Glamorgan (H) - 21-24 Sep

Badges wrote:A load of bollocks.Play the game properly and stop teams batting after 110 overs in the first innings or,better still,100 overs.

Wouldn't be playing the game properly though would it. To be frank on a shit pitch like this it doesn't matter. Might just as well spice it up and actually entertain people, it's a meaningless match anyway. Either that or give everyone a refund.

Badges wrote:A load of bollocks.Play the game properly and stop teams batting after 110 overs in the first innings or,better still,100 overs.

Best way to stop a team batting after 110 overs, or even 100, is to bowl them out on a track offering a fair contest between bat and ball.

Away from this rubbish at the Oval for a moment, there is likely to be a tempting run chase for Somerset vs Warwickshire today for Warwickshire to grab the title away from Lancashire. And wouldn't I have liked to watch that one wicket win at Liverpool yesterday over this tosh. Apparently Old Trafford had some concert on which was deemed more important than the cricket.

Chinaman wrote:Away from this rubbish at the Oval for a moment, there is likely to be a tempting run chase for Somerset vs Warwickshire today for Warwickshire to grab the title away from Lancashire. And wouldn't I have liked to watch that one wicket win at Liverpool yesterday over this tosh. Apparently Old Trafford had some concert on which was deemed more important than the cricket.

Just shows the importance of outgrounds, eh folks?

On the subject of this wicket,there can be only be two reasons this pitch was prepared as a road, the Groundsman was instructed by the cricket management to prepare it that way, or the Groundsman was not capable of producing a bowler friendly pitch. As we know that he has produced good cricket pitches in the past, then surely the first explanation is the correct one. Another reason to get rid of the Cricket management team!!

Dougie, I believe the aim is for a pitch that offers a fair balance between bat and ball rather than a ‘bowler friendly pitch’.

Don't get me wrong, pleased to see Popey get some runs as always, but at this rate just feels a bit empty

1157/8

Enough of this nonsense, anybody watching at home should put the Warwickshire stream on instead.

I take the point about the pitch being flat but some of the bowling from both teams has been very ordinary. And Glamorgan have put down a number of chances which if they'd been taken may have made things look very different. There has also been very little movement in the air which has made batting a lot easier.

I think the bowling looking ordinary is as much to do with the pitch as the bowlers. At the very least we have two decent spinners who have barely been able to get the ball to move off straight. That isn’t right. Even if Glamorgan had taken the chances, Foakes and Jacks haven’t even got in yet and would be just as likely to score big. Virdi dropped a clanger on day one when Cooke was on 30 odd but there’s nothing to suggest it still wouldn’t have ended up with Glamorgan on the same score.

This pitch is flatter than what we had here for the test match and India only ran through England on that last day when Bumrah started getting the ball to reverse. I think it’s harsh to cast the bowlers in this match as ‘ordinary’ when most world class bowlers would struggle.

If (and it is an “if”!) Surrey lose another wicket, I’d like to see Rikki come in next and have some fun.

RB wrote:If (and it is an “if”!) Surrey lose another wicket, I’d like to see Rikki come in next and have some fun.

Now 1212-8 aggregate with Glamorgan just using their tenth bowler, just shake hands at lunch time - what's the point in carrying on ?

The Oval looks absolutely spectacular today with beautiful blue skies but I'm almost glad I'm not there to watch this, only almost though

There’s some chances of records being broken, and that’s always a pleasure.

RB wrote:If (and it is an “if”!) Surrey lose another wicket, I’d like to see Rikki come in next and have some fun.

Would have been nice but hey, I wonder how bad Foakes' pad rash is !

Well, if you're a "glass half full" person, we finished the season with four days of glorious weather, a run-fest, some entertaining bowling permutations and the departing Surrey legend at the crease at the end.

Reality check to follow shortly.

It’s a pity that this match will be remembered more for this diabolical pitch, than Rikki Clarke’s last innings. Our best wishes go with him and Jade Dernbach.

Jackers wrote:Well, if you're a "glass half full" person, we finished the season with four days of glorious weather, a run-fest, some entertaining bowling permutations and the departing Surrey legend at the crease at the end.  

Reality check to follow shortly.

1394/10 - I think you can rightly call that a run fest.
11 bowlers used.
Opening bowler keeping.
Captain and usual keeper taking the new ball.

Cricket eh

Good luck Rikki - a Surrey Legend and a true gent

dougieginn wrote:It’s a pity that this match will be remembered more for this diabolical pitch, than Rikki Clarke’s last innings. Our best wishes go with him and Jade Dernbach.

Michael Hogan said that it was a pity the climate change activists didn't mistake this pitch for the M25 as it would have created some excitement.

Really you can't take much notice of these huge scores on a pitch as bad as this. It's batting practice. But great to see Rikki's well deserved send off at the end. I recall watching I think his maiden 100 at Taunton in 2002. Great servant of the game, and I expect well pleased as well with Warwickshire winning today.

Considering Jamie Smith described it as the ‘least responsive surface ‘ he’d ever played on there are disappointing comments from Ollie in the cricinfo match report about the benefits for batsman on that type of pitch. He’s essentially just describing a net session. You can do that on your own time, Ollie! If we could be warned in advance that’s going to happen I wouldn’t have even checked the score.

An insult to the public.One of many this season.

dougieginn wrote:On the subject of this wicket,there can be only be two reasons this pitch was prepared as a road, the Groundsman was instructed by the cricket management to prepare it that way, or the Groundsman was not capable of producing a bowler friendly pitch. As we know that he has produced good cricket pitches in the past, then surely the first explanation is the correct one. Another reason to get rid of the Cricket management team!!

I'm sure it wasn't intentional to produce a pitch like that. Pitch preparation isn't an exact science, the groundsman probably believed he was producing a good true batting pitch that would take spin on the last two days but got it wrong. It might have helped if we'd won the toss but our pace attack looked below par while our spinners worked very hard for their wickets. Glamorgan fielded the weakest bowling attack I've seen in a Championship match for years: only three real front line bowlers in Hogan (aged 40), Salter (with a f/c bowling average of 45 from a substantial number of matches, McIlroy (who looked like a 2nd XI player) plus a load of bits and pieces merchants whose batting (according to my Glamorgan supporting friend who watched the first three days with me) is their stronger suit.

On a decent batting pitch that also made it feasible to take 20 wickets I'm sure we'd have won, because we had a fairly solid batting line up down to 8 and there's no way that Glamorgan attack would have taken 20 wickets cheaper than us. Anyway the weather was nice!

On a decent batting pitch that also made it feasible to take 20 wickets wouldn't Glamorgan have chosen a different team with a stronger seam attack?

Pink Panther wrote:I'm sure it wasn't intentional to produce a pitch like that.  Pitch preparation isn't an exact science, the groundsman probably believed he was producing a good true batting pitch that would take spin on the last two days but got it wrong.

I think the point here is that this has happened too often at the Oval. Essex and others etc seem to get away with preparing 2-day result pitches all the time, yet we continue to handicap ourselves by producing batsman/batter-friendly surfaces that give us no chance of competing for honours in four-day cricket.

Wobbler wrote:

Pink Panther wrote:I'm sure it wasn't intentional to produce a pitch like that.  Pitch preparation isn't an exact science, the groundsman probably believed he was producing a good true batting pitch that would take spin on the last two days but got it wrong.

I think the point here is that this has happened too often at the Oval. Essex and others etc seem to get away with preparing 2-day result pitches all the time, yet we continue to handicap ourselves by producing batsman/batter-friendly surfaces that give us no chance of competing for honours in four-day cricket.

Yes, I don't dispute that. The most annoying thing is that it seems to happen against the weakest opponents, like Leicestershire in April. When we do produce result pitches it seems to be the visitors who get the result!