Surrey v Middlesex at the Oval - 20-23 May

Err, now I'm worried

I don't think Middlesex know whether to sit in for the draw or go for it.

Alex! wrote:Err, now I'm worried

Stay calm, Alex.

Middlesex still need plenty of runs in the context of this match to win. You never know but my guess is that Middlesex will lose a wicket or two and then go back into their shell resulting in the draw. That's also assuming no more rain.

Apologies to all if I'm the new Alex of this site and that's a jinx!

It's about time the ECB had a word with Handscomb about his mullet. It's bringing the game into disrepute. Not a good advert for the game.

Can't believe we're going to lose this

It feels closer to the captains shaking hands before 6pm than it does a Middlesex run chase (famous last words!)

And then Gubbins smashes a 6...

A thick band of rain is coming in from the west which could save us. Keep an eye out for Fortis and his pals on the boundary.

You're spot on. That will probably be it now.

Rob Key "for all those delaying tactics, the first ball was bowled on time"
Not really delaying tactics then, are they Rob?

I really really hope we can sign Kemar on a longer term basis when he's not playing for the West Indies, he's been excellent

Cracking last over from Kemar. I hope he comes back too.

A great advertisement for championship cricket: Sky must be pleased. Who would have thought after the first two rain and wind-lashed days that we would be in for such an absorbing finish?

Perhaps I am being harsh, but I think we did not give ourselves the best chance in how we approached the first session this morning. When Stoneman was out second ball, it cried out for Ollie Pope to come in next. Amla is a very fine player, and no slouch, but he takes time to get going. 31 runs from the first 11 overs this morning was perhaps half of what we should have been aiming for, with nine wickets in hand. There aren't too many occasions where we really miss having Jason Roy available in our championship line-up, but my goodness this morning was one of them.  

Credit to Middlesex for batting much better than they have seemed capable of doing so far this season. As for our bowling, Kemar Roach has proved his worth in his short time with us, Reece Topley looked threatening in his opening spell, but the achilles heel continues to be the change bowling: the Clark(e)s caused very few problems. I reckon the Rikki of a couple of years ago would have been in amongst them in that situation.I don't think it's fair to put Amar Virdi's short spell under the same degree of scrutiny, as neither the pitch nor the conditions were at all favourable to him.

I very much agree about the start to the day. Either Pope or Ricki coming in at 3 would have been what I'd have done.

If we hadn't of lost those 5 overs near the end Middle would almost certainly have won this. But 290 of 70 odd overs was a good declaration, but I was a bit surprised they didn't get on with it earlier, seeing the dodgy weather.

Owen B wrote:Cracking last over from Kemar. I hope he comes back too.

If you saw the way the team came up to him after he had finished his final spell you can only conclude he is popular in the dressing room and with the fans.

Just reading the report of the day in cricinfo and it says that Roy and the Curran’s are unlikely to be made available for the Gloucestershire game.

Cee Gee wrote:Just reading the report of the day in cricinfo and it says that Roy and the Curran’s are unlikely to be made available for the Gloucestershire game.

If that's the case - maybe Patel for Burns, Jacks for Pope, Evans for Foakes with Smith taking the gloves, Abbott for Roach, Overton or Dunn for the rested Topley. Hmmm. All change!

That potential team for next week sounds concerning to say the least!

Patel and Overton in particular make me shudder.

guildfordbat wrote:

Cee Gee wrote:Just reading the report of the day in cricinfo and it says that Roy and the Curran’s are unlikely to be made available for the Gloucestershire game.

If that's the case - maybe Patel for Burns, Jacks for Pope, Evans for Foakes with Smith taking the gloves, Abbott for Roach, Overton or Dunn for the rested Topley. Hmmm. All change!

I would be genuinely interested to know if the registered ''dislike'' is for the likely changes we'll have to make or my post. If the latter, grateful if you could say why. No problem with not being liked but surprised on this occasion as to why.

Some random thought if I may.

First and foremost, I thought Roach was brilliant, both in performance and in attitude towards the game. That broad ever-present smile towards the end of the match was great to see. He will be missed in the remaining three games against higher-placed teams. I did smile to myself when one of the Sky commentators queried why Surrey weren't saving him for the next match.

Bowling figures can mislead. Roach was very hard to play in the first innings but Jordan Clark ended up with better figures! Was it "clever bowling" or luck?

Same commentator, maybe, who said that Surrey should have scored more and more quickly (agree with that) and made a Middlesex victory impossible (disagree!). The best chance of a win for Surrey was to keep Middlesex interested. There was also the danger of the weather closing in with eight wickets down. As it happens, the 5 overs lost probably prevented a Middlesex win. With 15 overs lost altogether, I start to wonder whether any target is impossible on a flat wicket with little overhead assistance- which is what it became mid-afternoon on Day 3. Such batting conditions have been extremely rare for Middlesex this season. Even Handscomb could go back to his natural game.

If Middlesex had won it would have been a consequence of the declaration, right though it was to make it. If Surrey had taken the last eight with Middlesex slogging that would not have felt right either.

Quite why play could not restart until 6.15 is beyond me but I think that was a criticism levied at the umpires several other times during the match. It just happened to be crucial at that point as two or three extra overs could have made all the difference.

Anyway, at least we got a decent match out of it.

Interesting fact about the match, there were 2 centuries and 5 fifties , but of the 7 players involved, 6 were left handers and only one was a right handed.

Cee Gee wrote:Just reading the report of the day in cricinfo and it says that Roy and the Curran’s are unlikely to be made available for the Gloucestershire game.

Why? Unless they are not "match fit". But you can't get match fit sitting on your arse.
They really are trying to consign the Championship to the bottom of the pile.

Have just seen this elsewhere. Suffice to say it tells us everything we already knew about this side

That board actually confirms what I ewas thinking during the match about Surrey's inability to bowl as a unit and "dry up" the opposition through restricting the run rate.

Contrast that with Middlesex on day one, when after lunch Middlesex bowled dry and surrey got about 8 runs in six overs. That as much as anything else sparked the batting collapse, wheras if you watched yesterday Handscomb and Gubbins were able to plunder about 4 singles an over and a run rate of 4.00 per over, risk free, brings any target within reach.