Surrey are pretty bad at cricket

There’s a good chance this doesn’t bother anyone else but us, but when has that ever stopped us? “Surrey – so what?” is the theme of this post.

Surrey get a lot of media coverage. We don’t really know why, because they don’t deserve it. Their matches get first division coverage, even though they’ve been propping up the second division for years; and there’s near-constant talk of a resurgence, despite little evidence to suggest that there will be one.

They have some good players, yes, but it doesn’t really add up to much. Ramprakash, Pietersen, Davies and Tremlett are all newsworthy in their own ways, but none of them started at Surrey, so they even get a black mark for that.

Stuart Meaker’s the only Surrey player we’re really interested in and that’s only because we’ve heard that he’s pretty quick. But is he, or is it just journalists who live within a stone’s throw of the Oval scrabbling about for summat to say after spending the day there?

We’re pretty sure we’re being told that Surrey are currently important. We’re equally certain that they’re not.

Share this article...Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0

*** Asterisk-powered reminder that you can and should sign up to receive our email ***

16 Appeals

  1. Rich as Croesus, thick as shit.

  2. As an adopted Surrey resident I would like to defend the county side.

    I would like to. I really would.

    But I’m afraid to say I agree with this post. Eight years ago Surrey were proclaimed as ‘The Manchester United of cricket’.

    Says it all, really.

    I’m a Warwickshire fan.

    Come on you Bears.

  3. Know far more about Surrey than I really want to as am addicted to Mark Church’s online commentary especially double act with Johnny Barran. My guilty pleasure.

  4. Surrey are nowhere near as irritating as Kent who are the Portsmouth of cricket.

    They overspent for years on dodgy Kolpaks to the point of bankruptcy and know expect to be praised for playing homegrown “talent” out of necessity.

    The wooden spoon’s too good for them.

  5. Kent may be losers, but at least they have Rob Key.

    • Indeed.

      Apparently he’s one of the highest paid batsman in county cricket.

      They place a premium on early doors LBWs in the Garden of England. 😉

  6. yeah, surrey are shithouse.
    Can someone please inform what that megastructure in the background is? i have wondered this for many many years.

    • Gasholders, brad, as described and illustrated here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_holder

      The Oval gasholders fill up as the summer goes on, with a mixture of hot air from the Surrey CCC media office and flatulence from the committee room and surrounding bars.

      Late winter and early spring can be a cruel time for the Kennington community as supplies of gas can run dangerously low before the guaranteed replenishment in the new season.

      Happy to help.

    • Thanks Ged.
      I’ve learnt something today… and i don’t do that often

    • What happens, Ged, when Giles Clarke is in attendance – is there some sort of safety valve for the frightening excess of hot air?

  7. Kent – losers technically on a results basis, winners in all other respects.

  8. Hilarious post, Ged.

    Alec Bedser must be turning in his grave.

    How could such a great club disintegrate to such a woeful state?

    What’s the point in having test players involved with the counties anyway?

    How many matches will KP play for the county this summer?

  9. Surrey seems to be the hardest word

    • King Cricket

      May 20, 2011 at 4:02 pm

      I bet that’s an old one, but it’s new to us.

      Great comment.

  10. I support Surrey (I grew up there).

    When I was a kid we had Sylvester Clarke. Now we have Jade Dernbach. There’s a point there somewhere.

    Definite hopes for Meaker though.

Comments are closed.

© 2017 King Cricket

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑