The season ahead.....and the state of Surrey

Burns, Sibley, Pope, Patel, Smith, Foakes, Laws, Clark, Roach, Abbott, Worrall
Obviously there are the usual uncertainties about availability and the likelihood of injury, but with those caveats that is a team capable of a top three finish. I say “top three”, because both Lancashire and Essex have strengthened , while in contrast we are likely to be without key players like Pope, Foakes, Jacks and Sam Curran more than was the case last year. Essex have added to an already formidable  attack by recruiting Will Sutherland, who has by all accounts been a revelation in the Sheffield Shield this year. Daryl Mitchell – proven in English conditions and with a test career average of 57 – is a fantastic signing for Lancashire. So what of our recruitment? Sibley is a decent replacement for latter-day Amla. It's good that Roach is back: until Jamie Overton's injury I would have preferred our other overseas pick to have been a batsman to cover the likely absences of Pope, Foakes, Jacks and Sam Curran. On balance, I think Abbott is the right pick, though it leaves us without a lot of depth in the batting department. The jury is still out for me on young Ben Geddes – I hope he gets opportunities and takes them against stronger bowling attacks than Kent last year. However....  

Jason Roy’s availability to play championship cricket is the big unknown. There is surely a spot for someone of his potentially destructive quality in our middle-order, shorn of the acceleration that Will Jacks and Sam Curran so often gave us last season. This will be all the more important given the change to the batting bonus points awarded this season which are hardly Sibley-friendly: you now need 250 for your first one and 450 in 110 overs to obtain all five. Bazball rules ok.

As for the bowling, the likes of McKerr, Atkinson, Taylor and Cameron Steel will always add depth, but I don’t see any of them being good enough to be regulars in a championship-challenging side. In Will Jacks’s absence, will there be an opening for Moriarty or Virdi, or is Sibley’s part-time leg-spin going to be considered sufficient?

For much of the previous 15 years, we had a club to be proud of under the stewardship of the Two Dicks, in contrast to an underperforming team. I wonder if to some extent the reverse now applies. We have a great squad packed with wonderful talent, much of it home-grown. We are blessed with great management and coaching: Alec Stewart and Gareth Batty provide experience, dedication and professionalism, as well as a deep love of the club. Yet I increasingly see worrying signs that the club’s priorities are no longer those of its members. The number of “woke” posts relentlessly spewed out on our social media site is exhausting…this month, that month, finding an angle on every sodding cause imaginable. Just stick to giving us news us about Surrey cricket, please, and if there isn’t anything newsworthy to report give it a rest until there is. If you’re not triggered by that, well,be under no illusions that the club is becoming ever less concerned about providing value for money to members. The 10% increase in renewals was as unnecessary as it was unwelcome given the wealth of the club and the cost-of-living pressures we all face. I notice from the club website that they have doubled the cost of attending the end-of-season awards in September, up from £15 to £30. Last time there was no first drink included, and the buffet was distinctly average (with no dessert). I was proud to present the Supporters' player of the year award at the last event, but they can stuff it this year at that price.

Let’s finish on a high. It’s nearly time for cricket, and we are county champions. As I said earlier, I think both Lancs and Essex have stronger claims this time, but I struggle to see any other counties who will finish above us, which I wouldn’t have said this time last year.

That's a fine opening spell for the new season, Jackers.

As you may know from my post on the friendlies thread, I have the same eleven lined up for  our first match.

I also have the same general thoughts.

My pre-season forecasts have usually been abysmally inaccurate, but here goes.   This basically relates to the Championship.

We have a strong array of pace bowlers even without the injured Overton for, I would expect, half the season.   Lawes particularly impressed me as a young player last year, he can bat too.   This array will need to be topped up when overseas players Roach and Abbott depart mid season.

Our batting looks decent with Sibley back, though our opening partnerships are unlikely to be spectacular.   If Pope and Foakes both get nicked by England, as expected, for the Tests this might cause a problem as our batting depth is not impressive.

We still have Steel, Virdi and Moriarty as spinners and could get an overseas spinner for the later fixtures.  Steel has the advantage of being able to bat a bit and is a useful squad player rather than a high quality bowler,  Virdi looked very poor last year, depressed by lack of opportunity maybe, while the Professor seemed to be concentrating on limited over games.

Our fielding will be better without Amla, great bat though he was.

Overall I think our bowlers look likely to take 20 wickets fairly often with reasonable batting to back them up.    Surrey should therefore be amongst those chasing the Championship, though as Jackers pointed out this season could be more competitive than last.

We do look somewhat depleted with our injured players or away at the IPL

Social media seems to show Chris Jordan with a red ball in his hands - not sure if that's an indication of him putting his hand up for a game or two (I'll always be of the proviso that T20 cricket will always be a priority) but if so then it's still another useful addition to hand, and an excellent fielder to boot

Main question for me is where on Earth this leaves Ryan Patel in the batting order

Jackers wrote:Burns, Sibley, Pope, Patel, Smith, Foakes, Laws, Clark, Roach, Abbott, Worrall
Obviously there are the usual uncertainties about availability and the likelihood of injury, but with those caveats that is a team capable of a top three finish. I say “top three”, because both Lancashire and Essex have strengthened , while in contrast we are likely to be without key players like Pope, Foakes, Jacks and Sam Curran more than was the case last year. Essex have added to an already formidable  attack by recruiting Will Sutherland, who has by all accounts been a revelation in the Sheffield Shield this year. Daryl Mitchell – proven in English conditions and with a test career average of 57 – is a fantastic signing for Lancashire. So what of our recruitment? Sibley is a decent replacement for latter-day Amla. It's good that Roach is back: until Jamie Overton's injury I would have preferred our other overseas pick to have been a batsman to cover the likely absences of Pope, Foakes, Jacks and Sam Curran. On balance, I think Abbott is the right pick, though it leaves us without a lot of depth in the batting department. The jury is still out for me on young Ben Geddes – I hope he gets opportunities and takes them against stronger bowling attacks than Kent last year. However....  

Jason Roy’s availability to play championship cricket is the big unknown. There is surely a spot for someone of his potentially destructive quality in our middle-order, shorn of the acceleration that Will Jacks and Sam Curran so often gave us last season. This will be all the more important given the change to the batting bonus points awarded this season which are hardly Sibley-friendly: you now need 250 for your first one and 450 in 110 overs to obtain all five. Bazball rules ok.

As for the bowling, the likes of McKerr, Atkinson, Taylor and Cameron Steel will always add depth, but I don’t see any of them being good enough to be regulars in a championship-challenging side. In Will Jacks’s absence, will there be an opening for Moriarty or Virdi, or is Sibley’s part-time leg-spin going to be considered sufficient?

For much of the previous 15 years, we had a club to be proud of under the stewardship of the Two Dicks, in contrast to an underperforming team. I wonder if to some extent the reverse now applies. We have a great squad packed with wonderful talent, much of it home-grown. We are blessed with great management and coaching: Alec Stewart and Gareth Batty provide experience, dedication and professionalism, as well as a deep love of the club. Yet I increasingly see worrying signs that the club’s priorities are no longer those of its members. The number of “woke” posts relentlessly spewed out on our social media site is exhausting…this month, that month, finding an angle on every sodding cause imaginable. Just stick to giving us news us about Surrey cricket, please, and if there isn’t anything newsworthy to report give it a rest until there is. If you’re not triggered by that, well,be under no illusions that the club is becoming ever less concerned about providing value for money to members. The 10% increase in renewals was as unnecessary as it was unwelcome given the wealth of the club and the cost-of-living pressures we all face. I notice from the club website that they have doubled the cost of attending the end-of-season awards in September, up from £15 to £30. Last time there was no first drink included, and the buffet was distinctly average (with no dessert). I was proud to present the Supporters' player of the year award at the last event, but they can stuff it this year at that price.

Let’s finish on a high. It’s nearly time for cricket, and we are county champions. As I said earlier, I think both Lancs and Essex have stronger claims this time, but I struggle to see any other counties who will finish above us, which I wouldn’t have said this time last year.

mostly agree on cricket, but does it ever cross your mind that maybe the ‘woke’ stuff as you call it does benefit some members or people connected to Surrey?

I appreciate that some people will come from the opposite side of the "culture wars" to me, but by dissenting from what I said in that part of my post you've made my point perfectlly.

We all share an interest in Surrey, regardless of race, sex, sexuality, gender, nationality, politics, etc, etc  If the club concentrates on informing us about Surrey cricket in the broadest sense, that is truly inclusive. If it strays from it and bangs on relentlessly about wider social issues that highlight difference using Surrey cricket as a pretext, that is likely to be divisive.

One example is the ACE programme. Yes, it's true that young people of Afro-Carribbean origin are under-represented in taking up professional cricket. But that applies to ALL kids from working-class communities in inner city areas. It is a fact that since state schools stopped playing cricket in the 90s because the playing fields were sold off, far fewer professional cricketers have come through from other than fee-paying public schools. So our programme, with the huge amounts of money and publicity which have gone into it,  should have been targeted at redressing that wider inequality - along the lines of what Freddie Flintoff did up in Preston which was showcased on TV (though on a much larger scale). That would have been truly inclusive. I gather from a deep dive into the far reaches of the Surrey website there is something called the "Surrey Cricket Foundation" which dabbles in a bit of this, but it doesn't seem to get a fraction of the publicity or profile ACE gets, and I bet it doesn't get anything like the resourcing.

I agree with Jackers regarding the "woke" stuff. After only missing 2 home games at Sutton United,a 5 minute walk away,last season,i have not been to a single game this season because of all the special days/good causes/different kit being worn to promote certain causes etc etc etc.
They seem to find something almost every game and i just want to watch the football as bad as it is!

Jackers wrote:I
One example is the ACE programme. Yes, it's true that young people of Afro-Carribbean origin are under-represented in taking up professional cricket. But that applies to ALL kids from working-class communities in inner city areas. It is a fact that since state schools stopped playing cricket in the 90s because the playing fields were sold off, far fewer professional cricketers have come through from other than fee-paying public schools.

You are right that the class/schooling barrier is itself a substantial barrier. What that doesn't rule out, though, is that certain groups may have additional obstacles to contend with, so if you are in one of those groups a[i]and[i] go to a state school, it's a double whammy. One such obstacle might be a belief that "people like you" would be unwelcome, subject to preconceptions or offensive banter. The belief might be false, or at least overstated, but the belief itself helps to perpetuate under-representation.

To move outside cricket, your schooling does not prevent you joining the Met Police but you might be put off by the thought that you will be given a pretty hard time of it. Given the recent report and earlier history, can anyone seriously doubt the existence of that obstacle when it comes to the police and that things cannot be allowed to continue to fester? And if it's true for the police it could be true elsewhere.

So while I'd agree that cricket need to address the wider inequality, I don't think cricket should say "Ok, that's all we need to do". Whether ACE is the way to go is another matter but ignoring race-related disparities altogether shouldn't really be a an option.

Not really wanting to open up another off topic subject matter, I've always shared the view that sports that have been around the longest, like cricket and football, mirror wider society. Whatever your view on the "woke/PC culture", it's everywhere. You know BBC, Sky, Ch. 4 constantly pay homage to this creeping snake invading society. I  watch Talk T.V. sometimes to get the opposite viewpoint, you should dip in. You might not like it, but some of it is eye opening. Trouble seems to be that too many people of all persuasions haven't got enough to do (Razig for instance) and just want to dig up ***t on people and rewrite history. They'd be better off doing some real work, or better help out a charity; something positive rather than negative for society would be welcome. And they'd feel a whole lot better for it.

Chinaman wrote:Not really wanting to open up another off topic subject matter, I've always shared the view that sports that have been around the longest, like cricket and football, mirror wider society. Whatever your view on the "woke/PC culture", it's everywhere. You know BBC, Sky, Ch. 4 constantly pay homage to this creeping snake invading society. I  watch Talk T.V. sometimes to get the opposite viewpoint, you should dip in. You might not like it, but some of it is eye opening. Trouble seems to be that too many people of all persuasions haven't got enough to do (Razig for instance) and just want to dig up ***t on people and rewrite history. They'd be better off doing some real work, or better help out a charity; something positive rather than negative for society would be welcome. And they'd feel a whole lot better for it.

Sports reflect the circles in which the people who play it move. Real tennis and polo don't mirror wider society. Jackers pointed out the domination of cricket by public school products so that is a preety distorted mirror as well.

I disagree strongly with most of the rest of your post but that won't be a surprise. Do you really think that the Met Police is fine as it is and that those complaining haven't got enough to do?

No it's not, but it was when it was a proper Police Force and not a wokey Police Service. Yes it's got bad eggs like any big organisation, but I'd rather have Frank Burnside or Jack Regan types catching criminals than todays pen pushers. And no I think most of those complaining haven't got anything better to do.
You know I've taken to switching off cricket commentary because I'm sick of "thirds" and batters " and all the pointless gender neutral rubbish.

You do know that the Flying Squad and Vice Squad at that time were riddled with corruption, even at high levels, don't you? They were only catching the criminals that weren't cutting them in!

You mean just like all the political parties and "focus groups"!

And Cameron Steel goes to103 . 1st Surrey centurion of the season

Jackers wrote:
...

Let’s finish on a high. It’s nearly time for cricket, and we are county champions. As I said earlier, I think both Lancs and Essex have stronger claims this time, but I struggle to see any other counties who will finish above us, which I wouldn’t have said this time last year.

Not a bad day for Surrey so far.

Essex could only draw against Kent with play washed out for the day at Canterbury.

Meanwhile, in Taunton, a fine rearguard action by Gregory and Aldridge has given Somerset a decent chance of also restricting Lancs to a draw.

Just a shame for us that Hants, another Championship title contender imo, pummelled Northants inside 3 days yesterday.

Commendable resolve from Somerset as they deny Lancs a win and probably help Surrey in the process although too early to say for sure.

Top 5 tonight:

1. Hants  Played 3    Points 45
2. Essex  Played 3    Points 40
3. Warks  Played 2   Points 35
4. Surrey Played 2   Points 32
5. Lancs  Played 3    Points 29  

This week's trip to Edgbaston certainly looking significant.

Yes indeed, but looking at the weather at the moment doesn't inspire me!

That's why I never really consider away trips before mid-May (or after mid-September!)

Yes not going myself. It's a boon you can watch on live stream these days.