I love the arrogance that Surrey will definitely bowl us out twice as if it was 'A given' that it will happen.

Feel like Surrey are 160-5 in most games but somehow end up 320 plus. Hopefully not today...

BosworthBear wrote:

Andy wrote:

BosworthBear wrote:

We’ve applied ourselves really well and bowled as unit magnificently but still a nagging doubt this could have been better if we’d had more attacking fields with a third slip and received the benefit of the numerous lbw appeals.

Commentary so biased and awful. Yuk yuk yuk

Who's been on?

Norcross and Collins - just awful!

At one stage Norcross was saying such a shame Surrey lost the toss as restricts their opportunity to bowl out Warwickshire twice. Then he said it was good Surrey were being bowled out as allowed them to bowl lots of overs on first day.

Collins is just a buffoon!

Yeah Norcross is woeful

He has single-handedly turned me off test match special, he's the most self-indulgent, infuriating comms guy in radio history. He honestly makes me think about doing serious violence to him.

Yes, I am right with you there. I love the way he is saying "250 is par", it's the first day, you can't assume that because it looks better than 200, it is 'Par'.

That is probably our best bowling performance of the season - everyone contributed. Hopefully we can bat well and get a good first innings lead.

Maybe I'm feeling negative but I can see Worrall and Atkinson running riot on this...

I was just about to make a comment about "finishing off the tail" but seems Booth has taken care of that. Scorecard tells a story on Dan Worrall. Bowled first ball. I guess that's what Booth is there for.

Great bowling

Poor captaincy I’m afraid. He never seizes the moment. It was crying out for a third slip and more attacking fields.

We probably let them get 50 runs more than they deserved.

But who’s to say we can’t get more than 400?

Having Andrew Sampson as scorer/stats person is much better than his replacement on TMS, Zaltsman, who has no gravitas or understanding of the significance and context of the stats. Sadly replacing Smapson was part of the dumbing down of TMS.

Not sure what Yates could have done about that delivery, perfect to a left hander, but he is in need of a score...

Oh come on umpire that has to be missing leg

Andy wrote:

Oh come on umpire that has to be missing leg

It was missing leg. From the umpire who was very reluctant to give them when Surrey were batting

Damnnn 2 in a row.. we were looking very good.

Davies one looked a very poor decision

The Hain one is plum but i just don't see how the umpire can be giving the Davies one out?! Such a big moment

The Hain dismissal looked very high, it hit him at the top of his thigh, ans Sam is not a short person.

That was never out - a shocking decision on Davies from this umpire.

Highveld wrote:

The Hain dismissal looked very high, it hit him at the top of his thigh, ans Sam is not a short person.

It did hit him high but pitched quite short and didn't get up as much as it should've, so I do think that one was out

This has happened to us before at The Oval re. umpiring.

Perhaps drop Hain when we paly at the Oval, caught behind off his hip with the bat 8" from the ball a few years back off Roach, and caught behind off one that he missed by a mile last season.