Author Topic: Surrey (H)  (Read 11168 times)

Offline dazedpenguin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2066
Surrey (H)
« on: July 14, 2024, 01:11:46 PM »
Benkenstein in for Das (and Allison up to 4, although cricinfo have Walter at 4 and Allison at 6 and Harmer at 7 ahead of Benkenstein).

Rossington, Elgar, Pepper, Allison C, Walter, Critchley, Benkenstein, Harmer, Snater, Bosch, Cook
« Last Edit: July 14, 2024, 01:14:54 PM by dazedpenguin »

Offline dazedpenguin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2066
Re: Surrey (H)
« Reply #1 on: July 14, 2024, 01:13:36 PM »
Essex won the toss and put Surrey into bat.

Surrey:

Jacks, Sibley, Evans, Burns, Sam Curran, Overton, Clark, Jordan, Steel, Lawes, Worrall

Offline essexspur

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
Re: Surrey (H)
« Reply #2 on: July 14, 2024, 02:15:19 PM »
Possibly the most brainless innings I've seen from Overton. No wonder he has never kicked on

Offline dazedpenguin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2066
Re: Surrey (H)
« Reply #3 on: July 14, 2024, 02:55:03 PM »
190 is going to be a difficult chase against a strong Surrey seam attack, but the pitch does seem to be doing more for the spinners.

Tremendous bowling from Critchley 4-0-22-2.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2024, 02:57:23 PM by dazedpenguin »

Offline nat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7292
Re: Surrey (H)
« Reply #4 on: July 14, 2024, 04:20:47 PM »
Harmer overestimates his boundary hitting abilities. Snater and Bosch should have come in before him.

Offline dazedpenguin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2066
Re: Surrey (H)
« Reply #5 on: July 14, 2024, 04:30:07 PM »
Harmer overestimates his boundary hitting abilities. Snater and Bosch should have come in before him.

I was pleasantly surprised that Benkenstein did. He shows real promise.

Surrey bowled and fielded better than Essex and Jacks was the difference with the bat. Excellent innings from Rossington, although someone faster between the wickets could have turned more of those singles into twos.

Just Hampshire to come now and that's a must win (or no result) because Gloucs are playing Middlesex (at Chelmsford) and they're unlikely to lose that.

Offline spirali

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 364
Re: Surrey (H)
« Reply #6 on: July 14, 2024, 04:55:55 PM »
Yes, leaving Snater until number 10 was a blunder. Not sure about Allison at 4 either tbh. Having said that I think the match may have been lost in the final few overs of the Surrey innings. We'd had them in some trouble at 90-5, but they do bat deep. However even after Jacks started to really let rip, I thought we'd 'd done a reasonable job of restricting them to a par total, but we lost some control in those last 3 overs. They did also bowl that bit better, it's true.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2024, 04:58:04 PM by spirali »

Offline JasonP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3165
Re: Surrey (H)
« Reply #7 on: July 14, 2024, 05:06:40 PM »
Harmer overestimates his boundary hitting abilities. Snater and Bosch should have come in before him.

I was pleasantly surprised that Benkenstein did. He shows real promise.

Surrey bowled and fielded better than Essex and Jacks was the difference with the bat. Excellent innings from Rossington, although someone faster between the wickets could have turned more of those singles into twos.

Just Hampshire to come now and that's a must win (or no result) because Gloucs are playing Middlesex (at Chelmsford) and they're unlikely to lose that.

You're probably right, although they've managed to lose to both Middlesex and Kent in the last week.

Offline dazedpenguin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2066
Re: Surrey (H)
« Reply #8 on: July 14, 2024, 05:14:33 PM »
You're probably right, although they've managed to lose to both Middlesex and Kent in the last week.

And a woeful Glamorgan did Essex a favour back in 2019, so an equally woeful Middlesex could do the same this year. Fingers crossed.

Offline SirChef26

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: Surrey (H)
« Reply #9 on: July 14, 2024, 05:17:15 PM »
T20 is a simple game made complicated by bowlers. You need one wicket to bowl them out and Sam Cook is trying to second guess the opponents and tossing up rubbish as a result. You need one wicket, just bowl at the bloody stumps!

Getting absolutely nothing from the middle order is killing us. Walter and Critchley not even contributing useful 20s and 30s in a run chase. Single figure scores are not good enough. Elgar has dried up as well.


Offline dazedpenguin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2066
Re: Surrey (H)
« Reply #10 on: July 14, 2024, 05:23:47 PM »
I don't know what's happened to Critchley in the T20 this season. He's been bowling well, but his top score is 31.

Offline bwildered

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2574
Re: Surrey (H)
« Reply #11 on: July 14, 2024, 05:42:42 PM »
 In 24 hrs showed a game when a bazball game went alright , to another where it did not. Shocking batting in the middle order. Surrey much better the side. And Pepper, tried to hit the ball too hard at the start and lost his shape/ balance, possibly over confident from previous day.
 Still one point needed or possibly a home result for Middlesex at Chelmsford, how ironic would that be.

Offline spirali

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 364
Re: Surrey (H)
« Reply #12 on: July 14, 2024, 06:06:09 PM »
Quote
Pepper, tried to hit the ball too hard at the start and lost his shape/ balance

Yes.. having talked him up on here last night, I have to say this was very noticeable - he was swinging so hard he was almost off his feet at times. Still some developing to do before he becomes the globetrotting barnstormer I reckon he can be.

Offline Perov

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1548
Re: Surrey (H)
« Reply #13 on: July 14, 2024, 06:14:29 PM »
A good crowd, a decent game and we just fell short to a good side. It happens.

What I did find more disturbing,  was the rumour ( ie it may not be true ) that Graham Gooch has resigned from the Cricket Committee.  Apparently any new players coming to Essex, have to be agreed by the Committee, before the move is sanctioned. Bosch was brought in behind their backs, and they were not consulted. If true, and I say if,  more trouble  at 'mill?

Offline Andy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7853
Re: Surrey (H)
« Reply #14 on: July 15, 2024, 09:35:00 PM »
A good crowd, a decent game and we just fell short to a good side. It happens.

What I did find more disturbing,  was the rumour ( ie it may not be true ) that Graham Gooch has resigned from the Cricket Committee.  Apparently any new players coming to Essex, have to be agreed by the Committee, before the move is sanctioned. Bosch was brought in behind their backs, and they were not consulted. If true, and I say if,  more trouble  at 'mill?

Given GG?s less than stellar record as skipper and coach, I am not too sure whether this is bad news.