***Official*** Australia in Ireland and England 2015 (limited overs)

[Dan]

Look, I understand you say this isn't the thread for it. That is okay. But this is where I think you miss the modern evolution of ODI thinking with regard middle order and engine room. Give the higher SR players more balls. If they fail, you have the safer options to follow with lower SR.

Its about efficiency in achieving the highest possible total most often. Its like having Duminy bat after Miller and Roussow - despite averaging more than them and being far more cakey.

I have said my piece now.

That's a fair call -- and why I specifically said that I could understand Maxwell at 5 because they reckon he's a better batsman; I take no issue with that whatsoever, even if I don't think he's well suited to starting at 3/30. Today is part of why -- he pulled Australia right back into the game.

But, that being said, with the icing being used up by the 40th and being left with cake and bowlers, there's absolutely no dynamism now. Marsh made 20 (30) or thereabouts; I'd rather see that from Stoinis, and Marsh come out in the 42nd over and go nuts for the end. Now we're lucky that The Duke is hitting 'em well, otherwise we'd be in some serious trouble

I mean, if Forkers hadn't DUI'd it, it wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue.

Admittedly Wade has been pretty good at the end of the innings here, by his standards.

 

[TheJediBrah]

That's a fair call -- and why I specifically said that I could understand Maxwell at 5 because they reckon he's a better batsman; I take no issue with that whatsoever, even if I don't think he's well suited to starting at 3/30. Today is part of why -- he pulled Australia right back into the game.

But, that being said, with the icing being used up by the 40th and being left with cake and bowlers, there's absolutely no dynamism now. Marsh made 20 (30) or thereabouts; I'd rather see that from Stoinis, and Marsh come out in the 42nd over and go nuts for the end. Now we're lucky that The Duke is hitting 'em well, otherwise we'd be in some serious trouble

I mean, if Forkers hadn't DUI'd it, it wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue.

Admittedly Wade has been pretty good at the end of the innings here, by his standards.

One thing that I think teams don't do enough in ODIs these days, and could afford to do more, is send a lower-order hitter up in the top 4 just to have a bash and see if it comes off.

If it pays off and you get a 30 off 20 balls, or even more then it can be a huge benefit. Whereas if they fail completely you won't really lose much. They won't waste time and how often do you see a number 9 or 10 make a meaningful contribution in an ODI anyway?

When you've got capable lower-order batters all the way down to 11 it's worth a shot

 

[TheJediBrah]

**** bowling

if you go down for a scoop the perfect ball you want to see is a thigh-high full toss

 

[artvandalay]

Such a gun innings by Wade. Australia's main batsmen haven't even fired and they've gotten 300. Not bad.

 

[wpdavid]

Not as good as the figures suggest, but still pretty impressive. The benificiary of some variable swing and poor batting.

Looks a very good prospect in seaming/swinging conditions, but could be crucified in batting friendly/overseas conditions.

Ta.

Wish I'd been wrong about Aus getting close to 300.

 

[Dan]

Yeah look I've been really surprised (and impressed) by Wade at the end of the innings this series. If he can keep doing this, there's no issue whatsoever. If he goes back to striking at 80-90 in the last 10 though...

 

[91Jmay]

^ Would like to see an argument that two of a teams top 5 being highest scorers is 'not firing'.
Dire death bowling but superb from Wade . Hastings struck them beautifully as well.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah look I've been really surprised (and impressed) by Wade at the end of the innings this series. If he can keep doing this, there's no issue whatsoever. If he goes back to striking at 80-90 in the last 10 though...

Yeah the only issue remaining is his keeping now. I don't think batting #7/8 and playing cameos is really enough to justify his place in the side if he keeps like an asshat, even if he actually becomes good at that batting role.

 

[Stace]

Ali has developed into an impressive ODI bowler, maybe better in ODI's then Test's, very clever and surprisingly economical too.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Ali has developed into an impressive ODI bowler, maybe better in ODI's then Test's, very clever and surprisingly economical too.

The way he adjusts to the batsman's movements has been incredible

Would prefer him to stay away from trying to bowl the doosra though. His action with regulation offies is already pushing it and no one wants good players banned if it's not necessary.

 

[Dan]

Yeah the only issue remaining is his keeping now. I don't think batting #7/8 and playing cameos is really enough to justify his place in the side if he keeps like an asshat, even if he actually becomes good at that batting role.

Yeah, but which other realistic ODI 'keeping options don't keep like asshats?

Do we just get Whiteman in there and be done with it?

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

By doing it you are putting pressure on the cakes if higher SR players fail. The cakes can't fail in this situation whereas they can build an innings coming earlier and they know that strikers are sitting in the dug out. SR is high for a reason. These guys play high risk shots and cricket. By stacking them high in the order, you are preparing for a fail safe situation.

The cakes can fail. Its not about building an innings and slogging at the end. Its about run scoring maximization in most games. It gives the higher SR players the most chances to face the most balls than the lower SR players.

You do not seem to get it.

Jedi Brah gets it. Even if he wants to bring it into the top order.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Jedi Brah gets it.

no one's ever said that before

 

[Dan]

The cakes can fail. Its not about building an innings and slogging at the end. Its about run scoring maximization in most games. It gives the higher SR players the most chances to face the most balls than the lower SR players.

You do not seem to get it.

Jedi Brah gets it. Even if he wants to bring it into the top order.

Yep, this isn't in question.

My only argument here is that cakes ballsing around in the last 10, spending 4-5 overs struggling to get it off the square and losing all the dynamism from the previous parts of the innings and holing out when they've put themselves under pressure for 6(10), can cost you more runs than you gain by having all the high SR blokes up the top.

Its a balance to be struck. You don't want all the cake together at the same time, you don't want all the icing together at the same time.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yep, this isn't in question.

My only argument here is that cakes ballsing around in the last 10, spending 4-5 overs struggling to get it off the square and losing all the dynamism from the previous parts of the innings and holing out when they've put themselves under pressure for 6(10), can cost you more runs than you gain by having all the high SR blokes up the top.

Its a balance to be struck. You don't want all the cake together at the same time, you don't want all the icing together at the same time.

Surely most people would agree that varying your hitters and builders in the order is a good idea.

IMO an ideal modern team would have a set top 3 and the rest of the order fluid with versatility in the game plan as to which players come in when.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Surely most people would agree that varying your hitters and builders in the order is a good idea.

Most would.

 

[91Jmay]

I certainly think you should avoid at all costs having two limited strokemakers/strikers batting together for an extended period. Batting orders across all formats should be more condition and situation flexible though.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Yep, this isn't in question.

My only argument here is that cakes ballsing around in the last 10, spending 4-5 overs struggling to get it off the square and losing all the dynamism from the previous parts of the innings and holing out when they've put themselves under pressure for 6(10), can cost you more runs than you gain by having all the high SR blokes up the top.

Its a balance to be struck. You don't want all the cake together at the same time, you don't want all the icing together at the same time.

No. Duminy strikes at 84. But he is best for the team so the particular order has Roussow and Miller ahead of him. There are no more AB De Villiers in SA. Faulkner strikes at over 110, he has moved up from 8 to 7. Wade is no slouch. You referred to Wade as cake. Now you talk about cake in the lower order, Vik made it clear its icing 5-8. Its about higher SR - hit, hit and hit. But sending out a higher SR player ahead of a lower SR player with a higher batting average makes sense.

The ideal is to have the higher SR players (with averages over 30) dismissed as often as they possibly can be without trying to be dismissed of course. A not out by them costs the team runs overall on average if they did not start their innings till over 45 or 40. I know its a transitional concept, but its about run maximization over most games. The higher SR batsman could continue batting till over 50.

 

[Prince EWS]

You know this really reminds me of when Richard decided that wickets literally didn't matter for bowlers in ODIs, and that economy rates were the lone standard by which they should be judged. The fact that this meant most of the best ODI bowlers in his eyes were middle overs bowlers was calmly explained away by him asserting that most bowlers sucked at the death and not that it actually had different going rates. I think economy rates are undervalued in ODIs too but he took that basic idea to a really silly extreme.

I have a few unpopular crackpot theories myself but what made Richard's theories annoying sometimes was the fact that he dragged them into every thread possible at every possible opportunity, and I can see the same happening here with 'always pick six specialist batsmen in Test cricket' and 'batting strike rates are infinitely important in ODIs'. I don't think we need to have the same debates in every tour thread.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Surely most people would agree that varying your hitters and builders in the order is a good idea.

IMO an ideal modern team would have a set top 3 and the rest of the order fluid with versatility in the game plan as to which players come in when.

The question is whether it is top 3 or top 4. Australia has gone with a top 4. SA do more what you suggest, but they're all fairly swift scorers and AB poses an interesting question - is he cake or icing. He's really both. But Australia have more SR depth than SA and NZ with Faulkner combined with Wade.