Message Board Archives

There is absolutely no need for Chris Gayle on this team.

The marginal cost of having him is extremely high.

If he is going to play he should just voops from ball one. We are always going to waste resources with him at number 3 and eating up balls to get hot.

In short, your number 3 batsman should not be eating up resources to get his eye in in T20 when we have a whole heap of batters waiting to come in.

A number 3 batsman should not be slowing down the momentum period.

In T20 we should be aiming to utilize our 120 balls in the most efficient manner.

In reply to Courtesy

Endorsed

In reply to Courtesy

from all of that, you only see Gayle as the issue? surely thou jest..

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

The old bamboo cannon will only waste deliveries getting his eye in.

In reply to hotarobin

There are other changes I can suggest but I'll start with what I think is the most palatable with the selectors and decision makers.

In reply to hotarobin

Hetmyer can do better

We continually allow the SR to be unmanageable without any message from the dressing room.

A T20 team should not have 2 batsmen eating up close to 10 overs at a SR of less than 100.

This is a recipe for failure.

But he is the UB ....

Weak old man Bravo should be right behind Gayle out the door .

WHO MADE 35 RUNS FROM 36 BALLS?

In reply to cricketfreak


Bravo playing as a bowler, and he is still getting that job done

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

Even if Hetmyer has similar batting non achievements as compared to Gayle, Hety will:

* Give you more on the field.

* You give the youngster an opportunity to learn (investment in the future)

* Hetmyer will not consistently waste so many balls before he can get hot.

* And we will be forfeiting plenty runs with Gayle's poor running between the wicket.

We seem to have great difficulty in assessing the quality of decision making.

The decision to have Gayle on the side can NEVER be justified. It is myopic.

Btw, SA will attack Fletcher with spin (Windwards players have never learnt to play spin) and choke our batting pipeline if we don't respond strategically.

Coach Simmons btw, does strike me a s strategic thinker.

What formal schooling did he have? Anybody, please help.

I saw a West Indian batsman hit a first ball for six and couldn't come close to hitting the next 5. That was headless cricket of the hit and miss variety.

I remind our chaps that a great part of the cricket comes from what you have between the ears.

These fellas make Ossie Moore look like a genius.

Should there be formal schooling for our cricket chaps or is it too late?

South African bowlers should be pointing to their heads when our batsmen get out playing these dumbass shots as part of a psychological strategy.

In reply to jahmekyah

Don't bother with him and his scratched record.


//

In reply to jahmekyah

That's top score for yuh. Take dat in yuh pweffin.

Haven't we been hearing the same sh*t for the last 22 years or so?

In reply to jahmekyah

Fletcher!

That is called home turf advantage , playing in my backyard so I must play.

In reply to Courtesy

I was talking to a friend about that episode this morning. I could not believe that Russell did not make the adjustment and look for the slower ball after that initial 6.

In reply to Walco

To quote a West Indian commentator it's "headless." batting.

Woosh!!...six, woosh!!...dot ball, woosh!!...dot ball, woosh!!...dot ball...woosh!!...dot ball...

No subtlety or sophistication in the batting, just pure headless cane cutting.

Btw, when Russel came out to bat I tort it was Ashley Nurse. De man storing rum fat in his face alone. Russel's face is beginning to look like a moon.