I'm not getting the inference from the commentators that we aren't scoring quickly enough. We don't need to because, at 3 an over, especially with Abbott almost bowled out, the runs will come to us. We can't lose wickets though.
I'm not getting the inference from the commentators that we aren't scoring quickly enough. We don't need to because, at 3 an over, especially with Abbott almost bowled out, the runs will come to us. We can't lose wickets though.
I really don't get the impression that we've deliberately decided to chase such a small total at 3 an over, knocking off the winning runs in the 50th over...
I'm not getting the inference from the commentators that we aren't scoring quickly enough. We don't need to because, at 3 an over, especially with Abbott almost bowled out, the runs will come to us. We can't lose wickets though.
I really don't get the impression that we've deliberately decided to chase such a small total at 3 an over, knocking off the winning runs in the 50th over...
That's not the case. The intention is to take it deep and reduce the risk in doing so by waiting for the bad balls to come. As they will. We don't have to worry about getting behind the run rate. The last partnership was virtually 3 an over (which is what we need) without even trying to push on and in Stobo and Stewart to come, if they have to score 5 or 6 an over, they will.
Stobo hit that 6 which then forced Hants to move mid off back which in turn allowed him to take a single down the ground
Which is exactly what we weren't doing before, putting pressure on Hampshire.
They've had 2 slips throughout for the seamers, yet we weren't able to find gaps
But it's clearly not that easy otherwise Hants would have done that too. We only needed 3 an over but were still doing that with Finch and Ekansh together and some of those overs involved trying to see Abbott off. The top scorer in the game is Hants number 10 who teed off late. The longer we batted without losing wickets the more chance we had of winning and we get no extra points for winning it 10 overs earlier.
"The frustration is that Kent are now playing sensibly which is not what Hants want" says the commentator. That is all they needed to do. There was never going to be enough scoreboard pressure for us to lose providing we recognised the specific danger of Abbott
And now Hants are in the position where they have to use a sixth bowler because Organ still has 7 overs left (and Hants clearly don't want to bowl him) and there are only 11 overs to go with just 14 runs required
Comments
Two teams with much better bowlers than batsmen...
52-3
what a joke
76-5
75 required off 25 which, by my maths, is exactly 3 an over
I really don't get the impression that we've deliberately decided to chase such a small total at 3 an over, knocking off the winning runs in the 50th over...
59 required off 20
They've had 2 slips throughout for the seamers, yet we weren't able to find gaps
Abbott finishes his spell with figures of 10-5-16-3
38 required off 15 overs