Irrespective of whether batting 3 or 6 or 10 that is absolutely dreadful from Benjamin.

I'm not excusing anything or anyone. He batted pretty well and got out to a good one. That's all.

Surrey look like they have another good one in Tom Lawes. 19 years old, brisk seamer who gets it in the right areas, think he bats a bit too.

Surrey get a lot criticism for poaching from other counties, we do it too. But the difference is Surrey have a good track record with bringing their own players though with Pope, Burns, Ryan Patel, the Curran's, Jamie Smith etc.

Why can't we bring them through like that?

The difference is the money. Not just the club, but the area.
They are the richest county by some way, and can afford to sign and keep players on staff who may never play a game. They don’t just sign their best youngsters, they sign anyone with the slightest talent. If they succeed at Surrey or elsewhere it looks good, if not financially it doesn’t effect them.

But it’s also the private schools. There’s a vast number of high quality cricket programmes in private schools in and around Surrey. Pope, Lawes and Burgess are all from Cranleigh. Sibley, Roy, Jamie Smith were Whitgift. The Currans were Wellington (paid for by Surrey). Burns, Jacks, Geddes, Jordan and Evans were all privately educated in Surrey schools too. So Surrey doesn’t just rely on the club game, and it’s own pathway, but it’s got this vast resource of rich schools who invest huge amounts into their cricket programmes to help them produce players.

Our scoring rate is atrocious.

3 slips in at the 50th over..........and not just because they have taken a wicket recently.

The new ball will be due and we will be lucky to have scored 150

Interesting, thanks for that.

Do you not think Warwickshire with its large Midlands catchment area should have more academy players in its squad and playing XI's? For a long time now we seem to have been a county that relies on looking outside and signing from other counties as opposed to promoting from within.

We consistently seem have the least amount of homegrown talent of all the counties.

Andy wrote:

Interesting, thanks for that.

Do you not think Warwickshire with its large Midlands catchment area should have more academy players in its squad and playing XI's? For a long time now we seem to have been a county that relies on looking outside and signing from other counties as opposed to promoting from within.

We consistently seem have the least amount of homegrown talent of all the counties.

I agree Andy. We do seem to lack the ability to bring local talent through into the 1st XI. I see a lot of 2nd's cricket and we blood loads of promising Academy players - but they just seem to lose their way as soon as they get near adult grade cricket. I put it down to the lack of good Coaching they get at that level. The Academy Coaches seem really on the ball and get the best out of the youngsters. As soon as they get 1st Team Coaching, they drift off. Look at the demise of Henry Brookes, George Garrett or Manraj Johal, particularly since Pop Welch departed. And how many batsmen have we lost recently - even Andy Umeed has got a second chance at Somerset.

I agree, one of our problems is lack of private schooling in the County, but a bigger issue is our rubbish Coaching set up. Frostie is long past his 'sell by date' and Matt Mason clearly can't replace Welch.

It’s always been my opinion that the Birmingham League was detrimental to the production of County quality products. It’s almost too competitive. The money involved now is too often about results first, rather than persevering with young prospects. So if a player isn’t already in the system, it’s hard to force their way in via league cricket. And the club has less reason to persevere with them.

Whereas for Surrey if you know players are getting competitive cricket in schools, you can prioritise resource to those not at larger schools, and offer opportunities via club sides. I’ve heard Surrey, Hampshire, Gloucestershire and Sussex have paid premier league clubs to take on certain players and give them the opportunity.
Surrey also help fund players, with potential, but come from limited economic means through clubs and age group tours and help with kit. Again theh can do this because they know 95% of the parents of kids in the system can afford it all by themselves.
So whilst Surrey have huge resources, and are lucky being in the wealthiest part of the country, they also direct those resources really well, and utilise them to their own ends, allowing for huge age groups squads and academy intakes.

Just as another partnership builds, we lose wicket number 6.

I do feel as though apart from Rhodes and Benjamin, Surrey had to earn the wickets, Davies, Hain, Sibley and Burgess all got good balls. And when you look at the pitch, the bowling attack and remember that Surrey chose to bowl, I don’t think we’ve done too badly so far. It seems like there’s always something in it for the bowlers. And hopefully with a stronger attack this match, we can take advantage of that.

The scoring rate is an on going issue though. Just seems to push pressure further down the order. You think we were 4 down after 54 overs. But we’d only just made 100. 200-4 off 50 looks very different for a bowlers mentality, probably only have 1 slip instead of the 3 they’ve been able to keep in. Just seems self-defeating.

They've had a right old mixed bag of commentators on the Surrey feed today. Apart from 'Churchy' they've had Roland Butcher, Jeremy Coney, and Eva Gray (one of the Surrey women players).

Crap shot but that looked very legside to me.

We are 40-50 runs light today

Could prove crucial if the pitch continues to offer a bit for the seamers

Was there to be hit I thought but yes that was a shocker from the umpire.

Counties like Warwickshire and Worcestershire used to make up for that deficit of privately schooled cricketers as compared to the Surrey's and Hampshire's by producing a stock of good working class lads who could play a bit. But since the 1980's selling off of the playing fields, closure of most workplace sports and then the hiding of the sport behind a paywall from 2006 that's kinda knackered our chances of keeping up with the Surrey's in this respect

Don't agree with everything in it but Duncan Stone's recent book chronicles this decline of cricket as a game for the masses played by factory and Public bodies teams quite nicely in his closing chapter

mad, you point about "hiding cricket behind a paywall..." is so true. That 3-part series that Andrew Flintoff did about getting kids from poorer backgrounds, brought a few good points up. Initially all the kids bar about 3 thought it was a sport played by posh kids and once they got to know more about it and how to play it, they were surprised by how much they enjoyed it. That's is all it needs, the exposure instead of just not bothering and instead trying to just go on year after year telling kids that Football is the only thing that matters.

Chance to Shine does its best to bring cricket to those who might otherwise have missed out on it. Lauren Young and Warwickshire's Issy Wong both came through this scheme and have played for England.

Not a great start. Got 2 wickets but the bowlers are spraying it everywhere.
Looks like they’re almost trying to hard, trying to take a wicket every ball, rather than 4th stump line, build pressure, make the batsmen make an error.
Surrey were excellent in that regard. Happily kept the ball on a length outside off stump and built pressure.

A 3rd man might help occasionally

McAndrew chucking pies here.