The batting performance off the last 20 overs against what is no better than an average county attack was poor. No momentum and no-one pressing for a big target. We were set for 300 almost from the start. It was as if they sensed that 300 was there for the taking and rested on their laurels. Surely we should have seized the opportunity to set 350 plus and send a message out to our future opponents? There's also the small matter of net run rate too which after two defeats is very poor.This approach has to stem from the team management. It's a negative mindset which has to change.
I'd bring Hales in for Ballance. But either way we have to be a lot more flexible depending on the situation.
Quote from: PaulWinch again on February 23, 2015, 01:47:28 PMI'd bring Hales in for Ballance. But either way we have to be a lot more flexible depending on the situation.Would you bat Hales at 3 Paul or would have him opening with either Bell or Moeen moving down?
Quote from: tomd2103 on February 23, 2015, 02:40:29 PMQuote from: PaulWinch again on February 23, 2015, 01:47:28 PMI'd bring Hales in for Ballance. But either way we have to be a lot more flexible depending on the situation.Would you bat Hales at 3 Paul or would have him opening with either Bell or Moeen moving down?I think I'd have Hales open with Bell dropping to three.
There's been calls for more flexibility in the line-up for many years and several different set-ups but nobody listens. Probably because the team's so data driven that it's left no room for reactionary decisions.
It's all very well getting 215 against minnows but this man mosly lets his country down when they need him most. I will judge him v India or South Africa. It's always about Gayle as far as he is concerned.