Championship v Surrey 19th-22nd July 2023

[Paul W]

14 man squad named-

https://www.middlesexccc.com/news/2023/07/squad-preview-middlesex-v-surrey-county-championship

Roland-Jones (c), Andersson, Bamber, Davies, De Caires, Eskinazi, Helm, Higgins, Holden, Malan, Murtagh, Robson, Simpson (wk), Stoneman.

[Jonathan Winsky]

Prior to Middlesex’s squad being announced, I anticipated that in the event of Stevie Eskinazi’s finger injury ruling him out of this match (or, alternatively, any of the other batters who played v Northamptonshire at Merchant Taylors’ School being unable to play), Jack Davies would be likelier than someone like Robbie White or Luke Hollman to come in due to Davies probably being in the best form out of those three. The fact that our squad contains Davies, but not White or Hollman, would support my anticipation. However, White’s 101, Hollman’s 70, Joe Cracknell’s 158 and Martin Andersson’s 64 for the 2nd XI today may tempt us to reactively bring any of those players into this match. I am not sure what to make of Andersson being named in the squad for this match while playing with the 2nd XI.

We will have to see whether we will select an unchanged bowling line-up, or whether Tim Murtagh may come back in.

Surrey have named a 14-man squad for this match (https://www.kiaoval.com/surrey-squad-and-preview-middlesex-a/) consisting of Rory Burns, Sean Abbott, Gus Atkinson, Jordan Clark, Ben Foakes, Will Jacks, Tom Latham, Tom Lawes, Jamie Overton, Ryan Patel, Dom Sibley, Jamie Smith, Cameron Steel and Dan Worrall.

It is very rare for me to use any annual leave, but at my dad’s suggestion, I have used up some this week, which means that I will be able to attend all of this match. Had I not attended on the first three days, then I am not sure how much more cricket I would have seen this season. I would have had to settle for only being able to attend this match on Saturday, although whether there will be any cricket that day depends on the match situation and the weather.

Like the last time I used up annual leave to go to cricket (when we played Yorkshire at Lord’s in 2016), our opponents are very much in contention to win the County Championship. If only I could add to that “like the last time I used up annual leave to go to cricket, Middlesex are very much in contention to win the County Championship”!

[Paul W]

We've won the toss and will bowl first.

Eski failed fitness test, so Jack Davies plays.

If the scorecard is to be believed, Pieter Malan will open with Mark Stoneman, with Sam Robson coming in at three.

And Rocky is captaining, with TRJ rotated. Murts gets a game.

[Jonathan Winsky]

It looks like Middlesex will have to post a score which will earn us some rare batting points if we are to avoid finding ourselves with a large first innings deficit and therefore being required to attempt to fight back into the match.

I often find myself, at the end of an opening day when we have bowled first, contemplating whether our opponents’ pursuit of batting points the following day could help our chances of taking some wickets to hasten the end of the innings and to earn us some bowling points. Sometimes, this ends up creating wicket-taking chances (and maybe even earn us some wickets). Sometimes, opponents seemingly make little or no effort to get more batting points, which reduces our wicket-taking chances. Surrey should easily add 38 more for a third batting point, although they will have to score 88 in 14 overs at 6.29 an over for a fourth point, something they may not attempt to do if they cannot score as quickly off Ethan Bamber and Tim Murtagh as they scored off our other bowlers.

I think that Jack Davies spent a lot of time off the field today, as he was the only player I could not see. Martin Andersson and Noah Cornwell did a lot of sub fielding (I am not sure whether there were even times when they were both on the field at the same time). It would be a shame if Davies is unable to make much contribution on what is his first (and which he will hope will not be his last) County Championship appearance for more than a year. The situation echoes that which happened last week with Stevie Eskinazi, who Davies has come in for.

There were long queues to get in at both the North Gate and Grace Gates this morning, so surely it would have made sense to have opened more turnstiles. After all, this match is a London derby played in good weather, so all it would have needed in order to contain the highest-possible amount of ingredients for a well-attended day of County Championship cricket would have been for today to have been at the weekend or a bank holiday. I met one of my dad’s friends near the North Gate, and he insisted that we walk round to the Grace Gates, although I would have preferred to have persisted with queuing at the North Gate. Anyway, thankfully I got in with just enough time to replace Toby Roland-Jones with Murtagh on Know Your Cricket, not that TRJ’s points tally in this match is currently any inferior to Murtagh’s!

[Paul W]

Glad you enjoyed your day, Jonathan, and thank you for posting your thoughts. Unless more do this, I can't see much of a future for this forum once the season is over.

My main thought when watching was that with cloud cover it should have been a bowling day, and that if we had batted first we would probably have been about 250 all out, rather than about 300-5.

I don't recall Kevin Hand saying what Jack Davies' problem was. Mention was made of Cornwell and Andersson on as sub fielders, but I had thought that was just routine (players going off for comfort breaks), rather than one player off for a long time.

Already looking like a draw is the best we can hope for. At least Kent are very much second best at the moment in their encounter with Essex.

[Peter Richardson]

Thanks Paul. I am an MCC member and an Essex supporter but I greatly enjoy the Middlesex area on the Forum. Please everyone keep posting. Hopefully Essex can do you a favour and beat Kent, we are in such a strong position so hopefully we won't blow it! I hope you stay up so I can look forward to Middlesex v Essex next year and hopefully not in April!

[Paul W]

Thank you, Peter.

I kind of a had a sense of foreboding as we went out to bat. That feeling their bowlers probably had a bit more pace and menace than us, and our batting line up wouldn't be equipped to deal with it.

Truth is there is a gap in class between top and (nearly) bottom of the table.

We are where we are for a reason.

[Paul W]

A decent fightback in the final session.

After a bit of a skittish start (two failed reverse sweeps when barely off the mark) Max Holden proved he can play properly! It took a good delivery to get him out.

Good news in other matches- Somerset 351 Northants 180 & 151-6 and Kent 207 & 4-1 Essex 458-8 dec

[MIDDLE EXILE]

A long way to go, but with help hopefully from the weather, we've got a good chance of getting out of this with a draw. A result which would probably leave us just a point or two behind Kent with a game in hand. We're still a bit of a way from Division Two as the doom merchants keep telling us.

[Peter Richardson]

I enjoyed the fight back at Lord's this afternoon, listening into the test with a wonderful pint of Wainwights Gold from the Bowler's Bar. It really doesn't get any better than that. Essex look on course for a victory, weather permitting which should help the cause!

[Jonathan Winsky]

All Middlesex can do is bat as long as they can. Maybe we can keep our first innings deficit manageable. Maybe we can take enough time out of the match to hopefully make it a bit harder for Surrey to set us the type of target they would like to set. Maybe we will be made to follow-on, but not before Surrey have bowled more overs than they would have liked. Maybe we will get a first innings lead!

And if we are made to follow on, all Middlesex can do in the second innings is bat as long as they can.

My main concern is not whether we win, lose, draw, tie or draw with the scores level, or whether or not we maintain our division one status. My main concern is our over rate! I think our over rate was -1 when Surrey’s first innings ended. If our over rate indeed needs sorting out, then that is obviously something we would need to do in Surrey’s second innings. However, that obviously relies upon Surrey having a second innings. When we played Somerset at Lord’s in May, we bowled Somerset out for 404 with our over rate being -1 at the end of their first innings, at which point I am not sure whether we envisaged that we had done our last bowling of the match. However, we ended up being made to follow on and lost by an innings, so ended up not having an opportunity to correct our over rate, so we lost a point. In saying all that, maybe Don Shelley has already ensured that our over rate is no longer in the red! However, as Josh de Caires didn’t bowl as extensively (or, for that matter, as economically or successfully) as I would have liked in the first innings of this match, I would be surprised if our over rate is currently OK. Hopefully, no arrows will be fired, at least not until I am assured that our over rate is not in the red!

Well done to Tom Helm on taking six wickets, and to Max Holden and John Simpson on scoring fifties.

[adelaide]

I haven't been able to watch much of this but my impression from what I did see was that Tom Helm had taken some of the wickets that Ethan Bamber deserved.

[Jonathan Winsky]

For at least two reasons, it was disappointing that Middlesex were made to follow-on.

As Surrey probably don’t have an overwhelming desperation to win this match, the likeliest way that this match would have been drawn would have been had Surrey batted again, and either they felt unable to feel confident about setting us a target or if we were able to bat out time (alternatively, we may even had achieved our target). Instead, we incurred a first innings deficit of 195 and were made to follow on, at which point it felt very doubtful that we could fight our way back into the match. As I can remember writing on many previous occasions, I am not a great believer in the adage that enforcing the follow-on invites opponents back into the match. I suppose that whether this invites opponents back into the match depends on whether the team enforcing the follow-on entered the match as favourites or as the underdog, as I imagine that most instances of teams going on to regret enforcing come after the underdog enforced it.

Like I wrote last night, I am fearful about our over rate, meaning that since Surrey’s first innings ended, I have been hopeful that Surrey would have a second innings, which was the other reason for me hoping that we could avoid the follow-on. When we were 127-5 in our second innings and behind by 68, it felt conceivable that there would be no Surrey second innings, as well as looking highly likely that our second innings total would be even less than our first innings 238 (in theory - and indeed this often happens - a team following-on should bat better than they did in their first innings). Thankfully, runs down the order have ensured that Surrey will have to bat again.

I imagine that when Surrey’s run chase starts, we will begin with our fast bowlers to see whether we can miraculously and famously bowl them out cheaply. However, in the likely event of it becoming clear that Surrey are going to win, hopefully we will make sure that Surrey’s win does not come before we have ensured that our over rate is satisfactory.

Despite having spent the 156.2 most recent overs of this match in the field, Surrey seem content to overwhelmingly use their five fast bowlers, with Will Jacks having bowled just 4 overs in the match and not at all today. However, their lack of use of spin bowling has somehow not prevented their over rate from hovering between 0 and +1 throughout this match, so they seem not to have concerns in this regard.

[Paul W]

Last night when I looked at the weather forecast it had light rain at 50% probability from 3 pm onwards.

This morning (at the moment as it updates hourly) it is predicting heavy rain from 1 pm onwards, and for it to continue for the rest of the playing day-

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/forecast/gcpvhhdht#?date=2023-07-22

So can we somehow escape with a draw? Still unlikely- because if we set Surrey say 90 (I'm being realistic) they could get that in under 20 overs, so less than one session- but at least a bit of hope (not wanting to be saved by the weather doesn't count if our opponents are Surrey!).

A shame Tom Helm got out to the sort of shot that said he was hoping to get today off, as Ethan Bamber (a pull shot for 6 must be the best shot of his career, as it was top class) and Josh de Caires weren't in much trouble, until the latter was dismissed off the last ball of the day.

What to do next week against Warwickshire? Joe Cracknell has scored two hundreds in his last two second XI games, and Robbie White also got a hundred in the last game, so there is some pressure on the under performing top order. Pieter Malan's run of bad luck/loss of form (take your pick- as he does seem to be attracting unplayable deliveries) would see him dropped if he wasn't our overseas player, and if his career average wasn't so good. Will Richard Johnson do it? No chance, I'd say!

[wembleylion]

Presumably Martin or Robbie for Jack, Eski if fit for Pieter?

[Paul W]

I'm sure we all play at being manager, or head coach from time to time.

If it was me, I would seriously consider moving Josh de Caires up to somewhere in the top 5, because he still looks like a proper top order batter having to bat at 8, just so we can get him in the side. So he would replace Jack Davies, and then maybe Martin Andersson at 8, because he is capable of making 30 or more with the bat, and it creates an extra bowling option, I don't know how to get Cracknell in (well, I do- drop Malan, but I can't see that happening).

[Paul W]

Oh well....

We're now 11 points behind Kent, but with a game in hand.

The only problem is that when we lose, we tend to only get 2 or 3 bowling points, and no batting points- so that game in hand could easily be frittered away with a 3 point loss.

It isn't looking good right now.

[Jonathan Winsky]

As it began raining on my journey home, and is forecast to continue raining for the rest of the day, Middlesex may not have needed to have drawn the match out a great deal longer to have, well, drawn the match.

I am oblivious as to whether our over rate finished satisfactorily. Cricinfo and NV Play currently make no mention of us being deducted any points (although that could subsequently be amended). However, the scoreboard showed our over rate as being -1 for the entirety of the time Surrey batted today. Bad news for our over rate is that, until the final ball of the match, only seamers Ethan Bamber and Tom Helm bowled for us today, and there were three wides. Good news for our over rate is that our bowlers and fielders seemed keen to avoid dawdling, we made no bowling changes until the final ball, and I am confident that allowances will have been made for Josh de Caires’ futile attempt to retrieve the ball from the Upper Tavern stand after a six was hit. Maybe the one ball Mark Stoneman bowled will count as a full over for the purposes of calculating our over rate. Still, I was hopeful that the switch to slow bowling would have come with Surrey needing 20 runs, not 2.

de Caires’ attempt to retrieve the ball was surely the most comical moment of today. He appeared to initially go up the wrong staircase, and by the time he found the right one, a replacement ball had already been found. We had to use a substitute fielder (I am not sure who, even though I saw him close up) for one ball while de Caires found his way back to the field! As a steward tends to take responsibility for retrieving balls hit into closed areas of Lord’s, I am surprised that de Caires had to take responsibility today.

[Paul W]

I assume Josh de Caires took responsibility for finding the ball precisely so he could take his time finding it, but unfortunately the umpires chose to replace the ball.

Sub fielder probably EPG player Noah Cornwell, as on previous days in the match.

[Erskine]

I agree Josh looked like a proper batsman in both innings and if all the top order played like him we could have saved the game as it seemed to me some players fancied the day off today. A mention must be noted for Ethan who deserved much more with his bowling and his batting was exceptional. We just gifted away our wickets in the second innings and the slog from Helm was crazy as he can bat and could go On