Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I'm starting to think it might actually be a good idea. RIP Singapore though.
Tbf I don't know if he'll even pick Singapore over one of the franchise leagues atm to be quite honest. So we lose out either way.I'm starting to think it might actually be a good idea. RIP Singapore though.
He definitely wouldn't IMO. It was just a way to get some sort of gig better than Perth Premier Cricket. It's worked out great for him too.Tbf I don't know if he'll even pick Singapore over one of the franchise leagues atm to be quite honest.
Is playing for Singapore really better than Perth premier cricket?He definitely wouldn't IMO. It was just a way to get some sort of gig better than Perth Premier Cricket. It's worked out great for him too.
The partnership with the other David was flawless. An exhibition in death-over batting. Clean hitting.Patriots beat Kings Patriots won by 3 wickets (with 0 balls remaining) - Kings vs Patriots, Caribbean Premier League, Final Match Summary, Report | ESPNcricinfo.com
Check Kings vs Patriots, Caribbean Premier League 2021, Final Match scoreboard, ball by ball commentary, updates only on ESPNcricinfo.com. Check Kings vs Patriots Final Videos, Reports Articles Online.www.espncricinfo.com
David will be in the Finals of the CPL tonight
He is the third highest run scorer for the St Lucia Kings, averaging 38.85 at an SR of 148.
I mean at that point, why go through the effort of running at all? Just stay where you are and hog the strike.Interesting rule, and I can see the thinking behind it. But it must be hard to enforce where there's a borderline case of a batsman not quite completing the first run. At what point does this become a deliberate tactic to sacrifice the first run in order to get the better batsman back on strike?
Would it just be easier to make any short run cancel out both of the runs that in forms part of? I've wondered before as to why if the first run is short, the second would be counted as correct even though you literally start from an incorrect place (I think ***** did come up with an answer) and if it was changed so that a short run cancelled out both runs, it would a) (imo) make more sense generally and b) remove the potential for a tricky call on a deliberate short run as if you'd usually intend to do what David did, you might as well not bother as a short run would leave you in exactly the same poisiton as if you'd just not run at allInteresting rule, and I can see the thinking behind it. But it must be hard to enforce where there's a borderline case of a batsman not quite completing the first run. At what point does this become a deliberate tactic to sacrifice the first run in order to get the better batsman back on strike?
Oh that's easy, because you get 1 run v no runs if you stay (theoretically)I mean at that point, why go through the effort of running at all? Just stay where you are and hog the strike.
reckon it's a probably fair response to non-analytically minded fans who focus on outcome rather than dominant strategiesI mean at that point, why go through the effort of running at all? Just stay where you are and hog the strike.
Which is absolutely a tactic that teams are going to start employing more and more once they really have a proper look at the data btw. Can't believe the number of times you see teams at the back end of T20s and ODIs putting a far worse/less set batsman or even a tailender on strike and waste a valuable boundary opportunity (or two, or three) just to get one run.
Just tag TJB next time.reckon it's a probably fair response to non-analytically minded fans who focus on outcome rather than dominant strategies
because if you're the batsman who hogs the strike and don't fire on the subsequent balls, you're going to get piled onto by chuds who don't realise that decisionmaking by analytics isn't a salve that always wins, just maximises your chances of the optimal outcome. shouldn't be that way obvs but when dealing with the chuds...