B.B.E. (Before Batty Era)

Seem to recall in the good old days when we had the pleasure of watching Laker and Lock ,and more recently Sals and Saqlain.  Now we have seam,seam and yet more seam under Batty. Also quiet recently in 2018 we has Virdi and Batty contributing over 50 wickets in our success. No consistently successful team hasn’t included a specialist spinner. Even the great West Indies with a collection of hostile fast bowlers,had a Lance Gibbs in their team. Yet Batty seems to think the statistics are wrong,and not him. From taking on the job this miopic man has frozen out Moriarty and Virdi and forced Moriarty out of the club completely . The shameful aspect of this is that it was his job as coach and former spinner to work with them to improve skills!! In this he has failed them and Surrey miserably. Our future success depends upon having quality spinners and he has totally ignored this with his actions. Teams will soon realise how 2 dimensional Surrey are prepare their pitches accordingly.In the long run we will pay for this misguided policy!

dougieginn wrote:Even the great West Indies with a collection of hostile fast bowlers,had a Lance Gibbs in their team.

Gibbs played his last Test in 1976 by which time he was over 40. He was a key part of the attack - Hall, Griffiths, all three forms of Sobers. When Hall and Griffiths were no longer on the scene, the West Indies quicks were good - Boyce, Holder, Shillingford and Kent's Shepherd - but not terrifyingly so. Then the golden age (or disaster - delete according to choice) of a surplus of really quick bowlers - Marshall, Holding, Roberts, Clarke, Daniel, Patterson, Croft - and I don't recall the teams they played in under Clive Lloyd bothering much with a spinner. They could do it because there was no sanction against over rates which, even by today's standards, were glacial, so the quicks would not be knackered (to use a technical expression) by 5 o'clock.

I'm not dissenting form your general view on spin but Gibbs belonged to a different era, before the four quicks approach was dreamt of.

It's true that the great West Indian teams between the mid-70s and mid-90s rolled over the opposition with their battery of four quicks. But that was certainly not the case with the great Australian side that dominated the next 10-12 years. They too had the luxury of picking just four specialist bowlers. Steve Waugh at 6 was much more of an occasional bowler for them for most of his career than a genuine all-rounder. They didn't have four "quicks", though - their fourth bowler was a certain leg-spinner who could come on at a very early stage and bowl over after over from one end, allowing the other three to rotate. In both of those examples the successful strategy of "pick your best four bowlers" relied on the batsmen and wicket-keeper to get the runs. In the great West Indies and Australian sides that was never a problem.

Drilling down to county level, it makes me cross to see the batting prowess of the likes of Moriarty and Virdi placed so much under the microscope when we are entitled to expect the likes of Burns, Sibley, Pope (when available), the wonderfully talented Jamie Smith, Foakes and next year Dan Lawrence to score the volume of runs that Surrey need to enable them to simply pick their best four bowlers for each game.  If none of those four are ever spinners regardless of the conditions, fair enough, play your four quicks. But for pity's sake, pick them on what they contribute with the ball, not the bat!

adelaide wrote:

dougieginn wrote:Even the great West Indies with a collection of hostile fast bowlers,had a Lance Gibbs in their team.

Gibbs played his last Test in 1976 by which time he was over 40. He was a key part of the attack - Hall, Griffiths, all three forms of Sobers. When Hall and Griffiths were no longer on the scene, the West Indies quicks were good - Boyce, Holder, Shillingford and Kent's Shepherd - but not terrifyingly so. Then the golden age (or disaster - delete according to choice) of a surplus of really quick bowlers - Marshall, Holding, Roberts, Clarke, Daniel, Patterson, Croft - and I don't recall the teams they played in under Clive Lloyd bothering much with a spinner. They could do it because there was no sanction against over rates which, even by today's standards, were glacial, so the quicks would not be knackered (to use a technical expression) by 5 o'clock.

I'm not dissenting from your general view on spin but Gibbs belonged to a different era, before the four quicks approach was dreamt of.

You missed out Joel Garner.

Dougie, I too would love to see a top class spinner taking lots of wickets for Surrey. I do though think it harsh to be too critical of a man who has given Surrey great service for many years, won the Championship as Coach last season in his first season in that role and looks as though he may repeat the feat this year.

I don't agree with his spinners policy, but the man is a Surrey legend.

Agree with the spinners talk long term, the over dramatics about Batty are total guff though

offdrive4 wrote:Dougie, I too would love to see a top class spinner taking lots of wickets for Surrey.   I do though think it harsh to be too critical of a man who has given Surrey great service for many years, won the Championship as Coach last season in his first season in that role and looks as though he may repeat the feat this year.  

I don't agree with his spinners policy, but the man is a Surrey legend.

You will never see a real spinner because he would never pick one and certainly never develop one. Surrey legend!! It’ is a term used for very special people ,not a man like Batty!!!

1. There are no "real"spinners in County Cricket, certainly nothing that will remotely develop into a Lance Gibbs or a Shane Warne or even a Nathan Lyon.
2. It's not Battys fault that we play insufficient CC games in July and
August when pitches are most suitable to develop spinners. ECB anyone? 10O?
3. If Jack Leach  is the best we have (they didn't even try another new spinner for the Ashes and Root is as good as anyone), it shows the state of spin bowling throughout the counties, not just Surrey.
4. It's not the spinners fault they are not good enough, neither is it Surreys or Battys. It's the bloody system!

Ali888 wrote:You missed out Joel Garner.

Difficult to, er, overlook Garner ... but I managed it!

Can’t improve anyway if you’re not selected in the first place, like Moriarty and Virdi!! You can’t always have turning pitches to play a spinner!! Lock and Laker played every match as did Sals and Saqlain. Spinners develop their craft as much on flat wickets as turning ones.

But to be effective on flat wickets you have to actually be good, I wouldn't put Virdi or Moriarty on the same page as Saqlain and Salisbury.

Ali888 wrote:

adelaide wrote:

dougieginn wrote:Even the great West Indies with a collection of hostile fast bowlers,had a Lance Gibbs in their team.

Gibbs played his last Test in 1976 by which time he was over 40. He was a key part of the attack - Hall, Griffiths, all three forms of Sobers. When Hall and Griffiths were no longer on the scene, the West Indies quicks were good - Boyce, Holder, Shillingford and Kent's Shepherd - but not terrifyingly so. Then the golden age (or disaster - delete according to choice) of a surplus of really quick bowlers - Marshall, Holding, Roberts, Clarke, Daniel, Patterson, Croft - and I don't recall the teams they played in under Clive Lloyd bothering much with a spinner. They could do it because there was no sanction against over rates which, even by today's standards, were glacial, so the quicks would not be knackered (to use a technical expression) by 5 o'clock.

I'm not dissenting from your general view on spin but Gibbs belonged to a different era, before the four quicks approach was dreamt of.

You missed out Joel Garner.

You missed out Wayne Daniel and Ian Bishop too!!!

Good piece by Vic Marks in this month's Cricketer.

Chinaman wrote:But to be effective on flat wickets you have to actually be good, I wouldn't put Virdi or Moriarty on the same page as Saqlain and Salisbury.

Salisbury was a decent county spinner - but he was unquestionably helped by having Saqlain at the other end, and if it wasnt Saqlain, it was high end county seamers like Bicknell, Tudor and the like.

Also, Virdi and Moriarty are still only kids ultimately. As people have said they have to play.

It is a hard one - on the one hand throughout this board and indeed in a very adjacent thread you have people whinging Surrey arent winning every game, with a great many rage caps and froth from their mouths. Our form over the last 2 years in unprecedented in the championship, and this is mainly with 4 seamers and backup in Jacks and Steel, and enormous credit has to go to Batty for this (as with similar players under Solanki this wasnt happening).
However, I think for the overall balance of the club and squad there are many who would like to see Virdi or up to recently Moriarty play, so they can develop. But would this mean leaving out, say, Lawes? Overton? Clark? Worrall? Its not going to happen. And as others have suggested, zero county cricket in late July and August is deeply unsatisfactory for developing these guys, and I imagine England will get a rude awakening in India in the summer....but its not an Ashes so theyll brush it under the rug.

offdrive4 wrote:Dougie, I too would love to see a top class spinner taking lots of wickets for Surrey.   I do though think it harsh to be too critical of a man who has given Surrey great service for many years, won the Championship as Coach last season in his first season in that role and looks as though he may repeat the feat this year.  

I don't agree with his spinners policy, but the man is a Surrey legend.

Can’t let the ludicrous statement that Batty is a “Legend” go without further comment. Lock,Laker,May are legends and more recently Medleycott and Hollioake are legends!!! To put this man’s “achievements “in the same category is an insult to the successes these true legends had!!! Did our coach in our 2018 deserve the same accolade?  because he achieved it with real spinners, and not endlessly boring seam,seam and yet more seam,he’s perhaps more deserving?
Stewart has oft stated that his mission is to produce Englands players,unfortunately this has been ignored by his subordinate!!! Unless that just doesn’t apply to  Virdi and Moriarty who were abandoned by Batty, not nurtured or developed as was his responsibility as coach!!!!!

Aaron Hardie is a Surrey legend.

The term "legend" is subjective. Clearly in terms of cricket ability Batty is not in remotely in the same league as Lock, Laker or May. But his contribution to the club over the past 13 years is remarkable. Batty stepped up to the plate when everyone around him crumbled in the aftermath of the Adams/Maynard nightmare. He was never a great tactical captain but his leadership and mental strength kept us up that year. When we were eventually relegated, it was his memorable hat-trick (against Derbyshire I think) that secured our promotion.

Hs bowling and competitiveness were instrumental in our formidable record in 50-over cricket in the 2010s: winners in 2011, then three consecutive finals from 2017-19 seems like a lifetime ago. He was usually our most effective bowler in the T20 format, too, especially after Dernbach lost his mojo. He moved seamlessly into the Head Coach role at short notice when the underwhelming Solanki took the IPL money, and he is on his way to winning a second championship already.

He is not perfect: his preference for  "bits-and-pieces" players in red ball cricket at the expense of specialists is a blind spot. But if your definition of  "club legend" extends beyond pure playing ability I would go as far as to say he is on the road to belonging in the same revered company as Micky Stewart.

Certainly I feel if Burns wins the Championship this year he should be held up there with Hollioake - 3/3 for seasons he has captained us for the full season!

Batty will be 2/2 as well and he has only lost 2 Championship games in nearly 2 years. If he continues like this he’ll be able to claim legend status too. Until England comes knocking when McCullum leaves (2026?).

I'm not too familiar with the Holliaoke years compared to most - was that squad of an elite caliber?

Don't get me wrong, we were brilliant in 2018 as a team, but it always felt like we had a cheat code in Morne Morkel who was clearly far, far, far too good for the Championship, and probably didn't need to retire from international cricket at that point

Jackers wrote:The term "legend" is subjective. Clearly in terms of cricket ability Batty is not in remotely in the same league as Lock, Laker or May. But his contribution to the club over the past 13 years is remarkable. Batty stepped up to the plate when everyone around him crumbled in the aftermath of the Adams/Maynard nightmare. He was never a great tactical captain but his leadership and mental strength kept us up that year. When we were eventually relegated, it was his memorable hat-trick (against Derbyshire I think) that secured our promotion.

Hs bowling and competitiveness were instrumental in our formidable record in 50-over cricket in the 2010s: winners in 2011, then three consecutive finals from 2017-19 seems like a lifetime ago. He was usually our most effective bowler in the T20 format, too, especially after Dernbach lost his mojo. He moved seamlessly into the Head Coach role at short notice when the underwhelming Solanki took the IPL money, and he is on his way to winning a second championship already.

He is not perfect: his preference for  "bits-and-pieces" players in red ball cricket at the expense of specialists is a blind spot. But if your definition of  "club legend" extends beyond pure playing ability I would go as far as to say he is on the road to belonging in the same revered company as Micky Stewart.

In the same class as Mickey Stewart ???He won an Ashes series in Oz as manager coach, that’s what makes him a True Legend. I don’t think he’ll ever be England Coach  because England always play a spinner ,whereas Batty never does!!! Also Bob Key said in Moriarty’s first season ,how much impressed he was with his bowling,a much better judge than Batty, not that is saying much!!!! Furthermore getting to final is not the same as winning it ,is it? He has with our almost unlimited financial resources still without a T20 final win since Hollioake won the first.

Alex! wrote:I'm not too familiar with the Holliaoke years compared to most - was that squad of an elite caliber?

Don't get me wrong, we were brilliant in 2018 as a team, but it always felt like we had a cheat code in Morne Morkel who was clearly far, far, far too good for the Championship, and probably didn't need to retire from international cricket at that point

Did help when Virdi took 14 wickets against Notts,whereas our “Legend “ only took four and Ashwin took 12 . Happy Days

That was in 2019 wasn't it? One of the few games we won that year where we just incredibly poor

dougieginn wrote:

Jackers wrote:The term "legend" is subjective. Clearly in terms of cricket ability Batty is not in remotely in the same league as Lock, Laker or May. But his contribution to the club over the past 13 years is remarkable. Batty stepped up to the plate when everyone around him crumbled in the aftermath of the Adams/Maynard nightmare. He was never a great tactical captain but his leadership and mental strength kept us up that year. When we were eventually relegated, it was his memorable hat-trick (against Derbyshire I think) that secured our promotion.

Hs bowling and competitiveness were instrumental in our formidable record in 50-over cricket in the 2010s: winners in 2011, then three consecutive finals from 2017-19 seems like a lifetime ago. He was usually our most effective bowler in the T20 format, too, especially after Dernbach lost his mojo. He moved seamlessly into the Head Coach role at short notice when the underwhelming Solanki took the IPL money, and he is on his way to winning a second championship already.

He is not perfect: his preference for  "bits-and-pieces" players in red ball cricket at the expense of specialists is a blind spot. But if your definition of  "club legend" extends beyond pure playing ability I would go as far as to say he is on the road to belonging in the same revered company as Micky Stewart.

In the same class as Mickey Stewart ???He won an Ashes series in Oz as manager coach, that’s what makes him a True Legend. I don’t think he’ll ever be England Coach  because England always play a spinner ,whereas Batty never does!!! Also Bob Key said in Moriarty’s first season ,how much impressed he was with his bowling,a much better judge than Batty, not that is saying much!!!! Furthermore getting to final is not the same as winning it ,is it? He has with our almost unlimited financial resources  still without a T20 final win since Hollioake won the first.

As I said, the term "legend" is subjective. One of the many variables is whether you are talking about a legend of the game in general or of Surrey County Cricket Club in particular. I assumed we were debating the latter. Micky Stewart is not a Surrey legend because he played a few games for England, or went on to manage them. It is because he is generally recognised as a fine Surrey captain over many seasons (though he only won one trophy) and a very effective Surrey cricket manager (again, though winning just one trophy). His long association with the club and fathering of Alec, who has also contributed so much to Surrey cricket, surely comes into the equation. In Gareth's case, he is equally if not already more successful in terms of what he has won as Surrey player or cricket manager, and while he was obviously not as good a captain as Micky I would suggest his overall contribution is on the way to standing up to comparison. There is no evidence that Batty doesn't rate Moriarty's bowling - just that he thinks we can win without it (hard to disagree, though as I've said often enough it's a very short-sighted view).

Alex! wrote:I'm not too familiar with the Holliaoke years compared to most - was that squad of an elite caliber?

Don't get me wrong, we were brilliant in 2018 as a team, but it always felt like we had a cheat code in Morne Morkel who was clearly far, far, far too good for the Championship, and probably didn't need to retire from international cricket at that point

No international player is too good for the Championship.

When you’re good enough to coach an Ashes winning side in Oz, that makes you a LEGEND in my book both for Surrey and England.Batty’s limited success at a county level doesn’t compare with Mickey’s. They will never name a pavilion after him like Mickey that’s for certain. Think he would have won more CCs if he’d the financial resources that batty has had thanks to our very successful corporate hospitality department.