cricket
Latest News:

GROCKLES.COM welcomes you all to the world of Somerset Cricket.

Many thanks to the Mighty Alexander Davidson for the montage. Somerset will or won't be Champions of the CC1 in

Days or Hours or Minutes or Seconds

Old Pavilion Gimblett Hill General View Somerset Stand Stand Trescothick Stand
Ondaatje Pavilion Scoreboard Stand squad Colin Atkinson Pavilion Botham Stand
County Championship Info FPT20 Info CB40 Info Somerset Official Website Somerset Video Library Somerset Match Scorecard SCCC Ball by Ball
 

Current Page: 10 of 12
 
wsm fan
Re: Surrey Week Part 2
wsm fan (IP Logged)
09 August, 2017 21:31
Why would they shut up shop?
Surrey will want batting points.
3.5 runs per over very likely at Taunton.
Plus i expect/hope we will have attacking feilds all day so we wont be fussed about saving runs.....

I admit my plan is rather on the optimistic side but you never know.....

8 wickets is our best hope i guess and limiting Surrey to as few batting points as possible could be very important come the end of September too.

 
Tom Seymour
Re: Surrey Week Part 2
Tom Seymour (IP Logged)
09 August, 2017 22:08
Just got back to these shenanigans after a couple of days away.

Both WSM fan and Railboy implied that I told lies over there being no visible sign of Somerset players appearing on the balcony to applaud their captain’s 50.

Frankly I don’t give a tinker’s curse over what either of you or Maynard claim to have happened. I reported what I saw and as it is fact, and corroborated by others including the questioner at the Q & A, I stick by it. FACT.

I will not be so obnoxious or abusive as you, by referring to you as liars. What I would suggest is that you pay a visit to the County Championship sponsors at the earliest possible opportunity, as I am sure they will welcome you both with open arms. Not only are your statements crude and offensive, but they also border on the paranoid over my decision to post.

And Sandhills is another who falls into the same category IMO. He or she has shown their true colours on here before I seem to remember – a truly sad case.

So ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, if you do not like what you see before you, then you know what to do don’t you?

Press the Report button on the relevant post and see what happens. I will tell you – Nothing.

Send a PM to Grockle instead. .

PS – Thank you Farmer White for your balanced view on your observation.
As for Bagpuss’s superstition theory, well give me strength.



A glass half - empty or a glass half - full?
Regardless, both glasses need filling up.

 
Rod1883
Re: Surrey Week Part 2
Rod1883 (IP Logged)
09 August, 2017 22:54
Yes, there is the scenario that Surrey - needing batting points - go for it in the morning which gives us the opportunity to take some wickets and get 2 or 3 more points that way.
Whether they will blow it to the degree that a follow on happens, I doubt

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: Surrey Week Part 2
Grockle (IP Logged)
09 August, 2017 23:15
I'm afraid Tom that whether you give a tinker's cuss or not, what you saw was NOT fact.

Your interpretation of what you saw was yours but there were a number of players in the dressing room and on the balcony when Tom made his half ton according to my investigations and other information presented to me via a Twitter request for information

I take Farmer's view of this. What you saw is based on where you were looking from and possibly what you were looking for.

Certain parts of the ground look at the Caddyshack at an angle and those at the door of the dressing room to the balcony are not as easy to discern from a stand that is also at an angle. If players are not at the front edge of the balcony they are not as easy to identify but they were there. I have talked to some who were there and who have named other players who were there becauase it was Tom's half ton.

That was the case.

I see that as a misinterpretation and not a 'lie' so I have discussed that with the posters who made that accusation. It was not what should have been said. They believe you have a second agenda but that is another issue between you and them.

However, as neither side made any official complaint regarding this exchange and I am not going to get involved in the different demands for me to take action unless I decide one party is obviously in the wrong or am actually asked to make a decision I will not get involved.

You can be as obnoxious as other posters and have denigrated one person (Sandhills) who did not accuse you of 'lying' yesterday on the above post where you complain about how badly YOUR character has been defamed. So you do not see this as wrong yourself, which makes complaining about it when it happens the other way around a little pointless

6 of one half a dozen of another. Telling others what to do if they don't like it Tom is also pointless. The only one you have to worry about is me and whether I like it. In this case I see everyone as bad as each other but some of that has been put down to your more continual activity.

I'll keep any eye on things. Please all keep yourselves in check. If you see something you don't like and want moderation then please OFFICIALLY complain about it rather than getting into a 'mine's bigger than yours' confrontation on the public forum. If not keep it related to the cricket or it'll go.

Other than that please play nicely children. Any further discussion on this will be done off the site via PM or it will go without notification. We have a Day 4 to deal with not something quite minimal disagreed about 2 days ago.

Thanks



(Sm72)

 
wsm fan
Re: Surrey Week Part 2
wsm fan (IP Logged)
09 August, 2017 23:17
Fine by me grockle!
Suns out tomorrow, lets get amongst them.....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2017 23:23 by wsm fan.

 
Farmer White
Re: Surrey Week Part 2
Farmer White (IP Logged)
10 August, 2017 00:56
Grizzzly

2008: Somerset set Hants 422 off 82 (not an agreed target I imagine) and Hants finished on 198-1.

2008: Somerset set Durham 282 off 52 (I doubt that was an agreed target either) and Durham finished on 113-4.

2009: Yorkshire set Somerset 475 off 90 (I doubt that was agreed but it might have been) Somerset won by 4 wickets with 4 overs to spare.

2010: Yorkshire set Somerset 362 off 71 by agreement. Somerset won by 6 wickets with 5 overs to spare.

2011: Not on a declaration but I couldn’t resist putting it in: Somerset needed 228 to beat Yorkshire. Won by 10 wickets.

2015: Sussex set Somerset 425 to win (I doubt by agreement). Somerset batted out to 208-6 in the 67th.

2016: Somerset set Middlesex 302 off 46 (who knows if by agreement but I doubt it as Somerset were 9 down when they declared. Middlesex won by 2 wickets.

In 2015 Somerset bowled Notts out for 190 in the third innings of the match and won with 402-8.

And that's about it and in recent times the Taunton pitch has almost always flattened on the fourth day.

There are a couple of instances of a side being bowled out after a declaration but they were against huge targets. Notts lost to Somerset in 2016 having been set 541. In 2014 Warwickshire set Somerset 404 and won but the 404 was the highest score of the match and nearly 150 more than Somerset scored in their first innings.

So in ten seasons only one certain agreed declaration target at Taunton, Yorkshire in 2010 and I can assure you the Yorkshire members present were apoplectic with rage at their captain.

There have been quite a number of sides bowled out in the fourth innings at Taunton but they have not been against declarations and have been in middling scoring games. Perhaps we should find out how those pitches were prepared.

We do have two good spinners but even so the evidence is weighted pretty heavily against them I think. A draw keeps us in with a chance. A defeat would take Surrey a long way above us. Let’s play this one long.

So I hope you see why I don’t want any deals. I certainly wouldn’t bet on a Somerset win if there was a deal. It would be safer to bet on Gareth Batty being voted player of the year in a Grockles poll. Now there’s a hostage to fortune. (Not the Batty bet. The other one.)

Farmer

 
Farmer White
Re: Surrey Week Part 2
Farmer White (IP Logged)
10 August, 2017 01:02
Thank you Wickham for your kind words and to you Rod for yours yesterday on my match reports - or was it the day before now. Much appreciated.

Wickham I wish you had told me the Pope was at the match. I have never met him.

Farmer

 
Grizzzly
Re: Surrey Week Part 2
Grizzzly (IP Logged)
10 August, 2017 03:31
Cogent argument and details FW & I certainly can't argue with the facts as presented.

However, we are approx. 30 points at least from safety in the table & there are only five games to go (including Essex away) after this one . Add to that the continuing fickle weather.

So, it seems to me that if we want to stay up, we are going to have to take risks somewhere along the way.

Granted the Taunton pitch flattens out, but if Surrey accepted a target of 367 & we then get them 2 or 3 down before lunch, anything can happen. If not, then we would have to try to adapt a containing strategy. Not easy of course & not without risk, but surely better to try to avoid relegation by being bold & strident in an attempt to beat one of our likely key rivals in the exercise, rather than the alternative of limping down to the bottom tier through a series of tame draws.

The above being said, my expectation is that everyone will settle for a quiet day.

All good fun to debate !

Grizzzly

 
Somerset LaLaLa
Re: Surrey Week Part 2
Somerset LaLaLa (IP Logged)
10 August, 2017 07:23
I'm rather looking for a repeat of the 2006 Gloucestershire game where the visitors were bowled out twice in a day needing to follow on.

Somerset 409; Gloucs 161 and 172

Apparently, they were only 1 wicket down at 12.30pm. I did have to look this one up but no doubt someone remembers it

 
Wickham
Re: Surrey Week Part 2
Wickham (IP Logged)
10 August, 2017 08:10
JCW: I don't know which of you is the more disappointed - the Pope told me that he regretted that he had never been granted an audience with Farmer White.

 
AGod
Re: Surrey Week Part 2
AGod (IP Logged)
10 August, 2017 08:16
And not only that FW but Notts were relegated, demoralised and had clearly given up - so I'd be inclined to discount that one.

If we were in Surrey's position I don't think we'd throw caution to the wind in pursuit of batting points. With Burns gone, the rest are naturally free-scoring anyway. Bat normally for 60 overs and they'll probably have the 280 ish they need after 85 overs. THEN they might accelerate for the remaining 120 from 25 overs but all hopes (which are very remote anyway on this pitch) of a SCCC win will evaporate the moment they save the follow-on anyway.

I loathe all this rain - it will make it that much harder for Simon Lee and team to produce dry tracks for the final two games. Track might turn early through damp but we'd be the ones batting if track starts damp.

Bad weather and the LG and JO injuries seem to be conspiring against us over the final stretch, though we have only ourselves to blame for the results in the first 9 games.

 
Mike BOS
Re: Surrey Week Part 2
Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
10 August, 2017 08:22
We didn't have a lot of time watching the spinners two day's ago but I remember Jack beating the bat more than once, Dom didn't bowl as many overs so was hard to judge if he was going to be good on this pitch.

 
AGod
Re: Surrey Week Part 2
AGod (IP Logged)
10 August, 2017 08:27
It may turn, through damp, today, Mike, I would have thought.

But it was reported as being slow earlier and, one imagines, yesterday will have made it slower still. So there may be both seam and turn today, particularly in the first session, but competent professionals can usually navigate that if the ball deviates only very slowly.

 
AGod
Re: Surrey Week Part 2
AGod (IP Logged)
10 August, 2017 08:29
Oh for the days of uncovered pitches - for they'd have zero chance vs Jack and Dom on a 'Sticky Dog,'....

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: Surrey Week Part 2
Grockle (IP Logged)
10 August, 2017 08:37
There were over 10 areas around the outfield from the covers spreading out to the boundary where we had surface water yesterday. They'll have been working on it and Taunton genetally dries quickly but don't expect the outfield to be lightening quick.

The pitch was covered the whole of yesterday ( at least tp 5/6 but it cleared up later. However I doubt they gambled over night.



(Sm72)

 
Mike BOS
Re: Surrey Week Part 2
Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
10 August, 2017 08:46
The covers are off and the outfield is being cut.

The outfield was cut very short on the first day, it was cut so short the line where the drainage pipes were installed reappeared.

 
Farmer White
Re: Surrey Week Part 2
Farmer White (IP Logged)
10 August, 2017 09:27
Somerset lalala

There is a slightly more recent similar example to yours from 2010

Somerset scored 517 and at the end of the second day Notts were 278 for 5. 239 behind. After 76 overs of the third day Notts had been bowled out for 339 and 190 and Somerset won by 10 wickets. Willoughby the destroyer in the first innings with 6 and Thomas in the second with 5. In the match Suppiah took 1 and Kartik 3.

Grizzzly

Don’t start me on a debate. We could be here some time! And I am going to put my neck right on the line here.

Most successful risk taking is calculated risk taking. Here I don’t think the calculations give us enough of a chance especially as defeat would really make things hard. There are routes to salvation following a draw. Far less following a defeat.

At the moment Surrey cannot win this match. If we do a deal they can. So much of cricket is played in the head. Giving them a chance risks giving them unexpected hope they do not currently have. That could fire them up. Giving them no chance means there is a possibility, though a relatively small one given what is known about fourth day Taunton pitches, that they might feel some pressure if Somerset knocked two or three over in the first hour. We do have two spinners who could then apply pressure.

The draw is very heavily odds on but I think given the history and the psychology of cricket we actually have a better chance today of taking 19 wickets than we do of taking 10.

Unless of course the deal is Surrey chase to the end come what may for that would apply the pressure evenly to both sides and is probably the only way of giving both sides an even chance on a fourth day Taunton pitch. But that would open up a whole other argument…

Mike

At Taunton the outfield is cut daily in a match to keep conditions as even as possible throughout.

 
Mike BOS
Re: Surrey Week Part 2
Mike TA1 (IP Logged)
10 August, 2017 09:38
My point was after Grockle mentioned the pools of water yesterday that it is dry enough to mow the outfield this morning.

 
AGod
Re: Surrey Week Part 2
AGod (IP Logged)
10 August, 2017 09:47
Yes, a good sign.

 
AGod
Re: Surrey Week Part 2
AGod (IP Logged)
10 August, 2017 09:52
Farmer White, one possible consideration, of course, with the track at Taunton is this:

The track often seems to flatten out on the final day of a four day game.

But does this happen simply because it's day four, i.e that some 72 hours have elapsed since a match has started, or does it happen because there has been a certain amount of cricket played on the track? In other words, if there have only been about 130 overs or so bowled on the track by the start of day four, should we expect the track to behave as it would if 288 overs had been bowled on it?

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you about the wisdom, or lack thereof, of any kind of contrivance today, but I just thought I'd put that out there as a question - is it the number that appears on the scorecard after the word 'day,' that tends to dictate how the track will play on the final day, or the number of overs bowled on the track before the final day starts?

 
sandhills
Re: Surrey Week Part 2
sandhills (IP Logged)
10 August, 2017 10:26
This pitch in terms of days is starting its 5th day at least. It was used in the T20 on Sunday, however it was not anywhere near new on Sunday!

 
geordie moonraker
Re: Surrey Week Part 2
geordie moonraker (IP Logged)
10 August, 2017 10:30
That's a very valid point AG. We need them to be 5 down at lunch to be in with a shout.Once they get to 286 that is it, so it's another 220. At 3.6 that is 60 overs., so tea time.If 5 go down by lunch in 34, then we are on top. I still think it will be a draw, but every bowling point is vital.

 
chunkyinargyll
Re: Surrey Week Part 2
chunkyinargyll (IP Logged)
10 August, 2017 10:37
An interesting point-

Is a pitch a 'five day pitch' because it made its debut on Sunday- or, in terms of how much use it has had, is it effectively only a three day pitch?

 
AGod
Re: Surrey Week Part 2
AGod (IP Logged)
10 August, 2017 10:53
In some respects (the footholes) the amount of wear and tear on the surface *must* play a part.

In other respects such as (perhaps) the evaporation of moisture from the surface, it may not play much of a part?

That being said, I don't really understand why these current SCCC pitches seem to behave in this way. We start them dry, and they spin from early in proceedings and then, somehow, they tend to spin less as the match moves on............ is there a certain level of dryness beyond which the track (instead of turning more as one would expect if dryness causes turn) simply ceases to do anything? Does a certain amount of moisture get into the track from the air over the course of the first three days so that the track is then left in a "neutral," state (neither dry nor damp) by the start of day four? (dryness and dampness both being known as things that promote turn)

On balance, the latter explanation might appear to make the most sense? In which case the degree of humidity over the first three days (particularly the parts where the track is in use and thus uncovered) might be the key as to whether, and to what extent, everything dies on day four?

I'd absolutely love to hear from Simon Lee or someone who knows (or has a strong hunch) about what causes day four deaths at Taunton.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2017 10:56 by AGod.

 
AGod
Re: Surrey Week Part 2
AGod (IP Logged)
10 August, 2017 11:25
Come on, Dom............

 
Rod1883
Re: Surrey Week Part 2
Rod1883 (IP Logged)
10 August, 2017 11:39
Well done Dom.
Just need to stop Roy running away with the scoring next

 
Bagpuss
Re: Surrey Week Part 2
Bagpuss (IP Logged)
10 August, 2017 11:41
Not sure about the humidity argument AG, as this doesn't seem to happen elsewhere eg Old Trafford, nor other countries such as India and Sri Lanka.

 
AGod
Re: Surrey Week Part 2
AGod (IP Logged)
10 August, 2017 11:58
But it may relate to the particular composition of the soil at Taunton and the effect that humidity has on it, or something like that?

Anyway, it certainly seems as dead as a door nail today.

So I'm not at all sure that we'll manage many bowling bonus points here.

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: Surrey Week Part 2
Grockle (IP Logged)
10 August, 2017 11:59
Bloody cold out of the sun here this morning. It's not looking hugely hopeful here this morning though it has looked a little better now we have the two spinners on. Seems we may see Eddie Byrom leg spin today as well!!



(Sm72)

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: Surrey Week Part 2
Grockle (IP Logged)
10 August, 2017 12:04
Jack gets us one.



(Sm72)

Current Page: 10 of 12

This Thread has been closed
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net
 

Who is online?

Total users online:  

Most users online:  

Users on this site:  

Where are they?