Author Topic: Surrey at Chelmsford  (Read 37669 times)

Offline aztec

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 297
Surrey at Chelmsford
« on: August 16, 2025, 09:46:10 AM »
As well as heralding the first win of this season's Competition I have some record-making to report with the 6th wicket being the focus of attention these days. Recently we had a record 137 set against us for that wicket and now two more 6th wicket stands feature in records being set!

From the Essex point of view the 6th wicket stand of 91, between Essex and Surrey, set by JD Ryder & Ashar Zaidi at Chelmsford in 2016 and the All Opponents record of 127 set by SG Law & RA Rollins at Southampton in 1996 were both beaten yesterday by the stand of 175 between C Campher & SR Harmer at Chelmsford

For Surrey their 6th wicket record of 64 against Essex set by N Shahid and JD Ratcliffe at Guildford in 2002 was beaten yesterday by the 67 partnership achieved by JW Blake & CT Steel at Chelmsford.

Curtis Campher improved his best List A score of 120 to 123* and Simon Harmer equalled his best score of 68 in List A

The Eagles' win margin of 244 runs was the highest against a First Class County with Wiltshire (291) and Scotland (272) being the only others with a higher figure.

Offline bwildered

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
Re: Surrey at Chelmsford
« Reply #1 on: August 16, 2025, 10:45:16 AM »
 Aztec - Having still not got this seasons handbook , was wondering if Barnwells bowling figures for Surrey were the most expensive ?

Offline vim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1850
Re: Surrey at Chelmsford
« Reply #2 on: August 16, 2025, 10:53:19 AM »
The previous home highest score against Scotland was an attempt to qualify for the later stages of a competition by improving the run rate considerably.

With List A records, there are records set by non-1st class teams and International teams, who are not ranked at the highest levels. There have been very low scores in Divisions 5 and 6 of One Day Internationals.

Offline nat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7520
Re: Surrey at Chelmsford
« Reply #3 on: August 16, 2025, 11:40:32 AM »
This game should not be given List A status.

Offline Perov

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1587
Re: Surrey at Chelmsford
« Reply #4 on: August 16, 2025, 03:40:28 PM »
Aztec - Having still not got this seasons handbook , was wondering if Barnwells bowling figures for Surrey were the most expensive ?
[/quote
As as I can see Barnwells are the worst in domestic 50 over cricket.

Offline vim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1850
Re: Surrey at Chelmsford
« Reply #5 on: August 16, 2025, 03:44:51 PM »
Even having the new Yearbook, is no guarantee that you will get the figures. You may find something, but it is for someone else.

Offline aztec

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 297
Re: Surrey at Chelmsford
« Reply #6 on: August 16, 2025, 03:50:42 PM »
Aztec - Having still not got this seasons handbook , was wondering if Barnwells bowling figures for Surrey were the most expensive ?
Having looked at the Stats I agree that Barnwell's figures are the worst against Essex, bwildered. Yearbooks are available in Store now but this sort of statistic would not appear in it but would probably appear in databases like CricketArchive.

Offline vim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1850
Re: Surrey at Chelmsford
« Reply #7 on: August 16, 2025, 03:58:50 PM »
It is lucky that Wisden Cricketer, do not now, with their book reviews. Absolutely roast publications, containing a number of typos and other errors.

Offline Perov

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1587
Re: Surrey at Chelmsford
« Reply #8 on: August 16, 2025, 06:41:19 PM »
Not in the UK, but  apparently  a Dutch bowler gave away 115 runs in 10 overs in a one day International, and our former bowling coach Mick Lewis had figures in 2006, of 10-0-113-0. Therefore  Barnwell is in third place.

Offline Slogger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1881
Re: Surrey at Chelmsford
« Reply #9 on: August 16, 2025, 07:13:46 PM »
According to the yearbook, which I consulted at the ground yesterday, the worst figures v Essex prior to yesterday were by Jade Dernbach in 2008 at The Oval.

Offline spirali

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
Re: Surrey at Chelmsford
« Reply #10 on: August 16, 2025, 11:51:14 PM »
Here's the full list

https://stats.acscricket.com/Records/List_A/Overall/Bowling/Most_Runs_Conceded_in_an_Innings.html

Barnwell's analysis is the most expensive ever in county List A cricket, and in 5th place overall. 

Offline JasonP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3289
Re: Surrey at Chelmsford
« Reply #11 on: August 18, 2025, 03:55:24 PM »
Here's the full list

https://stats.acscricket.com/Records/List_A/Overall/Bowling/Most_Runs_Conceded_in_an_Innings.html

Barnwell's analysis is the most expensive ever in county List A cricket, and in 5th place overall.

Didn't go very well today either.  3-0-50-0
https://live.nvplay.com/ecb/?tab=m_scorecard#m79f3291a-4ba3-4616-9288-f4f0b3a4d542

Offline vim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1850
Re: Surrey at Chelmsford
« Reply #12 on: August 18, 2025, 04:21:31 PM »
If he had been allowed the full 10 overs. The figures, would be near a completed Innings, in itself.

Offline JasonP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3289
Re: Surrey at Chelmsford
« Reply #13 on: August 22, 2025, 01:46:01 PM »
Here's the full list

https://stats.acscricket.com/Records/List_A/Overall/Bowling/Most_Runs_Conceded_in_an_Innings.html

Barnwell's analysis is the most expensive ever in county List A cricket, and in 5th place overall.

Just happened to catch the end of the Derbyshire v Surrey stream and Pat Brown now has the most expensive ever figures in List A cricket 10 overs for 114.  Joint 2nd most expensive ever.  Thanks to being smashed for 25 in his last over by a certain Nathan Barnwell!

https://live.nvplay.com/ecb/?tab=m_scorecard#m07c2bc95-8620-455d-b1ab-a950b6c83b57

Offline spirali

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
Re: Surrey at Chelmsford
« Reply #14 on: August 22, 2025, 03:37:15 PM »
Barnwell has so far bowled 2 overs and gone for 23. He may yet reclaim his record.