Durham v Surrey, Chester-le-Street, 4th day August 25, 2013

Wood's best deepens Surrey slump

Les Smith at Chester-le-Street
  shares 8

Durham 421 (Borthwick 135, Tremlett 8-96) beat Surrey 108 (Harrison 5-31) and 169 (Amla 89, Wood 5-44) by an innings and 144 runs
Scorecard

A raucous rendition of The Blaydon Races resounded from the home dressing room moments after Durham completed an equally resounding victory which elevates them to second in Division One of the County Championship and sets up a mighty showdown with leaders Yorkshire at Scarborough next week. For Surrey the outcome was equally significant but for very different reasons.

Surrey have a game in hand on all their rivals trying avoiding the drop to Division Two but they have yet to win a Championship game this season, and on the evidence of their performance at Chester-le-Street, the wait could be extended. The gap between them and Derbyshire, who are third from bottom, is now 15 points and the two teams will meet at The Oval at the end of next week. That makes the next round as important for those two sides as the game at the seaside in Yorkshire.

When the 2013 season started, Chris Adams was in charge of coaching at Surrey and he brought in a new bowling coach, Stuart Barnes. A poor start to the year led to Adams's dismissal in the middle of June, and the installation of Alec Stewart who predicted an expanded role for Barnes. This had to be daunting, given the underperformance of a side containing several big money imports including Graeme Smith, Ricky Ponting, Vikram Solanki, and now Hashim Amla.

Barnes has become more hands-on as the weeks have passed, and after his side lost by an innings, after winning the toss and choosing to field, he was understandably disappointed. "I think we lost it in the second session of the first day, when we didn't take a wicket," Barnes said.

He spoke of the importance of "bowling partnerships", and acknowledged that Chris Tremlett, while taking eight wickets in the Durham innings, was not well supported at the other end. "We talk long and hard, we make our plans, we practise them, but we don't always execute them on the field".

Surrey's performance had relegation candidates written all over it. In addition to the bowling frailties, their bottom five batsmen added a combined total of 26 in 10 innings. Their capitulation on either side of lunch today, while testament to the skills of the Durham bowlers, looked like that of a side resigned to failure. Hashim Amla made 89, supported stoutly by Zander de Bruyn, whose 12 runs came from 71 balls.

De Bruyn was dropped at leg slip by Keaton Jennings off Mark Wood, then edged the next ball to third slip and this time the chance stuck. Steven Davies, the mainstay of Surrey's first innings, was greeted by an extraordinary field of two slips and three gullies, and the introduction of Chris Rushworth to the attack. "Steve absolutely hates batting against Rushy", Paul Collingwood said at the end of the day, but it was to be a less experienced quick bowler who would initiate the last rites.

Mark Wood's Championship opportunities have been limited this year, but he took his chance today. Collingwood switched him to the Finchale End for the last over before lunch, and he took wickets with the fifth and sixth balls, both caught behind the wicket by Phil Mustard, who claimed six catches in the innings and eight in the match. It seemed emblematic that on a day when resistance was paramount the Surrey captain, Gareth Batty, went first ball, albeit to a very decent ball.

Wood was at it again immediately after lunch, when Gary Wilson swished injudiciously outside his off stump. When Tim Linley top edged a pull and Will Smith pouched it at short leg, it was all over, and Wood had career best figures of 5 for 44.

Surrey had lost their last five wickets for 13 runs in four overs. Stuart Barnes remains upbeat, but he and his team have their work cut out.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY CricketingStargazer on | August 26, 2013, 12:08 GMT

    @Nutcutlet Chris Jordan left because he couldn't get a game for Surrey. His results with Sussex have been so spectacular that he has gone straight into the Lions. Tim Murtagh has also blossomed tremendously since leaving Surrey. Rikki Clarke too, after a period in the wilderness, has been getting back into the England frame.

    I don't know how serious the problems are, but certainly some of the issues that hit the headlines last year were, apparently, well known outside the club.

    If you are a young Surrey player, you don't mind not getting a game because Ponting, or Smith, or Amla have been signed, but it must have been dispiriting to see Surrey field as many a 6 players over-35 at times. Keedy, Batty & De Bruyn have summed 24 matches and none averages fewer than 48 with the ball. Solanki averges 32.8 with the bat, de Bruyn 25.8, yet they are regulars in the side. In contrast, Ansari has played just 2 games.

  • POSTED BY on | August 26, 2013, 13:54 GMT

    @CricketingStargazer we've had that rebuilding period in Div 2 already! But it didn't seem to work. Hopefully next season it will.

  • POSTED BY brusselslion on | August 26, 2013, 10:43 GMT

    @Nutcutlet: I couldn't agree more. It seems to be a long term problem (it all started to go wrong around 2004/05). What's clear is that someone needs to get a handle on it quickly.

  • POSTED BY Nutcutlet on | August 26, 2013, 8:02 GMT

    The Surrey team would look much stronger if it had the likes of Michael Carberry, Tim Murtagh, Chris Jordan, Rikki Clarke & Laurie Evans playing for it. All five, Surrey rejects, are thriving mightily elsewhere. Moreover, all five were born &/or educated in Sy, but it's important to note that they never approached their potential when playing for Sy. Were they off-loaded because their faces didn't fit? Perhaps they were regarded as less promising prospects than some others on the staff? Somewhere deep in the Sy set-up, something is rotten, and has been for some years, despite the fact that Sy is one of the richest, possibly the richest, of all counties. The team's underperformances speak volumes for the lack of morale & somewhere in the midst of this dog's breakfast of a setup is a system that clearly doesn't work.That's the crux. The loss of talented players is only a symptom. Surrey's only 'solution' is expensive elastoplast (Ponting, Amla). The answer's off the field; it must be.

  • POSTED BY on | August 26, 2013, 7:57 GMT

    Wonderful team effort - hats off to the Durham squad especially the second string fast bowlers. Wealth of talent here but now comes the big test - a win and the championship should be decided. Best of luck Durham a privilege to support you.

  • POSTED BY AckaBilk on | August 25, 2013, 20:11 GMT

    A sensational victory! Durham's weakest side on paper for many a year, yet totally they outplayed the comedy 'Rey.

    Yorkshire v Durham, title decider. Who would have thought it?

  • POSTED BY CricketingStargazer on | August 25, 2013, 19:26 GMT

    For Surrey, a period of re-building in Division 2 would probably be better long-term than trying to struggle on. It worked wonders for Middlesex who had similar problems of poor management, internal dissent, and underperformance of star players. They had three of really bad years in Division 2 before Gus Fraser started to bring them round and the results are clearly visible.

    For Durham: hats off! Who could have imagined when they received First Class status that they would become such a force so quickly?

  • POSTED BY SDHM on | August 25, 2013, 16:02 GMT

    Even without Onions and Stokes, Durham seem to be able to put out an exciting seam attack. Wood has impressed me every time I've seen him this year, and Harrison and Arshad seem like good talents too. Seam bowling is alive and well in the North East it seems!

  • POSTED BY CricketingStargazer on | August 26, 2013, 12:08 GMT

    @Nutcutlet Chris Jordan left because he couldn't get a game for Surrey. His results with Sussex have been so spectacular that he has gone straight into the Lions. Tim Murtagh has also blossomed tremendously since leaving Surrey. Rikki Clarke too, after a period in the wilderness, has been getting back into the England frame.

    I don't know how serious the problems are, but certainly some of the issues that hit the headlines last year were, apparently, well known outside the club.

    If you are a young Surrey player, you don't mind not getting a game because Ponting, or Smith, or Amla have been signed, but it must have been dispiriting to see Surrey field as many a 6 players over-35 at times. Keedy, Batty & De Bruyn have summed 24 matches and none averages fewer than 48 with the ball. Solanki averges 32.8 with the bat, de Bruyn 25.8, yet they are regulars in the side. In contrast, Ansari has played just 2 games.

  • POSTED BY on | August 26, 2013, 13:54 GMT

    @CricketingStargazer we've had that rebuilding period in Div 2 already! But it didn't seem to work. Hopefully next season it will.

  • POSTED BY brusselslion on | August 26, 2013, 10:43 GMT

    @Nutcutlet: I couldn't agree more. It seems to be a long term problem (it all started to go wrong around 2004/05). What's clear is that someone needs to get a handle on it quickly.

  • POSTED BY Nutcutlet on | August 26, 2013, 8:02 GMT

    The Surrey team would look much stronger if it had the likes of Michael Carberry, Tim Murtagh, Chris Jordan, Rikki Clarke & Laurie Evans playing for it. All five, Surrey rejects, are thriving mightily elsewhere. Moreover, all five were born &/or educated in Sy, but it's important to note that they never approached their potential when playing for Sy. Were they off-loaded because their faces didn't fit? Perhaps they were regarded as less promising prospects than some others on the staff? Somewhere deep in the Sy set-up, something is rotten, and has been for some years, despite the fact that Sy is one of the richest, possibly the richest, of all counties. The team's underperformances speak volumes for the lack of morale & somewhere in the midst of this dog's breakfast of a setup is a system that clearly doesn't work.That's the crux. The loss of talented players is only a symptom. Surrey's only 'solution' is expensive elastoplast (Ponting, Amla). The answer's off the field; it must be.

  • POSTED BY on | August 26, 2013, 7:57 GMT

    Wonderful team effort - hats off to the Durham squad especially the second string fast bowlers. Wealth of talent here but now comes the big test - a win and the championship should be decided. Best of luck Durham a privilege to support you.

  • POSTED BY AckaBilk on | August 25, 2013, 20:11 GMT

    A sensational victory! Durham's weakest side on paper for many a year, yet totally they outplayed the comedy 'Rey.

    Yorkshire v Durham, title decider. Who would have thought it?

  • POSTED BY CricketingStargazer on | August 25, 2013, 19:26 GMT

    For Surrey, a period of re-building in Division 2 would probably be better long-term than trying to struggle on. It worked wonders for Middlesex who had similar problems of poor management, internal dissent, and underperformance of star players. They had three of really bad years in Division 2 before Gus Fraser started to bring them round and the results are clearly visible.

    For Durham: hats off! Who could have imagined when they received First Class status that they would become such a force so quickly?

  • POSTED BY SDHM on | August 25, 2013, 16:02 GMT

    Even without Onions and Stokes, Durham seem to be able to put out an exciting seam attack. Wood has impressed me every time I've seen him this year, and Harrison and Arshad seem like good talents too. Seam bowling is alive and well in the North East it seems!

  • POSTED BY SDHM on | August 25, 2013, 16:02 GMT

    Even without Onions and Stokes, Durham seem to be able to put out an exciting seam attack. Wood has impressed me every time I've seen him this year, and Harrison and Arshad seem like good talents too. Seam bowling is alive and well in the North East it seems!

  • POSTED BY CricketingStargazer on | August 25, 2013, 19:26 GMT

    For Surrey, a period of re-building in Division 2 would probably be better long-term than trying to struggle on. It worked wonders for Middlesex who had similar problems of poor management, internal dissent, and underperformance of star players. They had three of really bad years in Division 2 before Gus Fraser started to bring them round and the results are clearly visible.

    For Durham: hats off! Who could have imagined when they received First Class status that they would become such a force so quickly?

  • POSTED BY AckaBilk on | August 25, 2013, 20:11 GMT

    A sensational victory! Durham's weakest side on paper for many a year, yet totally they outplayed the comedy 'Rey.

    Yorkshire v Durham, title decider. Who would have thought it?

  • POSTED BY on | August 26, 2013, 7:57 GMT

    Wonderful team effort - hats off to the Durham squad especially the second string fast bowlers. Wealth of talent here but now comes the big test - a win and the championship should be decided. Best of luck Durham a privilege to support you.

  • POSTED BY Nutcutlet on | August 26, 2013, 8:02 GMT

    The Surrey team would look much stronger if it had the likes of Michael Carberry, Tim Murtagh, Chris Jordan, Rikki Clarke & Laurie Evans playing for it. All five, Surrey rejects, are thriving mightily elsewhere. Moreover, all five were born &/or educated in Sy, but it's important to note that they never approached their potential when playing for Sy. Were they off-loaded because their faces didn't fit? Perhaps they were regarded as less promising prospects than some others on the staff? Somewhere deep in the Sy set-up, something is rotten, and has been for some years, despite the fact that Sy is one of the richest, possibly the richest, of all counties. The team's underperformances speak volumes for the lack of morale & somewhere in the midst of this dog's breakfast of a setup is a system that clearly doesn't work.That's the crux. The loss of talented players is only a symptom. Surrey's only 'solution' is expensive elastoplast (Ponting, Amla). The answer's off the field; it must be.

  • POSTED BY brusselslion on | August 26, 2013, 10:43 GMT

    @Nutcutlet: I couldn't agree more. It seems to be a long term problem (it all started to go wrong around 2004/05). What's clear is that someone needs to get a handle on it quickly.

  • POSTED BY on | August 26, 2013, 13:54 GMT

    @CricketingStargazer we've had that rebuilding period in Div 2 already! But it didn't seem to work. Hopefully next season it will.

  • POSTED BY CricketingStargazer on | August 26, 2013, 12:08 GMT

    @Nutcutlet Chris Jordan left because he couldn't get a game for Surrey. His results with Sussex have been so spectacular that he has gone straight into the Lions. Tim Murtagh has also blossomed tremendously since leaving Surrey. Rikki Clarke too, after a period in the wilderness, has been getting back into the England frame.

    I don't know how serious the problems are, but certainly some of the issues that hit the headlines last year were, apparently, well known outside the club.

    If you are a young Surrey player, you don't mind not getting a game because Ponting, or Smith, or Amla have been signed, but it must have been dispiriting to see Surrey field as many a 6 players over-35 at times. Keedy, Batty & De Bruyn have summed 24 matches and none averages fewer than 48 with the ball. Solanki averges 32.8 with the bat, de Bruyn 25.8, yet they are regulars in the side. In contrast, Ansari has played just 2 games.