Re: Guildford tomorrow

by RB Tue Aug 02, 2022 5:57 pm

Steel the batter is probably an OK option for this format given the lack of players…

But yes the balance of the side is poor. We need Burns and Amla in and Kimber and Dunn out.

Burns, Patel, Amla, Geddes, Steel, Reifer, Blake, Lawes, McKerr, Virdi, Majid

Already a much better team…!

by Jackers Tue Aug 02, 2022 6:02 pm

The fact that we suspected what sort of team Surrey would be fielding in this competition does not make what we saw today any more acceptable. We batted with excessive caution for most of our innings, because we knew how woefully long our tail was. We bowled and (mainly) fielded like a team who did not want to be there, with the exception of the new slow left-armer who did ok. Seriously, Leicester had one fairly good bowler (Hendricks) and an international middle-order batsman in "Fox" Mulder who is apparently in a rich vein of form. They were otherwise a very ordinary side. The guy who got 100 today had never got anything like that before.

That members had to jump through hoops to secure tickets for such an abysmal fixture is frankly ridiculous. We should hang our heads about the lack of spectator facilities at Guildford given the club's wealth and the size of our membership now.

If course the fact we are flying in the championship mitigates the situation, but not indefinitely. Sort it Surrey.

by Keith Powell Tue Aug 02, 2022 6:09 pm

RB wrote:Steel the batter is probably an OK option for this format given the lack of players…

But yes the balance of the side is poor. We need Burns and Amla in and Kimber and Dunn out.

Burns, Patel, Amla, Geddes, Steel, Reifer, Blake, Lawes, McKerr, Virdi, Majid

Already a much better team…!

Burns resting until championship resumes.
No over seas players being used apparently

by Vauxhall Tue Aug 02, 2022 6:17 pm

Jackers wrote:The fact that we suspected what sort of team Surrey would be fielding in this competition does not make what we saw today any more acceptable. We batted with excessive caution for most of our innings, because we knew how woefully long our tail was. We bowled and (mainly) fielded like a team who did not want to be there, with the exception of the new slow left-armer who did ok. Seriously, Leicester had one fairly good bowler (Hendricks) and an international middle-order batsman in "Fox" Mulder who is apparently in a rich vein of form. They were otherwise a very ordinary side. The guy who got 100 today had never got anything like that before.

That members had to jump through hoops to secure tickets for such an abysmal fixture is frankly ridiculous. We should hang our heads about the lack of spectator facilities at Guildford given the ckub's wealth and the size of our membership now.

If course the fact we are flying in the championship mitigates the situation, but not indefinitely. Sort it Surrey.

The ticketing situation was an absolute joke.

Wouldn’t shed a tear if we never played at Guildford again, despite living in Guildford myself.

by Chinaman Tue Aug 02, 2022 6:18 pm

Well without Burns, and an overseas option it looks very much like Surrey really have sold out the 50 over out to the 100. I thought England were 50 over champions, but you wouldn't think so the way the game is being bastardised by the 100.
As for Guildford it's just not suitable for 1st Class cricket anymore. You can only get one man and his dog in there. Particularly, if the Championship is further reduced, a 4 day game at this poor ground next year will cause uproar by Members.

by RB Tue Aug 02, 2022 6:47 pm

Keith Powell wrote:
RB wrote:Steel the batter is probably an OK option for this format given the lack of players…

But yes the balance of the side is poor. We need Burns and Amla in and Kimber and Dunn out.

Burns, Patel, Amla, Geddes, Steel, Reifer, Blake, Lawes, McKerr, Virdi, Majid

Already a much better team…!
Burns resting until championship resumes.
No over seas players being used apparently

There comes a point where Stewie may have to send for the cavalry.

by Cee Gee Tue Aug 02, 2022 7:16 pm

I’m longing for the days when I’ve got so much time on my hands that I’m able to go all over the country watching cricket and tirelessly moan about a little inconvenience each year when it comes to Guildford. I just hope there’s something left to watch by then.

by Cee Gee Tue Aug 02, 2022 7:22 pm

RB wrote:
Keith Powell wrote:
RB wrote:Steel the batter is probably an OK option for this format given the lack of players…

But yes the balance of the side is poor. We need Burns and Amla in and Kimber and Dunn out.

Burns, Patel, Amla, Geddes, Steel, Reifer, Blake, Lawes, McKerr, Virdi, Majid

Already a much better team…!
Burns resting until championship resumes.
No over seas players being used apparently

There comes a point where Stewie may have to send for the cavalry.

Amla has probably gone home for a break (unless he’s lined up as a pundit for the Test series) - I’d leave him there. I was keen for Rory to play but after seeing the team the last two games I’m not sure there’s anything to gain by exposing his game to the white ball with three huge red ball games coming up. Let him recharge - he probably has a lot to reflect on in terms of where his career is now post England. We’re probably not winning any of these matches. Even Stewie can’t pull another Tim David out from nowhere. If more players get released from the hundred then fine, but as things stand we just have to try and take the small wins from this - first one is that the new young spinner looks good. I hope he realises how good a batter he also has to be in order for Batty to pick him in red ball cricket.

by Badges Tue Aug 02, 2022 7:48 pm

Nick Welch played many times for Surrey seconds and scored at least two tons,one of them 175*

by Badges Tue Aug 02, 2022 7:49 pm

Church turned up late,sadly,not late enough .............................

by The Red Rooster Tue Aug 02, 2022 8:01 pm

Being at the ground, the last 50 runs conceded by Surrey were one of the closest I have seen a Cricket team come to running up the white flag.

Ben Geddes batted well, Josh Blake once he got in batter well and Yousuf Majid imprssed on debut and that was about the size of it.

Amir Virdi bowled three overs and looked unfit he probably needs to move on as do some of the others out there for Surrey today..

Surrey have given up on this competitrion and the Overseas players for Leicestershire made the difference today, Welch hundred not withstanding.

If Surrey win the County Championship this will all be forgotten. If they do not however, questions need to be asked as to what standard of cricket your membership fees pay for.

by Vauxhall Tue Aug 02, 2022 9:51 pm

Cee Gee wrote:I’m longing for the days when I’ve got so much time on my hands that I’m able to go all over the country watching cricket and tirelessly moan about a little inconvenience each year when it comes to Guildford. I just hope there’s something left to watch by then.

Or the one time Surrey actually play a game in Surrey rather than London and the capacity is cut by half from previous seasons.

by offdrive4 Tue Aug 02, 2022 10:52 pm

I liked the Geddes innings and Majid bowled well, but overall this was a disgraceful team to put out for a competitive first team match. 13 players missing at the horrid hundred, plus Amla resting. I blame the ECB not Surrey, for the situation. The ECB treated the counties appallingly in imposing the hundred, Surrey cannot be expected to have another eleven players signed just to play while their best contracted players are nicked for the hundred.
I don't really understand what has gone wrong at Guildford, Surrey have spent a lot of money there and seem to have made it worse with smaller capacity and no facilities for members, I don't think it is suitable for county cricket. The outfield was awful as was the live stream, late, poor sound, shakey camera and no score showing for about an hour.

by Chinaman Tue Aug 02, 2022 11:19 pm

Well yes but If you are contracted to Surrey then you should be playing for Surrey and not a franchise team surely? You could apply that to the IPL as well. Players seem to want the best of both worlds. Money talks yes, but you need to decide whether your priority is to your county and/or England, or to franchises and not both. The counties, especially the big ones like Surrey, did have a choice - but they buckled under ECB veiled threats. If Surrey had said shove off your not playing your crap 100 at the Oval, I doubt it would have got off the ground. Counties own the grounds, well 15 of them do, the ECB don 't. Time the Counties formed their own breakaway Governing Body for County Cricket and stuck their fingers up to ECB once and for all, Kerry Packer style. Cricket is in a bloody mess when your supposed premier 50 over competition, in which we are World Champions, is reduced to the shambles we've seen today.

by Jackers Wed Aug 03, 2022 7:11 am

offdrive4 wrote:I liked the Geddes innings and Majid bowled well, but overall this was a disgraceful team to put out for a competitive first team match. 13 players missing at the horrid hundred, plus Amla resting. I blame the ECB not Surrey, for the situation. The ECB treated the counties appallingly in imposing the hundred, Surrey cannot be expected to have another eleven players signed just to play while their best contracted players are nicked for the hundred.
I don't really understand what has gone wrong at Guildford, Surrey have spent a lot of money there and seem to have made it worse with smaller capacity and no facilities for members, I don't think it is suitable for county cricket. The outfield was awful as was the live stream, late, poor sound, shakey camera and no score showing for about an hour.

At the risk of going over old ground...Surrey must accept their share of the blame for not having the courage of their convictions and facing down the ECB's threats to strip us of international cricket if we didn't agree to hand over the keys to the Oval. It didn't take Nostradamus to foresee that we would be where we are today re the impact on the club's capacity to compete for the trophy in which we excelled during the 2010s (one win, three losing finals) and the quality of cricket offered to members and supporters.

As Edmund Burke famously said: "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.".

by Chinaman Wed Aug 03, 2022 7:38 am

Vauxhall wrote:
Cee Gee wrote:I’m longing for the days when I’ve got so much time on my hands that I’m able to go all over the country watching cricket and tirelessly moan about a little inconvenience each year when it comes to Guildford. I just hope there’s something left to watch by then.

Or the one time Surrey actually play a game in Surrey rather than London and the capacity is cut by half from previous seasons.

Interestingly the match report on the Oval website said that there "were 3000+ in the ground" . No, maximum of 2000. Used to be 3000 before they removed loads of seats for some spurious elf 'n safety reason and dispensed with the big temporary stand at the Pavilion end. By holding 1st Class games here your denying both many members and locals the ability to attend while the Oval stands empty.But come on this is a terrible viewing ground at the very least before you take into account all the other negatives. I won't be going there any more that's for sure.

by Keith Powell Wed Aug 03, 2022 8:35 am

There is a members forum between innings on Sunday it would be good that people who feel strongly about what is going on at the oval and all seem to on here turn up and give there views.
I suppose as we are top of the championship everything is rosy in the garden but we know differently on here.

by offdrive4 Wed Aug 03, 2022 11:30 am

An interesting question for the forum would be the attitude Surrey take to the likely attempt to ease the fixture congestion by reducing the championship to 10 matches. The conferences of 6 counties anyone? There would be no question of expanding the hundred to take advantage of the spare days of course, not much.

by Jackers Wed Aug 03, 2022 11:54 am

The ECB are sharing their thoughts to a meeting of Chief Execs today. Slightly cross with myself that I spent the brief time I had with Elsworthy before play yesterday collaring him about Guildford, when if this meeting had been on my radar I whould have let him know in no uncertain terms that he should make clear that Surrey will not accept any reduction in championship fixtures.

The latest word is that the ECB are going to propose reducing to 12 championship games for next season....presumably they will hope some suckers will see that as a relief as we were threatened with 10. In truth it would be further salami slicing on top of what they have already done, and they wouldn't wait long to reduce it further. The line in the sand is long, long overdue.

by Keith Powell Wed Aug 03, 2022 12:05 pm

Jackers wrote:The ECB are sharing their thoughts to a meeting of Chief Execs today. Slightly cross with myself that I spent the brief time I had with Elsworthy before play yesterday collaring him about Guildford, when if this meeting had been on my radar I whould have let him know in no uncertain terms that he should make clear that Surrey will not accept any reduction in championship fixtures.

The latest word is that the ECB are going to propose reducing to 12 championship games for next season....presumably they will hope some suckers will see that as a relief as we were threatened with 10. In truth it would be further salami slicing on top of what they have already done, and they wouldn't wait long to reduce it further. The line in the sand is long, long overdue.

Maybe worth giving him your thoughts on Sunday if he's there of course I'm sure,you would get full support from the members present.

by Badges Wed Aug 03, 2022 12:10 pm

If we pick up any injuries who will be next to get a game? Groundstaff? Batty? Elworthy?

Sadly,as much as i love Virdi,he looks well overweight and depressingly out of form.Perhaps we can blame Surrey CCC for this.The standard response if you dare to (politely) question anything is "It's not ideal."

If you ask a player how near they are to fitness you get "I'm getting there."

Nobody in Cricket,or life in general now seem capable (or allowed) to speak their own words any more.

by RightArmSlow Wed Aug 03, 2022 1:52 pm

offdrive4 wrote:An interesting question for the forum would be the attitude Surrey take to the likely attempt to ease the fixture congestion by reducing the championship to 10 matches. The conferences of 6 counties anyone? There would be no question of expanding the hundred to take advantage of the spare days of course, not much.

I reckon what will happen is a top tier of 6 teams (of which two get relegated) and 2 semi - regionalised 2nd divisions with one team promoted from each. That way each county is only one promotion away from top tier cricket. Reduces the number of games slightly (and removes the farcical situation we have this year where we aren't playing everyone twice and they happen to be the other 2 teams in the top 3). the only problem is that the boundaries of the north/south regionalised leagues will vary a fair bit over time.

I don't think I would be against that to be honest. the schedule is mad and something needs to give. Even if there was no 100 the schedule would still be too packed. Looking at what other countries setups look like they play less but higher quality first class cricket. I think 10 games is a good amount.

Ideally this would go along with the scrapping of the 100 and the revamping of the blast. But we know that wont happen.

by offdrive4 Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:24 pm

Anyone know where and what time the forum is on Sunday. I know it is lunchtime so presumably they will start 5 minutes after teams leave the field.

by Keith Powell Wed Aug 03, 2022 6:19 pm

offdrive4 wrote:Anyone know where and what time the forum is on Sunday. I know it is lunchtime so presumably they will start 5 minutes after teams leTave the field.

I think it will be in the 175 suite that's where' it was the last time I went .I expect it will be,advertised again beforehand.

by Jackers Wed Aug 03, 2022 7:05 pm

RightArmSlow wrote:
offdrive4 wrote:An interesting question for the forum would be the attitude Surrey take to the likely attempt to ease the fixture congestion by reducing the championship to 10 matches. The conferences of 6 counties anyone? There would be no question of expanding the hundred to take advantage of the spare days of course, not much.

I reckon what will happen is a top tier of 6 teams (of which two get relegated) and 2 semi - regionalised 2nd divisions with one team promoted from each. That way each county is only one promotion away from top tier cricket. Reduces the number of games slightly (and removes the farcical situation we have this year where we aren't playing everyone twice and they happen to be the other 2 teams in the top 3). the only problem is that the boundaries of the north/south regionalised leagues will vary a fair bit over time.

I don't think I would be against that to be honest. the schedule is mad and something needs to give. Even if there was no 100 the schedule would still be too packed. Looking at what other countries setups look like they play less but higher quality first class cricket. I think 10 games is a good amount.

Ideally this would go along with the scrapping of the 100 and the revamping of the blast. But we know that wont happen.

10 games? Just no. Those matches would be scheduled for April, early May and September, meaning that there would be months of summer without any championship cricket, no outgrounds, and the outcome would be much more of a lottery dependant on the weather and availability. If you are going to start to declutter the schedule, scrap one of the two short-form competitions, allow the counties to compete in the remaining one, and reduce the number of internationals.

by Sponsored content