Surrey v Worcestershire - County Championship

Why are we still batting??

Keith Powell wrote:Why are we still batting??

Your stream is slow?

Warwickshire are thankfully doing their bit...so far

Worrall is just...very good

Very fair point indeed Jackers. I retract my statement.

In afraid Worcestershire are just not good enough for this bowling attack. At this rate you'll all be home by 4.30.

Already at selhurst park

Can you imagine the sledging he would get if he rocked up at the Gabba.

Peter.M.Gardens wrote:Somerset got full bonus points and look like winning so could be well clear in second place, as Essex (just 2 bonus points) look like losing (require 303 runs to win with 8 wickets remaining)

Not so sure. Kent are 200/1.

Wonderful! Why were we ever worried, eh?

Another good win with a bit of entertaining slogging at the end. Not sure why Atkinson is playing, Steel would have been a better bet.

Still concerning that we still struggle to get the lower order out. Can’t always afford 40/50 runs to get the tail out.

Great win and some thoroughly entertaining hitting from the Worcs lower order. If those guys had opened for Worcs, might have been a decent run chase.

Best day of the game, warm and sunny, not a cloud in the sky. Precious last day's championship cricket at The Oval until the very last day of June. Oh, wait.....#nomoregreentops

Peter.M.Gardens wrote:Jesus I was going to watch the football at 4pm but after 10 minutes of solid adds  from 3.50 I gave up and back on Surrey live stream

What were you thinking?

The Nightwatchman wrote:Another good win with a bit of entertaining slogging at the end. Not sure why Atkinson is playing, Steel would have been a better bet.

I disagree about Steel but I've already had that dance and recognise I'm in the minority here. Quick question though please. I was away and unable to follow the game live. With our five man seam attack, were we ever in danger of being penalised for a slow over rate? That was my only concern with playing all five. Thanks.

No. We ended up at +2, maybe +3, and we were never negative.

You seem to get a lot more allowance for taking wickets than the time actually taken, so if you run thru a side you end up ahead.

What would have happened had we conceded 400 is another question.

VauxhallRey wrote:No.  We ended up at +2, maybe +3, and we were never negative.

You seem to get a lot more allowance for taking wickets than the time actually taken, so if you run thru a side you end up ahead.

What would have happened had we conceded 400 is another question.

Many thanks, Simon. Appreciated.

Yes, I've thought for a while that the allowance for taking wickets is on the generous side.

Not enforcing the follow on against a side known for seconds innings miracles of sorts has to be up there with the more stupid decisions you'll see this season

Either way, can only focus on what this team does at Hampshire next weekend

Good test next week especially playing away from home if we do have any chinks in our armour is normally on the Road.

I think we will need Steel at Hants,they’re bound to produce a turner after what happened last year