Were it not for the wedding of a good friend of mine, I'd have been at the Oval today to witness a horrible performance from Surrey and one from Somerset in which they thoroughly outclassed us.
We can't win 'em all of course, and I suppose Adams can be forgiven for sticking to the same basic principle of selection that has seen us go through the CB40 unbeaten so far and second in the table. However a batting lineup which seems to stutter at numbers six and seven was always going to cost us sooner rather than later.
That said, it was probably the bowling today which was marginally the more damaging of the two. When you have two bowlers going at around or above 9 an over in a 40 over contest, it is always going to be tough to make up the difference.
A side containing six bowlers (not including the part time spin of RHB) shouldn't really be conceding those kinds of totals, and its particularly confusing that Batty, the least expensive of the lot, bowled only half his full quota. Spriegel too was left with two overs unbowled and he was (relatively) inexpensive. Too many times this season our more economical bowlers have been left with overs un-bowled at the end. These can be and have been costly tactical miscalculations.
Credit to Matthew Spriegel who I think is quite unsuited to batting at 5 or 6 in limited overs, he stuck at it while others fell around him. However if Spriegel is the batsman who bats through, we are never likely to be able to chase 7.5+ an over for 40 overs.
We are still second in the table with a game in hand on those behind, so we're right in the mix, but I think we do need to re-evaluate the selection policy in limited overs. I accept that the formula has worked so far, but I also think we need to acknowledge that an extra batsman in a side with plenty of bowling options gives us a bit of insurance.
There's no need to panic over this result, its a mauling, for sure, but this side is plenty good enough to get back to CB40 winning ways.