I really don't know what to make of Malan at the moment. He is, after all, meant to be the number one ranked T20 batsman in the world.
Malan typically takes his time before launching late on. But he's not getting to "late on". This is his last 10 innings for England and the Hobart Hurricanes in the Big Bash:
18 off 17 24 off 23 24* off 20 34 off 36 11 off 8 3 off 6 42 off 28 0 off 6 20 off 23 26 off 22
So that's 202 runs at an average of 22.44 and a strike rate of just 107. I got the impression in the Big Bash that he was very much playing within himself and suspected that the reason was down to him wanting to get an IPL contract.
The reason that Joe Root has been left out of this squad is because the T20 side has a way of taking the game to the opposition. What Root does do, however, is rotate and gets the big hitter at the other end on strike. Malan doesn't and the scores above tend to be made up of "feast or famine" boundaries or dots.
There are two other advantages that Root offers - he has proven that he can score on Indian wickets when they aren't roads and it would be very handy to have that second or third spin bowling option. Root's average in international T20s is hardly shabby either - 35.72 at a strike rate of 126.30.
I really don't know what to make of Malan at the moment. He is, after all, meant to be the number one ranked T20 batsman in the world.
Malan typically takes his time before launching late on. But he's not getting to "late on". This is his last 10 innings for England and the Hobart Hurricanes in the Big Bash:
18 off 17 24 off 23 24* off 20 34 off 36 11 off 8 3 off 6 42 off 28 0 off 6 20 off 23 26 off 22
So that's 202 runs at an average of 22.44 and a strike rate of just 107. I got the impression in the Big Bash that he was very much playing within himself and suspected that the reason was down to him wanting to get an IPL contract.
The reason that Joe Root has been left out of this squad is because the T20 side has a way of taking the game to the opposition. What Root does do, however, is rotate and gets the big hitter at the other end on strike. Malan doesn't and the scores above tend to be made up of "feast or famine" boundaries or dots.
There are two other advantages that Root offers - he has proven that he can score on Indian wickets when they aren't roads and it would be very handy to have that second or third spin bowling option. Root's average in international T20s is hardly shabby either - 35.72 at a strike rate of 126.30.
Agree, him brexiting a 6 off a top edge that he knew nothing about going over his head and over the keeper which got his strike rate back at 100 before getting out was pure luck and hides how much he struggled.
Its mad that we are having this conversation about the worlds no 1 T20 batsman but yeh. That shows the depth we have.
There is also a point that the T20 rankings are not the most accurate. A lot of the worlds best players only play T20 in World cup years. Root Stokes and Buttler for us barely play the format in normal years as they are usually rested.
Another point. I still believe Buttler as a floating middle order player to come in around the 10th-13th over would be better for us as a team. Yes I understand the argument that he is our most destructive player and you want him to face as many balls as possible, I get it. But for me its about balance of the side and where he can add the most value. As an opener he is IMO only marginally better than Roy, Banton, Bairstow, Hales so his value added isnt all that much. As a finisher we have no one really who plays that role well like he can so he adds significantly more value.
The argument that "what if we dont lose a wicket at the right time for him to come in" - well if we havent lost a couple of wickets by that point in the game then at least one other player has fired and we arent gonna need him to singlehandedly win us the game.
Imagine the psychological damage it would do to a team if they got through Roy, Bairstow/Hales/Banton, Malan/Root and then Buttler walks out with 10 overs still to go.
Buttler has just shown why he has to open the batting, in my view
I agree, in a format as short as t20 you put your most destructive batsmen at the top. I mean remember Morgan and stokes arent exactly tippy tappers are they?
It's an irony that we bemoan the fact that we don't have a world class spinner. Because of course we do. I recall getting a shed load of criticism years ago from a certain forum member that no longer posts on here when I defended the fact that whilst Rashid would bowl bad balls he had that priceless ability to get wickets because he had all the variations.
I know he doesn't have a contract in the IPL but we know the reasons for that. A spinner is in least demand of all the disciplines because they have so many to call on. They want quickies, all rounders and world class batsmen who preferably keep too.
You don't get someone like Kohli out seven times without being able to bowl. Four of those came in Tests too. It's a shame that he has fallen out of love with red ball cricket but I just wonder whether we could persuade him to give it one last go. We have enough bowlers in the shape of Archer/Broad/Anderson etc etc who have the ability to "hang the bowl out there" at the other end when he's bowling to not worry if he goes for a few. And he doesn't bowl that many bad balls these days anyway.
It's an irony that we bemoan the fact that we don't have a world class spinner. Because of course we do. I recall getting a shed load of criticism years ago from a certain forum member that no longer posts on here when I defended the fact that whilst Rashid would bowl bad balls he had that priceless ability to get wickets because he had all the variations.
I know he doesn't have a contract in the IPL but we know the reasons for that. A spinner is in least demand of all the disciplines because they have so many to call on. They want quickies, all rounders and world class batsmen who preferably keep too.
You don't get someone like Kohli out seven times without being able to bowl. Four of those came in Tests too. It's a shame that he has fallen out of love with red ball cricket but I just wonder whether we could persuade him to give it one last go. We have enough bowlers in the shape of Archer/Broad/Anderson etc etc who have the ability to "hang the bowl out there" at the other end when he's bowling to not worry if he goes for a few. And he doesn't bowl that many bad balls these days anyway.
I think it's his shoulder which is the main reason he's not playing Tests or red ball cricket any more. Bowling 25 overs a day would put too much strain on it, and shorten his white ball career
It's an irony that we bemoan the fact that we don't have a world class spinner. Because of course we do. I recall getting a shed load of criticism years ago from a certain forum member that no longer posts on here when I defended the fact that whilst Rashid would bowl bad balls he had that priceless ability to get wickets because he had all the variations.
I know he doesn't have a contract in the IPL but we know the reasons for that. A spinner is in least demand of all the disciplines because they have so many to call on. They want quickies, all rounders and world class batsmen who preferably keep too.
You don't get someone like Kohli out seven times without being able to bowl. Four of those came in Tests too. It's a shame that he has fallen out of love with red ball cricket but I just wonder whether we could persuade him to give it one last go. We have enough bowlers in the shape of Archer/Broad/Anderson etc etc who have the ability to "hang the bowl out there" at the other end when he's bowling to not worry if he goes for a few. And he doesn't bowl that many bad balls these days anyway.
I think it's his shoulder which is the main reason he's not playing Tests or red ball cricket any more. Bowling 25 overs a day would put too much strain on it, and shorten his white ball career
It's an irony that we bemoan the fact that we don't have a world class spinner. Because of course we do. I recall getting a shed load of criticism years ago from a certain forum member that no longer posts on here when I defended the fact that whilst Rashid would bowl bad balls he had that priceless ability to get wickets because he had all the variations.
I know he doesn't have a contract in the IPL but we know the reasons for that. A spinner is in least demand of all the disciplines because they have so many to call on. They want quickies, all rounders and world class batsmen who preferably keep too.
You don't get someone like Kohli out seven times without being able to bowl. Four of those came in Tests too. It's a shame that he has fallen out of love with red ball cricket but I just wonder whether we could persuade him to give it one last go. We have enough bowlers in the shape of Archer/Broad/Anderson etc etc who have the ability to "hang the bowl out there" at the other end when he's bowling to not worry if he goes for a few. And he doesn't bowl that many bad balls these days anyway.
I think it's his shoulder which is the main reason he's not playing Tests or red ball cricket any more. Bowling 25 overs a day would put too much strain on it, and shorten his white ball career
That might well be right. He's 33 now and as I say hasn't an IPL contract and may never get one either. Central contracts may go but he could earn well over £1m in the next couple of years by making himself available to play Test cricket. There aren't that many gigs in white ball that pay that match and I'm sure if we can rotate quick bowlers we can do so for spinners i.e. when we aren't playing the best of opposition or when a series is won.
Even if it's only for one year. Who would the Aussie bats prefer to face? Rashid or Leach or Bess or A N Other?
It's an irony that we bemoan the fact that we don't have a world class spinner. Because of course we do. I recall getting a shed load of criticism years ago from a certain forum member that no longer posts on here when I defended the fact that whilst Rashid would bowl bad balls he had that priceless ability to get wickets because he had all the variations.
I know he doesn't have a contract in the IPL but we know the reasons for that. A spinner is in least demand of all the disciplines because they have so many to call on. They want quickies, all rounders and world class batsmen who preferably keep too.
You don't get someone like Kohli out seven times without being able to bowl. Four of those came in Tests too. It's a shame that he has fallen out of love with red ball cricket but I just wonder whether we could persuade him to give it one last go. We have enough bowlers in the shape of Archer/Broad/Anderson etc etc who have the ability to "hang the bowl out there" at the other end when he's bowling to not worry if he goes for a few. And he doesn't bowl that many bad balls these days anyway.
I think it's his shoulder which is the main reason he's not playing Tests or red ball cricket any more. Bowling 25 overs a day would put too much strain on it, and shorten his white ball career
I deliberately waited until after Buttler got a score to start that debate, I could have posted it after the 2nd match when he'd had 2 failures but didnt want to be accused of pilling on him.
Like I said I get the point that you want him to face the most balls although for me its actually about him facing enough balls to impact the game. That can still be done from over 10 onwards.
His innings yesterday was excellent but we have 4 or 5 others who can play that innings . We dont have anyone else with the experience he has at the highest level of being a finisher, we have no one else who can come in with 10 overs to go and take the game away from the opposition in 30 balls - and this is particularly important if we want to win when batting first as we will invariably have to at the world cup, we arent gonna win every toss. Batting 2nd I agree its less important because you know how you have to pace your innings, but we are already very good at winning by chasing. We need to find a formula that also allows us to win consistently by batting first and for me him as a floating middle order player is best for that.
Like I said before if you get to the 15th over and he's not come in then it means at least 2 of your top 3/4 have gone big in which case you dont really need him.
I deliberately waited until after Buttler got a score to start that debate, I could have posted it after the 2nd match when he'd had 2 failures but didnt want to be accused of pilling on him.
Like I said I get the point that you want him to face the most balls although for me its actually about him facing enough balls to impact the game. That can still be done from over 10 onwards.
His innings yesterday was excellent but we have 4 or 5 others who can play that innings . We dont have anyone else with the experience he has at the highest level of being a finisher, we have no one else who can come in with 10 overs to go and take the game away from the opposition in 30 balls - and this is particularly important if we want to win when batting first as we will invariably have to at the world cup, we arent gonna win every toss. Batting 2nd I agree its less important because you know how you have to pace your innings, but we are already very good at winning by chasing. We need to find a formula that also allows us to win consistently by batting first and for me him as a floating middle order player is best for that.
Like I said before if you get to the 15th over and he's not come in then it means at least 2 of your top 3/4 have gone big in which case you dont really need him.
I'm with you on this one Canters. I would prefer to see any two from Roy/Bairstow/Hales/Banton opening and then Root and Buttler as floaters depending on the match situation.
Those openers hit over the top and even their mishits will go for four because there are only two out in the Power Play. Both Root and Buttler, in very different ways, have the ability to find gaps or, in the latter's case, clear the ropes during the non Power Play overs when there are five waiting for that catch. Because he is a consistent clean hitter.
Stokes isn't as good at T20 as people think he is. His average is actually only 19 and he's never even hit an international 50 - he's a much better 50 over player because, like Malan, he needs overs to get himself in, assess the pitch and kick on from there. Once he has that base he is absolutely destructive but T20 doesn't afford him that luxury. Of course Stokes has to be in the T20 side as the all rounder but it's a misconception that he has been a regular match winner with the bat in this form of the game.
I mentioned before that I am a bit concerned about Roy and specifically his ability to play quality spin in the Power Play especially on a deck that is turning. This series has done little to alleviate that doubt because I must have seen him try to play a reverse sweep at least half a dozen times and either miss it completely or make a poor connection. He's there on merit but really needs to work on it if it's going to be a go to shot. Or he has to take the single and give the bowling to someone who can play the shot. Someone like Root for example!
I deliberately waited until after Buttler got a score to start that debate, I could have posted it after the 2nd match when he'd had 2 failures but didnt want to be accused of pilling on him.
Like I said I get the point that you want him to face the most balls although for me its actually about him facing enough balls to impact the game. That can still be done from over 10 onwards.
His innings yesterday was excellent but we have 4 or 5 others who can play that innings . We dont have anyone else with the experience he has at the highest level of being a finisher, we have no one else who can come in with 10 overs to go and take the game away from the opposition in 30 balls - and this is particularly important if we want to win when batting first as we will invariably have to at the world cup, we arent gonna win every toss. Batting 2nd I agree its less important because you know how you have to pace your innings, but we are already very good at winning by chasing. We need to find a formula that also allows us to win consistently by batting first and for me him as a floating middle order player is best for that.
Like I said before if you get to the 15th over and he's not come in then it means at least 2 of your top 3/4 have gone big in which case you dont really need him.
I can't agree. At least while we have Morgan in the side.
Buttler's best position is as an opener. England's best opener is Buttler. And, for me, that's where the debate should end.
However, some people will point out that Buttler is *also* a great finisher. But that point pales when you also have Morgan as a permanent fixture in the side.
Buttler is our best opener. Morgan is our best finisher. And that is without referencing the fact we have, between them in the order, the world's highest ranked T20 international player.
There are a few things that still need to be fixed before the world cup. I don't think Buttler's batting position is one of them.
I deliberately waited until after Buttler got a score to start that debate, I could have posted it after the 2nd match when he'd had 2 failures but didnt want to be accused of pilling on him.
Like I said I get the point that you want him to face the most balls although for me its actually about him facing enough balls to impact the game. That can still be done from over 10 onwards.
His innings yesterday was excellent but we have 4 or 5 others who can play that innings . We dont have anyone else with the experience he has at the highest level of being a finisher, we have no one else who can come in with 10 overs to go and take the game away from the opposition in 30 balls - and this is particularly important if we want to win when batting first as we will invariably have to at the world cup, we arent gonna win every toss. Batting 2nd I agree its less important because you know how you have to pace your innings, but we are already very good at winning by chasing. We need to find a formula that also allows us to win consistently by batting first and for me him as a floating middle order player is best for that.
Like I said before if you get to the 15th over and he's not come in then it means at least 2 of your top 3/4 have gone big in which case you dont really need him.
I can't agree. At least while we have Morgan in the side.
Buttler's best position is as an opener. England's best opener is Buttler. And, for me, that's where the debate should end.
However, some people will point out that Buttler is *also* a great finisher. But that point pales when you also have Morgan as a permanent fixture in the side.
Buttler is our best opener. Morgan is our best finisher. And that is without referencing the fact we have, between them in the order, the world's highest ranked T20 international player.
There are a few things that still need to be fixed before the world cup. I don't think Buttler's batting position is one of them.
See above as to why that's wrong.
You've just said we have one finisher - Morgan. So why have the only other person opening when the ball is at its liveliest and you have plenty of other options to open. The game can't be won in the first six overs but it can be lost if your most destructive batsman is out early doors because he's having to face the new ball.
Buttler needs to be the team floater and come in when the situation demands him to do so.
I deliberately waited until after Buttler got a score to start that debate, I could have posted it after the 2nd match when he'd had 2 failures but didnt want to be accused of pilling on him.
Like I said I get the point that you want him to face the most balls although for me its actually about him facing enough balls to impact the game. That can still be done from over 10 onwards.
His innings yesterday was excellent but we have 4 or 5 others who can play that innings . We dont have anyone else with the experience he has at the highest level of being a finisher, we have no one else who can come in with 10 overs to go and take the game away from the opposition in 30 balls - and this is particularly important if we want to win when batting first as we will invariably have to at the world cup, we arent gonna win every toss. Batting 2nd I agree its less important because you know how you have to pace your innings, but we are already very good at winning by chasing. We need to find a formula that also allows us to win consistently by batting first and for me him as a floating middle order player is best for that.
Like I said before if you get to the 15th over and he's not come in then it means at least 2 of your top 3/4 have gone big in which case you dont really need him.
I can't agree. At least while we have Morgan in the side.
Buttler's best position is as an opener. England's best opener is Buttler. And, for me, that's where the debate should end.
However, some people will point out that Buttler is *also* a great finisher. But that point pales when you also have Morgan as a permanent fixture in the side.
Buttler is our best opener. Morgan is our best finisher. And that is without referencing the fact we have, between them in the order, the world's highest ranked T20 international player.
There are a few things that still need to be fixed before the world cup. I don't think Buttler's batting position is one of them.
See above as to why that's wrong.
You've just said we have one finisher - Morgan. So why have the only other person opening when the ball is at its liveliest and you have plenty of other options to open. The game can't be won in the first six overs but it can be lost if your most destructive batsman is out early doors because he's having to face the new ball.
Buttler needs to be the team floater and come in when the situation demands him to do so.
personally think the difference in "livliness" on the first 6 overs and the 13th or 14th over is very small. If he's coming in at the 14th over he's going to have to start swinging anyway - and then what if he fails then? We're into the tail. Personally think you should have your best white ball batsman at the top of the order. If he fails you still have malan/root, bairstow, morgan etc to come in.
Or let's put this another way by looking at this series:
Would we have reached the target of 125 had Buttler (28) not opened? Definitely Would we have scored more than 164 had Buttler not been out first ball? Would be hard to score less! Would we have chased down 157 yesterday had Buttler (83*) batted down the order? Quite probably
There is a reason why Kohli, Williamson, Smith etc don't open even though they are the best batsmen in their respective teams. It's because the ball is at its hardest and doing the most with more players in catching positions than at any other time.
Why sacrifice a potential match winner like that? He can't win it in that six overs any more than a Roy/Banton/Hales or Bairstow could. But he might lose it by getting out first ball as he did in the 2nd ODI.
I deliberately waited until after Buttler got a score to start that debate, I could have posted it after the 2nd match when he'd had 2 failures but didnt want to be accused of pilling on him.
Like I said I get the point that you want him to face the most balls although for me its actually about him facing enough balls to impact the game. That can still be done from over 10 onwards.
His innings yesterday was excellent but we have 4 or 5 others who can play that innings . We dont have anyone else with the experience he has at the highest level of being a finisher, we have no one else who can come in with 10 overs to go and take the game away from the opposition in 30 balls - and this is particularly important if we want to win when batting first as we will invariably have to at the world cup, we arent gonna win every toss. Batting 2nd I agree its less important because you know how you have to pace your innings, but we are already very good at winning by chasing. We need to find a formula that also allows us to win consistently by batting first and for me him as a floating middle order player is best for that.
Like I said before if you get to the 15th over and he's not come in then it means at least 2 of your top 3/4 have gone big in which case you dont really need him.
I can't agree. At least while we have Morgan in the side.
Buttler's best position is as an opener. England's best opener is Buttler. And, for me, that's where the debate should end.
However, some people will point out that Buttler is *also* a great finisher. But that point pales when you also have Morgan as a permanent fixture in the side.
Buttler is our best opener. Morgan is our best finisher. And that is without referencing the fact we have, between them in the order, the world's highest ranked T20 international player.
There are a few things that still need to be fixed before the world cup. I don't think Buttler's batting position is one of them.
See above as to why that's wrong.
You've just said we have one finisher - Morgan. So why have the only other person opening when the ball is at its liveliest and you have plenty of other options to open. The game can't be won in the first six overs but it can be lost if your most destructive batsman is out early doors because he's having to face the new ball.
Buttler needs to be the team floater and come in when the situation demands him to do so.
personally think the difference in "livliness" on the first 6 overs and the 13th or 14th over is very small. If he's coming in at the 14th over he's going to have to start swinging anyway - and then what if he fails then? We're into the tail. Personally think you should have your best white ball batsman at the top of the order. If he fails you still have malan/root, bairstow, morgan etc to come in.
If you want to see the difference between the opening overs and the 13th or 14th I would suggest you watch Wood's spells yesterday. It's the hard ball early doors and shine that goes very quickly that is the difference. And it only takes one good ball in those first couple of overs to send Buttler back.
I deliberately waited until after Buttler got a score to start that debate, I could have posted it after the 2nd match when he'd had 2 failures but didnt want to be accused of pilling on him.
Like I said I get the point that you want him to face the most balls although for me its actually about him facing enough balls to impact the game. That can still be done from over 10 onwards.
His innings yesterday was excellent but we have 4 or 5 others who can play that innings . We dont have anyone else with the experience he has at the highest level of being a finisher, we have no one else who can come in with 10 overs to go and take the game away from the opposition in 30 balls - and this is particularly important if we want to win when batting first as we will invariably have to at the world cup, we arent gonna win every toss. Batting 2nd I agree its less important because you know how you have to pace your innings, but we are already very good at winning by chasing. We need to find a formula that also allows us to win consistently by batting first and for me him as a floating middle order player is best for that.
Like I said before if you get to the 15th over and he's not come in then it means at least 2 of your top 3/4 have gone big in which case you dont really need him.
I'm with you on this one Canters. I would prefer to see any two from Roy/Bairstow/Hales/Banton opening and then Root and Buttler as floaters depending on the match situation.
Those openers hit over the top and even their mishits will go for four because there are only two out in the Power Play. Both Root and Buttler, in very different ways, have the ability to find gaps or, in the latter's case, clear the ropes during the non Power Play overs when there are five waiting for that catch. Because he is a consistent clean hitter.
Stokes isn't as good at T20 as people think he is. His average is actually only 19 and he's never even hit an international 50 - he's a much better 50 over player because, like Malan, he needs overs to get himself in, assess the pitch and kick on from there. Once he has that base he is absolutely destructive but T20 doesn't afford him that luxury. Of course Stokes has to be in the T20 side as the all rounder but it's a misconception that he has been a regular match winner with the bat in this form of the game.
I mentioned before that I am a bit concerned about Roy and specifically his ability to play quality spin in the Power Play especially on a deck that is turning. This series has done little to alleviate that doubt because I must have seen him try to play a reverse sweep at least half a dozen times and either miss it completely or make a poor connection. He's there on merit but really needs to work on it if it's going to be a go to shot. Or he has to take the single and give the bowling to someone who can play the shot. Someone like Root for example!
Looking at the ICC rankings for T20, Stokes is ranked 157th as a batsman, 94th as a bowler and 24th as an allrounder. While rankings don't tell the whole story, it does raise doubts in my mind whether he should be an automatic pick for the T20 side at all. Even at his peak, he's not been effective in the format, his bang it in bowling is far more suited to other forms of cricket.
I deliberately waited until after Buttler got a score to start that debate, I could have posted it after the 2nd match when he'd had 2 failures but didnt want to be accused of pilling on him.
Like I said I get the point that you want him to face the most balls although for me its actually about him facing enough balls to impact the game. That can still be done from over 10 onwards.
His innings yesterday was excellent but we have 4 or 5 others who can play that innings . We dont have anyone else with the experience he has at the highest level of being a finisher, we have no one else who can come in with 10 overs to go and take the game away from the opposition in 30 balls - and this is particularly important if we want to win when batting first as we will invariably have to at the world cup, we arent gonna win every toss. Batting 2nd I agree its less important because you know how you have to pace your innings, but we are already very good at winning by chasing. We need to find a formula that also allows us to win consistently by batting first and for me him as a floating middle order player is best for that.
Like I said before if you get to the 15th over and he's not come in then it means at least 2 of your top 3/4 have gone big in which case you dont really need him.
I'm with you on this one Canters. I would prefer to see any two from Roy/Bairstow/Hales/Banton opening and then Root and Buttler as floaters depending on the match situation.
Those openers hit over the top and even their mishits will go for four because there are only two out in the Power Play. Both Root and Buttler, in very different ways, have the ability to find gaps or, in the latter's case, clear the ropes during the non Power Play overs when there are five waiting for that catch. Because he is a consistent clean hitter.
Stokes isn't as good at T20 as people think he is. His average is actually only 19 and he's never even hit an international 50 - he's a much better 50 over player because, like Malan, he needs overs to get himself in, assess the pitch and kick on from there. Once he has that base he is absolutely destructive but T20 doesn't afford him that luxury. Of course Stokes has to be in the T20 side as the all rounder but it's a misconception that he has been a regular match winner with the bat in this form of the game.
I mentioned before that I am a bit concerned about Roy and specifically his ability to play quality spin in the Power Play especially on a deck that is turning. This series has done little to alleviate that doubt because I must have seen him try to play a reverse sweep at least half a dozen times and either miss it completely or make a poor connection. He's there on merit but really needs to work on it if it's going to be a go to shot. Or he has to take the single and give the bowling to someone who can play the shot. Someone like Root for example!
Looking at the ICC rankings for T20, Stokes is ranked 157th as a batsman, 94th as a bowler and 24th as an allrounder. While rankings don't tell the whole story, it does raise doubts in my mind whether he should be an automatic pick for the T20 side at all. Even at his peak, he's not been effective in the format, his bang it in bowling is far more suited to other forms of cricket.
I think we can afford him to be in it because he is one of those players who can turn a game with one bit of inspiration - be it a match winning shot when needing a boundary to win, an unbelievable catch or an unplayable over. But, as I said, he's not as consistently good at this format as people think he is.
I deliberately waited until after Buttler got a score to start that debate, I could have posted it after the 2nd match when he'd had 2 failures but didnt want to be accused of pilling on him.
Like I said I get the point that you want him to face the most balls although for me its actually about him facing enough balls to impact the game. That can still be done from over 10 onwards.
His innings yesterday was excellent but we have 4 or 5 others who can play that innings . We dont have anyone else with the experience he has at the highest level of being a finisher, we have no one else who can come in with 10 overs to go and take the game away from the opposition in 30 balls - and this is particularly important if we want to win when batting first as we will invariably have to at the world cup, we arent gonna win every toss. Batting 2nd I agree its less important because you know how you have to pace your innings, but we are already very good at winning by chasing. We need to find a formula that also allows us to win consistently by batting first and for me him as a floating middle order player is best for that.
Like I said before if you get to the 15th over and he's not come in then it means at least 2 of your top 3/4 have gone big in which case you dont really need him.
I can't agree. At least while we have Morgan in the side.
Buttler's best position is as an opener. England's best opener is Buttler. And, for me, that's where the debate should end.
However, some people will point out that Buttler is *also* a great finisher. But that point pales when you also have Morgan as a permanent fixture in the side.
Buttler is our best opener. Morgan is our best finisher. And that is without referencing the fact we have, between them in the order, the world's highest ranked T20 international player.
There are a few things that still need to be fixed before the world cup. I don't think Buttler's batting position is one of them.
See above as to why that's wrong.
You've just said we have one finisher - Morgan. So why have the only other person opening when the ball is at its liveliest and you have plenty of other options to open. The game can't be won in the first six overs but it can be lost if your most destructive batsman is out early doors because he's having to face the new ball.
Buttler needs to be the team floater and come in when the situation demands him to do so.
It's my opinion. You may have a different opinion. That doesn't make either of us 'wrong'. Also, for what it's worth, I didn't say we have one finisher. We have many, the best of which is Morgan. If we had a paucity in that role, then there would be a stronger argument for Buttler not to open. The fact is, we have a surfeit.
My preference is to have our best opener opening and able to bat destructively in the power play. And for our best finisher batting in the final few overs, wherever that means he needs to be in the order.
I also think Buttler benefits greatly for having a settled, agreed, permanent position in the team: that comes from giving him the gloves (despite other wicket keepers being in the eleven) and having him open (despite his efficacy batting later in the innings.
I agree he could also bat effectively lower in the order.
I also agree that the game can't be won, but can be lost, by the batting side, in the first six overs. But I would also posit that the game can be won by the batting side in the first twelve overs. A dozen overs of Roy and Buttler batting at full throttle would likely take the game away from any side in the world. But twelve overs of careful, considered, defensive batting by players protecting Buttler (and Stokes and Morgan) will cost more games than it wins.
I think Buttler should open the batting for England. I think he would be a certainty to open for any other side in the world. We should look for improvements in every aspect for the game, but not make changes for the sake of it.
My last word on this (you'll be pleased to hear). If Buttler were to drop down the order, I don't think there is anyone you could promote that would make opposition bowlers more fearful. Sometimes you have to do what the opposition least want you to do. And oppositions do not want Buttler batting with 120 balls still to face.
I deliberately waited until after Buttler got a score to start that debate, I could have posted it after the 2nd match when he'd had 2 failures but didnt want to be accused of pilling on him.
Like I said I get the point that you want him to face the most balls although for me its actually about him facing enough balls to impact the game. That can still be done from over 10 onwards.
His innings yesterday was excellent but we have 4 or 5 others who can play that innings . We dont have anyone else with the experience he has at the highest level of being a finisher, we have no one else who can come in with 10 overs to go and take the game away from the opposition in 30 balls - and this is particularly important if we want to win when batting first as we will invariably have to at the world cup, we arent gonna win every toss. Batting 2nd I agree its less important because you know how you have to pace your innings, but we are already very good at winning by chasing. We need to find a formula that also allows us to win consistently by batting first and for me him as a floating middle order player is best for that.
Like I said before if you get to the 15th over and he's not come in then it means at least 2 of your top 3/4 have gone big in which case you dont really need him.
I'm with you on this one Canters. I would prefer to see any two from Roy/Bairstow/Hales/Banton opening and then Root and Buttler as floaters depending on the match situation.
Those openers hit over the top and even their mishits will go for four because there are only two out in the Power Play. Both Root and Buttler, in very different ways, have the ability to find gaps or, in the latter's case, clear the ropes during the non Power Play overs when there are five waiting for that catch. Because he is a consistent clean hitter.
Stokes isn't as good at T20 as people think he is. His average is actually only 19 and he's never even hit an international 50 - he's a much better 50 over player because, like Malan, he needs overs to get himself in, assess the pitch and kick on from there. Once he has that base he is absolutely destructive but T20 doesn't afford him that luxury. Of course Stokes has to be in the T20 side as the all rounder but it's a misconception that he has been a regular match winner with the bat in this form of the game.
I mentioned before that I am a bit concerned about Roy and specifically his ability to play quality spin in the Power Play especially on a deck that is turning. This series has done little to alleviate that doubt because I must have seen him try to play a reverse sweep at least half a dozen times and either miss it completely or make a poor connection. He's there on merit but really needs to work on it if it's going to be a go to shot. Or he has to take the single and give the bowling to someone who can play the shot. Someone like Root for example!
Looking at the ICC rankings for T20, Stokes is ranked 157th as a batsman, 94th as a bowler and 24th as an allrounder. While rankings don't tell the whole story, it does raise doubts in my mind whether he should be an automatic pick for the T20 side at all. Even at his peak, he's not been effective in the format, his bang it in bowling is far more suited to other forms of cricket.
I think we can afford him to be in it because he is one of those players who can turn a game with one bit of inspiration - be it a match winning shot when needing a boundary to win, an unbelievable catch or an unplayable over. But, as I said, he's not as consistently good at this format as people think he is.
The batting of Stokes and Bairstow has gone in different directions in recent years. Stokes has become more orthodox and solid, while Bairstow has turned himself into a great white ball players at the expense of his Test match defence against the moving ball.
Comments
Malan typically takes his time before launching late on. But he's not getting to "late on". This is his last 10 innings for England and the Hobart Hurricanes in the Big Bash:
18 off 17
24 off 23
24* off 20
34 off 36
11 off 8
3 off 6
42 off 28
0 off 6
20 off 23
26 off 22
So that's 202 runs at an average of 22.44 and a strike rate of just 107. I got the impression in the Big Bash that he was very much playing within himself and suspected that the reason was down to him wanting to get an IPL contract.
The reason that Joe Root has been left out of this squad is because the T20 side has a way of taking the game to the opposition. What Root does do, however, is rotate and gets the big hitter at the other end on strike. Malan doesn't and the scores above tend to be made up of "feast or famine" boundaries or dots.
There are two other advantages that Root offers - he has proven that he can score on Indian wickets when they aren't roads and it would be very handy to have that second or third spin bowling option. Root's average in international T20s is hardly shabby either - 35.72 at a strike rate of 126.30.
There is also a point that the T20 rankings are not the most accurate. A lot of the worlds best players only play T20 in World cup years. Root Stokes and Buttler for us barely play the format in normal years as they are usually rested.
Another point. I still believe Buttler as a floating middle order player to come in around the 10th-13th over would be better for us as a team. Yes I understand the argument that he is our most destructive player and you want him to face as many balls as possible, I get it. But for me its about balance of the side and where he can add the most value. As an opener he is IMO only marginally better than Roy, Banton, Bairstow, Hales so his value added isnt all that much. As a finisher we have no one really who plays that role well like he can so he adds significantly more value.
The argument that "what if we dont lose a wicket at the right time for him to come in" - well if we havent lost a couple of wickets by that point in the game then at least one other player has fired and we arent gonna need him to singlehandedly win us the game.
Imagine the psychological damage it would do to a team if they got through Roy, Bairstow/Hales/Banton, Malan/Root and then Buttler walks out with 10 overs still to go.
One day cricket I'd agree but T20 you give players like Buttler as many balls as you can.
I know he doesn't have a contract in the IPL but we know the reasons for that. A spinner is in least demand of all the disciplines because they have so many to call on. They want quickies, all rounders and world class batsmen who preferably keep too.
You don't get someone like Kohli out seven times without being able to bowl. Four of those came in Tests too. It's a shame that he has fallen out of love with red ball cricket but I just wonder whether we could persuade him to give it one last go. We have enough bowlers in the shape of Archer/Broad/Anderson etc etc who have the ability to "hang the bowl out there" at the other end when he's bowling to not worry if he goes for a few. And he doesn't bowl that many bad balls these days anyway.
https://www.skysports.com/cricket/news/12173/12103989/adil-rashid-considering-return-to-england-test-fold-but-shoulder-remains-a-concern
Even if it's only for one year. Who would the Aussie bats prefer to face? Rashid or Leach or Bess or A N Other?
Like I said I get the point that you want him to face the most balls although for me its actually about him facing enough balls to impact the game. That can still be done from over 10 onwards.
His innings yesterday was excellent but we have 4 or 5 others who can play that innings . We dont have anyone else with the experience he has at the highest level of being a finisher, we have no one else who can come in with 10 overs to go and take the game away from the opposition in 30 balls - and this is particularly important if we want to win when batting first as we will invariably have to at the world cup, we arent gonna win every toss. Batting 2nd I agree its less important because you know how you have to pace your innings, but we are already very good at winning by chasing. We need to find a formula that also allows us to win consistently by batting first and for me him as a floating middle order player is best for that.
Like I said before if you get to the 15th over and he's not come in then it means at least 2 of your top 3/4 have gone big in which case you dont really need him.
Those openers hit over the top and even their mishits will go for four because there are only two out in the Power Play. Both Root and Buttler, in very different ways, have the ability to find gaps or, in the latter's case, clear the ropes during the non Power Play overs when there are five waiting for that catch. Because he is a consistent clean hitter.
Stokes isn't as good at T20 as people think he is. His average is actually only 19 and he's never even hit an international 50 - he's a much better 50 over player because, like Malan, he needs overs to get himself in, assess the pitch and kick on from there. Once he has that base he is absolutely destructive but T20 doesn't afford him that luxury. Of course Stokes has to be in the T20 side as the all rounder but it's a misconception that he has been a regular match winner with the bat in this form of the game.
I mentioned before that I am a bit concerned about Roy and specifically his ability to play quality spin in the Power Play especially on a deck that is turning. This series has done little to alleviate that doubt because I must have seen him try to play a reverse sweep at least half a dozen times and either miss it completely or make a poor connection. He's there on merit but really needs to work on it if it's going to be a go to shot. Or he has to take the single and give the bowling to someone who can play the shot. Someone like Root for example!
Buttler's best position is as an opener. England's best opener is Buttler. And, for me, that's where the debate should end.
However, some people will point out that Buttler is *also* a great finisher. But that point pales when you also have Morgan as a permanent fixture in the side.
Buttler is our best opener. Morgan is our best finisher. And that is without referencing the fact we have, between them in the order, the world's highest ranked T20 international player.
There are a few things that still need to be fixed before the world cup. I don't think Buttler's batting position is one of them.
You've just said we have one finisher - Morgan. So why have the only other person opening when the ball is at its liveliest and you have plenty of other options to open. The game can't be won in the first six overs but it can be lost if your most destructive batsman is out early doors because he's having to face the new ball.
Buttler needs to be the team floater and come in when the situation demands him to do so.
Would we have reached the target of 125 had Buttler (28) not opened? Definitely
Would we have scored more than 164 had Buttler not been out first ball? Would be hard to score less!
Would we have chased down 157 yesterday had Buttler (83*) batted down the order? Quite probably
There is a reason why Kohli, Williamson, Smith etc don't open even though they are the best batsmen in their respective teams. It's because the ball is at its hardest and doing the most with more players in catching positions than at any other time.
Why sacrifice a potential match winner like that? He can't win it in that six overs any more than a Roy/Banton/Hales or Bairstow could. But he might lose it by getting out first ball as he did in the 2nd ODI.
https://www.icc-cricket.com/rankings/mens/player-rankings/1154
My preference is to have our best opener opening and able to bat destructively in the power play. And for our best finisher batting in the final few overs, wherever that means he needs to be in the order.
I also think Buttler benefits greatly for having a settled, agreed, permanent position in the team: that comes from giving him the gloves (despite other wicket keepers being in the eleven) and having him open (despite his efficacy batting later in the innings.
I agree he could also bat effectively lower in the order.
I also agree that the game can't be won, but can be lost, by the batting side, in the first six overs. But I would also posit that the game can be won by the batting side in the first twelve overs. A dozen overs of Roy and Buttler batting at full throttle would likely take the game away from any side in the world. But twelve overs of careful, considered, defensive batting by players protecting Buttler (and Stokes and Morgan) will cost more games than it wins.
I think Buttler should open the batting for England. I think he would be a certainty to open for any other side in the world. We should look for improvements in every aspect for the game, but not make changes for the sake of it.
My last word on this (you'll be pleased to hear). If Buttler were to drop down the order, I don't think there is anyone you could promote that would make opposition bowlers more fearful. Sometimes you have to do what the opposition least want you to do. And oppositions do not want Buttler batting with 120 balls still to face.