Thoughts on England's Twenty20 exit
Number 1: 80 off 9 doesn't seem like a fair ask when rain intervenes and the opposition have scored 161 off 20. 8 an over off 20 needs to be matched by at least 10 an over from 9 I would have thought. Of course that seems like sour grapes now England have lost, but believe me, I was thinking it as soon as the target was announced!!
Number 2: the value of a good keeper. Foster has made a couple of stumpings the likes of which England supporters haven't seen since Jack Russell was around and it's brilliant to see. He needs to play 50 over cricket for England even if he doesn't play Tests, and stand up as much as possible to all bowlers.
Number 3: Opinion is divided on Dimi Mascarenhas - for me he's a must pick in Twenty20. Yes, he hasn't come off this tournament, but it's about identifying the role you want from someone so that they understand what is required from them. Mascarenhas has been poorly managed, not playing at times, and moving up and down the batting and bowling order indiscriminately.
8 comments:
Can't agree about Mascarenhas. Apart from one over with a few 6's off a below average part time spinner what has he ever done? In each of the games he's played in in this T20 he has looked out of his depth.
I know not everyone agrees! That's why I said "for me". On average his 4 overs go for less than 30 and he takes one wicket - not bad for someone who's our 5th bowler in quality terms, if not in order of when he's bowled.
For me, he's a victim of the coaching rationale over the last decade - he doesn't bowl at 90 miles an hour and he doesn't bat elegantly like Ian Bell. But he's a scrapper who given his role would be invaluable. He's only 32 in the winter - we have to stop thinking of him as late 30s which so many people seem to do....
And of course I should have added that with Foster standing up he will be more effective.
Re: point 2 - Foster is without doubt the best glovesman in the country at the moment, as shown by 2 brilliant stumpings in the last 2 games.
I'm just not sure about the rationale picking him for this form of the game when he doesn't have the batting game to back it up with.
I agree that 50 over and indeed even test maybe he is the man but I would much prefer to see Prior coming in at 6 in Twenty20 games.
The tournament is now South Africa's to lose as I see it.
I agree that South Africa are the best side, but the shorter the format, the more chance of an upset in a one-off game. So there's no guarantee they'll win despite being the best team.
In an unfair sort of a way, I'm hoping they don't so that the powers that be recognise that a one-off Twenty20 final is not the best way of trying to establish who the best side is. (They may of course decide they couldn't care less who the best side is, but I suspect they'll appreciate the extra £s a 3 game final would create).
Re Foster, he's a must for Twenty20 - they just need to consider what role he is playing when batting. While I agree I'd prefer to see Prior coming in at 6, Foster is the better all round package, especially if England allow him to stand up more. Interestingly, although he struggles to hit big shots, his strike rate is 115, while Prior's is 129. That's not a huge difference and Foster shouldn't be blamed for England batting him at 6.
Looks like the D/L may be reviewed now.
http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/409482.html?CMP=OTC-RSS
I would think that the side batting second should be given a maximum number of wickets they can lose as well as runs required...
Interesting. I have a certain sympathy with the comment after that article that suggests that it's difficult to fairly reduce a target to less than 20 overs - that's already a very small amount of time to bat for! But the key will be about entertainment so the suggestion of a max number of wickets seems like a good one to me....
I'll mention it at my next Duckworth Lewis convention
Post a Comment