Please let us take this wicket as hearing Emily Windsor say 'Frew' and 'Fings' instead of 'Through' and 'Things' is driving me mad.

You can only think that Hampshire have managed to win games because of their bowling because as a lot of Hampshire fans will tell you, their batting looks poor.

Rushworth, what a signing, we know he won't get picked for England so should be running in during the CC games without playing in T20 and might not need to play in the RL cup, so he is ours for the season and he will take wickets. Mr reliable and so pleasing to watch.

I think we would have batted on regardless of whether Barnard was on 91* or not. I would prefer to bat on in that position, there are 2 ways of looking at it, I have seen sides close the innings earlier than they normally would because the ball is moving about and then come out to bowl and the ball does nothing. Batting on gives us the opportunity to make Hampshire have to bat longer to clear the deficit and might mean we don't have to try and get 110 in 10 overs if they got out for 250 and used up 85 overs in doing so. Either way it is a tough one for any captain but don't agree with the woman on the commentary who said declaring overnight was "brave captaincy", it has nothing to do with that, a captain has to do whatever it take to try and win the game.

In that case, Hampshire would have to get 280-300 and I cannot see them scoring that quickly.

Barnard, looking like a really good signing and not looking overawed by being in division 1.

This Hain/Barnard partnership is looking a good one and a decent rate. Holland/Dawson are very ordinary bowlers but you can bet that Abbas and Abbott will be a different challenge. A lead of 100+ tonight with a few wickets in hand would be a good day and then we will just have to hope we can get enough time left at the weekend to help us out.

Saturday, from what I have just seen, is the dodgy day and Sunday might see more play. Important tomorrow that we bat long and score at a good lick and get a good lead. If we could bat all day tomorrow, it might be that only Sunday gives us a chance to win.

This has turned out to be a good day. Well done us. This is 'Bearball', not 'Bazball'.

Glad to have broken that partnership but 186-8 is better for them than 137-7 and have we let another good opportunity to get a side out for less than 170, go again.

Looks like there could be interruptions on Fri/Sat but long range forecasts have been known to change as the time gets nearer. Hampshire will be ready for us after last season saw them going for the title and thanks to our last-gasp victory, they didn't even get runners-up and finished 4th. They looked totally lost and shocked by the whole saga.

That's the way Gerry, give it some of that Viking spirit.

At some point a lot of people who are still having to work in full-time employment, will have to have a good look at what they are paying for a membership and could decide with little cricket to watch and not knowing if it will rain at weekends, that enough is enough and just not bother with the game. I feel as though if I did give up my membership after 34 consecutive seasons, that I would just not bother with it any longer. A lot might feel like this, if the weather looks like it could give you a 50/50 chance of seeing any cricket, why would you bother to risk it if you had to pay at the gate. I can see about 20-25 days cricket a year and that just about justifies the price of membership but if the fixtures are messed about with and we are forced to endure 'The Hundread' as part of the season, then we could have a situation where the membership dwindles and on an on/off day due to weather, we could have as little as 50 people watching. As such, I think ALL games whatever format, would suffer. I only watch T20 because it is part of my membership and I still regard that awful name of Birmingham Bears, as Warwickshire but paying to come and watch without a membership and all the hassle of rushing from work on a Friday night and trying to get somewhere to park, would just make me feel, "What's the point...".

Why is this awful competition still referred to as 'The Hundred' and not 'The-elephant-in-the-room-that-has-to-have-free-tickets-given-away-to-get-people-to-watch-and-has-lost-almost-£60M-in-2-seasons-with-games-that-no-one-remembers-balls-up'. It does just roll off the tongue.

Why and how is Norwell injured? What has he done between the Hampshire game in Sept '22 till now, to get injured. It is like Rankin syndrome all over again, when Boyd would be unavailable at the start of a season whilst having not played during the Winter months.

ExiledBrummie wrote:

Strutters indeed, sending out bowlers to knock off the runs......but we were well beaten sadly.

It is a bit of a *** take to send out the bowlers to get the runs but glad we got Worrall out, that might shut him up for about 5 minutes. It might be too early but this shows me that we won't make a solid impact in the CC this season. Oh! well, I have saved on the petrol I would have used tomorrow.

If this Surrey side are the best in the country, then perhaps the CC is not that good. Take Roach out of the attack and they look very ordinary. Apart from plenty of dodgy decisions that went their way when we played them at The Oval last season, I do wonder how these strutters managed to win the title. We had the usual whooping and jumping about when they took wickets as we had in the Dernbach sides of old but they look nowt special but it doesn't look like us who will dislodge them. Poor bowling this morning, lower order batsmen who are throwing the bat, love 'length' bowling and cannot usually cope with yorkers but yet again as against Kent, we never saw any.

Yes Gerryshedd, Kent refused to play us that season (1911) and then had the nerve to complain when they lost out to us. Their snobbish attitude in thinking we were inferior to them must have hurt when they got their runners-up medals.

I remember Hampshire fans and their gloating when they beat us in 2 finals, 2005 and 2012 at Lord's. They were awful and if Kent can't stop having a whinge, then they should take a look at their batting which was poor and the fact that they barely created a chance whilst bowling. They didn't deserve to get a draw, the weather took 4 sessions out of the game to give them a hand. As for the celebrations, CC games are hard to win, take it easy for a session and it can just get away from you and at this time of the season if you can escape the weather, then you are lucky so why not jump about a little and enjoy a fine win, it was being frustrated at taking 4 hours to get the last 3 wickets, that made a few of the players leap about in relief.

Cannot believe Kent were 7 down at 2.15 and I had visions of a 3pm-3.15pm cup of tea at home. No chance, although I love a dramatic finish which does seem to make all the waiting worthwhile, I do not like sitting in the cold watching bowlers who seldom try a yorker against numbers 9 and 10 and keep bowling too wide of off stump so that they can leave the ball and the bowler has wasted his energy. Why didn't Rhodes have a bowl and Woakes bowled a lot of useless bouncers that sailed over the batsmen's head when it was obvious after 4-5 of these that they were not going to even look to hook. If this game had escaped us with Kent 8 or 9 down, then I would have been furious after we had the game won well before lunch. Having said that, to lose 1/3 of the game to rain and still win, was amazing and we look a good side so we must keep this standard going.