Preview here:
https://edgbaston.com/fixtures/first-xi/surrey-vs-warwickshire-7-august-2022/#match-match-previews

Seem to be making heavy-weather of this. If the pitch is the usual Oval type then we are not scoring quickly enough and too many balls being patted back to the bowler or hit straight to a fielder.

Rhodes 14 off 40 is a very poor return. I think this is a 300 bat first pitch. Hope to be proved wrong

It could still be a 300 pitch but only perhaps thanks to these 2 and maybe whatever is to come.

Just what is the point about having Kai Smith in the team? He's not keeping wicket, he won't bowl and he's batting low. Surely it should be one extra bowler playing? I'm all for giving young guys a bit of experience, but it's only worth it if they actually contribute to the team.

Good point and it does seem to be a waste but maybe he will field like a demon but let's face it, that is all he can contribute to this game.

If we lose to Surrey's 3rd team I am going to be absolutely fuming

I have plenty to say about this pathetic performance but I will not bother.

Surrey deserved to win that game.

Everything that is wrong with the club was captured within that 'performance'.

I have tickets for Friday but I am really not sure whether I will bother.

Well we should have won then should definitely have lost so I suppose a tie is at least something.

Game was "won" when the 8th wicket went down. With 2 overs to go the game was lost! A cracking finish.

Just watching the highlights back and Norwell looks almost sheepish to have denied Dunn.

Cannot help but go back years when a bowler trying to deny runs would go for yorkers. I do go along with the "Oh! It's difficult to bowl them consistently....". Why, even if you get it on target and it's a low full-toss, it rarely goes for 4. But this business of bowling short at crucial times is nonsense, if a batsman knows he needs runs, he has no option but to belt it and your average pace bowler is big, strong and always fancies 'giving it a belt'. That was poor from us and we should have won it ages before Norwell suddenly said "Y'know what, I'll bowl it full".

I was at the game today and what I will say was the captaincy and fielding was a huge difference between the 2 sides. Surrey fielded superbly and set their fields and made good bowling changes.
Burgess and Pandya were superb, rebuilt (but somehow upped the rate) and then exploded. But the outfield was horrifically slow. It sped up as the day progressed but it had clearly been watered a huge amount as was very lush and green. So when batting the bears didn’t get value for their shots.

Bowling was good until halfway through and then it all feel apart. Bizarre field placing, awful long hop bowling, Kimber and Dunn should have been caught at least twice each but fielders weren’t on the rope or the edge of the ring, why he out Yates back on I have no idea. What did become clear was Pandya took over with a few overs to go, was very obviously in charge. But the death bowling was awful, they bowled for 10 overs like they were bowling at peak Viv. If they’d have bowled full straight and fast they’d have missed one or skyed one. I know I’ve been banging this drum a while; but it feels once again that it’s the bowling that’s the weakness and letting the batting down.

With BristolBear on this one, though not off any actual evidence having only checked cricinfo. Seemed like they were ahead of the game from when Burgess and Pandya locked in until the last ten overs. It was perhaps more clear from looking at the card how messed up the bowling allocation was with the precise split of Rhodes and Yates plus all the bowlers finishing on one over spells. Might have been a gamble that didn't come off but perhaps Rhodes needed more overs earlier on.

Last 10 overs are difficult to explain. This really should never have been a contest, I find it difficult to criticise individuals because I have said before that it is a problem with management, coaching and unfortunately captaincy. It's very frustrating! Even RW on commentary was imploring Rhodes to be more pro active. It would have needed very little in on field management to have ensured that this contest was way beyond Surrey.

I hang a lot of this one on Rhodes as a captain. But what does confuse me is Kai Smith. Why wouldn’t you play Simmons or Garrett if the kid is going to be a specialist fielder? A young kid who might do something not just for the sake of it.

That was abysmal bowling at the end. Matt Mason, as the bowling coach has been useless. He's nowhere near as good as Graeme Welch. You have to question the decision making by the club's management. To me, Allan Donald should've got the role.

Absolutely, Rhodes has to put his hand up. He appeared oblivious to the situation that was unfolding and not for the first time.

There is so much wrong at our club and yesterday just epitomised it. Absolute shambles at times. What was Yates doing bowling three overs that effectively gave them a way back into the match? Lunacy

Because I was at Nevil Road watching Gloucestershire yesterday, I missed the game so, having read the comments on here, I thought I had better watch the last hour on You-tube, which I've now done.
Setting aside any partisan thoughts, it was a terrific game of cricket, with a good crowd (who were allowed on the outfield between innings).
I thought that Kimber played an excellent innings for Surrey, so he deserves credit for that.
What went wrong for the Bears? The fielding was patchy, with Lamb and Rhodes dropping chances and at least a couple of ones becoming twos that shouldn't have happened. Miles shouldn't be bowling high full tosses that produce a free hit. Yates shouldn't have bowled his third over. Pandya having to go off briefly injured probably messed up the bowling plans.
BUT - that's cricket. There were two sides out there and Surrey played well at the death, just as the Bears played well earlier in the Surrey innings. So just a little bit of credit needs to go to them. And luck comes into it. There were a few plays and misses towards the end which, if the batsman had been good enough to get an edge, the game would have been over and we would have been celebrating.
Let's hope, by the way, that Pandya is fit for the next game - and maybe give the Club a tiny amount of praise for signing him - he looks to be both talented and highly motivated, which can't be said of every overseas signing.
In a couple of weeks' time, we shall know whether this was just a blip in a successful campaign or evidence that the team are just not up to the task.