Wednesday, 2 September 2015

Surrey v Derbyshire day 2

Derbyshire 313

Surrey 227-5 

There's a good old game going on at The Kia Oval with both teams very much in it.

The Derbyshire tail wagged and took us to respectability, thanks to good efforts primarily by Messrs Palladino and Critchley. Chesney missed out on his ton, but did a fine job for the side and Wayne Madsen will have been quietly content on leading his side out to field.

Surrey's reply was very similar, with Burns making 92, four runs less than Chesney, and the rest making double figures in a solid effort. Much more rests on the game for them than us, of course, but wounded pride is a powerful force and I hope that we acquit ourselves equally well over the last two days of the game as we have in the first two.

It was good to see Matt Critchley getting a longer bowl today and the wicket of Steve Davies. Leg spin is the most difficult of spinning arts but the youngster has a bright future ahead of him with bat and ball. At times he will be expensive, but there will be others when he will learn to take full advantage of helpful conditions and bowl sides out.

More from me tomorrow.

Thanks for your continued support!

1 comment:

notoveryet said...

I've got a weekend in London coming up and hope to catch the fourth day of this match if it's still in progress. Though Derbyshire have held their own more or less for the first two days, they've not made the inroads on the third morning that they needed, and Surrey look set for a decent lead now which will let them put us under pressure later in the day. The shallowness of our batting for this match really worries me, and I can't understand the logic of leaving out a batsman (Thakor) for the fourth quick bowler, unless it's because of the aftermath of the blow he took last week. Slater's still very scratchy, Durston in no form, Hosein too high at 6, and Thakor, if fit, would have given a littler more fibre. We got away with it in the first innings, but once Surrey have got a strong grip, I fear a quick surrender.

Millns' selection really puzzles me. I could see logic in him replacing Cotton, who's been very inconsistent, but not in playing both of them on a pitch that spin was clearly going to do a lot of the bowling on. The fact that Millns only bowled 6 overs in the first 80 overs suggests that we have one seamer to many. I'm also puzzled by him batting at 7, unless he was the nightwatchman. I've seen references to him as an all-rounder, but he's been batting at 9 or 10 in the second X1, below Tom Taylor, and most of his first class appearances have been at 9 or 10. He's clearly not a rank tailender, but all-rounder seems to be overstating it a bit. I'll be interested to see him in action, but if he is going to be one of the winter signings, I'm not sure yet another developing young seamer with potential is either a priority for our limited resources, or necessary in terms of the number we already have.