Thirty six players ... thirty six ... then 37, now 38!

Blake, Overton and Dunn renewed

Blake and Overton are justified, but not sure about Dunn at all

Alex! wrote:Blake, Overton and Dunn renewed

Blake and Overton are justified, but not sure about Dunn at all

We can renew the contract of a 31-year-old fast bowler who is on the Meaker trajectory, but we can't persuade a 25-year-old left-arm spinner who has his best years ahead of him that he has a future at Surrey.

Keeping Dunn on for no good reason rather reminds me of the fag-end of the infamous Chris Adams era, where he frantically tried to compensate for the wild excesses of his younger players by recruiting the likes of Zander De Bruyn, Solanki and Keedy (all in their late-30s) to add "experience and maturity" to the squad.

As Greavesie used to say "it's a funny old game".

I’m not sure why they even bother announcing these when they don’t disclose the length of the deal.

Jackers wrote:

Alex! wrote:Blake, Overton and Dunn renewed

Blake and Overton are justified, but not sure about Dunn at all

We can renew the contract of a 31-year-old fast bowler who is on the Meaker trajectory, but we can't persuade a 25-year-old left-arm spinner who has his best years ahead of him that he has a future at Surrey.

Keeping Dunn on for no good reason rather reminds me of the fag-end of the infamous Chris Adams era, where he frantically tried to compensate for the wild excesses of his younger players by recruiting the likes of Zander De Bruyn, Solanki and Keedy (all in their late-30s) to add "experience and maturity" to the squad.

As Greavesie used to say "it's a funny old game".

Dunn has shown himself to be a willing squad player whilst Moriarty was only prepared to stay if he was going to be playing Championship cricket now. He wasn't. I don't blame him for his decision but it's about time we accepted it and stopped blaming the Club.

Delighted with Dunn staying on. Even if it’s purely another year to recognise that given his personal circumstances, this year has largely been a non-starter for him, then it’s just a good thing for Surrey to do.

Australian model would really help us here. That would split out T20 from the counties altogether, allowing separate contracts and as little or as much integration as we (Surrey) want. There was a time when “Perth Scorchers” was basically Western Australia.

That would chop off a significant number of this lot.

Jackers wrote:

Alex! wrote:Blake, Overton and Dunn renewed

Blake and Overton are justified, but not sure about Dunn at all

We can renew the contract of a 31-year-old fast bowler who is on the Meaker trajectory, but we can't persuade a 25-year-old left-arm spinner who has his best years ahead of him that he has a future at Surrey.

Keeping Dunn on for no good reason rather reminds me of the fag-end of the infamous Chris Adams era, where he frantically tried to compensate for the wild excesses of his younger players by recruiting the likes of Zander De Bruyn, Solanki and Keedy (all in their late-30s) to add "experience and maturity" to the squad.

Shortly after Adams had gone, I overheard Micky Stewart tell Yorkshire coach Martyn Moxon that "we had lost our identity".

Not to mention our marbles!

However frustrated we may be with some of the current decisions (eg some of us with freezing Moriarty out; others with the short-term overseas signings limiting opportunities for our own)...it helps to be thankful that we have Stewart and Batty in charge and remind ourselves of that dreadful period...

Kimber and Reifer leaving. Majid, Barnwell and Taylor extending.

Mildly relieved we're finally getting of a few - shame about Reifer because he definitely showed glimpses of what he was capable of

Why have the Club stopped telling us the length of the players new contracts? This is a crucial bit of information and has always been provided till recently.

Samit's available.