Message Board Archives

and worthy of discussion if the rest of the team actually bats.....they were bowled out with 10 over left in the last game which is not uncommon....to me this should not be a primary argument. West Indies has far bigger issues to address. When we get 4 or 5 players who can consistently bat for 25 plus overs when necessary then we can maybe have this discussion but not before...

In reply to hotarobin

Of course it's valid. In 2020 any opener with a SR of less than 90 needs to improve. It's a competitive and comparative game. Openers on the better teams are scoring at a SR of over 90. We need to do the same to compete successfully. QED

Only someone with fuzzy logic would suggest otherwise. The fact that there are other issues of equal importance which should be addressed does not negate the need to address Hope's slow scoring rate.

It's like a man driving a car with bad battery terminals, a faulty starting motor and a soft tyre saying, "when the battery works the car drives ok so the terminals are not a problem."

In reply to Headley

One is definitely a function of the other. Hope bats slow(low risk) so that he doesn't get out and expose the rest of the batting order, because then they're only batting 40 overs. That's really the only way they could be competitive. Hope plays a long innings, gets them close enough so that the swipers could somehow get them over the line.

In reply to Headley

Oh exalted one. pray tell us why there are no threads addressing the issues you highlighted?

. 

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

Not one thread dedicated to Pollard big fat DUCK!!! What was his trike rate, or how many dot balls did he waste?

In reply to Larr Pullo

you can't have the same guy being the anchor every game, teams will willingly accommodate that tactic and play around him.

In reply to camos

Recommend that strategy to big Phil and Pouty nuh

In reply to camos

Can you name another bat who can anchor ?

In reply to Headley

context my friend context!! I am saying that they are not of equal importance. You first have to be in a position to bat out all of the overs and often we are not in that position against credible teams. Yes or no question do you think that Hope's run rate is the biggest issue with our ODI batting?

In reply to hotarobin

The biggest and most obvious issue with our One Day batting is that our numbers 1 to 5 are not getting the job done.

Hope is spending time at the wicket and not scoring fast enough. The others are not spending enough time at the wicket. Hope's scoring rate is a problem. The lack of consistent scoring by the others is also a problem.

We also lack a designated closer at number 6.

In a dynamic situation where the components are also dependent on each other (as mentioned in my car example above) all the parts need to work in order to achieve the objective. We do not have the luxury of getting the job done using only some parts.

Hope's slow batting puts the other batsmen in a position where they are forced to take risks to score quickly. (The consistent run outs involving Hope is a demonstration of this.) Geoff Boycott used to hurt England in the same way. Teams will allow Hope to score slowly knowing that his occupation of the wicket limits the number of balls available to faster scoring batsmen.

Cricinfo about 2 years ago had an article on the damage to the team caused by a batsman batting long and slow in T20 cricket. They noted that such batsmen do not get IPL contracts.

In the context of fixing the problem of batsmen failing to consistently score runs, the recent yo-yo test fiasco must be the greatest distraction ever invented.

Dukes and Courtesy have spent a lot of time explaining the importance of maximising the scoring rate and not allowing the opposition to get away with a high proportion of dot balls. I have no intention of repeating what should be obvious. Numeracy is not common sense. Many posters are intelligent but not very numerate. Unfortunately numeracy is often required to understand logic.

In reply to tc1

The concept of an anchor is outdated in One Day cricket.

In reply to Headley

Riddle me this batman, how come when Hope gets out and the batsmen are give the opportunity to express themselves unimpeded, they struggle to bat out the full compliment of overs? Or, in the few times when Hety and Pooran manage to get going they are still able to score even with Hope's allegedly/relatively slow scoring rate?

In reply to Headley

Only in a team of real batsmen...

I really think you guys are fighting with the army you want to have and not the army you actually have.

In reply to Larr Pullo

That is a low percentage strategy. Moreover it is a strategy destined to achieve a declining success rate as our opponents seek to counter.

In reply to Larr Pullo

I think we have a crisis of imagination. Holder who was a nice guy and a dedicated cricketer was the biggest epitome of that.

In reply to Headley

Correct, but again the Army you have vs the Army you would like to have. We have a weak ass batting lineup!

In reply to Larr Pullo

The question is based on a fallacy but it needs to be addressed.

The contention is not that Hope's slow SR is preventing good batsmen from having access to scoring opportunities. The contention is that Hope's slow SR is preventing inadequate batsmen from having access to scoring opportunities.

WI needs to address BOTH problems. We cannot hide one and address the other (except when we play Ireland or Afghanistan).

In reply to Headley

Whether Hope bats slow or not the result is the same, Pooran and Hety can only bat 10 overs consistently, the rest of the batsmen are tail ends and can only bat 5 overs collectively.
Who are the players that can bat the allotted 50 overs.?
I agree that Hope needs to up his scoring rate to 95, and he can because he is a stroke marker and was a very aggressive batsman.

In reply to Headley

and with that statement I think that it's best that we agree to disagree. it's fair to say that I will not see your logic in this lifetime bro...

In reply to hotarobin

Humans misunderstanding each other may be more common than we realise. Sometimes two people disagree because they do not understand each other.

What is your understanding of the statement in quotes above?

In reply to tc1

I am in complete agreement with your statement of the problem. You've pointed out the solution which is that Hope needs to achieve a strike rate of 95 AND the other batsmen each need to bat 10 -20 overs.

BTW In addition to your solution I think we need a closer.

In reply to Headley

It was a joy to read your posts in this tread/thread (not sure which).Identify the problems and articulate a credible and to some obvious solution.
Alas your logic will largely fall on deaf ears.

In reply to Headley
I agree that Hope bats slow compared to others in ODI. However if that is your role in the team and the coach and captain reaffirms that role then you are an asset.Hope allows the team to score between 280 - 300.
Ineresting enough, Hope bats faster than Bravo who is viewed as a stroke maker. Also as an opener, Hope's strike rate is marginally less than ball beater Evin Lewis.
The only batsman who scores consistently and at a run a ball is Pooran, and that is why he needs to bat at number 3. Ambris has shown potential to be a good ODI player, but I think he is better at #5.
We are a poor team and everyone needs to improve,

In reply to Larr Pullo

Or he ensures the swipers continue to be labeled as swipers as by time they come in to bat the run rate is so high that they have no time to bat normally and have to be looking for 2 - 3 boundaries every over. It cannot be encouraged that Hope continues to bat so slow while holding the innings together. He needs to score faster and still bat long. If he faces 100 balls and it scores 60 that's all of 30 runs less than if he was going at a strike rate of 90. This also means 30 less runs to get in the back end and so the "swipers" would have the option to swipe less and be more selective in the balls they swipe after.

WI team management needs to drop Hope or put him at the finisher role so that the organic batsmen could play their natural game

In reply to sudden

I cannot believe that Hope is batting as he is without the permission of management: coach and captain. In other words if he was batting contra to team strategy he would have been reprimanded and or replaced.

As you suggested if the management is unhappy then they ought to switch him around. But it is funny how the strikers are said to be running out of balls to face and yet team is bowled out in 40/50 overs.

Either management is happy with Hope's role or they are unhappy but Hope is incapable and hence should be shifted...or dropped.

There is not one problem, there are many...in summary West Indies are a very poor team with lots of areas to improve

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
...or perhaps management has lost or lack the ability to analyze a given situation (problem) and fail to conjure up strategic pathways and successful implementation strategies.

Before one solves a problem it has to be identified properly.

We can say with certainty we are deficient in many areas by languishing for over 25 years with no end in sight.

It's time for without the box thinking and mgt how are very results oriented.

In reply to doublecentury

Spoken like a champion.

In reply to Courtesy

maybe so but we have homed in on this one and beating it for all it is worth. so perhaps we should deal with this one first, ent?

In reply to sudden

How successful have we been overall with back loading our batting. And must we hope that a miracle will be created with this approach?

Isn't it time to do things differently? It's not like we will be doing it in isolation or inventing the approach. The other successful teams front load their batting.

Back loading our batting has produced very limited success.

A strategy of allowing the RRR to get to over 14 runs per over in the last 10 or having to swipe to put a good score on the board will achieve limited success (the stats confirm this).

The definition of insanity is to do the same things...

In reply to Courtesy

all true but like Fuzzy said, suppose this is a team strategy?

In reply to sudden

See my addition to Fuzzy's post in my response to him.

If our decision makers were being paid based on their success rate many of them would be begging to eek out a living.

We run our cricket along the lines of social welfare.

This too has to be looked into by any serious mgt.

How about small base salaries linked to huge performance pay.

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

my point exactly!! This argument should be considered if the team were running out of balls to score runs. However, on the contrary, they are running out of batters to score runs. They lost the last game with 10 big fat overs to spare yet I am seeing a ton of posts about Hope's slow run rate as if it's the genesis of our problems. Let's talk about Hope's run rate AFTER we get some more consistent batsmen in the team. I genuinely want Hope to pull a hamstring for the next tour so we can see their theory in action...

In reply to hotarobin

Mate, we are leaving too much to do in the back end.

Why don't you view this flopping as too much pressure on your middle order to strike it from ball 1 without getting the eye in?

We are taking too many risks at the back end of our innings and too many risks increases the chances of getting out.

And more than likely, you will not bat out the 50 overs if you are are constantly in a very high risk mode.

Have we lost the ability to perform a risk to benefit analysis?

We have loads and loads of data to do this risk:benefit with ease.

In reply to Courtesy

i generally agree with what you are saying.

that notwithstanding a team is an extension of its personnel. there is no one fit all strategy for how a team approaches a game. coaches decide strategy according to the players at hand. perhaps team management has decided that until we get other players we approach batting by having an anchor at the top of the innings and then swipers play around him.

In reply to sudden

Except managers who are result oriented never get swamped with repeated failure. They do things differently. I hate failure and perhaps that's ingrained.

I also believe in the philosophy that "when the going gets tough, the tough gets going."

We have been attempting the same failed old strategies for over 25 years with lil' success and we continue to adhere to it with all vigour.

In reply to Courtesy

....so why can't you look at it as Hope batting in such a way as to preserve his wicket as much as possible since the team generally gets bowled out cheaply when he doesn't contribute. Have you ever considered how his batting might evolve IF there were a few more dependable bats in the line up equally capable of batting through? This argument is akin to trying to fix a leak in the house when you have lost your entire roof!!

In reply to Courtesy

the flip side is-

do we have the players to implement any other strategy?

should we be designing plans that we are incapable of executing at this stage?

or should we design a plan like yours and look for those who we believe could execute?

In reply to sudden



I anticipated you and hence started a new thread on this.

In reply to Courtesy

I would define a match winning innings as one where the batsman scores over 13,000 points. Points are obtained by multiplying their score by their scoring rate.A player may play a match winning innings and his team losses because of a player/players on the other side outdoing the former
I suggest there are only 3 players who have shown this capability and they should occupy 3 of the top 4 positions.

In reply to Dukes

I will have a think on your "match winning innings" score. At a cursory glance at "13,000" points seem a lil' high based of median international stats. Perhaps you can direct me as to your exact methodology.

But I agree in the main with your erudite post above.

In reply to Courtesy

13,000 points are obtained by scoring 100 runs at a rate of 130 or scoring 130 at a rate of 100.The reason it is steep is because of our poor bowling performances over the past 2 years.

In reply to Dukes

Ok...got some figures in...on "match winning scores." It is generally achieved with batsmen scoring 100+ with Strike Rates of about 120+

Your '13,000" score is not without merit and it is backed by statistics.

In reply to Dukes

And I did not see your post.

By way of example, in the current match SA vs Australia Klaasen's "match winning score" -= 123 x 107 = 13,161.