Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Kent Cricket 2022
Comments
-
Funny but that 11 wouldn't all get in your side!!! Who of Burns, Amla, Sam Curran, Patel and Worrall are you leaving out? So that means that you have six slots to fill as we would have.cantersaddick said:
Its funny I was always under the impression that 8 was a smaller number than 11!Addick Addict said:
We're anything but saved - yetcantersaddick said:
2nd time the weather this season has saved you against Surrey. Embarrassing that you need it against a side missing 11 key players. Very much a 3rd string bowling attack and a patchy batting lineup.Addick Addict said:Keep dancing Fanny!
Tom Curran, Roach/De Grandhomme, Clark, Overton, Topley, Taylor, Dunn, Pope, Roy, Foakes
Compton LBW S Curran 48
126-1
You also seem to ignore the fact that we are missing two England internationals and another six fast bowlers through injury!!!
0 -
If you can bear to watch then the live stream is here:Vincenzo said:Denly out. Commentary on BBC Radio London if you can stand it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/60077549
https://www.kentcricket.co.uk/fixture/surrey-vs-kent-3/#
0 -
All 11 would still strengthen this side and would get in ahead of Geddes, Smith, Lawes, Atkinson, Jacks, Mckerr. And actually this game Amlas form has been poor and I was calling for him to be dropped for Smith when we were at full strength.Addick Addict said:
Funny but that 11 wouldn't all get in your side!!! Who of Burns, Amla, Sam Curran, Patel and Worrall are you leaving out? So that means that you have six slots to fill as we would have.cantersaddick said:
Its funny I was always under the impression that 8 was a smaller number than 11!Addick Addict said:
We're anything but saved - yetcantersaddick said:
2nd time the weather this season has saved you against Surrey. Embarrassing that you need it against a side missing 11 key players. Very much a 3rd string bowling attack and a patchy batting lineup.Addick Addict said:Keep dancing Fanny!
Tom Curran, Roach/De Grandhomme, Clark, Overton, Topley, Taylor, Dunn, Pope, Roy, Foakes
Compton LBW S Curran 48
126-1
You also seem to ignore the fact that we are missing two England internationals and another six fast bowlers through injury!!!
Likewise not all 6 of your fast bowlers would be in your best side but they would still strengthen this side.0 -
Obviously not a Surrey fan, but was very impressed with Smith's batting on Sunday. Looks a prospect.0
-
He certainly is, scored an excellent double ton earlier in the season. He was our captain in the RLODC last year at 21 and seems he is being groomed as Burns replacement. the only question really is about his role, hes looked excellent as a top order batsman and excellent as a keeper lower down the order, just have to be careful how we manage him if he does start getting the captaincy as not sure you can do all 3 effectively.bolloxbolder said:Obviously not a Surrey fan, but was very impressed with Smith's batting on Sunday. Looks a prospect.1 -
I know, being Surrey, you would like to play 18 if you could get away with it but, unfortunately, you can't.cantersaddick said:
All 11 would still strengthen this side and would get in ahead of Geddes, Smith, Lawes, Atkinson, Jacks, Mckerr. And actually this game Amlas form has been poor and I was calling for him to be dropped for Smith when we were at full strength.Addick Addict said:
Funny but that 11 wouldn't all get in your side!!! Who of Burns, Amla, Sam Curran, Patel and Worrall are you leaving out? So that means that you have six slots to fill as we would have.cantersaddick said:
Its funny I was always under the impression that 8 was a smaller number than 11!Addick Addict said:
We're anything but saved - yetcantersaddick said:
2nd time the weather this season has saved you against Surrey. Embarrassing that you need it against a side missing 11 key players. Very much a 3rd string bowling attack and a patchy batting lineup.Addick Addict said:Keep dancing Fanny!
Tom Curran, Roach/De Grandhomme, Clark, Overton, Topley, Taylor, Dunn, Pope, Roy, Foakes
Compton LBW S Curran 48
126-1
You also seem to ignore the fact that we are missing two England internationals and another six fast bowlers through injury!!!
Likewise not all 6 of your fast bowlers would be in your best side but they would still strengthen this side.
So Smith stays in the side instead of Amla but that still means that you can only make six changes for your strongest side. And we would make six changes too. So, we are both equally short of our strongest side.0 -
233-2 and just 119 runs behind. Gutted we're running out of time because, with Surrey having to bat last, I think we would have won. Despite our 3rd string bowling attack.6
-
WHat terrible logicAddick Addict said:
I know, being Surrey, you would like to play 18 if you could get away with it but, unfortunately, you can't.cantersaddick said:
All 11 would still strengthen this side and would get in ahead of Geddes, Smith, Lawes, Atkinson, Jacks, Mckerr. And actually this game Amlas form has been poor and I was calling for him to be dropped for Smith when we were at full strength.Addick Addict said:
Funny but that 11 wouldn't all get in your side!!! Who of Burns, Amla, Sam Curran, Patel and Worrall are you leaving out? So that means that you have six slots to fill as we would have.cantersaddick said:
Its funny I was always under the impression that 8 was a smaller number than 11!Addick Addict said:
We're anything but saved - yetcantersaddick said:
2nd time the weather this season has saved you against Surrey. Embarrassing that you need it against a side missing 11 key players. Very much a 3rd string bowling attack and a patchy batting lineup.Addick Addict said:Keep dancing Fanny!
Tom Curran, Roach/De Grandhomme, Clark, Overton, Topley, Taylor, Dunn, Pope, Roy, Foakes
Compton LBW S Curran 48
126-1
You also seem to ignore the fact that we are missing two England internationals and another six fast bowlers through injury!!!
Likewise not all 6 of your fast bowlers would be in your best side but they would still strengthen this side.
So Smith stays in the side instead of Amla but that still means that you can only make six changes for your strongest side. And we would make six changes too. So, we are both equally short of our strongest side. Yes only 6 slots available but 5 of the 2nd choices for those same roles are also missing. so we are on our 3rd choice for at least 5 roles in this side. Even smith is 3rd choice keeper whether or not he gets in the side as a batsman alone.
Also Worral probably doesnt get into our strongest side.0 -
Banton to Surrey I have heard whispers0
-
Perfectly sound logic. It's the best XI v the best XI. You've even had the cheek to include someone as "missing" who, unless I'm mistaken, hasn't played in the County Championship for over three years. He can't be that good can he!!!!cantersaddick said:
WHat terrible logicAddick Addict said:
I know, being Surrey, you would like to play 18 if you could get away with it but, unfortunately, you can't.cantersaddick said:
All 11 would still strengthen this side and would get in ahead of Geddes, Smith, Lawes, Atkinson, Jacks, Mckerr. And actually this game Amlas form has been poor and I was calling for him to be dropped for Smith when we were at full strength.Addick Addict said:
Funny but that 11 wouldn't all get in your side!!! Who of Burns, Amla, Sam Curran, Patel and Worrall are you leaving out? So that means that you have six slots to fill as we would have.cantersaddick said:
Its funny I was always under the impression that 8 was a smaller number than 11!Addick Addict said:
We're anything but saved - yetcantersaddick said:
2nd time the weather this season has saved you against Surrey. Embarrassing that you need it against a side missing 11 key players. Very much a 3rd string bowling attack and a patchy batting lineup.Addick Addict said:Keep dancing Fanny!
Tom Curran, Roach/De Grandhomme, Clark, Overton, Topley, Taylor, Dunn, Pope, Roy, Foakes
Compton LBW S Curran 48
126-1
You also seem to ignore the fact that we are missing two England internationals and another six fast bowlers through injury!!!
Likewise not all 6 of your fast bowlers would be in your best side but they would still strengthen this side.
So Smith stays in the side instead of Amla but that still means that you can only make six changes for your strongest side. And we would make six changes too. So, we are both equally short of our strongest side. Yes only 6 slots available but 5 of the 2nd choices for those same roles are also missing. so we are on our 3rd choice for at least 5 roles in this side. Even smith is 3rd choice keeper whether or not he gets in the side as a batsman alone.
Also Worral probably doesnt get into our strongest side.0 - Sponsored links:
-
Is that because he prefers the London nightlife?billysboots said:Banton to Surrey I have heard whispers0 -
258-3 and now just 84 behind. That damn rain!!!!4
-
What are the maximum amount of overs that can be bowled after the tea interval?0
-
36 overs remaining but the game would probably end after 34 (assuming Kent are ahead) as I believe that two overs would probably be taken off for the innings breakbolloxbolder said:What are the maximum amount of overs that can be bowled after the tea interval?0 -
What youre missing is that we are missing half our first X1 and most of our 2nd X1 too.Addick Addict said:
Perfectly sound logic. It's the best XI v the best XI. You've even had the cheek to include someone as "missing" who, unless I'm mistaken, hasn't played in the County Championship for over three years. He can't be that good can he!!!!cantersaddick said:
WHat terrible logicAddick Addict said:
I know, being Surrey, you would like to play 18 if you could get away with it but, unfortunately, you can't.cantersaddick said:
All 11 would still strengthen this side and would get in ahead of Geddes, Smith, Lawes, Atkinson, Jacks, Mckerr. And actually this game Amlas form has been poor and I was calling for him to be dropped for Smith when we were at full strength.Addick Addict said:
Funny but that 11 wouldn't all get in your side!!! Who of Burns, Amla, Sam Curran, Patel and Worrall are you leaving out? So that means that you have six slots to fill as we would have.cantersaddick said:
Its funny I was always under the impression that 8 was a smaller number than 11!Addick Addict said:
We're anything but saved - yetcantersaddick said:
2nd time the weather this season has saved you against Surrey. Embarrassing that you need it against a side missing 11 key players. Very much a 3rd string bowling attack and a patchy batting lineup.Addick Addict said:Keep dancing Fanny!
Tom Curran, Roach/De Grandhomme, Clark, Overton, Topley, Taylor, Dunn, Pope, Roy, Foakes
Compton LBW S Curran 48
126-1
You also seem to ignore the fact that we are missing two England internationals and another six fast bowlers through injury!!!
Likewise not all 6 of your fast bowlers would be in your best side but they would still strengthen this side.
So Smith stays in the side instead of Amla but that still means that you can only make six changes for your strongest side. And we would make six changes too. So, we are both equally short of our strongest side. Yes only 6 slots available but 5 of the 2nd choices for those same roles are also missing. so we are on our 3rd choice for at least 5 roles in this side. Even smith is 3rd choice keeper whether or not he gets in the side as a batsman alone.
Also Worral probably doesnt get into our strongest side.
TC would walk into any county champ side if fit and available.0 -
Apart from Surrey of course who haven't picked him in the last three years.cantersaddick said:
What youre missing is that we are missing half our first X1 and most of our 2nd X1 too.Addick Addict said:
Perfectly sound logic. It's the best XI v the best XI. You've even had the cheek to include someone as "missing" who, unless I'm mistaken, hasn't played in the County Championship for over three years. He can't be that good can he!!!!cantersaddick said:
WHat terrible logicAddick Addict said:
I know, being Surrey, you would like to play 18 if you could get away with it but, unfortunately, you can't.cantersaddick said:
All 11 would still strengthen this side and would get in ahead of Geddes, Smith, Lawes, Atkinson, Jacks, Mckerr. And actually this game Amlas form has been poor and I was calling for him to be dropped for Smith when we were at full strength.Addick Addict said:
Funny but that 11 wouldn't all get in your side!!! Who of Burns, Amla, Sam Curran, Patel and Worrall are you leaving out? So that means that you have six slots to fill as we would have.cantersaddick said:
Its funny I was always under the impression that 8 was a smaller number than 11!Addick Addict said:
We're anything but saved - yetcantersaddick said:
2nd time the weather this season has saved you against Surrey. Embarrassing that you need it against a side missing 11 key players. Very much a 3rd string bowling attack and a patchy batting lineup.Addick Addict said:Keep dancing Fanny!
Tom Curran, Roach/De Grandhomme, Clark, Overton, Topley, Taylor, Dunn, Pope, Roy, Foakes
Compton LBW S Curran 48
126-1
You also seem to ignore the fact that we are missing two England internationals and another six fast bowlers through injury!!!
Likewise not all 6 of your fast bowlers would be in your best side but they would still strengthen this side.
So Smith stays in the side instead of Amla but that still means that you can only make six changes for your strongest side. And we would make six changes too. So, we are both equally short of our strongest side. Yes only 6 slots available but 5 of the 2nd choices for those same roles are also missing. so we are on our 3rd choice for at least 5 roles in this side. Even smith is 3rd choice keeper whether or not he gets in the side as a batsman alone.
Also Worral probably doesnt get into our strongest side.
TC would walk into any county champ side if fit and available.0 -
Yet another ton for DBD!!!1
-
Kent lead by 3 runs. Have that @cantersaddick4
-
Can we claim a winning draw?Stewart said:Kent lead by 3 runs. Have that @cantersaddick1 -
Easy, easy, easy......1
- Sponsored links:
-
Hes been neither fit not available. That also includes the covid seasons so a bit of a harsh judgement.Addick Addict said:
Apart from Surrey of course who haven't picked him in the last three years.cantersaddick said:
What youre missing is that we are missing half our first X1 and most of our 2nd X1 too.Addick Addict said:
Perfectly sound logic. It's the best XI v the best XI. You've even had the cheek to include someone as "missing" who, unless I'm mistaken, hasn't played in the County Championship for over three years. He can't be that good can he!!!!cantersaddick said:
WHat terrible logicAddick Addict said:
I know, being Surrey, you would like to play 18 if you could get away with it but, unfortunately, you can't.cantersaddick said:
All 11 would still strengthen this side and would get in ahead of Geddes, Smith, Lawes, Atkinson, Jacks, Mckerr. And actually this game Amlas form has been poor and I was calling for him to be dropped for Smith when we were at full strength.Addick Addict said:
Funny but that 11 wouldn't all get in your side!!! Who of Burns, Amla, Sam Curran, Patel and Worrall are you leaving out? So that means that you have six slots to fill as we would have.cantersaddick said:
Its funny I was always under the impression that 8 was a smaller number than 11!Addick Addict said:
We're anything but saved - yetcantersaddick said:
2nd time the weather this season has saved you against Surrey. Embarrassing that you need it against a side missing 11 key players. Very much a 3rd string bowling attack and a patchy batting lineup.Addick Addict said:Keep dancing Fanny!
Tom Curran, Roach/De Grandhomme, Clark, Overton, Topley, Taylor, Dunn, Pope, Roy, Foakes
Compton LBW S Curran 48
126-1
You also seem to ignore the fact that we are missing two England internationals and another six fast bowlers through injury!!!
Likewise not all 6 of your fast bowlers would be in your best side but they would still strengthen this side.
So Smith stays in the side instead of Amla but that still means that you can only make six changes for your strongest side. And we would make six changes too. So, we are both equally short of our strongest side. Yes only 6 slots available but 5 of the 2nd choices for those same roles are also missing. so we are on our 3rd choice for at least 5 roles in this side. Even smith is 3rd choice keeper whether or not he gets in the side as a batsman alone.
Also Worral probably doesnt get into our strongest side.
TC would walk into any county champ side if fit and available.0 -
This would be a strange one. Can't see him getting in our champ side and we already have too many players who want to bat in our t20 top 3.billysboots said:Banton to Surrey I have heard whispers0 -
Looking at the table Kent have won just 1 game, but we've also only lost 2. It's the bowling which has been the bigger problem, with the lowest bowling bonus points in the division. Hopefully Henry will improve things5
-
Not harsh but a reality and closer scrutiny of when and for whom he has been available is quite revealing.cantersaddick said:
Hes been neither fit not available. That also includes the covid seasons so a bit of a harsh judgement.Addick Addict said:
Apart from Surrey of course who haven't picked him in the last three years.cantersaddick said:
What youre missing is that we are missing half our first X1 and most of our 2nd X1 too.Addick Addict said:
Perfectly sound logic. It's the best XI v the best XI. You've even had the cheek to include someone as "missing" who, unless I'm mistaken, hasn't played in the County Championship for over three years. He can't be that good can he!!!!cantersaddick said:
WHat terrible logicAddick Addict said:
I know, being Surrey, you would like to play 18 if you could get away with it but, unfortunately, you can't.cantersaddick said:
All 11 would still strengthen this side and would get in ahead of Geddes, Smith, Lawes, Atkinson, Jacks, Mckerr. And actually this game Amlas form has been poor and I was calling for him to be dropped for Smith when we were at full strength.Addick Addict said:
Funny but that 11 wouldn't all get in your side!!! Who of Burns, Amla, Sam Curran, Patel and Worrall are you leaving out? So that means that you have six slots to fill as we would have.cantersaddick said:
Its funny I was always under the impression that 8 was a smaller number than 11!Addick Addict said:
We're anything but saved - yetcantersaddick said:
2nd time the weather this season has saved you against Surrey. Embarrassing that you need it against a side missing 11 key players. Very much a 3rd string bowling attack and a patchy batting lineup.Addick Addict said:Keep dancing Fanny!
Tom Curran, Roach/De Grandhomme, Clark, Overton, Topley, Taylor, Dunn, Pope, Roy, Foakes
Compton LBW S Curran 48
126-1
You also seem to ignore the fact that we are missing two England internationals and another six fast bowlers through injury!!!
Likewise not all 6 of your fast bowlers would be in your best side but they would still strengthen this side.
So Smith stays in the side instead of Amla but that still means that you can only make six changes for your strongest side. And we would make six changes too. So, we are both equally short of our strongest side. Yes only 6 slots available but 5 of the 2nd choices for those same roles are also missing. so we are on our 3rd choice for at least 5 roles in this side. Even smith is 3rd choice keeper whether or not he gets in the side as a batsman alone.
Also Worral probably doesnt get into our strongest side.
TC would walk into any county champ side if fit and available.
Tom Curran has played almost one hundred shorter form games in the last three years. In fact, that game against Essex in April 2019 is one of only seven CC matches he's played in more than five years, since May 2017, during which time he's managed another 182 matches in other forms of the game. He played more games last season in The Hundred than he has in the CC in five years for Surrey.
Seven CC matches out of 189 games and none in three years doesn't suggest that his lack of appearances is purely down to fitness. It suggests that he can't/won't play in the CC. I'm not even sure he likes playing for Surrey and I would have the raging hump if I were a supporter with a player who, somehow, played 78 games in the last three years in the Big Bash, the IPL, the Mzansi Super League, The Hundred and for England but only managed to turn up for four matches, all in the Blast, during that same period for Surrey.
So to use Tom Curran as one of your "missing" players from this game is really stretching the imagination. I expect that you can't even remember what he looks like such is his absence from The Oval. What odds he's fit in time for The Oval Invincibles though? The fact it that he isn't simply never plays in the CC. Or for Surrey for that matter.0 -
Incredibly harsh. The 2 COVID affected season it was pretty common for white ball specialists to play no BWT/CC games for a county due to IPL and then extended England bubbles. During the last 3 years he has been in every England squad when he has been fit and has spent a huge amount of time in bubbles unable to dip in and out to play for Surrey when not selected for England. He has also had 2 injuries in the last 3 years keeping out for about 8 months each time - his current one is getting on for 9 months. He would have been available for Surrey all this season if fit - in fact he was pencilled in for the last couple of CC games as well as recent blast matches but had a setback with his recovery. Latest from the club is he will be available for the blast run in, wouldn't be a massive surprise to see him in the side tomorrow.Addick Addict said:
Not harsh but a reality and closer scrutiny of when and for whom he has been available is quite revealing.cantersaddick said:
Hes been neither fit not available. That also includes the covid seasons so a bit of a harsh judgement.Addick Addict said:
Apart from Surrey of course who haven't picked him in the last three years.cantersaddick said:
What youre missing is that we are missing half our first X1 and most of our 2nd X1 too.Addick Addict said:
Perfectly sound logic. It's the best XI v the best XI. You've even had the cheek to include someone as "missing" who, unless I'm mistaken, hasn't played in the County Championship for over three years. He can't be that good can he!!!!cantersaddick said:
WHat terrible logicAddick Addict said:
I know, being Surrey, you would like to play 18 if you could get away with it but, unfortunately, you can't.cantersaddick said:
All 11 would still strengthen this side and would get in ahead of Geddes, Smith, Lawes, Atkinson, Jacks, Mckerr. And actually this game Amlas form has been poor and I was calling for him to be dropped for Smith when we were at full strength.Addick Addict said:
Funny but that 11 wouldn't all get in your side!!! Who of Burns, Amla, Sam Curran, Patel and Worrall are you leaving out? So that means that you have six slots to fill as we would have.cantersaddick said:
Its funny I was always under the impression that 8 was a smaller number than 11!Addick Addict said:
We're anything but saved - yetcantersaddick said:
2nd time the weather this season has saved you against Surrey. Embarrassing that you need it against a side missing 11 key players. Very much a 3rd string bowling attack and a patchy batting lineup.Addick Addict said:Keep dancing Fanny!
Tom Curran, Roach/De Grandhomme, Clark, Overton, Topley, Taylor, Dunn, Pope, Roy, Foakes
Compton LBW S Curran 48
126-1
You also seem to ignore the fact that we are missing two England internationals and another six fast bowlers through injury!!!
Likewise not all 6 of your fast bowlers would be in your best side but they would still strengthen this side.
So Smith stays in the side instead of Amla but that still means that you can only make six changes for your strongest side. And we would make six changes too. So, we are both equally short of our strongest side. Yes only 6 slots available but 5 of the 2nd choices for those same roles are also missing. so we are on our 3rd choice for at least 5 roles in this side. Even smith is 3rd choice keeper whether or not he gets in the side as a batsman alone.
Also Worral probably doesnt get into our strongest side.
TC would walk into any county champ side if fit and available.
Tom Curran has played almost one hundred shorter form games in the last three years. In fact, that game against Essex in April 2019 is one of only seven CC matches he's played in more than five years, since May 2017, during which time he's managed another 182 matches in other forms of the game. He played more games last season in The Hundred than he has in the CC in five years for Surrey.
Seven CC matches out of 189 games and none in three years doesn't suggest that his lack of appearances is purely down to fitness. It suggests that he can't/won't play in the CC. I'm not even sure he likes playing for Surrey and I would have the raging hump if I were a supporter with a player who, somehow, played 78 games in the last three years in the Big Bash, the IPL, the Mzansi Super League, The Hundred and for England but only managed to turn up for four matches, all in the Blast, during that same period for Surrey.
So to use Tom Curran as one of your "missing" players from this game is really stretching the imagination. I expect that you can't even remember what he looks like such is his absence from The Oval. What odds he's fit in time for The Oval Invincibles though? The fact it that he isn't simply never plays in the CC. Or for Surrey for that matter.
It is frustrating seeing a Surrey player go and play in every league around the world and miss parts of the domestic season but that is he modern game and he is hardly the only one (you could look at Billings in the CC before this season). He would have had significant chunks of the season available with Surrey in the last 3 years were it not for serious amount of time spent in England bubbles and a couple of badly timed serious injuries.
Doesn't change the fact he is a quality player and would walk into any County champ side in the country.0 -
Come on Canters - there's "unlucky" and "unlucky". On what basis would he walk into any CC side? No CC matches in three years and just seven CC matches in five years. With that record he has more chance of getting a contract with CAFC than a county because that is what we tend to do. Counties are a bit more circumspect about doing that and you cannot seriously be saying that a player is part of your squad when he hasn't played for more than three years!!!cantersaddick said:
Incredibly harsh. The 2 COVID affected season it was pretty common for white ball specialists to play no BWT/CC games for a county due to IPL and then extended England bubbles. During the last 3 years he has been in every England squad when he has been fit and has spent a huge amount of time in bubbles unable to dip in and out to play for Surrey when not selected for England. He has also had 2 injuries in the last 3 years keeping out for about 8 months each time - his current one is getting on for 9 months. He would have been available for Surrey all this season if fit - in fact he was pencilled in for the last couple of CC games as well as recent blast matches but had a setback with his recovery. Latest from the club is he will be available for the blast run in, wouldn't be a massive surprise to see him in the side tomorrow.Addick Addict said:
Not harsh but a reality and closer scrutiny of when and for whom he has been available is quite revealing.cantersaddick said:
Hes been neither fit not available. That also includes the covid seasons so a bit of a harsh judgement.Addick Addict said:
Apart from Surrey of course who haven't picked him in the last three years.cantersaddick said:
What youre missing is that we are missing half our first X1 and most of our 2nd X1 too.Addick Addict said:
Perfectly sound logic. It's the best XI v the best XI. You've even had the cheek to include someone as "missing" who, unless I'm mistaken, hasn't played in the County Championship for over three years. He can't be that good can he!!!!cantersaddick said:
WHat terrible logicAddick Addict said:
I know, being Surrey, you would like to play 18 if you could get away with it but, unfortunately, you can't.cantersaddick said:
All 11 would still strengthen this side and would get in ahead of Geddes, Smith, Lawes, Atkinson, Jacks, Mckerr. And actually this game Amlas form has been poor and I was calling for him to be dropped for Smith when we were at full strength.Addick Addict said:
Funny but that 11 wouldn't all get in your side!!! Who of Burns, Amla, Sam Curran, Patel and Worrall are you leaving out? So that means that you have six slots to fill as we would have.cantersaddick said:
Its funny I was always under the impression that 8 was a smaller number than 11!Addick Addict said:
We're anything but saved - yetcantersaddick said:
2nd time the weather this season has saved you against Surrey. Embarrassing that you need it against a side missing 11 key players. Very much a 3rd string bowling attack and a patchy batting lineup.Addick Addict said:Keep dancing Fanny!
Tom Curran, Roach/De Grandhomme, Clark, Overton, Topley, Taylor, Dunn, Pope, Roy, Foakes
Compton LBW S Curran 48
126-1
You also seem to ignore the fact that we are missing two England internationals and another six fast bowlers through injury!!!
Likewise not all 6 of your fast bowlers would be in your best side but they would still strengthen this side.
So Smith stays in the side instead of Amla but that still means that you can only make six changes for your strongest side. And we would make six changes too. So, we are both equally short of our strongest side. Yes only 6 slots available but 5 of the 2nd choices for those same roles are also missing. so we are on our 3rd choice for at least 5 roles in this side. Even smith is 3rd choice keeper whether or not he gets in the side as a batsman alone.
Also Worral probably doesnt get into our strongest side.
TC would walk into any county champ side if fit and available.
Tom Curran has played almost one hundred shorter form games in the last three years. In fact, that game against Essex in April 2019 is one of only seven CC matches he's played in more than five years, since May 2017, during which time he's managed another 182 matches in other forms of the game. He played more games last season in The Hundred than he has in the CC in five years for Surrey.
Seven CC matches out of 189 games and none in three years doesn't suggest that his lack of appearances is purely down to fitness. It suggests that he can't/won't play in the CC. I'm not even sure he likes playing for Surrey and I would have the raging hump if I were a supporter with a player who, somehow, played 78 games in the last three years in the Big Bash, the IPL, the Mzansi Super League, The Hundred and for England but only managed to turn up for four matches, all in the Blast, during that same period for Surrey.
So to use Tom Curran as one of your "missing" players from this game is really stretching the imagination. I expect that you can't even remember what he looks like such is his absence from The Oval. What odds he's fit in time for The Oval Invincibles though? The fact it that he isn't simply never plays in the CC. Or for Surrey for that matter.
It is frustrating seeing a Surrey player go and play in every league around the world and miss parts of the domestic season but that is he modern game and he is hardly the only one (you could look at Billings in the CC before this season). He would have had significant chunks of the season available with Surrey in the last 3 years were it not for serious amount of time spent in England bubbles and a couple of badly timed serious injuries.
Doesn't change the fact he is a quality player and would walk into any County champ side in the country.
If he plays in the CC during this season say three or four games then that will change my mind. But if he suddenly becomes available for The Hundred and other franchised white ball comps but not the CC then I'm afraid the writing is on the wall. As it has been for the last five years.1 -
Surrey actively looking for a keeper batsman. They rate Jamie Smiths batting but not his keeping, and they think they will be without Foakes for a good part of the season as he will be in the England Red ball side barring any disasters. They have been scouting around the local leagues but can’t find anyone.cantersaddick said:
This would be a strange one. Can't see him getting in our champ side and we already have too many players who want to bat in our t20 top 3.billysboots said:Banton to Surrey I have heard whispers0 -
Are you suggesting he has faked serious back injuries twice now?Addick Addict said:
Come on Canters - there's "unlucky" and "unlucky". On what basis would he walk into any CC side? No CC matches in three years and just seven CC matches in five years. With that record he has more chance of getting a contract with CAFC than a county because that is what we tend to do. Counties are a bit more circumspect about doing that and you cannot seriously be saying that a player is part of your squad when he hasn't played for more than three years!!!cantersaddick said:
Incredibly harsh. The 2 COVID affected season it was pretty common for white ball specialists to play no BWT/CC games for a county due to IPL and then extended England bubbles. During the last 3 years he has been in every England squad when he has been fit and has spent a huge amount of time in bubbles unable to dip in and out to play for Surrey when not selected for England. He has also had 2 injuries in the last 3 years keeping out for about 8 months each time - his current one is getting on for 9 months. He would have been available for Surrey all this season if fit - in fact he was pencilled in for the last couple of CC games as well as recent blast matches but had a setback with his recovery. Latest from the club is he will be available for the blast run in, wouldn't be a massive surprise to see him in the side tomorrow.Addick Addict said:
Not harsh but a reality and closer scrutiny of when and for whom he has been available is quite revealing.cantersaddick said:
Hes been neither fit not available. That also includes the covid seasons so a bit of a harsh judgement.Addick Addict said:
Apart from Surrey of course who haven't picked him in the last three years.cantersaddick said:
What youre missing is that we are missing half our first X1 and most of our 2nd X1 too.Addick Addict said:
Perfectly sound logic. It's the best XI v the best XI. You've even had the cheek to include someone as "missing" who, unless I'm mistaken, hasn't played in the County Championship for over three years. He can't be that good can he!!!!cantersaddick said:
WHat terrible logicAddick Addict said:
I know, being Surrey, you would like to play 18 if you could get away with it but, unfortunately, you can't.cantersaddick said:
All 11 would still strengthen this side and would get in ahead of Geddes, Smith, Lawes, Atkinson, Jacks, Mckerr. And actually this game Amlas form has been poor and I was calling for him to be dropped for Smith when we were at full strength.Addick Addict said:
Funny but that 11 wouldn't all get in your side!!! Who of Burns, Amla, Sam Curran, Patel and Worrall are you leaving out? So that means that you have six slots to fill as we would have.cantersaddick said:
Its funny I was always under the impression that 8 was a smaller number than 11!Addick Addict said:
We're anything but saved - yetcantersaddick said:
2nd time the weather this season has saved you against Surrey. Embarrassing that you need it against a side missing 11 key players. Very much a 3rd string bowling attack and a patchy batting lineup.Addick Addict said:Keep dancing Fanny!
Tom Curran, Roach/De Grandhomme, Clark, Overton, Topley, Taylor, Dunn, Pope, Roy, Foakes
Compton LBW S Curran 48
126-1
You also seem to ignore the fact that we are missing two England internationals and another six fast bowlers through injury!!!
Likewise not all 6 of your fast bowlers would be in your best side but they would still strengthen this side.
So Smith stays in the side instead of Amla but that still means that you can only make six changes for your strongest side. And we would make six changes too. So, we are both equally short of our strongest side. Yes only 6 slots available but 5 of the 2nd choices for those same roles are also missing. so we are on our 3rd choice for at least 5 roles in this side. Even smith is 3rd choice keeper whether or not he gets in the side as a batsman alone.
Also Worral probably doesnt get into our strongest side.
TC would walk into any county champ side if fit and available.
Tom Curran has played almost one hundred shorter form games in the last three years. In fact, that game against Essex in April 2019 is one of only seven CC matches he's played in more than five years, since May 2017, during which time he's managed another 182 matches in other forms of the game. He played more games last season in The Hundred than he has in the CC in five years for Surrey.
Seven CC matches out of 189 games and none in three years doesn't suggest that his lack of appearances is purely down to fitness. It suggests that he can't/won't play in the CC. I'm not even sure he likes playing for Surrey and I would have the raging hump if I were a supporter with a player who, somehow, played 78 games in the last three years in the Big Bash, the IPL, the Mzansi Super League, The Hundred and for England but only managed to turn up for four matches, all in the Blast, during that same period for Surrey.
So to use Tom Curran as one of your "missing" players from this game is really stretching the imagination. I expect that you can't even remember what he looks like such is his absence from The Oval. What odds he's fit in time for The Oval Invincibles though? The fact it that he isn't simply never plays in the CC. Or for Surrey for that matter.
It is frustrating seeing a Surrey player go and play in every league around the world and miss parts of the domestic season but that is he modern game and he is hardly the only one (you could look at Billings in the CC before this season). He would have had significant chunks of the season available with Surrey in the last 3 years were it not for serious amount of time spent in England bubbles and a couple of badly timed serious injuries.
Doesn't change the fact he is a quality player and would walk into any County champ side in the country.
If he plays in the CC during this season say three or four games then that will change my mind. But if he suddenly becomes available for The Hundred and other franchised white ball comps but not the CC then I'm afraid the writing is on the wall. As it has been for the last five years.
Because at this level he is absolutely top class no mater what the format. I cba to look it up but the 2 seasons before this one I doubt Billings made more than 2 or 3 Champ appearances. As I said TC would have played all of this season were it not for injury. The COVID affected seasons were exceptional circumstances and what he did was the norm for players in demand for white ball franchsies.
0 -
Interesting. Smiths Keeping is good enough in my view but as I said above it will be difficult to do that and develop as a top order bat and be groomed to take over the captaincy some day.billysboots said:
Surrey actively looking for a keeper batsman. They rate Jamie Smiths batting but not his keeping, and they think they will be without Foakes for a good part of the season as he will be in the England Red ball side barring any disasters. They have been scouting around the local leagues but can’t find anyone.cantersaddick said:
This would be a strange one. Can't see him getting in our champ side and we already have too many players who want to bat in our t20 top 3.billysboots said:Banton to Surrey I have heard whispers
I can see the need for a Keeper but Banton is not the answer. Would rather a young developing keeper bat who can share with Smith when we are missing both Foakes and Pope but wouldnt have the expectation of being in the side all the time even when they are around. Don't see how Banton's keeping is any better than Smiths, he's very much a part time keeper and always has been.
In the champ he doesn't get close to our best side. Even when we are missing Pope, Foakes and Roy. His bating just isn't good enough in that format.
In T20's we already have Roy, Jacks, Pope, Evans, Smith, S Curran and Narine (this year) all wanting a spot in the top 3. No space for Banton and to be honest as much as I rate him I wouldn't take him ahead of any of them (maybe smith but he is developing and will only get better) and I can't see him wanting to sit on the bench until England rob us of 3 of them.
Cant see him being around for the RLODC so we would still have Smith keeping in that format. or maybe Burns?0 -
Seb was put on standby to keep for the Kent 1s last season for the Covid game and is playing against a PCA side tomorrow which includes the likes Alex Tudor, Ali Brown and Jade Dernbach who all have a bit of a Surrey connection. He's probably going to keep for half of the PCA innings. I have instructed him to drop as many catches as possible and get out for a duck just to put Surrey off the scent. That really shouldn't be an issue as he's only kept once this season and simply can't buy a run at the moment!!!billysboots said:
Surrey actively looking for a keeper batsman. They rate Jamie Smiths batting but not his keeping, and they think they will be without Foakes for a good part of the season as he will be in the England Red ball side barring any disasters. They have been scouting around the local leagues but can’t find anyone.cantersaddick said:
This would be a strange one. Can't see him getting in our champ side and we already have too many players who want to bat in our t20 top 3.billysboots said:Banton to Surrey I have heard whispers
3
