Ravi Ashwin

We've signed Tim David for the last two Blast games, seen him play in the Big Bash. First ever Singaporean to play for Surrey?

I'm guessing Ashwin will be confirmed once they know his visa status

Jackers wrote:Very excited about the signing.

While I take the point that it's our seam department that is virtually useless, I give Alec Stewart credit for not waving the white flag and getting a quality player in, even if it is just for one match. We have seen virtually no championship cricket for two years - when we do get to see a rare match I don't want to see us fielding a load of second-raters and academy players.

Prepare a raging bunsen, give them a taste of their own medicine. It would help if the weather plays ball and we bat first, of course!

I assume therefore that you wont be attending any of our RLC games as thats exactly the sort of team that Surrey will put out due to no availability

Coatesy wrote:

Jackers wrote:Very excited about the signing.

While I take the point that it's our seam department that is virtually useless, I give Alec Stewart credit for not waving the white flag and getting a quality player in, even if it is just for one match. We have seen virtually no championship cricket for two years - when we do get to see a rare match I don't want to see us fielding a load of second-raters and academy players.

Prepare a raging bunsen, give them a taste of their own medicine. It would help if the weather plays ball and we bat first, of course!

I assume therefore that you wont be attending any of our RLC games as thats exactly the sort of team that Surrey will put out due to no availability

I'm very well aware that it's exactly the sort of team Surrey will put out in a competition in which we did very well by putting strong teams out in recent years.

. I'll be attending because(a) it's the only county cricket on offer; (b) although Surrey ultimately lacked the courage to face down the ECB over playing the 100 at our ground I don't hold them primarily responsible for creating a situation that means we'll be more seriously handicapped than many of our opponents in this season's competition.

But I don't delude myself it is any sort of a positive "development opportunity". It is an inferior offering.

We don't need him.Especially for one match only-it's ludicrous.

Badges wrote:We don't need him.Especially for one match only-it's ludicrous.

Well he only took one wicket but only went for under 2 runs an over. It would have been far worse otherwise. Done the job, and who else would have played? There ain't anyone.

Chinaman wrote:

Badges wrote:We don't need him.Especially for one match only-it's ludicrous.

Well he only took one wicket but only went for under 2 runs an over. It would have been far worse otherwise. Done the job, and who else would have played? There ain't anyone.

There's always someone. Look how Kent produced a team in a few hours.


Adelaide

adelaide wrote:

Chinaman wrote:

Badges wrote:We don't need him.Especially for one match only-it's ludicrous.

Well he only took one wicket but only went for under 2 runs an over. It would have been far worse otherwise. Done the job, and who else would have played? There ain't anyone.

There's always someone. Look how Kent produced a team in a few hours.


Adelaide

Yes and 122/7.

He took 1-99 and was out bowled by OUR OWN 2 spinners.
A waste of time; we could have played another seamer or batsman.

kjb wrote:He took 1-99 and was out bowled by OUR OWN 2 spinners.
A waste of time; we could have played another seamer or batsman.

Like who? They are all either injured or in the England camp.

Chinaman wrote:

adelaide wrote:

Chinaman wrote:

Badges wrote:We don't need him.Especially for one match only-it's ludicrous.

Well he only took one wicket but only went for under 2 runs an over. It would have been far worse otherwise. Done the job, and who else would have played? There ain't anyone.

There's always someone. Look how Kent produced a team in a few hours.


Adelaide

Yes and 122/7.

Yes, in response to 181 all out, though inexperienced players may find it hard to repeat that in the second innings..

My point is that if Kent can rustle up a complete team with five debutants at a few hours' notice, it should be easy for Surrey to full just one additional space in the team from the seconds rather than bringing in a big name players a couple of days in advance. They chose not to - that's their prerogative but to say nobody else could have played - that is hard to believe. Even if a batsman had been brought in, there would have been three seamers and two spinners. As it happened, Overton got injured quickly but injury is always a risk.

Ashwin is pure class.

He probably hasn't bowled a single ball since the IPL stopped over two months ago. He played for us at three days' notice and bowled with the new ball in the first over of the first day of the match. He was very unlucky not to take more wickets on the first morning. In all, he bowled no fewer than 43 overs conceding fewer than 100 runs at 2.3 an over.

Had we played any of our other second-rate seamers, especially given Overton's injury, Somerset would probably have raced to 350+ overnight and got past 500 by lunch today. Rikki Clarke has to be used sparingly these days.  

As it was, largely due to Ashwin's broad shoulders bowling in tandem with our own two spinners, we were not totally embarrassed.

Jackers wrote:Ashwin is pure class.

He probably hasn't bowled a single ball since the IPL stopped over two months ago. He played for us at three days' notice and bowled with the new ball in the first over of the first day of the match. He was very unlucky not to take more wickets on the first morning. In all, he bowled no fewer than 43 overs conceding fewer than 100 runs at 2.3 an over.

Had we played any of our other second-rate seamers, especially given Overton's injury, Somerset would probably have raced to 350+ overnight and got past 500 by lunch today. Rikki Clarke has to be used sparingly these days.  

As it was, largely due to Ashwin's broad shoulders bowling in tandem with our own two spinners, we were not totally embarrassed.

He played in the World Championship final...

Yes, I forgot that. And bloody well he bowled too, in conditions suited to seamers.

Ashwin has a Youtube channel and put up a video summarising his experiences here.

Quite an interesting watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYnPGjTxHqc&t=1s

A ludicrous signing.Even if he'd taken 20 wickets.

Nonsense.

We may not see any more championship cricket this season given the Covid situation and ECB's appetite to take players away from counties to prioritise everything else. Without him there, we would have been lucky to see three days cricket and would have been royally stuffed. As it was, we got a fourth day in fabulous weather and secured an honourable draw against a strong side.

A ludicrous signing.An insult to those of us who freely donated our money last year.As for Somerset......................

Badges wrote:A ludicrous signing.An insult to those of us who freely donated our money last year.As for Somerset......................

Oh come on. So you would have played Uncle Tom Conley and lost the match? I just can't believe supporters would not want to see one of today's great bowlers take 6 wickets for about 27 runs.

For ONE game? NO,it's getting fxxxing silly.

[quote="Badges"]For ONE game? NO,it's getting fxxxing silly.[/quote

So you didn't enjoy the day then. Oh well. Can't please everyone.]

They don't care who they take the wickets for as long as they get the ten grand plus................

One game and capped


No cap for Tim Linley....................

Do you have a source for that? I don't see anything about that, unless you mean giving a cap to players making their Surrey debut