***Official*** Pakistan in New Zealand - T20/ODI series - Jan 2016

[Hurricane]

Oh dear.

What drives me up the wall about watching T20 cricket in the year 2016 is batsman faffing around pushing ones and twos. Get on with it. The game is designed to be a slog a thon. Pick 6 batsman in your team who can smack the crap out of it. Then put two two guys at number 7-8 who can build a partnership and salvage a respectable score if there is a collapse.
Ten years from now when teams see the format for what it is they will regularly score 200 plus.

T20 is what it is. Embrace it. It should be played as a dirty slog. There should be hoiking across the line and dirty mows to cow corner.
It isn't really "cricket" and should be played by T20 specialists. Munro is the first Kiwi of this breed.

 

[Athlai]

Guys. Williamson scoring slowly didn't cost us this match. The complete failure of our middle order lost us this match. Williamson could certainly have played better but working singles while Munro was striking was keeping us well ahead of the game.

 

[Niall]

When was the last time Ronchi did something worthwhile?

I know he went into the world cup in cracking form, but was one of the biggest flops of the competition and he hasn't seemed to have done much of note whatsoever since then.

Referring to limited overs cricket btw.

Is their any other keepers in NZ who are decent in T20?

 

[JediNudist]

Cory Anderson is why out of form at the moment but must come into form at some stage. Todd Astle no way an international T20 player. I feel for Munro. Match winning innings then he sits and watched Pakistan rip 5-19. Good thing is that sort of collapse is a rare thing nowadays. If Guptill hadst got run out it may have been a different result.

 

[Hurricane]

Is their any other keepers in NZ who are decent in T20?

Latham is reasonable at T20. If Ronchi keeps stinking they may to go to him.

 

[JediNudist]

What drives me up the wall about watching T20 cricket in the year 2016 is batsman faffing around pushing ones and twos. Get on with it. The game is designed to be a slog a thon. Pick 6 batsman in your team who can smack the crap out of it. Then put two two guys at number 7-8 who can build a partnership and salvage a respectable score if there is a collapse.
Ten years from now when teams see the format for what it is they will regularly score 200 plus.

T20 is what it is. Embrace it. It should be played as a dirty slog. There should be hoiking across the line and dirty mows to cow corner.
It isn't really "cricket" and should be played by T20 specialists. Munro is the first Kiwi of this breed.

Totally agree with the ones and twos. Watching Williamson pushing them around drove me mad ! He did well in the end but man oh man.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Guys. Williamson scoring slowly didn't cost us this match. The complete failure of our middle order lost us this match. Williamson could certainly have played better but working singles while Munro was striking was keeping us well ahead of the game.

Williamson ended up 70 (60), and he was 10 (20) at one stage. So the last two thirds of his innings was 60 (40) and that's without really going over the top.

It's just that the start of his innings was atrociously bad.

 

[Black_Warrior]

What drives me up the wall about watching T20 cricket in the year 2016 is batsman faffing around pushing ones and twos. Get on with it. The game is designed to be a slog a thon. Pick 6 batsman in your team who can smack the crap out of it. Then put two two guys at number 7-8 who can build a partnership and salvage a respectable score if there is a collapse.
Ten years from now when teams see the format for what it is they will regularly score 200 plus.

T20 is what it is. Embrace it. It should be played as a dirty slog. There should be hoiking across the line and dirty mows to cow corner.
It isn't really "cricket" and should be played by T20 specialists. Munro is the first Kiwi of this breed.

Brendon McCullum is the first ever IPL centurion and basically showed the world how it's done.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

The point of having a strike rotator and a hitter batting together is that it allows you to score quicker and more consistently than two sloggers at the same time. The latter works great under the assumption that both are set and hitting it well. Far more likely is one hitter isn't set and is eating up balls that the other one could be facing, so ends up attempting to play an accumilator role which he isn't suited to (eg Guptill when batting with McCullum). In the former setup you have the hitter facing as many balls as possible and his role clearly defined. It's not as simple as "more sloggers = higher RR".

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Also, having an anchorman not going out increases the aggression that the guy at the other end can get away with. The optimal level of batting aggression is a function of the number of wickets in hand. If KW opens and doesn't get out cheaply (which will happen most of the time) then the Guptills, McCullums, Andersons et al, can hit out without fearing a collapse at the other end.

Having said that, a T20 anchorman still has to strike at 100+ otherwise he's simply a liability.

 

[Flem274*]

the T20 batting has a mccullum sized hole in it. Guptill has quietly been a world class T20 player for some time and Williamson appears to be on an upwards trajectory but even with Baz we were top heavy, and now it's just silly unless Anderson and Elliott can replicate their ODI finisher exploits soon. Munro coming on nicely is also a relief but again, he's at #3 so still top heavy.

with Munro at #3 I think Elliott could move to #4 just so we can seperate our two middle order big hitters with someone who is awesome at finding gaps.

ross why u so bad at T20?

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

The point of having a strike rotator and a hitter batting together is that it allows you to score quicker and more consistently than two sloggers at the same time. The latter works great under the assumption that both are set and hitting it well. Far more likely is one hitter isn't set and is eating up balls that the other one could be facing, so ends up attempting to play an accumilator role which he isn't suited to (eg Guptill when batting with McCullum). In the former setup you have the hitter facing as many balls as possible and his role clearly defined. It's not as simple as "more sloggers = higher RR".

Agreed, I'm going to quote the post which destroyed CaptainGrumpy. Strike rates by themselves aren't completely indicative of run rates, it's entirely possible to have two batsmen with lower strike rates and a better run rate.

Correct, you can even show that higher SRs by both batsmen don't necessarily equate to faster scoring:
..4414
142424

Extreme example, but my point is that the percentage of dots per 100 balls should be included as a supplemental factor in strike rates. In the above scenario the second is better but if you just look at the raw SRs with no other context you'd probably think differently. If we're talking purely macro "run maximisation" or "efficiency" or whatever, then the optimal strategy for most players is related to how you accumulate your runs not your overall total - you should simply give the strike to whoever has the highest SR at the time.

The reason why Kane's innings was bad was because his percentage of dot balls was far too high. There's no problem with him getting singles if the other batsman is going to go at a high strike rate. There's no problem with him getting 2s if the required rate is less than 12.

 

[Hurricane]

The point of having a strike rotator and a hitter batting together is that it allows you to score quicker and more consistently than two sloggers at the same time. The latter works great under the assumption that both are set and hitting it well. Far more likely is one hitter isn't set and is eating up balls that the other one could be facing, so ends up attempting to play an accumilator role which he isn't suited to (eg Guptill when batting with McCullum). In the former setup you have the hitter facing as many balls as possible and his role clearly defined. It's not as simple as "more sloggers = higher RR".

Cake players are a liability in T20.

You are better off having a slogger who can just dial his game down a notch if the other guy is going great guns at the other end. I remember Guptil just holding up an end for Baz to go full psycho on England during the ODI world cup and it didn't seem to matter that Martin took 2-3 balls to get a single instead of being able to score a single at will.

You could have argued that we should have had some single rotator to bat with Brendon during the world cup but we stuck with Martin and he came through when Brendon failed e.g. against the Windies.

My main argument is this tournament and this game:

Final: Australia v England at Bridgetown, May 16, 2010 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Michael Clarke decided he would be a cake player/rotator throughout the 2010 T20 world cup. In the final he scored 27(27). This chewed up 27 valuable balls for a substandard return. David Hussey was worse 59(54). England chased it down with 2-3 overs to spare.

You need non stop sloggers from 1-6 and maybe a recovery engine room with an Andy Ellis like player at number 7 to limp the team home to a score like 130 if everyone has a bad day at the office.

The only other reason I prefer two sloggers together rather than a slogger and a rotator is from my own experience. Sometimes I am going great guns with my own batting. When I see you hit a four it relaxes me and takes a bit of pressure off.

Finally this is a throwaway point and may not apply to international cricket, if I am in the zone and killing the bowling and then suddenly you hit 2 or 3 fours in a row then they have to keep the field out against you as well which makes it easier for you to pick singles for me.

 

[hendrix]

Hesson designating Taylor as t20 finisher is a masterstroke.

Best case scenario he swims, which develops his ability to get out of 4th gear in ODIs.

Worst case scenario he sinks, and is dropped from a format he's been crap at for years.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Cake players are a liability in T20.

You are better off having a slogger who can just dial his game down a notch if the other guy is going great guns at the other end. I remember Guptil just holding up an end for Baz to go full psycho on England during the ODI world cup and it didn't seem to matter that Martin took 2-3 balls to get a single instead of being able to score a single at will.

You could have argued that we should have had some single rotator to bat with Brendon during the world cup but we stuck with Martin and he came through when Brendon failed e.g. against the Windies.

My main argument is this tournament and this game:

Final: Australia v England at Bridgetown, May 16, 2010 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Michael Clarke decided he would be a cake player/rotator throughout the 2010 T20 world cup. In the final he scored 27(27). This chewed up 27 valuable balls for a substandard return. David Hussey was worse 59(54). England chased it down with 2-3 overs to spare.

You need non stop sloggers from 1-6 and maybe a recovery engine room with an Andy Ellis like player at number 7 to limp the team home to a score like 130 if everyone has a bad day at the office.

The only other reason I prefer two sloggers together rather than a slogger and a rotator is from my own experience. Sometimes I am going great guns with my own batting. When I see you hit a four it relaxes me and takes a bit of pressure off.

Finally this is a throwaway point and may not apply to international cricket, if I am in the zone and killing the bowling and then suddenly you hit 2 or 3 fours in a row then they have to keep the field out against you as well which makes it easier for you to pick singles for me.

That innings was just poorly constructed. It happens. I could link you tens of games where everyone went out slogging and that also lost because of that (Sri lanka at eden park anyone?).

The important stat for cake players isn't really strike rate, it's (to bastardise baseball terminology) off-strike percentage. You need someone who can get 1 run as often as possible if he's not getting boundaries.

 

[Flem274*]

A team of sloggers sounds like a fantastic way to get skittled. the type of player hurricane describes is often the sympathetic way of describing a techniqueless flog with no single taking ability or general match sense who will get cleaned up by teams with the best bowlers.

im not saying anyone who played last night is the above (so zinzan you don't need to write the munro fan rant you were beginning after reading the above ) this is just an ideological discussion about team structure.

T20 is more complex than just biffing. there's a reason mccullum and gayle are ATGs at it and numerous sloggers arent.

 

[Hurricane]

That innings was just poorly constructed. It happens. I could link you tens of games where everyone went out slogging and that also lost because of that (Sri lanka at eden park anyone?).

The important stat for cake players isn't really strike rate, it's (to bastardise baseball terminology) off-strike percentage. You need someone who can get 1 run as often as possible if he's not getting boundaries.

T20 is a nascent sport and we are living in the dark ages as to how the game is being played at the moment. I can remember a time when we knew even less than what we know now. It was around 2009 and we played Australia in a T20 when they had Nathan Bracken. Bracken bowled a maiden to Peter Fulton and Fulton even let the last ball of the over go outside off stump. After the game Vettori was livid and said the blackcaps would never let themselves face another maiden again in T20 cricket. He also, to your point, talked about singles and to amost quote you, he said that you needed to find a way to get a single when you weren't hitting it to the fence. Eliminating the number of dot balls was the key to scoring consistently competitive totals according to Dan. And perhaps looking back on it this interview alone is enough proof that Dan as captain gave out the best interviews of any captain I have seen in NZ cricket history. He wasn't particularly articulate like Fleming he instead had something meaty to say.

Back on topic and off Dan:

What we know today is that dot balls are killers in T20 which is what you have said. What we also know today or at least what I know today from analysing scoreboards is that any inning that chews up more than 20 balls at a SR <=100 often results in defeat unless you are chasing a low total. I would need to do a grand scoreboard analysis to prove this point. So it is my analysis only.

In closing - we really are in the Dark ages of T20. I played in a 5 over slog a thon tournament. We gave each other 2 balls to get our eyes in and then were told to just go. 2 balls is enough to judge the pace of the wicket and get a sighter. Two many players take 2-3 overs of batting as sighters. If you lose 5 wickets then you an imagine the number of deliveries you lose due to players getting their eye in. Last night after the game young Kane mentioned nothing about his own batting being sub optimal and talked about his fellow middle order batsman needing to take even longer to get their eyes in. All of this troubles me. Afridi needed one ball before he started hitting sixes and he is not a super human being.

We are all learning about this format at the moment, you, me, and the players/coaches. I reckon as a betting man when the game evolves that there will be no cake players in the team.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Nah. the players and coaches know how to win T20. The game won't evolve because of changes in thinking but because players will start developing specific T20 skills.

 

[Hurricane]

Nah. the players and coaches know how to win T20. The game won't evolve because of changes in thinking but because players will start developing specific T20 skills.

ODIs developed massively since the 80s in terms of the conceptual understanding of the game.

The same thing will happen in T20s and 200 will become the new 160.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Yeah but I'm saying the increase in scoring won't be because of a change in mindset but because you'll have 7 or 8 guys who can smash 20 off 10 balls consistently. At the moment there's only a few guys who can do that.

Edit: Like you said, getting your eye in within two balls will likely be the default in the future. But at the moment not everyone can play like Sehwag/Maxwell et al.