Why pick Moeen over Yates? As for Latham if it is felt he should play because he is the overseas (expensive) player then why not give him the gloves and have him bat lower down the order.
Why pick Moeen over Yates? As for Latham if it is felt he should play because he is the overseas (expensive) player then why not give him the gloves and have him bat lower down the order.
I think all options need to be on the table, including giving Latham the gloves. But I don't think we should write him off as a T20 batter - a T20 career average of 28.5 and a strike rate of 129.5 puts him at least on a par with (for example) Alex Davies and Moeen Ali.
I doubt if it was the original intention for Latham to play T20 but when hordes of players become unavailable, what do you do? He may not be gung ho but he's quality and we could probably do with some of that amongst the headless chickens now.
For me, and it’s not ideal but, Latham can play that Joe Root or Williamson in T20. Manipulate, take the runs on offer, find the gaps etc, before you know it he’s 30 off 20 and then has the chance to accelerate, whilst others are more attacking around him. The issue is, Hain tends to take 10-15 balls to get going and those 2 together could get stuck for 4 or 5 overs.
Captaincy and tactics is an issue. I thought Moeen was there for that, but seems Davies is still running the show. They need to spend a couple of days deciding how they want to play or how they should play based on the players at their disposal, and create plans based on that. Clarity allows players to execute much easier because they know what they’re supposed to be doing. We’re seeing it currently, our players who are mentally the strongest in terms of knowing their games, their cricket IQ, their thought process when batting or bowling, the likes of Hain, Barnard, and Briggs, they’re doing the best right now.
If Latham is playing, he is not a sort of 'Let him loose in the Powerplay' sort of player, so he needs to come in later but not sure if Hain is a slow starter either, maybe it looks that way because once he is past 50, he really accelerates but strike rates of 129.5 would only get you to 155 in an innings if everyone batted the same way. We rely on Hain too much and if he fails, who do we have to get us to 180-200. A lot of counties have quick scoring batsmen early on and that is what is needed but too many with low scoring rates means there is more pressure on Hain and Barnard which is unfair. It seems as though when trying to accelerate, our players appear to go big and look for 6's when you can move things along by also keeping it on the ground and running well between the wickets. Like Saturday, the danger of trying to clear the ropes, leaves you giving catching practice when the boundaries are very wide out. We did it in last years quarter final when there was no need.
Like Paul's point of keeping the ball on the floor. I always deem a white ball knock to be going well if batsmen are getting a decent proportion of 2s. Suggests good placement. Regular singles are important too but even 5 or 6 singles an over can keep you behind the rate if you aren't getting anything more.
A vast amount of statistical evidence and analysis has shown that scoring 1s and 2s absolutely doesn't do any good in winning T20 games, I'm afraid, you only effectively 'move the score on' with 1s and 2s if you are chasing or happy with a sub-par score.
Shame. Because I love a good 2.
ITE7376 wrote:
A vast amount of statistical evidence and analysis has shown that scoring 1s and 2s absolutely doesn't do any good in winning T20 games, I'm afraid, you only effectively 'move the score on' with 1s and 2s if you are chasing or happy with a sub-par score.
Can’t say I’m overly surprised by those stats.
The one glaring issue for the Bears though is what they refer to as “execution” in the article, with both bat and ball.
Right now, we might score 90 or 250. But I’m not sure we could protect either with our current bowling and fielding.
What I would say with the 1’s and 2’s thing, is whilst they’re not match winning, it is a way to create more match winning boundaries. We all know that rotating the strike off good balls can mess with bowlers plans, captains change the field, and so more boundary opportunities arise from bad balls due to disrupted rhythm or new gaps.
Ian Westwood, looking a bit downbeat, reflects on the losses and, and one point, says:
"We need to find our formula", which is quite a revealing comment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lui6iZkXpPQ
No one is saying that 1's and 2's will win games but where we appear to fail is in not getting 4's when they will win games, whilst apparently trying to hit 6's on big playing areas. We all know that scoring boundaries are what makes big scores but our batsmen do seem to get caught inside the ropes too early in their innings instead of just being content to 'Have a look' first and knock it around. Latham was a prime example getting caught from the first big shot he made contact with and maybe Moeen and Davis did the same. I would sooner we were 30-1 (6) rather than 50-3 (6) because too many batsmen tries to go big without really having got set. This also appears to be Ed Pollock's downfall on most occasions at Worcester, bring on a spinner and watch him perish again, trying to go big.
GerryShedd wrote:
Ian Westwood, looking a bit downbeat, reflects on the losses and, and one point, says:
"We need to find our formula", which is quite a revealing comment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lui6iZkXpPQ
I would say it's fair enough to say we need to find our formula. Multiple players he expected to have, he doesn't, so he could have had the best laid plans but they're useless now without the players. I'm sure the plan wasn't to have Barnard opening the bowling...
There is a better formula/selection out there with what we've currently got but not sure even that gets us to knockouts.
Mikkyk wrote:
GerryShedd wrote:
Ian Westwood, looking a bit downbeat, reflects on the losses and, and one point, says:
"We need to find our formula", which is quite a revealing comment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lui6iZkXpPQI would say it's fair enough to say we need to find our formula. Multiple players he expected to have, he doesn't, so he could have had the best laid plans but they're useless now without the players. I'm sure the plan wasn't to have Barnard opening the bowling...
There is a better formula/selection out there with what we've currently got but not sure even that gets us to knockouts.
Did he seriously expect to have the likes of Webster, Bethall, Ali, Woakes? Fair enough with Mousley and Gleeson but the others were likely/Very likely to miss out the campaign.
I would say he could've reasonably expected to have had Ali, which with Gleeson and Mousley takes away three bowlers and potentially the opening bowling partnership
Mikkyk wrote:
I would say he could've reasonably expected to have had Ali, which with Gleeson and Mousley takes away three bowlers and potentially the opening bowling partnership
Agreed
And this article pretty much confirms the above, Bears need experienced players back - Westwood: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/articles/cy901x4wxnzo
I do get rather fed up with us having players missing for Lions games and although Mouse did get another ton, he would be better off in a more intense situation with a bigger crowd playing T20 games. Not sure if Woakes is being wrapped in cotton wool for the India series but it won't hurt him to have a T20 game or 2 as it is only 4 overs of bowling. If Gleeson comes in, I very much hope it in place of Garton.
Chris Woakes is in the squad for the England Lions match v India on Friday but Dan Mousley isn't.
BristolBear wrote:
Can’t say I’m overly surprised by those stats.
The one glaring issue for the Bears though is what they refer to as “execution” in the article, with both bat and ball.Right now, we might score 90 or 250. But I’m not sure we could protect either with our current bowling and fielding.
> What I would say with the 1’s and 2’s thing, is whilst they’re not match winning, it is a way to create more match winning boundaries. We all know that rotating the strike off good balls can mess with bowlers plans, captains change the field, and so more boundary opportunities arise from bad balls due to disrupted rhythm or new gaps.
yes absolutely, what the stats don't track is the way that 1's and 2's at the very least, don't allow too much pressure to build on the batsman. I'm not sure how much pressure they actually put on the bowler, I think that really depends on the score being chased, I mean an over of 3 2s and 2 singles is great if you're chasing 170 but 3 overs like that puts a lot of pressure on you if chasing 220.
I'd like more stats on the impact of dot balls and their relationship to wickets, I feel as though anecdotally their is very strong relationship between consecutive dot balls, or a significant number within an over, and wickets, so again, the impact of singles and 2s may not show in the overall stats but in the context of the game at least they weren't dot balls