its a shame because I think Patel's earnt the right to bat where he is...

https://www.kiaoval.com/sibleys-coming-home/

confirmed

It seems a very sensible move: we need to strengthen in the top 4 with Amla moving on and Pope seemingly gone down the rabbit warren from where our best players rarely re-emerge until they have been damaged and spat out.

Given the paucity of quality openers on the circuit Sibley is, at county level, the right standard for us (a class above Cameron Steel, certainly).

He may not be the most attractive of players but he is still very much in his prime. I like Ryan Patel: he has done ok as an opener but there is a case for saying Sibley is an upgrade in that role and that Patel can be candidate for 3 or 4 along with Ben Geddes and (if he can get rid of the keeping gloves) Jamie Smith.

I hope Ryan Patel stays, and I'm a bit surprised he seems to be below the likes of Burns and Steel in the pecking order for T20 matches, but a big attraction of Sibley is that he's unlikely to attract the attention of franchise teams or the England ODI/T20 teams.

By all accounts one of the reasons he is leaving Warwickshire is because he been unable to be a permanent fixture in their T20 side. However, a good solid opening partnership, that hopefully wont get too disrupted by the national team, can only be a good thing (if Crawley keeps on failing that may not happen of course).

I also hope Patel stays and as suggested above can see him slotting into 1st wicket down. I also cant believe that he has struggled to get into the T20 side and is behind other players.

I hope this is wrong. He not good enough to replace any one in our current top order.

Makes a lot of sense. Amla very likely to call it a day soon and Sibley is the perfect 4 day, top order replacement. There are a lot of english players (incluidng at Surrey) scoring runs, so it seems logical to cover run scoring with homegrown talent and use the overseas slots on players who can regularly get you 20 wickets. Hopefully this is the direction we take next season.

Burns, Sibley, Patel, Pope (Geddes), Curran, Foakes (Smith), Jacks...with Roy and Evans in the short stuff.

Overseas to help the bowlers out, because that side is a struggle.

With a career average of 38 from 100 matches (probably north of 40 if you discount tests, where he clearly struggled) he would get into our top 4 now, let alone next season when he'll be needed. In his prime Amla was a far better player, but not sure he is now and in 12 months time he certainly wouldn't be. Ryan Patel has genuinely improved this season, but his career average is still south of 30.

Sibley's county record since leaving us is pretty impressive. We're lucky to get him back so young, and we should be careful not to allow the fact he can be somewhat pedestrian at the crease to cloud our judgement.

The signing also allows us to use our overseas slots for bowlers (or bowling all-rounders) which as we've seen this season tend to win you matches rather than save them.

optimistnot wrote:I hope this is wrong. He not good enough to replace any one in our current top order.

Its been posted on the Surrey CCC website, so I doubt very much that it is wrong

Sibley is welcome back, but should not get near our T20 side as his style does not suit the format. Opening with Burns he gives us a very good County partnership which is not likely to be disrupted by Test calls. It would be idiotic to let Patel leave given our international calls, he can slot in further down the order when other batsmen are away. Patel has improved tremendously over the past year and should be around the T20 side instead of Burns. Patel can also pick up the odd wicket and is a good fielder.

With the youngsters coming through too like Geddes and Lawes we will probably have to shed a player or two. Steel, Dunn, Reifer and McKerr spring to mind although all have qualities they seem to mainly be there to play in the 50 over stuff when most of the squad is kidnapped by the ECB.

By crikey watching Surrey opening is going to be a right rip roaring laugh next season. 🥱

optimistnot wrote:I hope this is wrong. He not good enough to replace any one in our current top order.

Not sure this is true. He’s currently got more runs than both Burns and Patel (from two more innings) and I’d back Sibley have more than then both at the end of the season.

Jesus Christ. The biggest bore in cricket. I know Stewart never wanted him to leave 5 years ago but blimey folks I can't face watching him blocking all day. Imagine him if he'd have been batting on this last road of a pitch. Even I'd pay £6 for a pint to get away from it. Anyway Stokes said he'd need to be scoring 270 off 100 balls and not the other way round. Have mercy.

I was baffled by this to begin with but on reflection the likelihood of Amla being around next season is pretty slim. So it wouldn't be a bad thing to have another top order player around. I'd still give Patel the choice of opening or going to 3. He's earnt that much.

I also heard another baffling rumour thay we were in for Tom Banton. Good player who I rate and I guess the reasoning would be around not expecting to see much of Pope and Foakes and developing Smith into a top order batsman and grooming him for the captaincy so not likely to want him keeping too. So kinda makes sense to look for a keeper bat. But Banton is not the answer. He's likely to demand decent money so we aren't gonna want him sat on the bench but he wouldn't get anywhere near our team in 4 day cricket and we already have so much competition in the t20s that I can't see him getting in the side unless Evans moves on.

I certainly think we should keep Patel as he has performed well this season scoring his runs at a faster pace than before,he can also bowl of course and is an excellent fielder!

We should not be deferring to players on where they bat in the order. That's partly why we moved Sibley on in the first place, though he went further and demanded to open in all forms of cricket. As Alec said at the time, he wouldn't even give such a guarantee to Kumar Sangakkara! It's the job of the management team (or, once the game has started, the captain) to decide who bats where.  I'm sure Ryan Patel would understand that.

We saw Tom Banton at Taunton recently. He is undoubtedly a talented one-day batsman, but unlike Will Jacks he does not seem capable of adapting his game to championship cricket. I wouldn't bother with him.

RightArmSlow wrote:I also heard another baffling rumour thay we were in for Tom Banton.

I take rumours like this with a pinch of salt unless they come from a reliable source within the club. Supporters of other counties revel in suggesting any half decent player stalling on a new contract "is bound to go to moneybags Surrey".

I did enjoy a Warwickshire supporter on Facebook throwing his toys out of the pram over the Sibley move, apparently oblivious to the facts that (a) they signed him from Surrey in the first place when we wanted to keep him and (b) they've probably poached more players than anyone else during the last 5 years from counties who wished to keep them

I saw some stats in an article on The Cricketer website indicating that Dom Sibley averaged a fraction under 35 in Championship cricket for Surrey but has increased that figure to almost 45 during his time at Warwickshire. Very few county opening batsmen average over 40 during the long term these days, and we'll now have two of them.

I’m no fan of watching Sibley bat but he’s clearly a much better player than when he last played for us, he’s an excellent county player and not quite good enough for Test cricket. In my opinion this is exactly the kind of player we should be signing. I’m sure he’ll do well anchoring the 50 over side as well, probably as captain.

Pink Panther wrote:

RightArmSlow wrote:I also heard another baffling rumour thay we were in for Tom Banton.

I take rumours like this with a pinch of salt unless they come from a reliable source within the club. Supporters of other counties revel in suggesting any half decent player stalling on a new contract "is bound to go to moneybags Surrey".

I did enjoy a Warwickshire supporter on Facebook throwing his toys out of the pram over the Sibley move, apparently oblivious to the facts that (a) they signed him from Surrey in the first place when we wanted to keep him and (b) they've probably poached more players  than anyone else during the last 5 years from counties who wished to keep them

I saw some stats in an article on The Cricketer website indicating that Dom Sibley averaged a fraction under 35 in Championship cricket for Surrey but has increased that figure to almost 45 during his time at Warwickshire. Very few county opening batsmen average over 40 during the long term these days, and we'll now have two of them.

Absolutely take it with a pinch of salt but its not come from Somerset or within the club, its come from someone very informed in the game (at Kent of all places) and knows administrators at most clubs. I certainly can believe we are in for a Keeper-bat but hopefully we go for a younger developing player rather than Banton.