Twenty20 Preview

Shockingly the Friends Life (not Friends Provident any more) Twenty20 Cup is almost upon us. Things get under way on Thursday against Gloucestershire, here's hoping we do a bit better in that fixture than we did in the corresponding one last year.

So what then should we expect this year? In terms of sheer power our top six is a match for pretty much any in county cricket. Hamilton-Brown, Davies, Roy, de Bruyn, Maynard and Ramprakash are six batsmen capable of batting any side out of a game, equally it's possible that we'll end up (as we did last year) 17-5, but it's worth the gamble if you ask me. I really can say no more than that about our batting, they are a collection of the most talented players currently playing the game.

I think where we do struggle a little is when it comes to the all rounders. Batty is very much a bowling all rounder (and has hit a rocky patch form-wise) and Spriegel, while I have no concerns over his form, can take a few deliveries to get into his stride. He has more than earned his place though and his knock against Scotland this year and against Worcestershire in the CB40 last year show him to have plenty of big-hitting ability once into his stride. His bowling will also be crucial. There is a question as to whether both Batty and Spriegel should play in the same side, as with de Bruyn and Hamilton-Brown in the team there is enough bowling to make up the shortfall in overs that leaving one out would create. I suspect Adams will select both, with Schofield in the mix as well, given that no batsman waiting in the wings is really kicking the door down for this format.

As for the bowlers, the loss of Tremlett and Dernbach to England is a blow of untold proportions. For all his prowess in the Championship people tend to forget quite how magnificent Trem was in the T20s last year, 24 wickets at 17 and an economy rate of 6.8. Dernbach would've been vying with him for top spot were it not for that injury at Lord's. We must make do however, and in Arafat and Dirk Nannes we have two of the most experienced (and successful) T20 bowlers ever. Should Stuart Meaker be fit to return he too will be a handful, perhaps even Matt Dunn too.

So in short we have a team capable of making the latter stages and yes, even winning this competition. Other sides have better bowling (Hampshire's frankly ridiculous battery of spinners springs to mind, and Somerset have an embarrassment of riches), perhaps some have better batting (Somerset again), but there is so much talent in this side that they should quite rightly be aiming very high.

Key players: Zander de Bruyn. His ability to stabilise an innings, or to biff a few to make a decent total into a great total, is something we were sorely lacking last season. His overs will also be crucial, expect full four over spells more often than not. Dirk Nannes. 90mph left armer with a lovely beard. Need I say more?

Game comes alive with a day to play

After the disappointment of losing a full day to the rain yesterday, a full quota was bowled today, and with another full day in prospect tomorrow the game is genuinely in the balance.

That is thanks to some excellent bowling late in the day from Tim Linley (who had earlier taken a career best 6-81) and Matt Dunn (who was called in to replace Dernbach who is joining up with the England test side - well done Jade!). Both bowlers took two wickets apiece in the final 12 overs of play including first innings centurion Chesney Hughes. Where the games against Glamorgan and Essex needed something extraordinary to happen on the final day there is a real chance of a result tomorrow, Redfern and Durston have a real fight on their hands tomorrow morning to keep Derbyshire in the mix.

Surrey were bowled out for what seemed a slightly disappointing 358 at the time, but there is clearly still something in the pitch. Hamilton-Brown, Davies, de Bruyn and Maynard all made fifties in very good time but none passed 80. The final five wickets collapsed in a heap for just 25 runs, including Chris Jordan for a six ball duck, he really has had a wretched game and his participation in the Twenty20s will now probably rely in injuries to others. Still, getting to within 42 of Derbyshire's 400-9 declared (and doing so in only 70 overs) meant we were still well in the game.

With Derbyshire 35-4 at the close of play, just 77 runs ahead Surrey are looking good. However with the two batsmen at the crease, Smith and Sutton still to come Derbyshire could quite conceivably add 150 to their score, chasing 220 in 50 or so overs on a helpful pitch will not be easy. The bowlers (and it will almost certainly require more than just Linley and Dunn) need to be right on the money tomorrow morning, Jewell and de Bruyn will have work to do and Batty might be called upon to tie up an end. Credit must go to the team who batted and bowled aggressively today to put themselves in with a shout. We've created an opening this evening, they must make sure they exploit it.

Another disappointing day

Under gloomy skies on a pitch with reportedly plenty in it for the bowlers, Hamilton-Brown was probably justified in sending Derbyshire in to bat this morning. And at 16-2 he must've been a very happy man, Linley's opening burst sending back both openers. But thereafter it was Derbyshire's day. I am struggling to think of times when we really pressed home an advantage this season.

Three times we've sent teams in to bat this year and three times they've closed the day well in excess of 300 and never with more than 7 wickets down, that is pretty poor going. Linley should be singled out for praise today, another four-for against Derbyshire (4-71 to be precise) and Batty at least offered a modicum of control. Dernbach didn't have his best day although he did pass the edge of Chesney Hughes' bat early in the day.

That man Hughes, who is staggeringly only 20 years old, went on to score an impressive 124 to provide the backbone to Derbyshire's innings. Wes Durston and Dan Redfern provided ample support.

I am sure Hughes' knock was a very good one but we have only ourselves to blame for being under the cosh again. Principal among the offenders today was Chris Jordan, who to my mind is not ready for Championship cricket this year. He returned 0-72 off 10 overs. That's unacceptably expensive in a one day match never mind four day cricket. He has now taken 4 wickets at 64 in 2011, giving away 4.3 runs an over in the process. It's clear that the captain doesn't trust him as today he bowled just those 10 overs out of 96. I am in no doubt that Matthew Dunn would have been a more potent weapon today and was disappointed not to see him named. Tom Jewell did ok in only his second match with 1-68 off 16 overs and for much of the day his economy rate was far better than the 4.2 he ended with.

If the rain holds off tomorrow Derbyshire are well set to push for their final batting point and Tim Linley deserves to get his five-for, but then Surrey could be in trouble. Turner, Palladino, Jones and Clare are unlikely to be as profligate as our bowlers. In any case this looks likely to be another game which slips by without a win for Surrey unless things improve dramatically. Not good enough today.

Schofield dropped for Derbyshire game

After an underwhelming performance against Glamorgan at the Oval Surrey make the trip up to Derbyshire desperately in need of a win before the mini break that includes the Twenty20. With only one win from our first six matches we are going to have to embark on a pretty extraordinary run of results for a realistic chance of promotion.

Chris Schofield is dropped from the squad after disappointing against Glamorgan, and Matthew Dunn and Rory Burns come into the squad. It will be interesting to see what set up Adams goes for, but here's what I think he might do:

Rory Hamilton-Brown
Jason Roy
Mark Ramprakash
Zander de Bruyn
Steven Davies
Tom Maynard
Gareth Batty
Tom Jewell
Jade Dernbach
Matthew Dunn
Tim Linley

12th men: Rory Burns, Chris Jordan

Chris Jordan did little against Glamorgan to suggest he should play, so I hope Tom Jewell is given a go, although I think there is also an argument for playing the extra batsman instead of the allrounder, especially given the amount of overs de Bruyn has bowled lately. I think its unlikely Adams will go that route as if he was to play the extra bat, it would surely have been Harinath, I suspect Burns is in the squad as a precautionary measure given Davies' sprained ankle against Glamorgan.

An attack including two such inexperienced bowlers as Dunn and Jewell is a huge gamble, but with Arafat and Meaker still out we don't have many other options. Dunn hasn't bowled his best for the 2nds this season but this could be his moment. Linley seemed to get better through the game at the Oval and he'll want to carry on the good work he started at Derbyshire last season - 4-13 before a foot injury cruelly cut him down in his prime.

Derbyshire are without Tim Groenewald who has 24 wickets this season, but they still have Palladino, Clare, Smith and Turner more than capable of taking wickets. They've lost Usman Khawaja but have gained Martin Guptill who I've always been very impressed by for New Zealand. Wayne Madsen tops their batting averages but Chesney Hughes is the more dangerous. Wes Durston is no mug either.

This won't be an easy game and again it's probably a story of two sides stronger in the batting that the bowling, certainly in our case, less so for Derbyshire. However our batting unit is the stronger of the two so if Dernbach can hit his straps, Dunn steps up to the occasion and Linley carries on improving, we should be looking at beating them, weather permitting.

(Some) Pride Restored

After being outplayed for three quarters of the game today was something of an exercise in redressing the balance, even if in the end it was another disappointing draw, the fourth such result in our six matches so far.

There was some good news today, Jason Roy scored his maiden Championship hundred and did so at more than a run a ball, bringing up his hundred with what must be his favourite shot, a straight six into the pavilion. He and Hamilton-Brown also constructed Surrey's second century opening partnership in consecutive matches.

I'm not sure if the captains agreed before the day's play that the target would be 400, but if they did then chances of a result were all but knackered there and then. The teams went into lunch with Glamorgan 320 ahead and a very brave skipper might have sent Surrey back out right after lunch, but Petersen elected to bat on. I personally think 350 in what would've been roughly 55 overs would've been ideal, but they pressed on before eventually declaring, leaving Surrey needing a desperately unlikely 395 runs in 50 overs. Roy and Hamilton-Brown motored along at the required 8 an over for close to 20 overs, playing with the freedom that comes with an almost unattainable total. Given the rapid start it was a bit disappointing to see them give up the chase as soon as one wicket fell, it was perhaps worth pushing Maynard or Davies up the order to have one last dart. That may be nit picking because it would have been even at that stage an incredibly unlikely win.

We are never going to be fighting for promotion by drawing two thirds of our matches, yes its better than losing every game but we've got to be creating opportunities to win games. Over the past few years we've been able to look at the pitches as the culprit but I don't think we can blame the pitch this time. It wasn't a raging green top, zipping about all over the place, but there was a bit of life in it, hence Glamorgan's rookie seam attack dismantling our batting for less than 300 runs in the first innings. We failed to win this game, and in reality we were never in a position to win it, because we didn't play close to our best cricket and that is a concern.

The next game against Derbyshire comes hot on the heels of this one, beginning on Sunday. They're no pushovers but we should be looking at beating them, especially if Meaker is fit again. Many a positive word has been spoken by Adams and Hamilton-Brown this season about taking opportunities when presented, and pressing home the advantage, but that hasn't been backed up on the pitch sufficiently. That needs to change, and quickly, if we are to make any progress.

New Jack Hobbs biography reviewed - and two to give away!

To my eternal shame I am no Surrey County Cricket Club history buff, anything before about 1990 is something of a mystery to me, partly because of my age and partly because of my laziness. Which is not to say I know nothing of the history of the club, I do know a bit but not as much as I should. One man in particular looms larger than any other in that history, that man is Jack Hobbs.

He is unquestionably Surrey's greatest ever batsman and arguably England's greatest ever batsman. In fact Leo McKinstry's new biography of him proclaims Jack Hobbs as England's greatest ever cricketer.

I will for a moment set aside my feelings as regards Mr. McKinstry's politics which are, shall we say, not in line with my own, and review what is an excellent biography.

The story of Hobbs' career is extraordinary. He started playing first class cricket in the early 1900s, firmly in the shadow, as was the rest of English cricket, of W.G. Grace, a man whose record of 126 First Class hundreds he would eventually eclipse, and then obliterate. The book explains Hobbs' humble beginnings and how they influenced his entire career. There are interesting asides such as the story of how he offered his services to Essex who rejected him sight unseen, the rest is history.

The passage which is set against the background of the First World War gives a fascinating insight into the Britain of the time, and into cricket at the time which was full of conflicted players. Hobbs himself worked in a munitions factory and served in the RAF at home but he never saw action overseas.

It charts Hobbs' career post-war when he really began to churn out the runs aged 36 (he was a late First Class starter, not debuting for Surrey until age 22). Including the 1925 season during which he scored a scarcely believable 3,000 runs and 16 hundreds, and his quest to reach 200 first class hundreds which he never quite managed (not bad to be left in the nervous 190s on that count). Of course it also charts his success with England and in particular his partnership with Herbert Sutcliffe. It tells the story of a great cricketer who was so shy he even worried whether he should accept the knighthood the Queen awarded him in 1953.

The book is clearly meticulously researched, I have difficulty dredging up records from the early 2000s never mind 1905. Occasionally it proved a tough read because of the sheer weight of statistical information, but it would be hard to truly appreciate Hobbs' greatness without them. If you're a fan of Surrey it's a must-read, but even for the casual cricket fan it is more than worth a look.

I have also very kindly been given two copies to give away by the publishers, but I'm not just dishing them out for nothing. If you fancy a chance of winning one email me the answer to this (pretty easy) question:

How many hundreds did Hobbs score for England?

Email your answer to SurreyCricketBlog@gmail.com, and I'll randomly select a winner in due course (let's say the deadline is midnight June 3rd)! For those that don't win, the book is available from all good book sellers. Well it's on Amazon anyway.

Saved by the weather

There's not much to report from today with only about 25 overs playable in the day because of some distinctly inclement weather, but it does seem that barring some very enterprising play tomorrow, we have at least saved the draw.

It's hard on Glamorgan who have comprehensively outplayed us over two days and 25 overs. This morning Gareth Batty and Schofield should've set about attaining the follow on target before anything else, but Batty disappeared early doors and the rest of the batsmen were gone within an hour of the start of play.

In the process we did manage to creep past the follow on, by all of 15 runs, and Glamorgan were sent out to bat again. Only 12.4 overs were managed but they safely negotiated them and ended 46 without loss, 181 runs ahead and if the day hadn't been curtailed we'd have been in deep trouble.

We've not been good enough this game, not in the batting nor the bowling, it is as simple as that. If there isn't a major upset now we will draw this game, but a solitary win (albeit an impressive one) from our first six games is a pretty poor return, especially as today was the first time we've lost a significant amount of overs to the weather. With all bowlers fit and firing we would surely have fared better, but Adams should resist falling back on this as an excuse - up against an equally depleted Glamorgan side we've been second best by a distance. There is still plenty of work to be done to make us promotion challengers.