Message Board Archives

This is T20 cricket man, the two best batsman had SR of 100.

In reply to openning

Ganga already hinted at it

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
SR is more important than average.

In reply to openning

Well he int there no more

He can’t bat tho

Joker

In reply to openning

Now he gone and get out

Ahh, this done!!!

18 from 12 = 150

15 from 8 = 187

25 from 19 = 135

Yeaaaaaaaaah great strike rate but them all out fuh spit!!!

What's the use...


Yeah man see me hit those sixes?

Bunch of effing entertainers

Let's really analyze Brooks' horrid innings. He made 42 runs off 43 balls. Batting more than a third of the available delivers at less than a run a ball. He hit 3 sixes and 2 fours so that's 26 runs off 5 balls. His remaining 38 balls produced only 16 runs. To put it in better context - Brooks remaining delivers produced 16 runs in the equivalent of 6.2 overs in a T20 game chasing close to 190. That is poor poor poor!!!

In reply to b4u8me2

It looks like Brooks come like Hope. He bat slow and dat is why we lost. Don’t mind how the cappo and Hety got out.

Man unnuh gud

Isn't Brooks' role to bat through and anchor the innings?

In reply to sudden

He is jumping on the bandwagon.

They have to find someone to blame.

I won't be surprised if they pull a Mayers on Brooks for the next game.

What is Pooran's take on the batting and bowling today?

In reply to sudden

You need to understand T20 cricket. It's better to get out early than play a long slow innings. Despite Pooran and Hetmyer getting out early had we had two of those six overs Brooks wasted we would have won on the end. We lost because we ran out of deliveries. Not because Pooran and Hetmyer got out early. In T20 cricket u have 120 balls and 10 wickets. That means if a team faces 12 balls per wicket they will still bat 20 overs. For Brooks to have faced over a third of those delivers at less than a run a ball, that is more detrimental to a T20 innings than a duck off 1 ball.

In reply to b4u8me2

What if Brooks had face 3 balls for 6 runs would we be better off?

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

Yes, we would have been better off sir!! 6 off 3 chasing 190 is always better than 42 off 43. Can't need to be scoring at almost 10 runs an over to win and one player bats one third of the delivers scoring at under 6 runs an over.

In reply to b4u8me2

We would have been bowled 36 runs short

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

What is your logic in saying that? The game ended with us having 3 wickets left in hand and Walsh and McKoy are not rabbits with the bat. Just as a matter of speaking based on pure numbers (as none of us can really say what wud have happened) if Brooks had made 6 runs off 3 balls instead of 42 off 43 balls then he would have faced 40 less balls and made 36 less runs. WI lost by 13 runs. If you add that to the 36 runs Brooks would not have made then WI would have needed 49 more runs to win. But guess what - they would have had those 40 balls to get those 49 runs with 3 wickets remaining.

In reply to b4u8me2
Have a look at NZ inning, and lets talk.
Devon Conway 43 29
Kane Williamson 47 33
James Neesham 33* 15
WI
Shamarh Brooks 42 43
Nicholas Pooran 15 8
Shimron Hetmyer 2 3

In reply to b4u8me2

You could have said that and called it wally. And to hell with the long winded explanation again.

In reply to TheTrail

The explaination wasn't for you as I was not replying to you. So don't read what I said and then complain about it being long winded. Nobody was talking to you mate.

In reply to Arlo

Hetmyer, Pooran etc have been around long enough that they should know how to adapt to the situation.

The West Indies policy of one batter knuckling down while the rest just throw the bat at everything is wrong.

In reply to WICFan

Agreed. The basics of batting seems to have been thrown out the window.

In reply to openning
Brooks started quite brightly and its understandable that with 4 wickets falling so quickly and Santner bowling so effectively that he would slow down. Caution was not unreasonable given the lack of quality of the battting to follow. We dont know that the likes of Shepherd and Odean would have survived against Santner in that mode or a fresh Fergusson. We are being a bit hard on Brooks given the inept batting of the batsmen that preceded him.

That said I do have to wonder about the logic of investing in Brooks at his age, or Devon Thomas for that matter. Brooks' inability to improvise in those middle overs reflects the fact that he is relatively new to the T20 scene. Why not lose with a younger player who can at least build on the experience

People on here have goldfish brain memories. We have already been bowled out cheaply on several occasions this season when the big hitters came in early. There is a reason why the likes of Shepherd and Odean dont bat at 3 and 4. Every day ain't Christmas

In reply to Logic

I have said it before, Brooks is not suitable for T20 cricket and its incomprehensible why they continue to invest in him. Shows how flawed the thinking of the leaders. It's either Brooks fails which happens most of the time or he scores slowly neither of which will help us win. Time to let go of him.
He's fine for ODI tho but keep him far from T20i's

In reply to Logic
All the batters in the team including Brooks fail more often than not. The ratio of success seems to be 1 in 3 or 4 innings. So Brooks is unlikely to score again in the T20 series, Hetmyer, Pooran and Mayers will have one good score and its hit or miss with Powell (who has hardly created any impression with the bat for the season) and the allrounders.

So given his slow SR, Brooks' presence makes no contribution to the team's success and so I agree that the investment should be in a younger player. The question is who should that be.

In reply to Hendra

that is quite true but yesterday i dont see how one can fault Brooks. Brooks cant bat in my view but none of the others can. the way how Mayers, and especially Poorman and Hety, got out was seriously appalling for top order batsmen

so again i cant see how singling out Brooks makes any sense. it seems to me that we want every batsman to be scoring at a strike / high run rate at every stage of the game.

well they often try, then they get out for paltry scores and then the person who stays at the wicket gets blamed. it baffles my mind

what they should all do? swipe, connect to a few and get out for 10-15. the team gets bowled out for around 110 and we are happy becos their strike / run rates are high.

In reply to sudden

I agree with some of your points, even though wickets were falling around him he had to keep going at at a SR of 110 or more.at one stage he was 36(40),he isn’t the type of batsman that can increase his SR at the back end of his inns.

Further more , he faced 35% of the legal deliveries available to the team. Had he scored 35% of the required runs during his 43 ball knock he should have scored 66(43) simple equation I like to look at

The fact that Shamar Brooks can make an International T20 side should tell us where our cricket is at!!!

The End Is Near!!!!

In reply to WIfan26

Can someone tell us what franchise he played for last year and his stats, I really don’t remember him, clearly tells you what kind of impact he has made in T20

In reply to Madmax

Played for the Tallawahs and is playing for them again this year.

He did okay I would say for JA but what really propelled him is his ODI form but still I don't understand his selection!!!

In reply to WIfan26

I looked it up , he played 9 matches, scored 214 runs , avg 30 , highest of 47* and SR 118

In reply to b4u8me2

Walsh and McKoy are not rabbits with the bat? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Thanks for the laughs. 🤣😁

In reply to tops

Then are we to assume that Pooran and Hetymeyer are?

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
Nah, at least the 2 a them a swing them carrots and connect once in awhile, but Walsh and McKoy a eat out them carrots B4 them get to the wickets.

In reply to tops

The puns written in that statement are incredible my friend #bars #spittingfire

In reply to Madmax

i suggest we drop Brooks. simple as that.

we will then win the remainder of the matches

In reply to WIfan26

[b]In reply to sudden[/b
Let's face it. We we only win against a top team when they have a bad game and we get it together in that game so I don't think anyone is saying that once Brooks is dropped, we will win games. The problem with Brooks is that even when he scores, because of his slow rate, the team still loses so he makes no difference to team's success.

This is why given his age and obvious deficiency, the investment should have been in a younger player. Maybe herein lies the problem - identifying that younger player with potential.

In reply to sudden

Come on Sudden ur better than that. Brookes was not the only reason we lost yesterday. The last over went for 8-10 runs too much. NZL gained momentum going into WI inns. White ball cricket is like that sometimes, Wi should have been able to recover from that quickly .

Our batting line up is all over the shop with no one batting in the same position more than twice. Which leads to confusion and guys generally not knowing their roles from match to match.

Our batting ineptitude during overs 7-15 is inexcusable now , our two better batsmen are experienced T20 players. Poo and Hetty are the ones who should be facing most of the balls during that period alas the two of them can’t seem to bat 15 mins without getting themselves out

We have got to figure out quickly how to negotiate that 7-15 over period while scoring at 7-8 per over without the entire middle and lower order back in the hutch

The main reason was Holder not bowling adequately and then not getting back -with his batting- the runs he gave up. Holder has ben disappointing in all the matches he has played since his return. Seems the rest made him worse than before.

In reply to b4u8me2

Listen here, the last time I checked, this site was a public forum where anyone could say anything about cricket in the front room within the rules.

Don't be too sensitive. If you don't want anyone to critique your statements, stop posting. Then again, that would be an easy copout.

However, as the rules states, paraphrasing: grow some balls along with some foreskin, and everything will be fine on this cricket forum.

In reply to Madmax

ok then, now we can talk.

we have no replacements. at least none that i can see. so we recycle and hope for the best.

hope that someone finally figures out what batsman-ship is all about

In reply to sudden

No other option than recycle the current generation of cowlashers

CWI has no sponsor for kiddie cricket and grassroots cricket. I don’t see us
producing another quality batsman in my life time

The future is beyond bleak

Mr Hendra

Tell me now that Brooks has done what you wanted him to do, what say you?