One Day Cup

David Hopps’ match report on cricinfo mentions Stoneman wanting to be an all format player amid interest from Middlesex. It would be a shame to lose him.

I think if Stoneman goes,and i hope he stays,he will return to Durham.They are his club after all,we just borrowed him for a few years.

dougieginn wrote:We have eight,Roy,SC ,TC , Jacks,Overton,Clark,Burns and Foakes. A list includes 5 international players!

missing only 8 would have been nice

9 were out due to Hundred (Atkinson, Clark, T Curran, Dernbach, Evans, Jacks, Plunkett, Roy & Topley) Foakes and Overton were out injured but would have probably been playing in that competition if they were fit. You can then add Burns and S Curran on test duty, and Batty as he was part of the coaching staff. I make that 14, with the injury of Amla making 15. You could make a decent side out of those that were missing

Roy, Jacks, Amla, Evans, Foakes, S Curran, Clark, T Curran, Atkinson, Topley, Batty

In addition, Clark barely played and Dernbach and Atkinson didn’t play at all. We got by but our seam bowling was the weakest part of that line up.

TBF it was probably Atkinson that we missed the most out of those 3, although Clark would have been a handy addition to the lower order batting line up

Cee Gee wrote:David Hopps’ match report on cricinfo mentions Stoneman wanting to be an all format player amid interest from Middlesex. It would be a shame to lose him.

I think it was quite odd that we loaned him to Yorkshire for the T20, it arguably cost us a quarter final place. Surely he would have been better than Burns, who seemed to play most of the matches after our England white ball contingent disappeared and is little more than a specialist fielder in T20?

Badges wrote:I think if Stoneman goes,and i hope he stays,he will return to Durham.They are his club after all,we just borrowed him for a few years.

https://www.kiaoval.com/main-news/stoneman-leaves-surrey-to-join-middlesex/

Cee Gee wrote:

Badges wrote:I think if Stoneman goes,and i hope he stays,he will return to Durham.They are his club after all,we just borrowed him for a few years.

https://www.kiaoval.com/main-news/stoneman-leaves-surrey-to-join-middlesex/

Unbelievable.He just went down in my estimation.Thanks for posting.

Understandable as he will be seen by Middlesex as a replacement for Nick Gubbins.
He is 34 and I thought the consensus on here was that Surrey need to aim up for 2022 in respect of the squad.

What's the point of "aiming" for anything or making plans with a bunch of mercenaries? It's getting worse than football.It seems they can come and go as they please and play for whoever they want whenever they want.

We have overseas players who last 5 minutes.They also play for 4/5/6 different counties,one,the ludicrous Imran Tahir has represented TEN including us.

This once great game has turned into a farce.

Well all I can really say is that I fail to see why he, or probably anyone, would want to sign for Middlesex. maybe he got an offer he couldn't refuse. Should have gone back to Durham mate.

Well looks like 3 years instead of 1 swung the deal. Dear me.

So let's look at what happened in the last week of the competition:

Essex and Glamorgan played their last group games on 12 August. Essex played another game two days later. Essex then played Glamorgan two days later (so Glamorgan had 4 days rest, Essex 2).
Result: Glamorgan won.

Durham and Surrey also played their last group games on 12 August. Surrey played another game three days later. Surrey then played Durham two days later (so Durham had 5 days rest, Surrey 2).
Result: Durham won.

Durham and Glamorgan played the final today. So Glamorgan had 3 days rest, Durham 2 (actually less, as the final was a late start). Result: Glamorgan won.

The system giving group winners a fast-track to the semi-final only works if you allow a decent interval between matches - otherwise it is a disproportionate advantage. The undeserved advantage that the first semi-finalist enjoyed today was even worse. In professional sport having 50% less recovery and preparation time over such a short timeframe is ridiculous.

Let's go back to quater-finals, semi-finals and a final, with a decent interval of at least a week between each.

The Red Rooster wrote:Understandable as he will be seen by Middlesex as a replacement for Nick Gubbins.
He is 34 and I thought the consensus on here was that Surrey need to aim up for 2022 in respect of the squad.

He may have only a couple more prime seasons left in him at that age but I think we'll do well to find a ready made replacement of similar quality who won't be whisked away for international or franchise fixtures.

I still find it quite bizarre that he was loaned out to Yorkshire for the T20 while Rory Burns - little more than a specialist fielder in that format - played ahead of him, and all sorts of other players were subject to international calls and injuries.

Well it didn't look very well attended, but what do you expect by hiding a Final on a Thursday afternoon at Trent Bridge. Must play the bloody 100 at Lords on Saturday. To have effectively quarter, semis and final in under a week is absurd. On a positive note attendances and games generally have been good so I'm not sure the ECB will be able to dump it that easily.

Congratulations to Glamorgan,who ,unlike Durham,kept faith with the players who got them to the final.Ignoring the claims of Ingram (their best batsman) long serving David Lloyd and Sutton CC's Dan Douthwaite who also played for Surrey seconds.

Dan Douthwaite would be a useful signing.

Badges wrote:Congratulations to Glamorgan,who ,unlike Durham,kept faith with the players who got them to the final.Ignoring the claims of Ingram (their best batsman) long serving David Lloyd and Sutton CC's Dan Douthwaite who also played for Surrey seconds.

On that basis, you wouldn't have liked it is Surrey had won on Tuesday after bringing in Pope! Not that it helped.

Ollie Pope had played in the two matches immediately before the semi final. He was effectively replacing the injured Hashim Amla.

Regardless of that, I have no problem with counties selecting the strongest sides available to them for any match. It is not their fault that the ECB make availability so difficult. It may be a little tough on replacements who have to stand aside, but if it means the best  players available play - be it a final, or any other game of county cricket - then those of us who follow it  deserve no less.

Agreed. The problem comes if some but not all players are released. There may be good reasons in terms of what players need but it looks unfair.

I wonder if we were instructed by the ECB to play Pope at 3 or not get him at all.Since I note that Dan Lawrence was not released to play for Essex.

cricketman wrote:I wonder if we were instructed by the ECB to play Pope at 3 or not get him at all.Since  I note that Dan Lawrence was not released to play for Essex.

Probably, as if we hadn't have picked him the ECB would have said, there we release players and you don't pick them. On lack of form of course he shouldn't have played. Be good enough for this Test side though, and I see some think he should bat at 3!

His Test average is only going one way.............................

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that it was unfair to bring the Hundred players back in, just that if that were Surrey could we really have dropped the likes of Stoneman, Patel, and co for players who hadn’t played a 50 over game for 2 years? It’s an interesting selection dilemma and both finalists went the opposite way on it.

RB wrote:I don’t think anyone is suggesting that it was unfair to bring the Hundred players back in, just that if that were Surrey could we really have dropped the likes of Stoneman, Patel, and co for players who hadn’t played a 50 over game for 2 years? It’s an interesting selection dilemma and both finalists went the opposite way on it.

Though some counties were playing people who had never played a 50 over match because they had nobody else left!