Sussex v Surrey ends in a tie. Handy.
I wouldn't have been against Sussex winning that (most important thing is that Surrey didn't).
Firstly because Sussex have already taken three points from us. Secondly because I can't see Sussex failing to make the top four with their bowling attack. So long as one of Wright and Salt come off with the bat, their bowlers will win them most games.
But without Roy (and even Burns), Surrey are vulnerable. As much as I'm not happy about Morris or Fuller batting up at 6 for us, I'd be even less happy about Tom Curran batting up at 6. So much pressure on Finch. I see Surrey winning matches, but I also see them struggling to make top four.
But yeah, a tie is alright.
And of course Saints played there between 1896 and 1898, as Godders will remember.How's Mike Proctor's bowling action? Yes that is at Southampton. When it was just around the corner from The Dell::
You must log in or register to see media
So he's not caught behind then.Warner caught behind, not given, no review.![]()
He was caught behind, but he’s not out, because neither the umpire nor any England player was sure about the nick, which Ultraedge was.So he's not caught behind then.
Think that was out of frustration for not reviewing the first one!And now we waste a review.
It was just a question of when Broad would get his line right!Important wicket and it had certainly been coming