I do think he has a bit of a way to go with the gloves...I'm not for one second saying he's looked bad but he has looked a bit untidy at times. Burgess looked the same when he first arrived and he ended being terrific though...

Yeah, looks like it's been dealt with quite sympathetically. He could also be in need of a rest. Quite tough work to go straight into four day keeping and he hasn't always had the gloves in top flight white ball either. For sure though, we need him and hope he's back keeping soon.

Andy wrote:

I do think he has a bit of a way to go with the gloves...I'm not for one second saying he's looked bad but he has looked a bit untidy at times. Burgess looked the same when he first arrived and he ended being terrific though...

You get the feeling if Surrey had to bat even 100 more overs, they would be able to. The forecast is for rain from 1-2pm so one way or another, it looks a draw.

To quote Sir Geoffrey B:
My grandmother could score a ton with a stick of rhubarb on that track.

Please let the pitch for Friday offer something

Great effort from the bowlers. Hopefully can put their feet up this afternoon

Yes, we want a bit of life in the pitch, Hampshire like Surrey and Somerset, haven't had things their way so far this season so lets really try and get stuck in to them. I reckon they are missing James Vince's influence.

ajones1328 wrote:

Please let the pitch for Friday offer something

Great effort from the bowlers. Hopefully can put their feet up this afternoon

Great effort? Not sure a tenth wicket partnership of nearly 150 so far merits that.

Great effort by the team who played.

I am afraid my fears about selection and pitch proved true.

A shame as I reckon we’ve been the better side here.

BosworthBear wrote:

'Great effort by the team who played. I am afraid my fears about selection and pitch proved true...'

Agree, and it looks like a big thunderstorm will hit around 1630 which will end the match.

Amazed we have decided to stay out in the field. I thought they would have a bat while 9 of them put their feet up!

Had we have taken the last wicket this morning first ball, would there have been enough time to take another 10? I doubt it but better than a defeat as we have had far too many against Surrey in the last few seasons.

The bowlers may beg to differ but that was a decent result in my opinion. We had the better of the game, had we lost it would have been at a bad time. Bamber I think needs to rest for the next game - anyone know how far away Rushworth or Woakes are to replace him? I hear the former wad playing league cricket at the weekend but perhaps too soon for a CC on Friday.

Regarding the pitch, George Dobell in The Cricketer says:
"Well, it wasn't perfect. It barely deteriorated and clearly favoured batters over bowlers, as many pitches at Edgbaston have in recent times. But it wasn't as bad as some might suggest. There was some carry; there was, at least, movement in the air. There was a little spin, albeit too slow to bother batters.
Maybe the English game has an issue with pitches like this, though. It may well be marked 'good' by the umpires, but good in what sense? It didn't provide an even battle between bat and ball. It didn't provide great entertainment. It was only 'good' in the sense that there was no uneven bounce. Maybe we need to set the bat a bit higher than this.
To be fair, neither side played a specialist spinner. And neither side had an outright fast bowler, with Simmons showing what might have been had there been one on show. It is generally accepted that county cricket conditions have long favoured fast-medium seamers who then experience little joy at Test level. Well, surfaces like this might encourage the aggressive spin and fast bowling that is required in Test cricket. The balance wasn't perfect here, but pitches like this might even help the English game in the long run. "