Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2016 20:27:52 GMT
More batsmen please. Wake up!
|
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Jun 3, 2016 20:35:42 GMT
There you go then. Why do you think the more bowlers you bowl the more likely you are to bowl a side out? You've suggested that all season, it don't work like that, obviously. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2016 20:38:35 GMT
15 an over and Jordan at six.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2016 20:41:10 GMT
And Brown at three to pretend he's a batsman too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2016 20:54:49 GMT
Never at the races.
|
|
|
|
Post by joe on Jun 3, 2016 21:02:29 GMT
That's our first loss
|
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Jun 3, 2016 21:18:12 GMT
It's the same mistake as in the CC early on, the balance issue, and it's very annoying because it shows a lack of learning from past mistakes. Everyone knows we've got this wrong just like we did in the CC and both situations come down to a promise to the the new signing, Briggs. A wasteful signing, said without hindsight.
Wiese and Jordan, and Wiese is naturally the better bat with a first class double ton to his name, will be good at seven and eight but no way six and seven. And, for the billionth time, you do not need six proper bowlers. Six or more bowlers is a luxury only afforded to those who have top six batters that bowl. It cannot be done at the expense of the batting line up and the fact that Wright and Davis either think it can or are too chummy with Briggs to do anything about it is gonna be a very costly one.
|
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Jun 4, 2016 4:43:25 GMT
There you go then. Why do you think the more bowlers you bowl the more likely you are to bowl a side out? You've suggested that all season, it don't work like that, obviously. In one-day cricket you can't rely on five bowlers all doing their job. Occasionally one or more will get hit out of the attack as they did yesterday. Both teams went in with four seamers and two spinners. The difference being they had three all-rounders to our two. |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Jun 4, 2016 4:46:16 GMT
On the subject of batsmen who will you bring in? Finch or Salt? Wouldn't have made a difference to the result last night as the required run rate when the fourth wicket fell was already 13.36 an over. In fact we probably would have been chasing 215 as Wiese would have probably gone for over 60 off 4 overs. The game was lost by the time Machan walked to the wicket at number 5 last night. Losing Wright and Taylor in 3 balls was the kiss of death to Sussex's hopes.
Wright and Taylor combined scored 85 off 66 balls which is less than eight an over. Had they scored 109 off 66 balls which is just under 10 an over Sussex would have won.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2016 6:50:50 GMT
There's little doubt the better side won. None of our batsmen could match the scoring rate of their Surrey counterparts. Bowlers don't really get hit out of the attack in T20, they just get hit out of the ground, like Mills last night. It happens. We should go with five bowlers, and on current form, it looks like Shahzad ahead of Briggs. The extra batsman, probably Finch, needs to be there for those occasions where we have opportunity to capitalise on a more successful start to our innings.
|
|
|
|
Post by joe on Jun 4, 2016 8:35:06 GMT
You win some, you lose some. What worked Wednesday night, didn't work last night. That's the nature of 20/20 cricket. I still think we'll win more than we lose and be there on finals day. GOSBTS!
|
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Jun 4, 2016 9:01:12 GMT
There you go then. Why do you think the more bowlers you bowl the more likely you are to bowl a side out? You've suggested that all season, it don't work like that, obviously. In one-day cricket you can't rely on five bowlers all doing their job. Occasionally one or more will get hit out of the attack as they did yesterday. Both teams went in with four seamers and two spinners. The difference being they had three all-rounders to our two. Which means their six bowlers aren't detrimental to their batting line-up. The current balance heaps pressure on the four batsmen. We've seen the difference getting the balance right in the CC, it's a mind-set as much as anything. It doesn't mean we would have won last night, but with a boundary hitter like Salt at three we may have. If Wright hadn't have struggled we may have too, even with the current balance, but give yourself the best chance. Bowlers will always go for runs in this form. Take them off, change their end and bring them back - if your five are proper bowlers. The sixth option didn't exactly stem the flow. Six bowlers is good but you have to weigh up the pros and cons of that and the cons outweigh the pros I'm afraid. We're good, we weren't smashed and we were very impressive on Wednesday. But we're light in the batting and everyone knows it. The sixth bowler is a luxury we can't afford right now, just like the fifth bowler was early season when Wright and Jordan were missing. Yours CP, is a very robotic logic which doesn't consider the depth of the mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jun 4, 2016 16:19:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Jun 4, 2016 16:44:17 GMT
In one-day cricket you can't rely on five bowlers all doing their job. Occasionally one or more will get hit out of the attack as they did yesterday. Both teams went in with four seamers and two spinners. The difference being they had three all-rounders to our two. Which means their six bowlers aren't detrimental to their batting line-up. The current balance heaps pressure on the four batsmen. We've seen the difference getting the balance right in the CC, it's a mind-set as much as anything. It doesn't mean we would have won last night, but with a boundary hitter like Salt at three we may have. If Wright hadn't have struggled we may have too, even with the current balance, but give yourself the best chance. Bowlers will always go for runs in this form. Take them off, change their end and bring them back - if your five are proper bowlers. The sixth option didn't exactly stem the flow. Six bowlers is good but you have to weigh up the pros and cons of that and the cons outweigh the pros I'm afraid. We're good, we weren't smashed and we were very impressive on Wednesday. But we're light in the batting and everyone knows it. The sixth bowler is a luxury we can't afford right now, just like the fifth bowler was early season when Wright and Jordan were missing. Yours CP, is a very robotic logic which doesn't consider the depth of the mind. In T20 cricket if you are relying on a batsman at number six then your top five, really top three / four, are not doing their job! As for only going for five bowlers what happens when someone has a nightmare with the ball? Bring them back? They still get mullered then what? Surrey played six bowlers and won. Number of bowlers is not the problem it's the personnel. Surrey's main question tomorrow is who will replace Bravo? Meaker, Sibley, Burke or Foakes. Burke or Meaker for me. www.kiaoval.com/squad-named-for-one-day-opener/ |
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Jun 4, 2016 17:09:17 GMT
Which means their six bowlers aren't detrimental to their batting line-up. The current balance heaps pressure on the four batsmen. We've seen the difference getting the balance right in the CC, it's a mind-set as much as anything. It doesn't mean we would have won last night, but with a boundary hitter like Salt at three we may have. If Wright hadn't have struggled we may have too, even with the current balance, but give yourself the best chance. Bowlers will always go for runs in this form. Take them off, change their end and bring them back - if your five are proper bowlers. The sixth option didn't exactly stem the flow. Six bowlers is good but you have to weigh up the pros and cons of that and the cons outweigh the pros I'm afraid. We're good, we weren't smashed and we were very impressive on Wednesday. But we're light in the batting and everyone knows it. The sixth bowler is a luxury we can't afford right now, just like the fifth bowler was early season when Wright and Jordan were missing. Yours CP, is a very robotic logic which doesn't consider the depth of the mind. In T20 cricket if you are relying on a batsman at number six then your top five, really top three / four, are not doing their job! As for only going for five bowlers what happens when someone has a nightmare with the ball? Bring them back? They still get mullered then what? Surrey played six bowlers and won. Number of bowlers is not the problem it's the personnel. Surrey's main question tomorrow is who will replace Bravo? Meaker, Sibley, Burke or Foakes. Burke or Meaker for me. www.kiaoval.com/squad-named-for-one-day-opener/I really don't think, a bowler getting thumped, is an issue. It can happen to a bowler, it can happen to five, or even six. Lots of bowlers get a bit of stick first over especially in the powerplay, you don't withdraw them after one over So then if the second over goes for a few, try a change of ends. If that doesn't work, you've only got to find one over from the part time bowlers. Often the part time bowlers have more success then the recognised bowlers in this format. No, as others have said, six bowlers are a luxury for us at the moment |
|
