Message Board Archives

batsmen to stabilize an inning. God dammit, this is only 20 overs. What good sides need are batsmen who can rotate the strike with ones and twos when things become tight and still maintain a 120 strike rate especially with power hitters to come.. Making a case for Bravos and Hope as stabilizers in the T20 format is utterly ridiculous.

In reply to jaba… well in my books to stabilize the innings is

… I don't know what that other shyt is.

In reply to natty_forever
Did you overlook this?

Bravos, in the last match only went over 100 percent strike rate with his last shot. "Maintain" in this situation means "sustaining". A dot ball means you have lost a potential scoring opportunity which could be as high as 600 percent. I am sure you understand where I am heading with this one. Bravos overall T20i career has faced 275 balls with a strike rate of 111. Not good for T20 batting at number 3 where you normally find your best batter.

In reply to jaba… no, figured, if you "rotating the strike" chances are your strike rate would be over 100.

... Well right now I would work with that. Especially with Hety, Russell, Pooran, Rov and crew to come.

In reply to natty_forever
Can you not rotate strike consistently enough? Can you not rotate strike one in every three balls. There must be some quality to "rotating strike".

In reply to jaba… that's not rotating the strike in my books. You should be able to score of every ball, ala Kholi. I am not disagreeing with you just feel would work with a Hope and a Bravo, if there is a Hety, Pooran and Russell also to bat.

In reply to natty_forever

Well they may never come and when they come they may not have sufficient resources (balls) to work with. Pollard, Brathwaite, Allen and Keemo Paul never came and you had Bravos eating up resources: a little more than 30 percent of available resources to score 23 percent of the runs. and that situation described above only developed because of the six he hit in his penultimate ball.

In reply to natty_forever
Haven't you ever heard of a distribution company not rotating its stock fast enough? Fast enough = no less than 5 stock turns per year.

in fact, the openers were scoring at over 8 runs per over. When Bravos batted with Ramdin it was down to slightly over 6 runs per over. All this with a reasonable foundation and plenty of batting to come.

Rotating strike with 1s and 2s and not getting out is stabilising!

Putting everything into proper perspective: removing the six in his penultimate ball would leave Bravos scoring 37 runs in 42 balls. That's a strike rate of of 86. This can never be good for T20 cricket in the position he is batting. The situation gets even worse when one considers that he only tried to hit the ball in the 18th over with plenty of batting to come. Good international sides would be stepping on the gas no later than the 14th over with the resources left on the bench. What is equally disturbing is that there appeared to be no message from the dressing room asking Bravos to step on it.

In reply to jaba

If they follow your logic

They would all end up like the second game

Falling like 10 pins....oh sorry they did .

In reply to sgtdjones
I will never argue with a Trinidadian defending another Trinidadian. It's a waste of my time. I have made a case by presenting the numbers and I made the call about Bravos eating resources and why it would hurt us even before the game ended. This is why most West Indians will remain in mud. Even when the figures are glaring they still come up defending. This was a dead rubber. Our batsmen should have been enjoying themselves. There must be a reason why West Indies cricket cannot maintain its position in world cricket and it's simple: we are not scientific enough. Every international side uses stats and strategy except West Indies. We always fail to crunch in the numbers. When anyone (poster above included) can take a previous batting performance in T20 cricket (like the poster did above and which rarely happens) to negate a strategy going forward or deny the stats then this says it all. By the way, it was better for West Indies attempting to chase the big score in the second game and fall like 10 pins than poking, and losing the game. This is T20 cricket. You cannot die wondering.

In reply to jaba

I did not note any Trini in my above post?

In reply to sgtdjones
You have a chance now to mash up my argument above...mind you, not with the "10 pins falling" in the previous game nonsense. When you are batting and there are batsmen left in the hut, you do not worry about "10 pins falling". Now tell me the percent of games you will win at T20 international level with "batsmen stabilizing the innings". International teams now target scores well above 200. Tell me how stabilizing the innings with a strike rate of 111 (85 before the 6) and facing 30 percent of the balls will achieve this. And what percent of the time will teams fall like 10 pins in T20?

In reply to jaba… however, we scored 180 runs, which is a good score at any level. So in my opinion, the bowling was more of a failure than Bravo.

In reply to natty_forever
Bro, when you are unlikely to win T20 games because of your bowling is all the more reason why you should use your batting resources wisely. A score of 180 with plenty of batters on the bench and one of your front line batsman eating up balls will hardly win games for you. A minimum strike rate of 140 from your top batsmen will always give the bowlers a chance. The T20 game is about maximizing your strengths. If I start a game knowing my bowling is not up to mark then I will strive to give the bowlers a cushion. In the game they had no cushion when one was easily had. This is not rocket science. What you are doing is planning in isolation. Simply put, we score 180 let's go out there and defend it, without taking into consideration the relative strength of your bowling attack. Your main question when batting first should be: what score do our bowlers feel comfortable defending. These are the cards that you have been dealt.

In reply to jaba

Yet you carry a 20 year old who this year scored 134 off 66 balls and 45 off 13 balls and he sits out that dead rubber game. Instead you open with someone who was not in your original T 20 team who has a scoring rate of 103.When an experienced successful cricketer points that out we are told he is insular.


I would go further than that and say they are JACKASSES!!!!!!!!!

In reply to Dukes
I have to agree with you bro. Sadly, we don't have thinking administrators. That was an opportunity to clear our bench and see what the youngsters have.

In reply to jaba

Unperturbed by scientific or statistical analysis.

In reply to Headley

So sad in a computer age.