How can they review something about 20 mins after the ball?
Off goes Warner the cheat, who fell pretty heavy, to be replaced by king cheat Smith. It's a game of who denrages me the least between Warner, Smith, Zampa and Wade.
I dont think thats ever been the argument about Malan when hes got going. The argument is that he is a slow starter his first 10-15 balls often dont include a boundary and go at well under a run a ball. Then once he is settled he speeds up and races ahead of his strike rate. When he comes off its great but if he doesnt come off if seriously builds pressure on the others batting around him and can put us behind the run rate. the issue is that he always bats like this no matter the situation. Sometimes the situation demands this approach (today being one of them when wickets were falling and we needed someone to be the glue) but when the situation demands quick runs or the need to build on a good start he will not adapt his approach and that can cost us or at least lose momentum/control of the game. Thats why he was pushed down the order in the last game. I think thats a good compromise to get the best out of him, if the openers have a flyer then push him down the order, if we lose early wickets then use him as we have today. In the absence of Root & Bairstow he is the best player we have for this role.
Contrast with how Root/Pope play this number 3/glue role where they may not have all the big shots (they certainly dont start with them) but they will always find a way to go at a run a ball from the start by being inventive, working the field, hitting gaps and running hard.
I dont think thats ever been the argument about Malan when hes got going. The argument is that he is a slow starter his first 10-15 balls often dont include a boundary and go at well under a run a ball. Then once he is settled he speeds up and races ahead of his strike rate. When he comes off its great but if he doesnt come off if seriously builds pressure on the others batting around him and can put us behind the run rate. the issue is that he always bats like this no matter the situation. Sometimes the situation demands this approach (today being one of them when wickets were falling and we needed someone to be the glue) but when the situation demands quick runs or the need to build on a good start he will not adapt his approach and that can cost us or at least lose momentum/control of the game. Thats why he was pushed down the order in the last game. I think thats a good compromise to get the best out of him, if the openers have a flyer then push him down the order, if we lose early wickets then use him as we have today. In the absence of Root & Bairstow he is the best player we have for this role.
Contrast with how Root/Pope play this number 3/glue role where they may not have all the big shots (they certainly dont start with them) but they will always find a way to go at a run a ball from the start by being inventive, working the field, hitting gaps and running hard.
Not today - he was more than a run a ball for his first 10
Think Malan is marmite - But i personally don't think that you can have the whole side that smash it from ball 1. My personal choice would have been a Root/Denly character in a floating role. You may be able to get an over or two out of him and can slot him in when we need to steady the ship, or when conditions dictate. If you don't use them they become a bit of a luxury though.
I dont think thats ever been the argument about Malan when hes got going. The argument is that he is a slow starter his first 10-15 balls often dont include a boundary and go at well under a run a ball. Then once he is settled he speeds up and races ahead of his strike rate. When he comes off its great but if he doesnt come off if seriously builds pressure on the others batting around him and can put us behind the run rate. the issue is that he always bats like this no matter the situation. Sometimes the situation demands this approach (today being one of them when wickets were falling and we needed someone to be the glue) but when the situation demands quick runs or the need to build on a good start he will not adapt his approach and that can cost us or at least lose momentum/control of the game. Thats why he was pushed down the order in the last game. I think thats a good compromise to get the best out of him, if the openers have a flyer then push him down the order, if we lose early wickets then use him as we have today. In the absence of Root & Bairstow he is the best player we have for this role.
Contrast with how Root/Pope play this number 3/glue role where they may not have all the big shots (they certainly dont start with them) but they will always find a way to go at a run a ball from the start by being inventive, working the field, hitting gaps and running hard.
Not today - he was more than a run a ball for his first 10
Indeed and it was a very good innings. But this was the exception and perhaps it took dropping him to 7 for the penny to drop. Once he gets to 30 balls, his strike rate is 191. By definition, that means that the strike rate for that first 30 balls is poor and typically it's dot, dot, 4, dot, dot, single. In the Power Play that isn't good enough especially if there are hitters, who are looking to target the fact that there are just two outside the ring, standing on their bat watching.
Just four games ago we lost to Pakistan by 6 runs - 145 all out v 139-7. Malan came into bat after 4 balls. This was his innings:
Batting as he did today and not for himself he should be our number 3. Stokes becomes the issue not just because he has never hit a T20I 50 but also because we have a situation as we did today where Brook gets out quickly so, effectively, we have four left handers in a row. Not sure what the solution to that is but we have to find a way of getting Livingstone in. Stokes being given the new ball is an interesting move. Can he bowl at the death too if necessary? If so, then it becomes another option and this could then be the line up:
That side has four seamers and three spinners - Topley, Wood and Rashid would be expected, ordinarily, to bowl 12 of them which leaves 8 to be bowled by Ali, Livingstone, Stokes and Curran
That is why I like Curran - he just has that excellent habit of breaking partnerships. That and the fact that he gives us that second left arm seam option is probably why I would have him in the above side ahead of Jordan and Woakes
Stokes is always limping! He seems to have had a knee injury for the last year that is heavily strapped. He probably needs an op to sort it but needs to choose the right time to have it done.
Poor cricket from us to lost the extra man out because of slow run rate. That isn't helped by Buttler having to run to talk to the bowlers between balls.
I dont think thats ever been the argument about Malan when hes got going. The argument is that he is a slow starter his first 10-15 balls often dont include a boundary and go at well under a run a ball. Then once he is settled he speeds up and races ahead of his strike rate. When he comes off its great but if he doesnt come off if seriously builds pressure on the others batting around him and can put us behind the run rate. the issue is that he always bats like this no matter the situation. Sometimes the situation demands this approach (today being one of them when wickets were falling and we needed someone to be the glue) but when the situation demands quick runs or the need to build on a good start he will not adapt his approach and that can cost us or at least lose momentum/control of the game. Thats why he was pushed down the order in the last game. I think thats a good compromise to get the best out of him, if the openers have a flyer then push him down the order, if we lose early wickets then use him as we have today. In the absence of Root & Bairstow he is the best player we have for this role.
Contrast with how Root/Pope play this number 3/glue role where they may not have all the big shots (they certainly dont start with them) but they will always find a way to go at a run a ball from the start by being inventive, working the field, hitting gaps and running hard.
Not today - he was more than a run a ball for his first 10
Indeed and it was a very good innings. But this was the exception and perhaps it took dropping him to 7 for the penny to drop. Once he gets to 30 balls, his strike rate is 191. By definition, that means that the strike rate for that first 30 balls is poor and typically it's dot, dot, 4, dot, dot, single. In the Power Play that isn't good enough especially if there are hitters, who are looking to target the fact that there are just two outside the ring, standing on their bat watching.
Just four games ago we lost to Pakistan by 6 runs - 145 all out v 139-7. Malan came into bat after 4 balls. This was his innings:
Batting as he did today and not for himself he should be our number 3. Stokes becomes the issue not just because he has never hit a T20I 50 but also because we have a situation as we did today where Brook gets out quickly so, effectively, we have four left handers in a row. Not sure what the solution to that is but we have to find a way of getting Livingstone in. Stokes being given the new ball is an interesting move. Can he bowl at the death too if necessary? If so, then it becomes another option and this could then be the line up:
That side has four seamers and three spinners - Topley, Wood and Rashid would be expected, ordinarily, to bowl 12 of them which leaves 8 to be bowled by Ali, Livingstone, Stokes and Curran
Edit - Curran gets the final spot
I like the look of that team. Although if Stokes is at 7 it will raise the question of whether he needs to be there. Curran is fine at 7 and its rare that your 8 will need to face more than a couple of balls so Jordan/Woakes could come in.
I'm still worried that Hales is a bit of a liability in the field.
Also please never Stokes bowling at the death - 2016 anyone.
I dont think thats ever been the argument about Malan when hes got going. The argument is that he is a slow starter his first 10-15 balls often dont include a boundary and go at well under a run a ball. Then once he is settled he speeds up and races ahead of his strike rate. When he comes off its great but if he doesnt come off if seriously builds pressure on the others batting around him and can put us behind the run rate. the issue is that he always bats like this no matter the situation. Sometimes the situation demands this approach (today being one of them when wickets were falling and we needed someone to be the glue) but when the situation demands quick runs or the need to build on a good start he will not adapt his approach and that can cost us or at least lose momentum/control of the game. Thats why he was pushed down the order in the last game. I think thats a good compromise to get the best out of him, if the openers have a flyer then push him down the order, if we lose early wickets then use him as we have today. In the absence of Root & Bairstow he is the best player we have for this role.
Contrast with how Root/Pope play this number 3/glue role where they may not have all the big shots (they certainly dont start with them) but they will always find a way to go at a run a ball from the start by being inventive, working the field, hitting gaps and running hard.
Not today - he was more than a run a ball for his first 10
Indeed and it was a very good innings. But this was the exception and perhaps it took dropping him to 7 for the penny to drop. Once he gets to 30 balls, his strike rate is 191. By definition, that means that the strike rate for that first 30 balls is poor and typically it's dot, dot, 4, dot, dot, single. In the Power Play that isn't good enough especially if there are hitters, who are looking to target the fact that there are just two outside the ring, standing on their bat watching.
Just four games ago we lost to Pakistan by 6 runs - 145 all out v 139-7. Malan came into bat after 4 balls. This was his innings:
Batting as he did today and not for himself he should be our number 3. Stokes becomes the issue not just because he has never hit a T20I 50 but also because we have a situation as we did today where Brook gets out quickly so, effectively, we have four left handers in a row. Not sure what the solution to that is but we have to find a way of getting Livingstone in. Stokes being given the new ball is an interesting move. Can he bowl at the death too if necessary? If so, then it becomes another option and this could then be the line up:
That side has four seamers and three spinners - Topley, Wood and Rashid would be expected, ordinarily, to bowl 12 of them which leaves 8 to be bowled by Ali, Livingstone, Stokes and Curran
Edit - Curran gets the final spot
I like the look of that team. Although if Stokes is at 7 it will raise the question of whether he needs to be there. Curran is fine at 7 and its rare that your 8 will need to face more than a couple of balls so Jordan/Woakes could come in.
I'm still worried that Hales is a bit of a liability in the field.
Also please never Stokes bowling at the death - 2016 anyone.
I'm not sure that we need Woakes or Jordan especially as they are both so undercooked - 7 bowling options really should be enough. Yes Stokes is probably not a death option but we now have Wood/Topley/Curran to do that. Stokes batting at 7 just gives him the opportunity to just "see ball/hit ball" and lengthens the tail too - even if he gets out doing that then we still have Curran coming in.
his fielding and general experience has kept him in the squad a lot longer than i think it otherwise would.
Disagree. he was poor today admittedly (undercooked coming back from injury) and does have the odd shocker of a game in him but for a long time hes been our only real death bowling option. His figures arent flattering but when you are consistently bowling only in powerplays and at the death (toughest times to bowl) then its going to impact on his figures.
It may be that his time is up after this world cup (I would probably move on) but i think he fully deserves to be in the squad if not the side right now.
his fielding and general experience has kept him in the squad a lot longer than i think it otherwise would.
Disagree. he was poor today admittedly (undercooked coming back from injury) and does have the odd shocker of a game in him but for a long time hes been our only real death bowling option. His figures arent flattering but when you are consistently bowling only in powerplays and at the death (toughest times to bowl) then its going to impact on his figures.
It may be that his time is up after this world cup (I would probably move on) but i think he fully deserves to be in the squad if not the side right now.
He's got no central contract now, so that would suggest England will move on after the WC
his fielding and general experience has kept him in the squad a lot longer than i think it otherwise would.
Disagree. he was poor today admittedly (undercooked coming back from injury) and does have the odd shocker of a game in him but for a long time hes been our only real death bowling option. His figures arent flattering but when you are consistently bowling only in powerplays and at the death (toughest times to bowl) then its going to impact on his figures.
It may be that his time is up after this world cup (I would probably move on) but i think he fully deserves to be in the squad if not the side right now.
yep we have a real lack of death bowlers in this country. Tbf that's usually what the county's/hundred sides outsource to overseas specialists.
Comments
Contrast with how Root/Pope play this number 3/glue role where they may not have all the big shots (they certainly dont start with them) but they will always find a way to go at a run a ball from the start by being inventive, working the field, hitting gaps and running hard.
Not today - he was more than a run a ball for his first 10
Indeed and it was a very good innings. But this was the exception and perhaps it took dropping him to 7 for the penny to drop. Once he gets to 30 balls, his strike rate is 191. By definition, that means that the strike rate for that first 30 balls is poor and typically it's dot, dot, 4, dot, dot, single. In the Power Play that isn't good enough especially if there are hitters, who are looking to target the fact that there are just two outside the ring, standing on their bat watching.
Just four games ago we lost to Pakistan by 6 runs - 145 all out v 139-7. Malan came into bat after 4 balls. This was his innings:
Dot
4
4
Dot
1
1
Dot
Dot
4
Dot
Dot
Dot
Dot
Dot
1
Dot
Dot
2
Dot
4
4
Dot
1
Dot
Dot
Dot
1
4
1
1
1
1
Dot
1
Out
Batting as he did today and not for himself he should be our number 3. Stokes becomes the issue not just because he has never hit a T20I 50 but also because we have a situation as we did today where Brook gets out quickly so, effectively, we have four left handers in a row. Not sure what the solution to that is but we have to find a way of getting Livingstone in. Stokes being given the new ball is an interesting move. Can he bowl at the death too if necessary? If so, then it becomes another option and this could then be the line up:
Buttler
Hales
Malan
Brook
Ali
Livingstone
Stokes
Curran/Jordan/Woakes
Rashid
Wood
Topley
That side has four seamers and three spinners - Topley, Wood and Rashid would be expected, ordinarily, to bowl 12 of them which leaves 8 to be bowled by Ali, Livingstone, Stokes and Curran
Edit - Curran gets the final spot
Certainly doing his best to stay in the team
I had to mute for a call, but is Stokes limping?
I'm still worried that Hales is a bit of a liability in the field.
Also please never Stokes bowling at the death - 2016 anyone.
I still see using Curran as a death bowler as a pretty big risk in a world cup but it seems to be working right now
It may be that his time is up after this world cup (I would probably move on) but i think he fully deserves to be in the squad if not the side right now.