Essex vs Surrey 4th-7th May

Thrown another away on Harmer's first ball. Surely we need to just dig in here ...

How many overs left ?

Keith Powell wrote:How many overs left ?

They have 54 overs to bowl at us. So just over 7 now.

4 to go ...

3 to go. Nobody move ....

The chase was never on! Very cautious declaration from Wesley. Never thought we would go for it, after a few quick wickets we didn’t. Only option was to play for a draw and move on.

dougieginn wrote:The chase was never on!  Very cautious declaration from Wesley. Never thought we would go for it, after a few quick wickets we didn’t. Only option was to play for a draw and move on.

It wasn't a declaration. We bowled them out.

The VIP's at Surrey obviously know far more about it than a humble serf like me who has only been watching for sixty years.However,opening a possible run chase with Burns and Sibley was crackers.

I would've sent out Jacks and Abbott and told them to have a slog,then,as soon as we lost two wickets calm it down/shut up shot.Like i say though, Stewart,Batty and co always know best.If you dare to disagree with anything you are deemed to be a "keyboard warrior."Please see Mr Stewart's recent interview in Annie Chave's excellent "County Cricket Matters" magazine to confirm it.

kjb wrote:

dougieginn wrote:The chase was never on!  Very cautious declaration from Wesley. Never thought we would go for it, after a few quick wickets we didn’t. Only option was to play for a draw and move on.

It wasn't a declaration. We bowled them out.

You know what he means,don't split hairs FFS.

Chelmsford is the birthplace of the radio.How do we know this? Church told us so 327 times during this game that's how.

Current batting averages.............

Abbott 46

Sibley 31

Burns 29

A reasonable effort from us today, firstly to bowl them out relatively cheaply and then to go for the unlikely victory for as long as was sensible. Special mention to Jamie Smith who underlined why his future in our team is batting in the top four (sans gloves!).

No one for as long as Harmer has been playing has got over 250 on  day 4 at Chelmsford to win to my knowledge. Essex knew that 27O was enough which is why they started hitting out. After watching 3 days of this this was a pitch where only 3 x 50s were scored: you were never in on it. Easier to defend as we saw. But Smith, Steel (yes Steel) and Clarke played superbly under a lot of pressure. Essex probably made an error of not bringing on Harmer earlier but neither side were at their best in this game. Missing a day yesterday helped a lot. Very entertaining to watch though.

I must admit that I thought we'd messed that up when Ben Foakes was out. Well played Jamie Smith !

Chinaman wrote:Essex probably made an error of not bringing on Harmer earlier.

Surely not. Mr Church thought it was a masterstroke by Westley delaying Harmer's entrance so he could have a swarm of close fielders and he's never wrong, is Churchy...

I suspect that Westley would have batted a little longer, given the chance, in which case there would probably not have been any attempt at a run chase and no prospect of an exciting finish.

As for Burns and Sibley opening, I've lost count of the number of run chases in the last few years where the start has been so sedate that nobody thinks they are going for it ... except the players. The mantra seems to be have become to have wickets in hand at tea then give it a go, almost irrespective of the target.

Yes Church is always right.....!
They may have gone on a bit longer but not much because they were swinging the bat and as I said 270 was more than enough, but I think we would have had a go whatever the total. As you say changing the openers is not a good idea because it's not very wise to go dancing down the wicket from ball 1.
Onwards to the Oval for Middlesex, and people stop saying teams like Midle, Northants and Kent will be easy, it usually comes back and bites you on the bum.

Essex the better of the 2 teams over the 4 days but we dug in to gain 5 points.Who knows what would’ve happened with a full day 3.

I thought we kept going for it a little too long, though that is probably a good fault as the points system really rewards taking risks for a win.   I would also have had Jacks in earlier as we needed a substantial but very fast innings from at least one batter and he is the most likely candidate to achieve this alongside Pope.   We did not bowl quite as well as we have in previous matches.   Essex were the better team.

Listening to Gareth Batty post Match wasn’t overly impressed with the Wicket.Has someone mentioned in a earlier post 314 was probably 30/40runs too many.

Chinaman wrote:Yes Church is always right.....!
They may have gone on a bit longer but not much because they were swinging the bat and as I said 270 was more than enough, but I think we would have had a go whatever the total. As you say changing the openers is not a good idea because it's not very wise to go dancing down the wicket from ball 1.
Onwards to the Oval for Middlesex, and people stop saying teams like Midle, Northants and Kent will be easy, it usually comes back and bites you on the bum.

Hi China - tbf to Westley, he was probably conscious of how Pope destroyed a more than decent Hants attack last month. I can therefore understand why he wanted even more than 270 regardless of past scores at Chelmsford.

Agree with you and Adelaide about not changing the openers. In the Hants chase there were grumbles from some before tea as to how slowly Sibley was going but it proved to be the perfect platform.

I think captains are aware that Ollie Pope's record at The Oval is markedly different to on other English grounds. He is of course a class player, always capable of a big score, but the calcluation of the risk of him taking the game away from you would be different with an attack like that at Westley's disposal at Chelmsford.

Pope was out for 47 in the 20th over with the score on 73. Of those 20 overs, Rory Burns had used up 7 of them scoring 10 off 43 balls. A different opening pair would have unquestionably set a better tone and put more pressure on the Essex seamers. The difference with the Hants chase was not Ollie Pope’s record at the Oval, it’s more Essex having Harmer to bring on and control things from there. If we were going for it (and I don’t think we actually were - which is also fine) then we should have prioritised getting far more runs on the board before Harmer comes on. A different opening pair doesn’t have to mean slogging, it’s just being more aggressive against the new ball while the fields are up.

No. Nobody in either side actually "got in" on this pitch. Cooks 50 odd being the top score. Even Pope strugled. You couldn't score quickly without some risk, but you could defend despite 6 men round the bat even with Harmer on. Oh we were going for it right up to 6 down believe me.

Chinaman wrote:No. Nobody in either side actually "got in" on this pitch. Cooks 50 odd being the top score. Even Pope strugled. You couldn't score quickly without some risk, but you could defend despite 6 men round the bat even with Harmer on. Oh we were going for it right up to 6 down believe me.