ITE7376
Member
Andy wrote:
Yeah agree ive wanted Hain opening in this format for years, gotta get yer best bat in early.
as many years as he's played and not been opener (albeit as I recall, his first year in the T20 lineup he opened for at least half the season and maybe more) you have to assume either he or the management or both are simply averse to the idea.
I've banged on about it at length on here before and won't bore everyone again but i think it suits his skillset more than coming in at 4 does, but that ship sailed a long time ago, it seems.
if it was that 'surely' I'd have expected Mousley to have opened before at some point in his now 5-year career in the first team, during which time we have gone through about 9 opening partnerships none of which included him. last year when a spot opened up they used Barnard as an opener ahead of/instead of Mousley so i don't think its that cut & dried in their minds
Mikkyk wrote:
I think that should/could be the last we see of OHD in this format. He's so hittable, for example any shorter change up balls look so easy to hit out the park.
Thompson seems to go to Yorker every ball for his death bowling, yet in that 19th over he executed so badly that the first four balls were all full tosses.
The batting still looks one batsman light, I think Smith needs to be tried higher up the order.
And I agree with the comments about Barnard's captaincy in this format. Some of the field placings were poor. The Taz Ali over has already been mentioned and there was another over (I can't remember who bowled but it was a seamer from the pavilion end) where we didn't have anyone at cow corner and two boundaries were one bounce fours over mid wickets head. To then top if off by bowling OHD in the last over who had gone for 48 off 3 was bizarre.
The positives are Taz still looks promising, Tariq looked effective yesterday and Webster's batting was what we hoped for.
Unfortunately there are just too many weak spots in the team this year so now we just have to hope it's not a totally embarrassing campaign.
agree with pretty much all of that
> Thompson seems to go to Yorker every ball for his death bowling, yet in that 19th over he executed so badly that the first four balls were all full tosses.
thats fine by me really- i'd rather someone has a clear plan than starting to make it up as they go along and improvise under pressure, and low full tosses can be just as difficult to get away.
it seemed to me Thompson's boundary balls came more from when he tried the slower ball change-ups than the full & fast stuff
Tariq looked effective yesterday and Webster's batting was what we hoped for.
Tariq has been very tidy 3 games out of 4, and Beau's batting yesterday significantly outperformed my expectations.
tariq is really a crafty bugger, I'd have to watch him from side-on for an innings or two to try and work out what exactly he's doing but he does seem to vary pace and flight quite a lot, even if the variations in 'flight' are really down to how low/high his arm is rather than really giving the ball air like a classic spinner.
bit of a dilemma in the context of webster's batting, does Mousley's return mean he automatically goes in at 3? My take on webster is he's like a big ocean going supertanker, he takes a long time to point himself in the right direction but can have a huge amount of momentum when he does. In that sense him coming in at number 6 with like 6 or 3 overs left may not be ideal as he doesn't look like the dude to hit sixes from ball one. in that sense no3 suits him as it gives him the seemingly large number of balls he needs to warm up and score quickly.
But is he worth a place in the top 5 when Mousley is available? shifting the dude who just got a near-ton down the order would seem strange especially as I'm not sure he's suited to it. really not sure.
Andy wrote:
Im really surprised by the criticism of Westwood, we were in such a bad place under Robinson, I think people forget.
well why not, people were crying for last year's leading scorer to be dropped after 2 bad games after all ;-)
in seriousness, I agree with you.
yeah the 4 day form was the first thing I thought, even though i tend to focus more on the T20 as I'm actually able to get to the games. say a top 3 finish in the CC absolutely should insulate his job almost irrespective of T20 results, although a winless season may get some attention
The_Lickey_Banker wrote:
Bald_Reynard wrote:
Inside-edge wrote:
Meanwhile Lintott has 3 Surrey wickets for 19 off his 4 overs.
I just logged in to post that very same thought - you beat me to it!
And how our current spin bowlers doing in this T20 season?! Of course, its all to do with welcoming wickets in Kent's group?!
> Or the renewed enthusiasm of someone who feels he is being valued and used to his full potential by his new 1st Team Coach!!
sadly i think this is likely to be true. If the result of Lintott going is Taz Ali blossoms, though, I can still see why they did it.
LeicesterExile wrote:
What a disappointment. But what is the point in playing Kai at 8 behind Woakes and Thompson.they would have been better off having Davies as keeper because as opener at least he may have scored half a dozen!
I thought it was a fair enough call, Thompson is more a threat to hit long balls than Smith, in theory Woakes may be too although i have no idea where his batting is nowadays as he has had precious little time at the crease in white ball cricket in the last couple of years
if we're being flexible in the order i think there also is a case for bringing Smith in earlier under some circumstances to face the spin in the middle overs, he's a good busy player of spin and between the wickets and would be a good foil for Hain.
the seam bowling especially in the power play was/is a real concern- Woakes looks like he is bowling right back down in speed to the low 80's mph compared to a few years ago when he added those couple of yards of pace, he and OHD just look really anemic and hittable on what is proving to be a good batting track so far, no pace and they aren't extracting whatever is there to be extracted from the new ball. the poor pp bowling also means Thompson is bound to end up bowling at least one early over and in the PP he's pretty much guaranteed to go for 10s- he did show his ability to bowl consistent yorkers at the death though which is good. if we ever have a close game he may even get to defend something, one day.
turns out Webster can bat in T20 after all, ha. Still noteworthy how long it took him to get going.
cjav1874 wrote:
For what it’s worth, I feel pretty sorry for Taz Ali who bowled immensely in that first game at Glos and has been asked to do a relatively thankless and almost experimental job thereafter.
Bowled three balls with no one behind square today, all of which went to the boundary and two from false shots. Extremely talented and full of potential, but not being given the surroundings to demonstrate his ability enough for me.
really good point IMO- he bowled better than his figures suggested yesterday even if there were two horrible long-hops in there
encouraging late-order hitting from Bamber and Booth in both games
interesting indeed, cheers. I hope his good start continues and he really flourishes down there
good to see a trego lad carrying on the family tradition
Andy wrote:
Comparing the economy rates of spinners in the t20 Blast now against spinners who bowled in the t20 Blast 7 years ago is a bit odd.
indeed, albeit its positively normal compared to judging a career average against an average derived from 2 games.
going back to the original discussion, good batting teams need to find ways of being proactive against (largely) spin in the middle overs, and Barnard aside our middle order currently is set up very badly for this as both Hain and Webster look like they are prone to passivity and being strangled.
i doubt anything will be done about it but we have better, more proactive players of spin either opening (Davies), or currently not in the team at all (Kai). If I was an opposition coach I'd be licking my lips hoping both Hain and Webster were at the crease as early as possible and bowling 10 overs of spin minimum at them.
looking at the way we approached target-setting I'd say Westwood's approach is very conservative, which can be fine up to a certain point if you have the bowling attack. we won the tournament with a batting lineup that by their own admissions weren't going to put on huge scores like other teams could- they would make sure they posted some kind of score and be confident the Jeetan-led attack could defend it, which they mostly could
I feel like our current lineup and approach fails on both counts, albeit getting Mousley and Gleeson back will be a big tonic (assuming we do)
Interesting to see where they bat Webster on Mousley's return. i don't think he rates a place in our top 5 at that point myself.
FarmerPalmer wrote:
Think Lintott suffered from a captain who didn’t know what to do with him (Davies). He’d give him one over take him off but spinners need a rhythm. Briggs always got at least three, Lintott only one. At Kent, they clearly have confidence in him and his 2-25 against Middlesex was up against Rossington whacking it about and his figures (which were economical) against Sussex was against the new king Cole’s. If the captain and management back you you will have the confidence to succeed. Davies and Barney to an extent didn’t have faith and Westwood definitely didn’t. Still the Bears loss is very much Kent and Billings gain.
all true and good points.
Highveld wrote:
"Jeetan went for 7.26 an over in 2019 and 8.51 in 2020, his last season in the Blast."
Both of which are lower than the run rates for our current spinners, significantly lower in the case of the expensive overseas international player.
the overseas player you've currently had 2 whole games to form a sample size from.
GerryShedd wrote:
Well, maybe. Jeetan went for 7.26 an over in 2019 and 8.51 in 2020, his last season in the Blast.
by his standards that was indeed 'going about the park a bit' given his 6.5 career average. later in his career he got hit for match figures that would have seemed inconceivable in 2015
Andy wrote:
ITE7376 wrote:
LeicesterExile wrote:
I want to know who changed by post and put Freddie in there ha ha I'm sure I didn't type it so will just blame Google. I've corrected it now. Given your final sentence perhaps this is something most teams suffer from most of the time. Could it be the change from pace to spin after only 6 overs creates a problem in batsmen's minds?
there's often a change of tempo after over 6, but I feel like the better batting teams don't drop off, or drop off much less. it definitely seems to me that the better batting teams refuse let the spin bowlers settle into a rhythm and do everything possible to throw them off, and will be scoring at a good clip throughout the 20 overs rather than relying on either power play or the death to really score big..
It doesn't make sense to let a whole 8 overs creep by and allow yourself to be dictated to in terms of scoring rate, that puts a huge amount of pressure on whoever is batting at the death. .
Late in Jeetan's career with us it seemed teams had a premeditated tactic of getting the sweep/especially reverse sweep out against him early and it definitely seemed to play a role in stopping him dictating to them.
Yep. People didn't like hearing it but in his last 2 or 3 seasons Jeets was going round the park quite a bit in the Blast and there was maybe a case for him not being in the side. Had to get Chris Green in during 2019 to do his heavy lifting for him. And I absolutely loved Jeetan Patel.
absolutely indeed, probably my favourite ever Bear.
For context, in 2019/20 our power play bowling was so putrid that we were forced to bowl Jeets 1 maybe even 2 overs in the PP, where he had seldom bowled up to that point. with only one boundary-rider square, on the leg side, the reverse sweep for the right hander was almost a gimme for them.
LeicesterExile wrote:
I want to know who changed by post and put Freddie in there ha ha I'm sure I didn't type it so will just blame Google. I've corrected it now. Given your final sentence perhaps this is something most teams suffer from most of the time. Could it be the change from pace to spin after only 6 overs creates a problem in batsmen's minds?
there's often a change of tempo after over 6, but I feel like the better batting teams don't drop off, or drop off much less. it definitely seems to me that the better batting teams refuse let the spin bowlers settle into a rhythm and do everything possible to throw them off, and will be scoring at a good clip throughout the 20 overs rather than relying on either power play or the death to really score big..
It doesn't make sense to let a whole 8 overs creep by and allow yourself to be dictated to in terms of scoring rate, that puts a huge amount of pressure on whoever is batting at the death. .
Late in Jeetan's career with us it seemed teams had a premeditated tactic of getting the sweep/especially reverse sweep out against him early and it definitely seemed to play a role in stopping him dictating to them.
LeicesterExile wrote:
I was agreeing with the comments made by ITE until I looked at the stats produced by Highveld. After two innings Hain has scored the most runs,,has the best average, the best highest score and 2nd highest strike rate. But it is a fact we have this slow spell in the middle of the innings something that Briggs and Flintoff achieved when bowling in previous seasons.
yeah it seems counter-intuitive to say the least to criticise Hain haha and I was saying it more about the partnership of Webster and Hain yesterday than just Hain, but I will stand by:
(1) Hain and webster chewed up 65 balls between them, over hald the innings. total runs 93, strike rate 143. that translates to a score of 171 if all out batsmen did that 'well'. to chew up that many balls for SR143 on a pitch like that, is a match-losing contribution from the two of them
it would have been more obvious had Somerset batted first and set the 220 that pitch deserved and their innings showed they were more than capable of
if webster and Hain had those innings chasing 220 instead of setting a 190 that turned out to be putrid, the poor scoring rate would have been much more stark.
(2) Hain across his career has scored slowly in the middle overs, has never been a player who attacks and dominates spin. he needs to be playing with the right partner(s) and having Webster with him, glacial ponderous footwork and agonising patience and all, is like choosing the exact, polar opposite of a good partner for hain in the middle overs.
But it is a fact we have this slow spell in the middle of the innings something that Briggs and Flintoff achieved when bowling in previous seasons.
its something (middle over squeeze) we have generally done much better as a bowling unit than a batting unit over the years, yes. not sure wheer Flintoff's name came from haha but never mind i get your point