Durhamfootman wrote:Durham are *modded* hopeless
again
and this the all new, improved, hopeless mark 12
baffles me that a professional team, with professional coaches and access to all kinds of modern data analysis software, can actually make the same mistakes year after year after year and then think that because they got to finals day a couple of times in 15 years that they're on to something that nobody else has spotted
Idiots!
I get frustrated by you guys every year, and I'm not even a Durham fan. So god knows what it's like for you.
T20 really doesn't require too much thinking. If you want a five man attack (which is perfectly acceptable in my view, if your bowlers are good enough), then pick six batsmen, one allrounder, and four bowlers (if any of those bowlers can bat, then all the better). If you want a six man attack, then (broadly) pick five batsmen, three allrounders, and three bowlers (and again, if any of those bowlers can bat, then all the better). There is no reason to have an attack larger than six.
Proper batters, proper bowlers. Whilst it may sound bizarre, there's little room for bits-and-pieces cricketers in t20. You're batting for 20 overs, not 50 overs or 120 overs. You don't need batting all the way down the order for 20 overs. But you do need batting at the top, and in the middle, that can find the ropes. And as for the bowling, well it only takes a few bad overs, and you've conceded a score way over par. Every ball, every over, counts. Bowling is all about quality, not quantity. And if it's bowling to a plan, then all the better.
(One of the keys to that - and it's where we at Hampshire fall down right now - is having a keeper who is good enough to count as a batsman. Most counties do these days, but not everyone is so fortunate. It somewhat goes to pot if you're having to carry a keeper.)