cricket
Latest News:

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

Many thanks to the Mighty Alexander Davidson for the montage. Time to the New Year

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: 17 of 18
 
Re: Sorry Surrey
Somerset LaLaLa (IP Logged)
23 September, 2017 13:18
What do you call 7 inches? Yes Trego was not as fast but this was very effective

 
Re: Sorry Surrey
Farmer White (IP Logged)
24 September, 2017 13:58
Much belatedly due to the way life sometimes has the effrontery to interfere with my cricket here, if only now for the record, is my take on day 4 at the Oval:

DAY 4

It was a fitting end to Kumar Sangakarra’s last innings at the Oval as Surrey closed in on victory and would have been a fitting end to his first-class career had it taken place at Old Trafford next week. He drove a ball from Dom Bess so perfectly straight and with such tremendous ferocity that Umpire Ian Gould took evasive action by tumbling flat onto his back like an upended stump. It was not Gould’s speed of reaction which saved him but the lightning fast reaction and sureness of hand of Dom Bess who, it seemed impossibly, caught the ball. A career such as Sangakkara's deserved a catch such as that to end it on his last home ground at least. Sangakarra, perhaps not quite believing it hesitated and then started to walk off. The Somerset players, perhaps also not quite believing it hesitated too and then flocked after him slowing his departure until, as far as I could see all shook him by the hand. By the time he was properly on his way the crowd was on its feet and applauded him all the way back to the Pavilion.

By then victory for Surrey was a formality but Somerset had taken the match rather farther into the last day than most had expected at the outset. Somerset’s resistance with the bat was for the most part determined and prolonged and with the ball they persevered to the end not without reward. Looking back it seemed the match had turned with the loss of Trescothick’s wicket on the stroke of lunch on the first morning. From 96 for 1 Rikki Clarke blew away Somerset’s top order with one of the most devastating spells of controlled well directed pace bowling I have seen for some time. Somerset never recovered in spite of some sterling efforts with bat, ball and in the field throughout the rest of the match.

I arrived on the last morning and reached the top of the Peter May Stand steps just as Tom Abell attacked and edged a delivery from Clarke to slip. Somerset were 132 for 5, 32 behind and I was wondering about the value of my £20 entry ticket. From there though Somerset repaid me handsomely as they fought Surrey all the way. Whatever the effect of the cloud on the first three days there would be no effect on the last day for there was no cloud. I had needed two coats by the end of the third day. On the last day I had to scrabble around in the nether regions of my cricket bag to find my suncream as Somerset’s last two ‘recognised’ batsmen fought to turn the Surrey tide.

They started well. Davies paddled Batty for 2 and then swept him behind almost straight back to the Vauxhaull end for 4. Trego got underway with the smoothest of cover drives off Clarke. As I contemplated Somerset’s slim chances on this excellent cricket wicket I noticed that every stand in the ground was in use. No acres of the cordoned off seats which greet County Championship spectators at that other ground across the river. There were only eight people in the expanse of seats on the Archbishop Tenison side of the ground and only a few more in the OCS Stand at the Vauxhaull End but it felt quaintly welcoming that I could have sat anywhere I chose in this huge ground.

Somerset had reached 149 for 5 with Davies and Trego gently pushing the ball around the field when Meaker uprooted one of Davies’ stumps. Davies seemed unconcerned. The reason became apparent when I spotted the Umpire’s outstretched arm. “Awwwwh,” groaned the crowd. Meaker was bowling with appreciably more pace than I thought he had in the first innings and he is looking more the bowler I had seen go through a Somerset second innings at the Oval five or six years ago than he has done more recently. Davies, as so often happens after moments like that took a boundary off Meaker with the most delicate of glances to the Pavilion just as a howling growl from an aircraft bound for Heathrow reflected some Surrey chatter about the unfairness of it all.

Trego, wielding the bat with more confidence than of late, then set about attacking Gareth Batty. He turned him fine and swept him just behind square for two boundaries, the second hitting the boards in front of the scoreboard between the OCS and the Peter May Stands provoking it into posting ‘Lead 1’. Trego was now playing as if of old. He back cut Meaker for four, unleashed a furious cover drive which fair rattled the boards and steered a bouncer to third man. Surrey were now playing with a third man, fine leg and a deep square leg, containing as much as attacking with two slips. Perhaps this reflected the performance of the pitch which seemed to deliver wickets on a regular basis throughout the match, Sangakarra’s apart. Surrey had a limited time to win this match and runs might be an issue if Somerset scored too freely. Wickets would come.

Davies turned Batty square for the single which brought up his fifty and a lead of 28. He received generous applause from the Surrey crowd. I have found them to be one of the more appreciative County Championship crowds where opposition play is concerned. The only blot on their copybook a group of about a dozen or fifteen, a little under 1% of the entire crowd, at the back of the Peter May Stand who were boorish and often unpleasant in their shouting and chanting throughout the four days and in particular as Surrey closed in on victory on the last afternoon. Surrey had no visible stewarding in their stands for this match. All but that small group repaid their confidence.

Davies eventualy fell for 52 edging Batty to Clarke at slip and Somerset were 198 for 6 just 34 ahead. Soon after Trego edged Dernbach straight into Sangakarra’s chest at slip and for the second time in the match Sangakarra dropped the ball. Overton drove Batty into the back of the Laker and Lock Stand and Somerset lunched at 220 for 6. 56 ahead with news on someone’s phone that Yorkshire were at 141 for 7, 34 short of beating Warwickshire having been edging close to defeat at 96 for 7. There are always twists and turns in a relgation battle. There will be more of joy or anguish next week.

After lunch Gareth Batty defended the square leg boundary with two deep square legs. Trego swept hard between them for four to reach his fifty. Then Overton leaned into one from Meaker to turn it square, it thudded into his pad and it was 234 for 7. Lead 70. Wickets had fallen steadily throughout this match and they were falling just too steadily to give Somerset real hope. Somerset supporters fell to bonus point calculations to try to work out the implications for the Middlesex match of a defeat at the Oval. No serious conclusion was reached as we tried to watch the cricket, remember the state of the table, add in the points gained in this round of matches, the implications if Essex beat Hampshire or Warwickshire managed to beat Yorkshire and work out if there was anything we had forgotten. In the end we just went back to watching the cricket and hoped a partnership might develop.

What we saw was not encouraging. Bess drove airily at his first ball and missed. Trego drove at Dernbach and edged him just wide of the slips for four. Then he got it right and drove through mid-off for four. Then he got it wrong as he repeated Overton’s lean into the ball and was bowled by Patel for 68. Only Sangakarra and Davies had scored more in an innings in this match and 68 on a pitch where wickets fell regularly was a pretty good effort from an out of form batsman. 242 for 8. Lead 78.

Immediately Meaker bowled what looked, from my perch square, easily the fastest over of the match at Bess and beat him repeatedly. You do not keep Bess down for long. Soon he was on tip toe to drive Dernbach for four. He followed that up with a stunning cover drive off the same bowler. “Imperious!” said the man next to me and it was. Jack Leach shared in a stand of 48 with Bess scoring 15 before edging Batty to Clarke at slip. 290 for 9. Lead 126 but too much time left. Bess added another 16 with Groenewald before he was caught down the leg side trying to glance Clarke and Surrey needed 143 to win with 42 overs still to be bowled, Somerset’s final wicket bringing on an early tea giving Surrey an additional two overs. It seemed unlikely they would be needed.

Stoneman and Burns attacked from the outset and Surrey were 25 for 0 after 3 overs. 118 still needed from 39. Somerset’s bowlers did not mean to make it easy for Surrey. Overton and Groenewald started to exert some control with the result that Burns tried to hit Overton to or over the long on boundary, got under it and Groenewald, running in hard from the boundary, took an outstanding catch low to the ground in front of him. 38 for 1 in the seventh over. 105 needed. 35 overs remaining. Two balls later Stoneman edged Groenewald to Davies. 39 for 2.

The two wickets brought some caution to the Surrey approach first against Overton and Groenwald and then against Leach and Bess. After 20 overs they were 73 for 2. 35 runs in 15 overs. With Surrey needing 70 from 22 overs no-one thought this gave Somerset the remotest chance of saving the game but it did show us we had a team that continued to fight hard even in a hopeless situation. That raised morale ahead of next week’s encounter, at least it did mine. It put some pressure on Patel too. He had not played an aggressive stroke for several overs. Now he did. A slog sweep against Bess. Bess bowled him. 73 for 3. 70 needed in 21 overs.

Enter Foakes who promptly edged Bess for four. It did not deter Foakes. There comes a point in fairly straightforward run chases where the batting side decides to settle the issue. It became apparent Foakes had been sent in to do just that. He attacked from his arrival and the target was suddenly rushing towards us like an oncoming train. The tactic seemed to be for Sangakarra to rotate the strike and for Foakes to play the attacking shots. When Sangakarra did play an attacking shot Bess caught it.

And so Somerset came away with just four points due in large part to the sort of score from Kumar Sangakkara with which he has dominated matches for a lifetime and the bowling spell of a lifetime from Rikki Clarke. Performances like that create intense pressure on the opposition and protect their own side from it. Somerset did not quite prove able to overcome the pressure which derived from Clarke’s eighty-minute spell on the first afternoon and Sangakarra heaped up just too many runs. The fight though with which Somerset responded in their second innings and in Surrey’s showed their spirit is still intact ahead of next week and that is what matters now.



Edited to correct error. 'Dernbach' replaced in text by 'Patel' as the bowler who dismissed Trego in the second innings.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 24/09/2017 17:16 by Farmer White.

 
Re: Sorry Surrey
AGod (IP Logged)
24 September, 2017 16:46
Dirtbag did not dismiss Peter Trego, nor indeed any Somerset player. He looked his usual moribund self.

Trego was dismissed by Patel, who looked out of his depth with the bat but who was brought on as sixth bowler and who bowled with more pace than anyone bar Meaker.

A surrey fan told me that Patel's run up start disc was further back, by far, than that of any Surrey bowler.

 
Re: Sorry Surrey
Farmer White (IP Logged)
24 September, 2017 17:34
You are quite right AGod. Indeed it was Patel and not Dernbach (I assume that is who you refer to with a derogatory name), who bowled Trego in the second innings and I have amended my post accordingly with a note that I have done so. Thank you for pointing it out.

I cannot recall the respective lengths of run ups or the position of markers but I can confirm that Patel ran in a fair way and looked more than a fourth seamer.


Finally I do not normally take direct critical issue with other people's posts but since your post seems to have been written in direct response to and raised an issue (quite correctly) with one of mine and I have responded directly to it I cannot ignore your terminolgy and so cannot respond without disassociating myself from your use of a derogatory term to refer to Jade Dernbach.

Farmer

 
Re: Sorry Surrey
Loyal of Lhasa (IP Logged)
24 September, 2017 18:09
I believe that AGod has informed us that the Surrey bowler's team mates use that derogatory name, but I don't feel that on this site we need to stoop so low.



LoL

Sixty-nine Seasons a Somerset Supporter

 
Re: Sorry Surrey
AGod (IP Logged)
24 September, 2017 18:26
Given that his team-mates use it one can assume that, for them, it is a term of endearment.

 
Re: Sorry Surrey
Tom Seymour (IP Logged)
24 September, 2017 19:25
Quote:
Tom Seymour
I know why we are where we are in the CC, but don't understand why Surrey aren't much nearer the top.
I suppose after today they could be.


Quote:
Grockle

Yep people to make runs but no one to take wickets on a motorway Tom. And Alex Stewart in charge who makes MM look like a visionary.

Whatever floats your boat, Grockle.

Not only did Surrey make runs on their motorway, but they possessed bowlers to bowl us out twice on it, and are second in the CC as opposed to Somerset's one from the bottom.

And if Matthew Maynard is a visionary, it is a pity that he didn't take a leaf out of Alex Stewart's book and recruit from other counties and overseas instead of burying his head in the sand and state - "Do we need anybody else?"



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

 
Re: Sorry Surrey
cricketharris (IP Logged)
24 September, 2017 19:28
So it's all right to call a player Meerkat but not Dirtbag? Funny old world.

 
Re: Sorry Surrey
Wickham (IP Logged)
24 September, 2017 20:17
Great stuff, yet again, JCW.

The markers for most of the Surrey bowlers were not at the start of their run-ups, but at some intermediate point.

 
Re: Sorry Surrey
Somerset LaLaLa (IP Logged)
25 September, 2017 22:32
Grockle, any chance you could explain your comment on the Middlesex thread "the Clarke 5 was mostly down to him it seèms rather than idiotic batting shots" to help me understand it.

I have revisited the ECB highlights of the wickets and still have a different view:

Bartlett - c Sangakkara. He was in a horrible position
Hildreth - lbw & Abell - b. Both misjudged the ball
Byrom - c Meaker. Got his bat in the way on one that rose
Trego - b. Completely misjudged the ball

The Hildreth, Abell and Trego wickets should have been blocked on that pitch given their experience? Byrom was nicely beaten I agree that.

This is a symptom of the season leading to the points situation we are now in.

 
Re: Sorry Surrey
Grockle (IP Logged)
26 September, 2017 04:19
The commentary made it sound like Clarke was producing decent balls rather than Somerset batsmen were waving the bat about like kids at an activity day.

I'm happy to give some credit to the bowler. However it seems that the rule is that whenever 3 to 5 Sonerset batsmen lose their wickets in succession it must be because they are idiots losing said wickets to mediocre bowling that any other county batsman would stroke to the boundary with relative ease.

Therefore if we lose wickets it is a 'batting collapse' which has nothing at all to do with efforts from anyone in the opposition on seemingly every occasion.

I simply suggested that maybe it was more of him although maybe with some help rather than simply categorised as all stupid inept Somerset with no input from the bowler.

Hope that helps.



(Sm72)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 26/09/2017 07:10 by Grockle.

 
Re: Sorry Surrey
AGod (IP Logged)
26 September, 2017 07:12
The point wasn't 'we threw the wickets away.'

The point was 'we should have done better,' and LaLaLa has done a fine job of outlining why.

 
Re: Sorry Surrey
Grockle (IP Logged)
26 September, 2017 12:57
Not interested in what we should have done. Losing wickets always creates the should have scenario.

My point is that sometimes players lose their wicket because of the opposing bowler and not always because they play for Somerset and are idiots. You don't seem to get that distinction all the time.



(Sm72)

 
Re: Sorry Surrey
mikeindex (IP Logged)
26 September, 2017 20:32
Quote:
cricketharris
So it's all right to call a player Meerkat but not Dirtbag? Funny old world.

Aren't meerkats generally considered rather appealing and cuddly creatures, in a way that dirtbags generally aren't? (Weren't they even before Oleksandr and Sergei took the commercial channels by storm?)

Seriously, it's usually pretty obvious whether a nickname is applied affectionately or derogatively (even when it's the same term used by different people), and I totally agree with those who would discourage the latter.

 
Re: Sorry Surrey
Grockle (IP Logged)
27 September, 2017 13:41
Quote:
cricketharris
So it's all right to call a player Meerkat but not Dirtbag? Funny old world.

Yes it is CH. Because it is van Meerkeren's nickname within the team and used in the spirit of nicknames between colleagues.

I don't think 'Dirtbag' is what Jade's mates on the Surrey team call him and given AG's love of the side I assessed he didn't use it as a mark of respect for the player.

But if you know better then please let me know and I'll adapt to that new info.



(Sm72)

 
Re: Sorry Surrey
Somerset LaLaLa (IP Logged)
27 September, 2017 15:18
The nickname is on Cricinfo, not my first choice website

 
Re: Sorry Surrey
chunkyinargyll (IP Logged)
27 September, 2017 15:22

 
Re: Sorry Surrey
AGod (IP Logged)
27 September, 2017 16:03
Completely wrong, Grockle. Anyone who's even seen 'Dirtbag,' bowl a good ball will have heard a chorus of 'well bowled, Dirtbag,' from his team-mates.

 
Re: Sorry Surrey
Grockle (IP Logged)
27 September, 2017 18:59
I'm sure they do AG. And I'm also sure you used it as a mark of respect for Mr Dernbach. Your posted respect for Surrey players has been legendary.



(Sm72)

 
Re: Sorry Surrey
AGod (IP Logged)
27 September, 2017 20:28
I was responding to your assertion that 'I don't think that's what his mates on the team call him.'

They do.

Current Page: 17 of 18

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
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?