He said 3 years not 4. But yeah he said, they’re the benchmark, that’s where we want to be, the quality and depth of a squad that can handle injuries and setbacks, and there’s no short steps to that.
Then some stuff about ensuring we’re improving and having KPI’s to measure that improvement.

You could possibly argue that he was talking purely about the depth in terms of quality of players Surrey have and not about both the depth and the quality of the first XI. But it definitely seems to come across as both.

I listened to it. He's not wrong is he? Think some people had made their minds up before he even spoke.

Why the call for 2 overseas players. Just because a player is from another country does not mean they will be better than a home grown player. I have always said to sign an overseas player they must meet either - a name that puts extra bums on seats or, and perhaps more importantly, they must be better than the player that stands aside for them.

As for Robinson - under his watch the team has produced several very poor scores - surely that results in the coach being replaced. In addition these failures have all been with the bat rather than the ball which brings in to question the employment of Frost.

I don't think much has changed from before the Surrey game to after it other than another big piece of evidence in the pile that we choke in big games. We could well have lost this game if we'd played perfectly, but they shouldn't have folded with the bat quite so badly as that.

I see a few comments about Frost again. I mentioned it long ago that his role or efficacy should be questioned, not by us but by his bosses, but this was so long ago that I'm kind of used to nothing changing now. In any case, can we say we are better with the bat than three years ago? I think we're slightly better by the fact Yates and Mousley have come through and are still improving. We have some U19s who will break through properly in a few years too. Against all that, there is always a bigger stack of batsmen with long-term slumps and it doesn't seem there is the ability to improve all of them. Rhodes, Davies and Benjamin are all in this camp.

Looking at our batters averages for this seasons county championship, Hain, Yates and Mousley are our top 3 guys all 50, 40 and 35 then we have Burgess, Rhodes, Davies and Barnard all averaging mid 20's.

It's worth pointing out that our better performing batters are all homegrown and 2 of those 3 are still young and improving whilst they all offer in all 3 formats. The other 4 are recruits from other counties, all senior players and all falling short with the bat. I do acknowledge the quality of Burgess keeping and Barnards bowling.

Recruitment ain't necessarily the answer people are making it out to be though.

Right,

You picked out the same players I was thinking and put data on it, which was what I was expecting it to be. But I didn't see the point that they all transferred in. Burgess and Barnard to me get an exception. The former is a number 7 and the latter was bedding in for the first half of the season. As you say, they both contribute in other areas and formats, so all good with me. Davies, yes, we've all talked about, won't add any more. Rhodes I think is interesting. I remember a season where he got 4 tons in the first half of the season. He also bowls less now. When you combine it with our leadership and choking problems, I wonder if it adds up to the leadership canibalising his batting ability? Should he give up the captaincy to help his batting? And if he does that who takes on the leadership?

Your bottom line I agree with though. Recruitment is difficult and probably wont deliver quick solutions.

Andy wrote:

Looking at our batters averages for this seasons county championship, Hain, Yates and Mousley are our top 3 guys all 50, 40 and 35 then we have Burgess, Rhodes, Davies and Barnard all averaging mid 20's.

It's worth pointing out that our better performing batters are all homegrown and 2 of those 3 are still young and improving whilst they all offer in all 3 formats. The other 4 are recruits from other counties, all senior players and all falling short with the bat. I do acknowledge the quality of Burgess keeping and Barnards bowling.

Recruitment ain't necessarily the answer people are making it out to be though.

Agreed, your previous post got me thinking, it's a valid point re. Homegrown v recruitment.

I think a lot depends on how we do in these last three games. If we can win one or two and get ourselves in the top three, I’d say that’s a decent improvement on last season. However if we don’t win any or struggle in them then that’s more of a concern given that all three opponents are currently below us in the table.

I agree with Exiled Bear that the last three games will give us a measure of how the four day team has performed overall.
Taking all matches into consideration (i.e. all three competitions), the Club doesn't come out too badly in terms of matches won. Just looking at the LV=CC Division One teams, matches won in all competitions to date are (if my quick calculations are correct):
Hampshire 26
Warwickshire 23
Somerset 21
Surrey 19
Essex 18
Lancashire 15
Notts 14
Kent 13
Northants 10
Middlesex 8
That doesn't look like a disastrous season, though it does take us back to the inability to turn those good results into trophies won.

I got to around the 50% mark, I cannot listen to the man. Since when, in the middle of a hot spell, do Oval wickets become 250/300 tracks? That is not honest. Claiming that we were out bowled and out batted is stating the bloody obvious, but where was the out managed observation by deciding to bowl after winning the toss? And I refuse to accept that it was Rhodes decision alone.

A major part of the problem, for me, is that his acceptance, and indeed rewarding, of mediocrity from some players has a negative effect on the moral and motivation of the rest of the entire playing staff, not just the team in the game.

Sam Hain and Will Rhodes must be fed up of having to effectively open the innings everytime due to the failing of the openers.

I can see both consiering options to move elsewhere. Remember if Rhodes resigns the captancy, and Robinson remains who will be inflicted on the club as captain!

Rayb wrote:

I got to around the 50% mark, I cannot listen to the man. Since when, in the middle of a hot spell, do Oval wickets become 250/300 tracks? That is not honest. Claiming that we were out bowled and out batted is stating the bloody obvious, but where was the out managed observation by deciding to bowl after winning the toss? And I refuse to accept that it was Rhodes decision alone.

I'm not Robinson's biggest fan but to be fair to him there has only been one score over 400 at the Oval all season, made by Australia against India. It surprised me too.

Who mentioned 400? Have a look at the 350-400 innings, statistics can be picked out to fit any argument. The point being made (by myself, I fully accept) is that the Oval is a great batting square and given the opportunity to use it first, and grasp the initiative, is not an opportunity to be missed. This is simply my opinion, of course, but one that appears to have been shared by Surrrey captains down the years.