Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Fairly ominous that from England. Not too good for the Aussies' net run rate either.
Has Kraigg Braithwaite even played T20 or hit 4 6s in his career?I've just heard two guys in the pub talking about the 2016 final and one of them claimed 'Kraigg Brathwaite' hit the winning runs against Stokes
The irony that he didn't remember the name
Fair comparison that Maldives team, and this Oz T20 line up TBH.
Well our next two games are at Sharjah and likely playing at Abu Dhabi in the semi.I am still not very sure we learn too much about the sides given how lopsidedly advantageous batting second seems to be, especially in the night games and especially in Dubai. Sharjah is so slow that even with the dew balls can stop on the batsmen and stroke making can be difficult (of course, its far more difficult batting first) but Dubai goes from sligthly tacky (which is the worst for T20 batting) to properly fast and one paced for the side batting second and the dew means no movement (seam or spin or swing) is available too. Between reasonably good sides, this all sets up for curbstompings like we have seen so far in this tournament. But I wont rule out each of the opponents winning had they been batting second, may not be by the same margins, but winning nonetheless.
There was a quadrangular back in 97 at Sharjah between Sri Lanka, Windies, Pakistan and South Africa and every team that won the toss batted second and won. In the end, in the finals, Sri Lanka who kept winning batting second had to bat first and lost pretty bad. Expect something similar to happen in this WT20 too.
All that said, why bring in an extra spinner when dew is the achiles heel and the spinner is only of the quality of Agar? England, and especially Buttler, look like the only ones who can stop Pakistan in this tournament.
Tbh it’s the uae. Everything there is tackyI am still not very sure we learn too much about the sides given how lopsidedly advantageous batting second seems to be, especially in the night games and especially in Dubai. Sharjah is so slow that even with the dew balls can stop on the batsmen and stroke making can be difficult (of course, its far more difficult batting first) but Dubai goes from sligthly tacky (which is the worst for T20 batting) to properly fast and one paced for the side batting second and the dew means no movement (seam or spin or swing) is available too. Between reasonably good sides, this all sets up for curbstompings like we have seen so far in this tournament. But I wont rule out each of the opponents winning had they been batting second, may not be by the same margins, but winning nonetheless.
There was a quadrangular back in 97 at Sharjah between Sri Lanka, Windies, Pakistan and South Africa and every team that won the toss batted second and won. In the end, in the finals, Sri Lanka who kept winning batting second had to bat first and lost pretty bad. Expect something similar to happen in this WT20 too.
All that said, why bring in an extra spinner when dew is the achiles heel and the spinner is only of the quality of Agar? England, and especially Buttler, look like the only ones who can stop Pakistan in this tournament.
I think he borrowed the graph from cricinfo.I want to see England bat first to see how much they might score. @howe, can you extend your graph to 20 overs just for the lols?
Going by England's run rate it would have been 216. Considering Bangladesh made England work another 3 overs for that 126/2, can Australia get over them? Even the Windies made England work harder, sort of, maybe, probably not. But they took more wickets, at least.I think he borrowed the graph from cricinfo.
I think our batters were still rusty when we played WI; there's no way their attack is superior to yours. And when Buttler's in that sort of form, most sides will struggle. You'll know better than me, but I don't recall seeing Starc smashed like that before. Watching the highlights just now, I was struck by how England's openers had a look at the bowling for a couple of overs before going on the attack, which isn't the worst idea against your guys even in this form of the game.Going by England's run rate it would have been 216. Considering Bangladesh made England work another 3 overs for that 126/2, can Australia get over them? Even the Windies made England work harder, sort of, maybe, probably not. But they took more wickets, at least.