5 bowlers or 6 in T20 set up?

[ankitj]

With only 4 overs per bowler, I have always held that you don't need more than 5 full bowlers. Any additional cover can come from a batsman who can bowl i.e. not a full bowler. And the 5 full bowlers includes one genuine all-rounder of about Hardik Pandya class. This allows you to have deep batting down to number 7 (followed by 4 bowler first batters and if you are lucky you would have an Axar level batsman in the bottom 4).

What do others think? Why is there a trend especially among Indian selectors to play 6 full bowlers? What are the arguments?

 

[ataraxia]

4 bowlers, 2 ARs (one pretty heavily batting-skewed). Simple.

 

[centurymaker]

5 Bats (including one who can bowl a bit)
1 WK
1 AR
1 Bowling AR like Axar/Jadeja
3 Bowlers

 

[centurymaker]

4 bowlers, 2 ARs (one pretty heavily batting-skewed). Simple.

That would leave you with a long tail and India lost to WI because of that.

4 bat
1 wk
2 ARs
4 bowlers

 

[Chin Music]

You need four specialist bowlers, but it doesn't hurt if at least one of them is a fairly useful big hitter as in a Chris Jordan. Then you need at least one who is highly competent with both bat and ball and then one batsman who is a handy bowler. You need that extra option if one of the main options is getting utterly spanked.

 

[Yeoman]

It is to give the captain alternatives for match-ups, poor form or injury. I do think though that, given the infrequency with which nos. 8-11 bat in a t20 (and if they do it’s often a lost cause anyway) that a team should pick its four best bowlers without regard tk batting ability, even if they are all no 11s.

 

[Molehill]

It is to give the captain alternatives for match-ups, poor form or injury. I do think though that, given the infrequency with which nos. 8-11 bat in a t20 (and if they do it’s often a lost cause anyway) that a team should pick its four best bowlers without regard tk batting ability, even if they are all no 11s.

If you look at England's winning team in the last T20 World Cup, they essentially had 7 bowlers they could go to. Moeen Ali didn't bowl in the Final, but he was used throughout the tournament as a match up for left handers. England also had decent batting to number 10 as well (even Rashid at 11 is no mug). Having depth allows the top order to go harder earlier.

One other aspect is where your keeper bats. He should ideally be in your top 4, although the Dhoni specialist position in the IPL somewhat throws that theory aside.

 

[Silver Silva]

With only 4 overs per bowler, I have always held that you don't need more than 5 full bowlers. Any additional cover can come from a batsman who can bowl i.e. not a full bowler. And the 5 full bowlers includes one genuine all-rounder of about Hardik Pandya class. This allows you to have deep batting down to number 7 (followed by 4 bowler first batters and if you are lucky you would have an Axar level batsman in the bottom 4).

What do others think? Why is there a trend especially among Indian selectors to play 6 full bowlers? What are the arguments?

Well they actually played 4 specialist bowlers in the recent tour vs WestIndies, Axar and Pandya are considered all rounders ..

It's very dangerous to go in with just 5 bowlers cause if someone gets injured you are relying on a part timer to get your overs in,

Also teams can line you up if you only have 5 bowlers cause your plans aren't going to change that much ..

T20 is not so much about quality, more about strategy ..You can beat a team with much better individuals with guys that are specialists in boundary hitting , guys who know how to bowl at the death , flexible batting order ..That kinda stuff ..

Take the West Indies for example they won 2 T20 World Cups packing their sides with batting and bowling all rounders , think Pollard , Bravo , Russell , Sammy, Carlos Braithwaite, then they also had batsman who were a bit better than your average batsman who bowls a bit like Chris Gayle ..

The last T20 WC you had England winning it , Stokes and Ali were batting in the top 7 but also bowling their overs throughout the tournament and Livingstone was also in the top 7 and he was bowling aswell if need be ..

Having a rigid formula in t20 doesn't often work .

 

[kevinw]

In any format, you need one more bowler than you think you do. You've got to calculate for injuries or bad performances. Five bowlers in Tests and six in the shorter formats. In T20s, from your top seven, you need two guys capable of bowling four overs each on a good day (for England, that would hopefully be Ali, Livingstone and Stokes - with Root as a bonus), two guys at 8-9 who can clear the ropes (Plunkett, Jordan, Wood, Woakes) and your 10-11 can just hold a bat if they need to but they're in as your main strike bowlers.

 

[kevinw]

If you look at England's winning team in the last T20 World Cup, they essentially had 7 bowlers they could go to. Moeen Ali didn't bowl in the Final, but he was used throughout the tournament as a match up for left handers. England also had decent batting to number 10 as well (even Rashid at 11 is no mug). Having depth allows the top order to go harder earlier.

One other aspect is where your keeper bats. He should ideally be in your top 4, although the Dhoni specialist position in the IPL somewhat throws that theory aside.

Yes, in an ideal world your WK would open or be one of your stronger batters in the format - Buttler, De Kock, Rizwan.

 

[Prince EWS]

You definitely need a sixth bowling option of some sort IMO. Sometimes bowlers have awful days, and sometimes matchups dictate you don't want to bowl certain bowlers at certain times and have to go outside the template. Way too hard for a captain to properly juggle only five IMO.

 

[trundler]

You definitely need a sixth bowling option of some sort IMO. Sometimes bowlers have awful days, and sometimes matchups dictate you don't want to bowl certain bowlers at certain times and have to go outside the template. Way too hard for a captain to properly juggle only five IMO.

Nawaz's last over against India last year comes to mind.

 

[Socerer 01]

if you are relying on number 7 to contribute significantly with the bat then you are already in a bad losing position in a t20. that 6 makes no difference in most games as batsman where as the extra all rounder in the same position will always offer more flexibility in most matches

India also did this 5 bowler strategy in odis in the last odi world cup and it ****ed us over well enough

 

[Silver Silva]

You don't want a situation , for example, like the one Australia found themselves in during the 2010 final


Their 5 main bowling options were

Watson
Johnson
Tait
Nannes
Steven Smith (He was thought of a leggie who could bat back then and batted at no.8 )

I mean even if you replaced Smith with a pure bowler , if one of them had a bad day or an injury your bowling options would then be :

Michael Clarke (Who had back issues around that time limiting his bowling) or David Hussey who wasn't a prolific bowler .

God forbid you lost a seamer then you're in big ****

 

[Coronis]

11 #bowldeep

 

[ankitj]

India also did this 5 bowler strategy in odis in the last odi world cup and it ****ed us over well enough

Eh they topped the league table and bowled very well in the semi too to restrict NZ to a small-ish total.

India also played 5 bowlers when they won 2011 world cup (one of them being Yuvraj ****ing Singh). So effectively they had 7 batter-first players in the XI.

 

[loterry1994]

Think it’s very important to have more than 5 bowling options in t20s and odis most the time you’ll have at least 1 or 2 bowlers getting pumped.
Also important to have a keeper that can bat well as well pretty much most the top teams have one

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

That would leave you with a long tail and India lost to WI because of that.

4 bat
1 wk
2 ARs
4 bowlers

India only lost to us because of Hardik's ignorance.

 

[Socerer 01]

Eh they topped the league table and bowled very well in the semi too to restrict NZ to a small-ish total.

India also played 5 bowlers when they won 2011 world cup (one of them being Yuvraj ****ing Singh). So effectively they had 7 batter-first players in the XI.

but cricket has changed a lot since then especially in odis its too risky to rely on part timers for 6th option if at all they are available in 1st place

in t20 no question where 1 bad over can swing the match dramatically

 

[honestbharani]

8 all rounders, 1 bowler, 2 batsmen. Simple.