Warwickshire v Surrey, Edgbaston, 4th day September 20, 2013

Surrey relegated by Javid and Woakes

  shares 32

Warwickshire 120 for 0 dec (Chopra 69*) and 281 for 4 (Javid 119*, Woakes 79*) beat Surrey 400 for 5 dec (Solanki 162, Davies 103, Amla 77) and forfeit by six wickets
Scorecard

Surrey went down tamely in the end, their optimistic plan to take 10 Warwickshire wickets in less time that it took to concede 281 runs falling a long way short as Ateeq Javid and Chris Woakes built a magnificent partnership that saw the home side's requirement met with more than 25 overs to spare of the final day.

Javid, a neat right-handed batsman of only 21 years who has come into his own in the second half of the season, played superbly, applying himself with considerable patience and diligence on the third evening, with his side 19 for 2, and again as the final day unfolded and Surrey momentarily glimpsed a chance when they removed Laurie Evans and Rikki Clarke in the morning session.

Evans threw his wicket away by chasing a wide long-hop from Stuart Meaker and Clarke deflected a drive on to his own stumps, at which point Warwickshire were still 155 from their target, a point at which another wicket or two might have had them looking at their long tail and getting jittery.

But Javid never wobbled for a moment, and once Woakes was settled and timing his shots confidently the scoreboard was seldom static and Surrey's morale steadily weakened. The pitch offered nothing that the spinners, Gareth Batty and Zafar Ansari, could use to much effect, and the threat posed by the quicker men was never more than fleeting. Chris Tremlett, who has ended doubts over his future by signing a one-year extension to his contract, did not look like a bowler champing at the bit, even with an Ashes squad due to be announced.

Thus ended a grim year, the second in a row, for Surrey, who reached the final of the FLt20 but saw little else for their investment in a squad that has, at different times, seen Graeme Smith, Ricky Ponting, Kevin Pietersen and Hashim Amla pulling on a Surrey sweater.

The departure through injury in May of South Africa captain Smith, who had been hired to bring order and purpose to a dressing room still feeling the pain left by the Tom Maynard tragedy, was a severe blow, effectively requiring the plans for the season to be redrawn. Within a few weeks came the sacking of team director, Chris Adams, but Alec Stewart, the executive director who has been in temporary charge since then, offered no excuses.

"We did not look like a relegation squad on paper but we don't play on paper," he said. "If you look at the lack of batting points, the lack of times we haven't bowled sides out - the win column says one and if you only win one game you are going to finish near the bottom.

"Losing Graeme Smith was a blow. You don't want to lose your leader, no side would want to lose their captain, no one would want to lose someone of the calibre of Graeme Smith. He had only been there three games or so but had a huge impact, not just as a batsman -- we knew he was a fine player, a fine leader - it was the impact he had on the dressing room.

"But that's not an excuse. We lost him. Other sides lose players, other sides lose their captain for a while. We have not played well enough. You can't stand here and defend something you can't defend.

"We needed to have played better. It was not a question of one person not being here. Collectively the performances were not good enough, which is why we are sat rock bottom."

Stewart accepted that there would be some supporters of other teams who would revel in Surrey's demise, burdened as they are with the label of county cricket's fat cats. He questioned whether it was entirely fair but took it is as inevitable.

"There are plenty of people out there who will be pleased to see us go down," he said. "We are looked upon as a big club, we have been tagged as this cheque-book county. But people forget there is a salary cap.

"There is expectation of Surrey but who brings that expectation? Is it from within Surrey, or from outside of Surrey because it is a Test match ground, because it is London, because as a club it makes a lot of money, with the Test match revenues, the T20 revenues and the way they market the club? That's maybe a reason. There is the history as well.

"You have to look at the here and now and the immediate future, and the future is to make sure we have good people, who can improve as individuals, and good people at the top who can help nurture those younger players through.

"For us now it is about how you plan for one to five years, so that you don't come up and go down again, and stay strong for a length of time.

"I don't want to stay in Division Two for longer than one year but when you do get promoted you want to make sure the foundations are there so that you can stay in the first division and then challenge at the top end rather than trying to survive at the bottom end."

Permanent replacements for Adams and first-team coach Ian Salisbury will be announced in the coming weeks, Stewart said. "We are getting closer, but there was never any rush. Stuart Barnes in the head coach role has been outstanding, with his work ethic and his attention to detail, and David Thorpe, our team analyst who has been involved with our academy, has stepped up well.

"They have done all they can, the players have done all they can in their work ethic. That has not been transferred to the middle, with bat and ball."

The future, meanwhile, looks brighter for Warwickshire. Failing to defend their title has been a disappointment, but an understandable one given terrible luck with injuries, a headache that has not yet lifted after Jamie Atkinson broke a thumb, giving them another problem over who keeps wicket.

Yet Javid and Woakes, both former players with the inner-city Aston Manor club, have given them the chance to finish their season in the top three for the third year running, should they condemn another team to relegation with a win at Derby next week.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • CricketingStargazer on September 23, 2013, 13:29 GMT

    Sorry, "Paul Such"... Not sure why I keep adding the extra "a".

  • CricketingStargazer on September 23, 2013, 12:44 GMT

    @Nucutlet He certainly was very close to an England place. In the 1980s England did play specialists such as Paula Such and John Childs who were strong contenders for the worst England #11 ever. Keedy, at one point, was extremely close to joining them.

    @JG2704 Gemaal Hussain had a superb start for Gloucestershire. Had he stayed I am sure that he would have been a Lions player within a year, I do not know what has happened at Somerset, but he has just lost it completely there.

  • Nutcutlet on September 22, 2013, 22:13 GMT

    @ Posted by JG2704 on (September 22, 2013, 8:43 GMT). I feel sorry for Keedy. had he been able to bat even a little bit, then he must have been close to an England place pre-Swann. Ashley Giles, however, could bat, & got the Test berth, getting on so well with Vaughan as he does, but most good judges would have had GK down as a better SLA bowler ten or so years ago. I'm not sure that Surrey will retain his services, despite doing all that's been asked of him on his rare appearances this season. I'd like to think that he's had a role in mentoring Zafar Ansari who surely represents the future of Surrey cricket. I can see ZA as captain one day. I think your sinking ship is great, BTW! Surrey was holed below the water-line when Biff left. No football club would take on a player without a thorough medical. If Smith's ankle had never played up before it could have been put down to bad luck, but it was (& remains) a chronic injury. That is yet another indictment of management, I'm afraid.

  • JG2704 on September 22, 2013, 8:43 GMT

    @Nutcutlet on (September 21, 2013, 21:51 GMT) I think you're right in that Surrey have been guilty of wanting quick fixes/instant success. You mention about Spriegel but on the other side of the coin I wonder how Keedy is feeling. He left a sunken ship last season only to jump on another sinking ship and now the original ship has been repaired and has resurfaced.

    Sorry , not sure if I did the sinking ship bit very well but you get the general idea

  • Nutcutlet on September 21, 2013, 21:51 GMT

    @ Paul Rone-Clarke on (September 21, 16:04 GMT): You're actually wrong, Paul. Surrey is very good at finding players & even signing them on. What Surrey singularly has failed to do is develop them, give them time to mature & then back them whilst they grow in competence & confidence. The ides of developing home-grown talent is something that really seems to have had a low priority in the Surrey set up in recent years. Here's a list of players that initially played for Surrey but are doing great deeds elsewhere: Rikki Clarke, Tim Murtagh, Michael Carberry, Chris Jordan, Laurie Evans. The basis of a very strong side, you'll agree - just thrown away! It's scandalous! Matt Spriegal went to N'hants at the end of last season. He hasn't quite hit his straps there, but he could well find himself playing in Div1 next year whilst the club that didn't think him good enough heads in the other direction! There are people at the top at Surrey who need to walk away now; they've done enough damage.

  • JG2704 on September 21, 2013, 19:09 GMT

    @CS - I meant Kiby. I know GH came from Gloucs but he very rarely plays for Somerset and yes if I was a Gloucs fan I'd not be happy about that. Re Contrived results , there would obviously have to be some legislation but I'd say that if an inns is forfeited then that fits into the category of contrived results... But you'd have to have some legislation. TBH it probably wouldn't bother me so much if Somerset weren't going to be affected by the result had it gone Surrey's way. I'm not really that big on the decision being labelled a gamble or brave by Surrey.If it was a situation where a draw would have put Surrey in a position where it was all in their hands going into the final game and they went for a win which would have all but guaranteed them safety against defeat which would have all but guaranteed them relegation that would have been a gamble. Being that the likelihood of a draw would have made little difference I don't really see it as a gamble

  • on September 21, 2013, 16:04 GMT

    Shame really. A team of ex Worcestershire players now join the real Worcestershire in the 2nd Division. Wonder who Surrey will buy this year - becasue despite having 11 million people on their doorstep they sure don't produce any players of their own

  • CricketingStargazer on September 21, 2013, 12:54 GMT

    @JG2704 "Somerset have a 1st team regular from Gloucs who they would have been reluctant to let go". Do you mean Gamaal Hussain, or Steve Kirby? Surrey took Jon Lewis. Kane Williamson went to Yorkshire. From having a side that chased promotion almost up to the last round in 2011, we went to having a side that had lost all its names, including the entire attack and was so thin on reserves that we were looking at playing amateurs to make up the numbers.

    How do you define a contrived result? The rule would be un-enforeceable. Sides would just be a bit more subtle about doing it (we opened the bowling with Chris Read because both our opening bowlers and the first change had minor strains and we didn't want to risk them...) There used to be a one-innings match rule if a game started with fewer than 8 hour of play left. Maybe it could be extended to matches where the first innings *has not been completed with 8hr left* but, if you remove bonus points, the win points need to be attractive.

  • SDHM on September 21, 2013, 11:39 GMT

    Shows just how poor Surrey have been; when you look at the squad, there is no way they should be going down. As a Somerset fan I'd have been a bit miffed if this result ended up keeping them up; I'm not a fan of contrived declarations and games, even though they entertainment value they offer is huge. That said, as people are pointing out, what's to stop us & Notts doing something similar next week?

    I think Surrey will be back though. Still some fine players at the club, and plenty of young talent. With Keedy, Lewis & de Bruyn leaving too, they will have a better mix of said young talent and experienced faces like Solanki & Batty guiding them. Burns & Ansari are highly promising, whilst Meaker, Edwards & Dunn are among the three more exciting young quicks in the country. Hopefully Edwards & Dunn gain more exposure in Div 2, whilst Meaker, who has been struggling with injuries this year (& attempted to play through them, leading to even more time missed) can rediscover his fire.

  • CricketingStargazer on September 21, 2013, 11:39 GMT

    @JG2704 There was a Tremlett bandwagon in mid-season and it ground to a halt suddenly. The suspicion is that, like Graeme Onions, he is not quite as good after the injury and has lost a little nip and will be found out (remember how Graeme Onions had a catastrophic winter last year in India and New Zealand?)

    Tremlett's injury record and relative age count against him, as well as doubts about his form and staying power. I would like to see Chris Jordan go (I'd send Stokes to the Lions tour where he will get more cricket). I hope that Nick Compton gets a chance, but he has had a relatively poor season (ave 42), so Taylor (who averages 52) would probably win between the two. The two jokers are Scott Borthwick, who has had an excellent season with the bat and a reasonable one with the ball and Samit Patel, who may get in if the panel is split between supporters of two other players.

  • CricketingStargazer on September 23, 2013, 13:29 GMT

    Sorry, "Paul Such"... Not sure why I keep adding the extra "a".

  • CricketingStargazer on September 23, 2013, 12:44 GMT

    @Nucutlet He certainly was very close to an England place. In the 1980s England did play specialists such as Paula Such and John Childs who were strong contenders for the worst England #11 ever. Keedy, at one point, was extremely close to joining them.

    @JG2704 Gemaal Hussain had a superb start for Gloucestershire. Had he stayed I am sure that he would have been a Lions player within a year, I do not know what has happened at Somerset, but he has just lost it completely there.

  • Nutcutlet on September 22, 2013, 22:13 GMT

    @ Posted by JG2704 on (September 22, 2013, 8:43 GMT). I feel sorry for Keedy. had he been able to bat even a little bit, then he must have been close to an England place pre-Swann. Ashley Giles, however, could bat, & got the Test berth, getting on so well with Vaughan as he does, but most good judges would have had GK down as a better SLA bowler ten or so years ago. I'm not sure that Surrey will retain his services, despite doing all that's been asked of him on his rare appearances this season. I'd like to think that he's had a role in mentoring Zafar Ansari who surely represents the future of Surrey cricket. I can see ZA as captain one day. I think your sinking ship is great, BTW! Surrey was holed below the water-line when Biff left. No football club would take on a player without a thorough medical. If Smith's ankle had never played up before it could have been put down to bad luck, but it was (& remains) a chronic injury. That is yet another indictment of management, I'm afraid.

  • JG2704 on September 22, 2013, 8:43 GMT

    @Nutcutlet on (September 21, 2013, 21:51 GMT) I think you're right in that Surrey have been guilty of wanting quick fixes/instant success. You mention about Spriegel but on the other side of the coin I wonder how Keedy is feeling. He left a sunken ship last season only to jump on another sinking ship and now the original ship has been repaired and has resurfaced.

    Sorry , not sure if I did the sinking ship bit very well but you get the general idea

  • Nutcutlet on September 21, 2013, 21:51 GMT

    @ Paul Rone-Clarke on (September 21, 16:04 GMT): You're actually wrong, Paul. Surrey is very good at finding players & even signing them on. What Surrey singularly has failed to do is develop them, give them time to mature & then back them whilst they grow in competence & confidence. The ides of developing home-grown talent is something that really seems to have had a low priority in the Surrey set up in recent years. Here's a list of players that initially played for Surrey but are doing great deeds elsewhere: Rikki Clarke, Tim Murtagh, Michael Carberry, Chris Jordan, Laurie Evans. The basis of a very strong side, you'll agree - just thrown away! It's scandalous! Matt Spriegal went to N'hants at the end of last season. He hasn't quite hit his straps there, but he could well find himself playing in Div1 next year whilst the club that didn't think him good enough heads in the other direction! There are people at the top at Surrey who need to walk away now; they've done enough damage.

  • JG2704 on September 21, 2013, 19:09 GMT

    @CS - I meant Kiby. I know GH came from Gloucs but he very rarely plays for Somerset and yes if I was a Gloucs fan I'd not be happy about that. Re Contrived results , there would obviously have to be some legislation but I'd say that if an inns is forfeited then that fits into the category of contrived results... But you'd have to have some legislation. TBH it probably wouldn't bother me so much if Somerset weren't going to be affected by the result had it gone Surrey's way. I'm not really that big on the decision being labelled a gamble or brave by Surrey.If it was a situation where a draw would have put Surrey in a position where it was all in their hands going into the final game and they went for a win which would have all but guaranteed them safety against defeat which would have all but guaranteed them relegation that would have been a gamble. Being that the likelihood of a draw would have made little difference I don't really see it as a gamble

  • on September 21, 2013, 16:04 GMT

    Shame really. A team of ex Worcestershire players now join the real Worcestershire in the 2nd Division. Wonder who Surrey will buy this year - becasue despite having 11 million people on their doorstep they sure don't produce any players of their own

  • CricketingStargazer on September 21, 2013, 12:54 GMT

    @JG2704 "Somerset have a 1st team regular from Gloucs who they would have been reluctant to let go". Do you mean Gamaal Hussain, or Steve Kirby? Surrey took Jon Lewis. Kane Williamson went to Yorkshire. From having a side that chased promotion almost up to the last round in 2011, we went to having a side that had lost all its names, including the entire attack and was so thin on reserves that we were looking at playing amateurs to make up the numbers.

    How do you define a contrived result? The rule would be un-enforeceable. Sides would just be a bit more subtle about doing it (we opened the bowling with Chris Read because both our opening bowlers and the first change had minor strains and we didn't want to risk them...) There used to be a one-innings match rule if a game started with fewer than 8 hour of play left. Maybe it could be extended to matches where the first innings *has not been completed with 8hr left* but, if you remove bonus points, the win points need to be attractive.

  • SDHM on September 21, 2013, 11:39 GMT

    Shows just how poor Surrey have been; when you look at the squad, there is no way they should be going down. As a Somerset fan I'd have been a bit miffed if this result ended up keeping them up; I'm not a fan of contrived declarations and games, even though they entertainment value they offer is huge. That said, as people are pointing out, what's to stop us & Notts doing something similar next week?

    I think Surrey will be back though. Still some fine players at the club, and plenty of young talent. With Keedy, Lewis & de Bruyn leaving too, they will have a better mix of said young talent and experienced faces like Solanki & Batty guiding them. Burns & Ansari are highly promising, whilst Meaker, Edwards & Dunn are among the three more exciting young quicks in the country. Hopefully Edwards & Dunn gain more exposure in Div 2, whilst Meaker, who has been struggling with injuries this year (& attempted to play through them, leading to even more time missed) can rediscover his fire.

  • CricketingStargazer on September 21, 2013, 11:39 GMT

    @JG2704 There was a Tremlett bandwagon in mid-season and it ground to a halt suddenly. The suspicion is that, like Graeme Onions, he is not quite as good after the injury and has lost a little nip and will be found out (remember how Graeme Onions had a catastrophic winter last year in India and New Zealand?)

    Tremlett's injury record and relative age count against him, as well as doubts about his form and staying power. I would like to see Chris Jordan go (I'd send Stokes to the Lions tour where he will get more cricket). I hope that Nick Compton gets a chance, but he has had a relatively poor season (ave 42), so Taylor (who averages 52) would probably win between the two. The two jokers are Scott Borthwick, who has had an excellent season with the bat and a reasonable one with the ball and Samit Patel, who may get in if the panel is split between supporters of two other players.

  • JG2704 on September 21, 2013, 11:07 GMT

    @CS - Agreed 3 up , 3 down solves nothing as there could also be a situation where the 3rd/4th and 5th from bottom are close together. I think Derbyshire play Warwicks and you'd have to strongly fancy Warwicks if there is a result anyway. One rule I would change is that in contrived results , there are no bonus points. You get the win points and that's it. Either that or we have a rule whereby you get maybe 10 points for the win

    @Maximum6 - To be fair - re Notts swallowing up talent from other counties - many 1st div counties do/have done similar. My team Somerset have a 1st team regular from Gloucs who they would have been reluctant to let go and Surrey have possibly been one of the worst culprits for this over the years Lewis,Keedy and Solanki were definitely all key players for their respective counties at the time of leaving. Not sure how key Batty,Davies and Tremlett were to their respective counties when they joined Surrey

  • JG2704 on September 21, 2013, 10:49 GMT

    Cric info please publish - nothing of offence to anyone in the below post

    @TenDonebyaShooter - I don't think it matters to KP or Surrey what happens to him. Surrey would only have him sporadically as a guest player anyway. It shouldn't matter with established Eng regulars where they play their club cricket and if KP is put under pressure to leave Surrey then Cook should be put under similar pressure re Essex. Tremlett and Meaker may be different

    @Paul_Somerset - It's a shame that your comm. on the 3rd day thread was withdrawn (before I even read them) as several were on that thread. I'm not sure re Tremlett but if stats are anything to go by Rankin and Finn look better. If it's because he's still not fully fit (your observations) then his form has not been good enough to take a gamble in a 4 man attack

  • CricketingStargazer on September 21, 2013, 10:46 GMT

    @JG2704 Northants are an interesting one. Like Derbyshire they are one of the traditional second string counties. They don't have a big catchment area and Northampton is not a city large enough to provide the local talent pool of Manchester, Leeds, London, or Birmingham. However, after their incredible implosion in 2011 (four solid draws in the last four games would have seen them go up), they have made the very shrewd signing of Steven Crook and he has transformed the side. Crook has loads of talent, but couldn't hold a place down at Lords. At Northampton he has really come good.

    Northants have been lucky that Division 2 has been very weak this season (look at the sides in 3rd and 4th). The talent really is concentrating now in Division 1, as was intended. Lancs should go up and do OK (although I worry about their attack). Northants will need to make a couple of signings, or they will struggle badly. Success in T20 is one thing, success in the 4 day game requires different skills.

  • JG2704 on September 21, 2013, 8:22 GMT

    @Hugh Oxburghon (September 21, 2013, 0:38 GMT) Each season is different but Nhants can take inspiration from how Yorks (who finished 2nd last year in div 2) did this season and without 2 players who'd have been regulars last season for much of 2013. Northants can still sign a decent overseas player and I'm not sure they have anyone Eng is eyeing up to take away from the side

    @maximum6 on (September 20, 2013, 21:34 GMT) I hear what you're saying but maybe it being harder to get back up is a greater motivation for staying up.

  • CricketingStargazer on September 21, 2013, 7:44 GMT

    @JG2704 There is really no solution for this problem. Next week we have the Nottinghamshire-Somerset clash. It is no secret that if both sides are bowled out in under 110 overs for 320 and the match is drawn, it will not matter in the slightest what happens in the Derbyshire game. They could win and go down in that scenario, becoming just the 3rd side to be relegated with 4 wins. Who is to stop a friendly draw between the two and, were the match to pan out that way, could you prove collusion and argue that it is match-fixing? Of course, the counter-argument is that Derbyshire will have had 15 games to avoid this, they should have scored some points before and avoided being at the mercy of third parties and if the draw suits Somerset and Notts they are entitled to settle for it (happens in football all the time).

    Three up/three down is not the solution. It was tried for several years, failed and led to too many clubs bouncing up and down constantly. To much instability.

  • on September 21, 2013, 0:38 GMT

    Just in case anyone had forgotten (not that I'm about to let them) Surrey got annihilated by Northants in the T20 final. Assuming that Northants get promoted next week, as seems likely, I wonder if they'll be good enough to stay up? Especially as Lee Daggett is retiring & Trent Copeland is unlikely to return next season. There has been a great spirit at the County Ground this season, but it'll be a lot tougher next season & that spirit is likely to be severely tested.

  • 2.14istherunrate on September 20, 2013, 21:34 GMT

    I am starting to think that 3 up /3 down might be better than the present arrangement, so that it becomes less of a big deal as to who plays where and having more mobility between divisions might take the depression off some of the lower clubs who get stuck in the doldrums for years. Take Leicester. They used to win championships but now they cannot produce a talented player without them being swallowed up by Notts so they become just a feed for the big county. It needs thinking about, definitely. It should not matter who plays where in terms of England spots.

  • Paul_Somerset on September 20, 2013, 20:52 GMT

    I don't know about Tremlett being a non-trier, Cyril. I commented last week that I watched him side-on at Taunton and he looked injured to me in his run-up - stiff, unnecessarily lengthy and slowing right down in the delivery stride. But that's the only time I've seen him this year, so maybe it was just a bad day.

    Whether it's a lack of application or fitness, there's no way he should be going to Australia this winter on what I saw.

  • TenDonebyaShooter on September 20, 2013, 19:48 GMT

    I wonder what will happen to Pietersen now. Arguably England players (and perhaps particularly England's most prolific scorer in all forms of the game) should be preparing for the rigours of international cricket with the most competitive form of cricket available. Logically therefore he should now leave this division 2 county to play for a division 1 team, especially since leaving spurned county and provincial teams in his wake is nothing new in the life and times of KPP. But seeing as the England selectors hardly let him play domestic cricket anyway, does it matter what division he doesn't play in? And is he going to remain an England player for very much longer anyway? So perhaps Surrey's drop doesn't really affect him, and it wouldn't be the first time in his career that he's had no reason to care what happens to his county or provincial team; I've yet to see him get tattooed with a county crest to match his vaunted three lions tattoo ...

  • JG2704 on September 20, 2013, 19:44 GMT

    @CricketingStargazer - I suppose there are at least no aggrieved other parties at the bottom end of the table after this result. They showed intent with the Amla signing and while he wasn't exactly a flop he certainly didn't deliver the big runs and esp against Somerset in the dogfight game I was surprised at the antipathy from Warwicks fans towards Somerset. I've seen 2 blame Somerset for Lancs winning the title in 2011 , but in that game Somerset scored 300+ in both inns and there were no contrived declarations - just that Lancs chased 200+ in 29 overs. Obviously too difficult to recognise the fact that they lost 4 games inc 1 vs Lancs with the other Lancs drawn with Lancs on top But I didn't really see it as a brave decision or a gamble.A win and a win vs Yorks and I'd say they'd have a decent chance of avoiding relegation unless there's a high scoring draw between Notts and Somerset. A draw and they'd have been just 3 points better off.

  • aq111 on September 20, 2013, 19:27 GMT

    Warwickshire are a good team who have built a squad based around local talent. It has taken time and they have endured bad times on the way to success. Surrey may now have to do something similar. An example of what they have done wrong was releasing Laurie Evans, who was taken on by Warwickshire and given plenty of time to establish himself. He has rewarded them this year with close on 1000 runs and 3 centuries. I can't help feeling Surrey would have been better to have stuck with him rather than bringing in 37 year old Vikram Solanki.

  • CricketingStargazer on September 20, 2013, 19:22 GMT

    @Luke Hill Stuart Meaker was close to a Test debut in India. Very close. I think the problem is the club, not the player. Look at Chris Jordan: he was released as a journeyman and has suddenly revised at Sussex. I'd have him in my Ashes squad ahead of Ben Stokes because I think that he could run through a side. The county games is filled with Surrey players who have flowered elsewhere such as Tim Murtagh, but were rejected as journeymen by Surrey.

    There is something going wrong at The Oval and talent is going to waste because of it.

  • CricketingStargazer on September 20, 2013, 19:16 GMT

    @Luke Hill De Bruyn and Lewis have been released already.

  • Cyril_Knight on September 20, 2013, 19:10 GMT

    @CricketingStargazer Your comment about the bowling line-up is spot on. But to us Oval regulars it is not a mystery. The groundsman from day one of the season decided it was best to produce slow, low, "turners". Remember Surrey had Keedy and Batty bowling in tandem before lunch on the first day of the season.

    God only knows why these pitches were (and continue to be) produced. Surely hard, fast pitches would suit Tremlett, Meaker, Linley and Dernbach, that's Surrey's strength. I don't think another County can match that seam attack. I've said it before, the groundsman has not served Surrey this season. If he wasn't 7 feet tall I'm sure his pitches would have been questioned more vigorously.

  • on September 20, 2013, 19:07 GMT

    What we need to do is get people like De Bruyn out of the club, he's the kind of guy who turns in performances sporadically and when they aren't needed. People Like Burns are GOING to be top players. We just need to decide what to do with Roy.

    As for Meaker, lord knows, he has had the journeyman tag for too long, I'm starting to think he won't make it.

  • Cyril_Knight on September 20, 2013, 19:04 GMT

    @hhillbumper To include Tremlett in your list of good things shows how little you know about County cricket and Surrey this season and why your comment should be disregarded. He has been a disgrace all year (baring one fluke). Simply he has not tried.Surrey have plenty of triers, Wilson, Harinath, Burns, Linley and of course the skipper. The poor/inconsistent/indisciplined/wasteful performances of the three you name is a major factor in Surrey's relegation, they are the certainly ones not to be heaped with praise.

    People on Cricinfo may moan about Surrey signing Smith, Ponting and Amla, but attendances were way higher when they were playing, even more so at away matches. It seems those that actually go to cricket rather enjoyed Surrey's recruitment policy this season. People love to watch world-class players.

  • Nutcutlet on September 20, 2013, 18:54 GMT

    Mercifully, the veil can now be pulled over Surrey's 2013 CC campaign.The end, as TS Eliot said, is where we start from. Surrey is now effectively in Div 2. To my mind, Div 2 is made up of two types of team; the first are those who, realising their wildest dreams, may scamble into Div 1 for a year or two once in a while - Derbys is a team like that & well done to them for living with the big boys until the last round of matches next week. The second category is the convalescent brigade whose default position is in Div 1. Yorks convalesced last year & have come back focussed, strong & proud as you'd expect from England's premier cricketing county, historically. Lancs are following suit this time. So, no side has a right to be in Div 1 & for Surrey to get things together may take more than the single year. Investing in young players &, most importantly, allowing them to mature without throwing them away must be the way to go. Surrey mustn't be impatient. This year they were & fell over.

  • ashes61 on September 20, 2013, 18:36 GMT

    Maximum 6: Not a tragedy but it's certainly a shocking indictment on a wealthy club's utter failure to tap into the county's youth, to ensure no talent goes untried, the best youngsters get a fair chance instead of money being thrown away on "big names." Surrey may be the most spectacular example of this but aren't the only one. Many counties decide the best players are always those they want to bring in from outside - even if they are rejects from elsewhere or unsettled players who will never be settled or satisfied with their contract. If Surrey had said no to the "star transfer" system and blooded the best of their youth they may still have been relegated this year but would have done no worse than the mercenaries who took your county down. It's easy to think those days can't come back in the modern game but it is by far the cheapest way , often the best way and sometimes the only way. My county, Kent, are guilty of the same policy for different reasons. Look at Durham - proof.

  • CricketingStargazer on September 20, 2013, 18:00 GMT

    (Cont) It's crazy that a side that has Meaker, Dernbach, Linley, Tremlett & Batty (the only one who hasn't been in an England side or squad is Linley) are not terrifying batting line-ups around the country. It has to be, on paper, the best attack in the Divison 1, including Durham and Middlesex.

    English cricket needs a strong Surrey side in the same way that it needs a strong Yorkshire. Gus Fraser took a Middlesex team riven with divisions and wasting away and, over several painful years in Division 2, molded them into a powerful team without resorting to expensive signings. Surrey need something similar to be done. And they need the sort of guiding hand for the young guns that was absent previously, to mature them. There's talent a-plenty there, they just need to harness it properly.

  • hhillbumper on September 20, 2013, 17:56 GMT

    good.Surrey is everything that is wrong with English cricket.bunch of arrogant egotistical maniacs.Excluding Tremlett ,Solanki and Davies. The rest of them though could not give a monkey as long as the money keeps rolling in

  • CricketingStargazer on September 20, 2013, 17:53 GMT

    There is not going to be a lot of sympathy for Surrey. Their fans are simply not going to understand why, but I note that some of the loudest apologists for the misguided selection policies this season have disappeared recently, just as Surrey started, too late, to change direction.

    I have been fairly critical at time this season, but have to admit that in the last few months Surrey have started to get things right at last. Several of the older and underperforming players have been pensioned-off and young players brought in. They finally won a game. Surrey made a brave attempt to get something out of this match. It's a pity that it was all too late.

    They are now faced with a quite major re-building job in Division 2, without having given the young guns the longer run in the side that would benefit them next year. My guess is that Surrey will need a 4-5 year project to bring on and consolidate young talent in Division 2.

  • 2.14istherunrate on September 20, 2013, 17:48 GMT

    This was inevitable given the terrible season and the main thing is to look to the future positively rather than indulge in any recriminations. Every one has to take responsibility and get on with making sure they do their bit next year and in preparing for it. Those who work at their game will probably do well in this situation and those who can do it cheerfully will do best. Quite honestly we could not hold our own in Div 1 so firm foundations need to be built.It is not a tragedy but an opportunity.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • 2.14istherunrate on September 20, 2013, 17:48 GMT

    This was inevitable given the terrible season and the main thing is to look to the future positively rather than indulge in any recriminations. Every one has to take responsibility and get on with making sure they do their bit next year and in preparing for it. Those who work at their game will probably do well in this situation and those who can do it cheerfully will do best. Quite honestly we could not hold our own in Div 1 so firm foundations need to be built.It is not a tragedy but an opportunity.

  • CricketingStargazer on September 20, 2013, 17:53 GMT

    There is not going to be a lot of sympathy for Surrey. Their fans are simply not going to understand why, but I note that some of the loudest apologists for the misguided selection policies this season have disappeared recently, just as Surrey started, too late, to change direction.

    I have been fairly critical at time this season, but have to admit that in the last few months Surrey have started to get things right at last. Several of the older and underperforming players have been pensioned-off and young players brought in. They finally won a game. Surrey made a brave attempt to get something out of this match. It's a pity that it was all too late.

    They are now faced with a quite major re-building job in Division 2, without having given the young guns the longer run in the side that would benefit them next year. My guess is that Surrey will need a 4-5 year project to bring on and consolidate young talent in Division 2.

  • hhillbumper on September 20, 2013, 17:56 GMT

    good.Surrey is everything that is wrong with English cricket.bunch of arrogant egotistical maniacs.Excluding Tremlett ,Solanki and Davies. The rest of them though could not give a monkey as long as the money keeps rolling in

  • CricketingStargazer on September 20, 2013, 18:00 GMT

    (Cont) It's crazy that a side that has Meaker, Dernbach, Linley, Tremlett & Batty (the only one who hasn't been in an England side or squad is Linley) are not terrifying batting line-ups around the country. It has to be, on paper, the best attack in the Divison 1, including Durham and Middlesex.

    English cricket needs a strong Surrey side in the same way that it needs a strong Yorkshire. Gus Fraser took a Middlesex team riven with divisions and wasting away and, over several painful years in Division 2, molded them into a powerful team without resorting to expensive signings. Surrey need something similar to be done. And they need the sort of guiding hand for the young guns that was absent previously, to mature them. There's talent a-plenty there, they just need to harness it properly.

  • ashes61 on September 20, 2013, 18:36 GMT

    Maximum 6: Not a tragedy but it's certainly a shocking indictment on a wealthy club's utter failure to tap into the county's youth, to ensure no talent goes untried, the best youngsters get a fair chance instead of money being thrown away on "big names." Surrey may be the most spectacular example of this but aren't the only one. Many counties decide the best players are always those they want to bring in from outside - even if they are rejects from elsewhere or unsettled players who will never be settled or satisfied with their contract. If Surrey had said no to the "star transfer" system and blooded the best of their youth they may still have been relegated this year but would have done no worse than the mercenaries who took your county down. It's easy to think those days can't come back in the modern game but it is by far the cheapest way , often the best way and sometimes the only way. My county, Kent, are guilty of the same policy for different reasons. Look at Durham - proof.

  • Nutcutlet on September 20, 2013, 18:54 GMT

    Mercifully, the veil can now be pulled over Surrey's 2013 CC campaign.The end, as TS Eliot said, is where we start from. Surrey is now effectively in Div 2. To my mind, Div 2 is made up of two types of team; the first are those who, realising their wildest dreams, may scamble into Div 1 for a year or two once in a while - Derbys is a team like that & well done to them for living with the big boys until the last round of matches next week. The second category is the convalescent brigade whose default position is in Div 1. Yorks convalesced last year & have come back focussed, strong & proud as you'd expect from England's premier cricketing county, historically. Lancs are following suit this time. So, no side has a right to be in Div 1 & for Surrey to get things together may take more than the single year. Investing in young players &, most importantly, allowing them to mature without throwing them away must be the way to go. Surrey mustn't be impatient. This year they were & fell over.

  • Cyril_Knight on September 20, 2013, 19:04 GMT

    @hhillbumper To include Tremlett in your list of good things shows how little you know about County cricket and Surrey this season and why your comment should be disregarded. He has been a disgrace all year (baring one fluke). Simply he has not tried.Surrey have plenty of triers, Wilson, Harinath, Burns, Linley and of course the skipper. The poor/inconsistent/indisciplined/wasteful performances of the three you name is a major factor in Surrey's relegation, they are the certainly ones not to be heaped with praise.

    People on Cricinfo may moan about Surrey signing Smith, Ponting and Amla, but attendances were way higher when they were playing, even more so at away matches. It seems those that actually go to cricket rather enjoyed Surrey's recruitment policy this season. People love to watch world-class players.

  • on September 20, 2013, 19:07 GMT

    What we need to do is get people like De Bruyn out of the club, he's the kind of guy who turns in performances sporadically and when they aren't needed. People Like Burns are GOING to be top players. We just need to decide what to do with Roy.

    As for Meaker, lord knows, he has had the journeyman tag for too long, I'm starting to think he won't make it.

  • Cyril_Knight on September 20, 2013, 19:10 GMT

    @CricketingStargazer Your comment about the bowling line-up is spot on. But to us Oval regulars it is not a mystery. The groundsman from day one of the season decided it was best to produce slow, low, "turners". Remember Surrey had Keedy and Batty bowling in tandem before lunch on the first day of the season.

    God only knows why these pitches were (and continue to be) produced. Surely hard, fast pitches would suit Tremlett, Meaker, Linley and Dernbach, that's Surrey's strength. I don't think another County can match that seam attack. I've said it before, the groundsman has not served Surrey this season. If he wasn't 7 feet tall I'm sure his pitches would have been questioned more vigorously.

  • CricketingStargazer on September 20, 2013, 19:16 GMT

    @Luke Hill De Bruyn and Lewis have been released already.