Laurie Evans?

Sorry someone brought this up somewhere else the other day and its bugging me....

Has Laurie Evans left Surrey? I'm sure someone on this forum said he'd left.

The info on Surrey Website here says that he is contracted till the end of 2023.

I know its only a big deal when the T20 comes around on 30th May, but with Will Jacks missing and I believe Jason Roy unavailable too (story here) we might be a bit light on the batting front especially as England play Pakistan in a T20 series end of May before going off to play in the T20 World Cup.

Our opening T20 last season we had Jacks and Narine opening, Sam Curran at number 3 and Tom Curran at 4 in the order. You'd imagine we've planned to cover as none of those will be available to Surrey this time around either as the IPL is on.

Maybe we'll just field our Metro Bank side?

The Metro Bank means more to me.

VicNorth wrote:The Metro Bank means more to me.

Maybe the way forward to improve our MetroBank 50 Over side is to play them all in the Vitality T20 and help their development. eg open up with Ryan Patel and Ben Geddes, move Tom Lawes up the order (if he is considered a future all-rounder) - If Virdi is never likely to ever play red ball for Surrey why not push him into being a one day bowler. Matt Dunn, Connor McKerr, Josh Blake would play all our group games because we know they'd all be available when the semis and finals come around.

If our white ball players will only play for Surrey as a last resort, if there is absolutely no other cricket going on in the world, what is the point of them being in our squad. I'd make someone like Jordan Clark our one day captain and say he is the boss for all our one day teams, T20/50 over. Reward people who are here for Surrey.

Maybe if we had less white ball players we could give more contracts to younger players coming up through the ranks and give them more games to develop in the one dayers

Only play players for whom Surrey is priority. End of.

VicNorth wrote:Only play players for whom Surrey is priority. End of.

Or to put it another way, if you have ambitions of playing for England, go to another county.

VicNorth wrote:Only play players for whom Surrey is priority. End of.

So we'll have no players on the pitch, then. If you think there are any players in the modern game (under the age of 35) whose priority and loyalty is with their county I'd be fascinated to know who they are.

MatthewC wrote:

VicNorth wrote:Only play players for whom Surrey is priority. End of.

So we'll have no players on the pitch, then. If you think there are any players in the modern game (under the age of 35) whose priority and loyalty is with their county I'd be fascinated to know who they are.

Maybe the answer is like with Rugby, you only get picked to play for your country if you play in your domestic league. You can only play Tests if you've played perhaps 3 county games in last 12 months, and likewise T20 and 50 Over.

What is the value to Surrey of Reece Topley, other than that we can say in our PR bumf we have x international players in our squad.

On the other hand, what is the cost to Surrey of Reece Topley?

isn't it just England who insist on it 100% (weakening the national team but keeping up the standard of the Premiership)?

I genuinely don't know the answer but do you have to play[i] in the English league or just be [i]registered with them? Though for rugby you are hardly likely to be picked for England if you haven't proved your fitness and match sharpness by actually playing, which doesn't seem to worry the national selectors in cricket. Indeed, it is the ECB which actively prevents players from playing domestic cricket. Once upon a time you knew you would lose your England stars for half your matches but they would be there without fail between international matches. Whether the change is considered good or bad by pundits has a remarkably close correlation to how well the England team is doing. Funny, that...

We wont win the blast anyway. Finals day clashes with more pointless ODI games with the Aussies so we wont have Jacks, Curran etc.

The ECB have shit for brains. Why arrange ODI games the same time as finals day when you know counties wont be able to play their best teams. Honestly these fuckwits who run our game need sacking.

I agree that it's pointless cutting off our noses to spite our faces. Unless players are effectively SINOs (Tom Curran and, increasingly, Jason Roy now), we can't afford to give them ultimatums. We have to take calculated gambles on someone like Dan Lawrence, that he will continue to be a high-class county performer but will just about fly below the England radar. It's something we haven't done very well in recent years, due in no small part to 'campaigning' by the Gaffer to get Burns, Foakes, Overton etc on the England selectors' radar. Whoever takes over as DOC needs to be encouraged to say as little as possible about his players' England potential.

Of course the solution should be that the ECB not only allows but actually expects players who wish to be considered for England to be playing regular county cricket. That will require a completely different mind-set to the one which has prevailed for the past 20 years. As the biggest and most influential county in the game, we should be at the forefront of campaigning for just such a change of emphasis.

I'd argue whether players like Topley or both of the Currans should even be contracted Surrey players. We never see them. And when was the last time either of the Currans made any runs or took any wickets in anything? Topley is a walking injury who miraculously recovers just before aT20 competition. Maybe it's time to choose, County or the World-wide hit and giggle circuit. You can't, or at least shouldn't have it both ways.

Maybe returning to start of the thread, would you renew Laurie Evans contract and give him another year, or would you give Ryan Patel or Ben Geddes the spot and just say go out and enjoy yourself, no pressure, get a bit of practive before the One Day Cup.

Adelaide, when I started watching Surrey there were five Test matches a season and you would probably find you lost your Test players for four county matches out of the 23 (I think) three day county championship games. If counties had a game starting the day after a Test match finished then players that had played the previous 5 days were expected to turn out.

I think there is an attitude problem affecting some players who rarely play. Tom Curran and Jason Roy for example do not seem at all anxious to play for Surrey while Sam Curran and Ollie Pope seem happy to play for us when international calls or the IPL do not take precedence. Much as I would like to see more of the latter two I think it unreasonable to blame them for this situation. I also seem to remember Topley putting in a number of good spells in the Championship a couple of years ago.

I wouldnt bother with Evans as I said earlier we wont win the Blast. The ECB have very kindly arranged T20 games between England and Australia either side of finals day so we wont be able to put our strongest side out anyway.

Why they cant move these to the following week I dont know! The people arranging the fixtures are as thick as shit.

Evans,who no longer plays first class Cricket,has asked (in this year's Who' Who) for a reduction in these games.

Topley CC games

2021.............7

2022.............3

2023............0

He's really earned his money. I probably wouldn't mind that much if he was better than rather average.

Chinaman wrote:He's really earned his money. I probably wouldn't mind that much if he was better than rather average.

At least his charming father is a keen supporter of the county game.

adelaide wrote:

VicNorth wrote:Only play players for whom Surrey is priority. End of.

Or to put it another way, if you have ambitions of playing for England, go to another county.

No, I meant apart from playing for England.

Badges wrote:Evans,who no longer plays first class Cricket,has asked (in this year's Who' Who) for a reduction in these games.

That's because he's shit.

My argument wasn't really Surrey v England. It was Surrey v Everything Else.

VicNorth wrote:My argument wasn't really Surrey v England. It was Surrey v Everything Else.

I took that as read,but you always get one.........................