Surrey v Middlesex at the Oval - 20-23 May

I'm not sure I agree with that. Yes, after lunch on Day One they did bowl dry but after that spell post-lunch Burns and Stoneman scored 38 runs in 8 overs before the first wicket, and it's not as though Burns and Stoneman chased after wide ones either.

Personally, I think getting the declaration right is a difficult job. You have to keep the other team interested, but not too interested that you yourself could lose the game
As it was, I think that we got it spot on on Sunday. It certainly would have been an interesting contest had those overs not been lost to rain late on.
2 things I was slightly disappointed with. 1) the slight lack of intent on quick runs in the morning. Its been stated on here that maybe Clarke should have been promoted, but I think Clark would have been a better option and 2) Rory seemed hesitant to get the close catchers in at the end when it seemed obvious that Middx had settled for the draw. It might not have made a difference

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 think the changes are about right, although that is nearly half the team that is changing. Shame about Roy and the Currans though. All 3 of them would have made the changes slightly less worrying