Make that 3. A result looking more and more likely.Warks lose 2 early wickets.
Warks collapsing. Wheal departs for 1. It might not be bad thing if the ball is nipping about.
Hannon-Dalby and Norwell are good bowlers for sure. And Brad will be extremely motivated to get wickets. However Surrey do have an excellent batting line up so I would expect them to chase it down. But it's not a foregone conclusion.My knowledge of Warwickshire bowlers is limited, not to say non-existent. Do they have the players to bowl out Surrey, or will Surrey batsmen (OK, batters) progress towards an inevitable victory?
Hannon-Dalby and Norwell are good bowlers for sure. And Brad will be extremely motivated to get wickets. However Surrey do have an excellent batting line up so I would expect them to chase it down. But it's not a foregone conclusion.
No, it's perfectly allowed. Warks had an injury crisis and needed to loan a bowler at the end of the day.Tom, you raise an interesting point: If (OK, a big 'if') Brad Wheal bowls out of his skin and gets a fifer, or better, could Surrey call 'foul' on Hampshire, as we loaned Wheal to Warwickshire?
Tom, you raise an interesting point: If (OK, a big 'if') Brad Wheal bowls out of his skin and gets a fifer, or better, could Surrey call 'foul' on Hampshire, as we loaned Wheal to Warwickshire?
No, it's perfectly allowed. Warks had an injury crisis and needed to loan a bowler at the end of the day.
Surrey need 248 to win then.
They've got 82 overs. That's 3 an over. Unless they lose a load of wickets early on they will go for the win.This averages out at 100 per session (Almost 250, in two and a half sessions). Surrey may have to swing the bat, unless they are happy with a draw.
They've got 82 overs. That's 3 an over. Unless they lose a load of wickets early on they will go for the win.
Faultless session for Hants. Target now under 100 with all 10 wickets remaining.