WICKET: Worcestershire 94/1 (35.3 ov, trail by 146 - 2nd inns) v Kent GH Rhodes b Gidman 55 (114) Partnership: 94 (35.3 ov) WRS Gidman 2.3-0-8-1 DKH Mitchell 35* (101)
by ESPNcricinfo Live8/5/2016 1:58:08 PM
by StaggerBreaths8/5/2016 1:58:30 PM
@NemoUKS true but then again, we are relegation favourites at the start of each season. And I'd be really surprised if Jennings goes. They groomed Stoneman for captaincy, he's gone now and I doubt after all the patience that Durham have had with him, Keaton will go after one good season, especially now that he has been given the captaincy.
by srihari_938/5/2016 1:58:37 PM
3 players from other counties (though Batty was originally from Surrey in any case) and 1 overseas.
by Meical Baggins8/5/2016 1:58:53 PM
forget 150, the 200 is on. Groenewald into the action with a five.
by srihari_938/5/2016 1:59:46 PM
Sorry Meical Baggins , how many players have Surrey signed in the last couple of years? They have a proven track record of trying to buy success, which is generally done at the expense of home grown talent. Was it three pace bowlers they brought in over the winter including two from SA no one had heard of, blocking the way for Dunn and a few other players? They recruited numerous 'Keepers, despite having loads on the books. Not a silly comment, a comment based on facts my friends: Surrey have always tried to buy success
by dave8/5/2016 2:00:10 PM
TEAM 100: Middlesex 101/2 (32.1 ov, trail by 314 - 1st inns) v Surrey NRT Gubbins 55* (103) DJ Malan 27* (27)
by ESPNcricinfo Live8/5/2016 2:00:36 PM
How many have they signed? No more then most other counties, I would have no doubt. Again, look at the side. 7 surrey grown players.
by Meical Baggins8/5/2016 2:01:12 PM
Dunn is being kept out of the side by 3 surrey seamers!
by Meical Baggins8/5/2016 2:01:42 PM
Pillans, McKerr, Rampaul this season alone on kolpak deals
by NemoUKS8/5/2016 2:02:08 PM
Tom Curran, Sam Curran and Stuart Meaker are surrey kids. @nemo - straws_grasping_at
by Meical Baggins8/5/2016 2:02:37 PM
Then plucked Foakes, Stoneman, Davies, Footitt from other sides in recent years. The fact they have such a good youth system makes it more unnecessary
by NemoUKS8/5/2016 2:02:48 PM
WICKET: Hampshire 492/5 (152.5 ov, won the toss) v Lancashire WR Smith c Kerrigan b Croft 210 (455) Partnership: 129 (33.5 ov) SJ Croft 10.5-0-46-1 R McLaren 49* (103)
by ESPNcricinfo Live8/5/2016 2:02:54 PM
Davies in recent years? How far back are you going to go.....Salisbury was at Sussex too....
by Meical Baggins8/5/2016 2:03:30 PM
They absolutely do sign more than other counties. They're not alone in that (Warwickshire) but it does rankle a bit for teams like Durham when they get raided.
by NemoUKS8/5/2016 2:03:38 PM
the fact that the imports aren't playing just shows that Surrey's mass recruitment policy is poor. It beggers believe that they feel the need to hoover up any player out of contract when they have such good players coming through the ranks.
by dave8/5/2016 2:03:54 PM
No they dont - this is an assumption lacking in fact.
by Meical Baggins8/5/2016 2:04:09 PM
The Surrey buying players thing is probably overblown somewhat, but they are probably in the top handful for counties that shop around.
by Matt Warwick8/5/2016 2:04:11 PM
How many names would constitute fact?
by NemoUKS8/5/2016 2:04:40 PM
Their youth system is great, no doubt about that and they deserve credit for it.
by NemoUKS8/5/2016 2:05:15 PM
To make it a statistical fact in comparison with other counties.
by Meical Baggins8/5/2016 2:05:20 PM
Not as good as ours. #bestacademyinthecountry
by srihari_938/5/2016 2:05:47 PM
Why do Notts not cop the same slack, they buy in just as many if not more players.....
by Meical Baggins8/5/2016 2:06:13 PM
Hampshire have a few signed players currently, so I have to be careful, but then we do have a fair few academy players too.
by Matt Warwick8/5/2016 2:06:41 PM
I'm fairly sure that Notts very much do cop as much. Although having two youth products in the England team probably helps...