TOPIC:

Cannot believe the way Bancroft and Agar batted tonight.There just not the right type of players for this format.

gtrxuone wrote: Cannot believe the way Bancroft and Agar batted tonight.There just not the right type of players for this format.

Think you will find that they were preserving the run rate at that stage gtrx. They had probably already conceded the game and they didn't want to get bowled out for 130 as that would have had a pretty drastic impact on the NRR which may be crucial in terms of whether they make 4th or 5th. Its a bit academic though because the Scorchers have demonstrated that they are nowhere near the top 3 and would be making up the numbers in the finals. Livingstone is a powerful leg side player but he really needs to develop a few off side shots then maybe he wouldn't be hit on the body so much. Even so beyond the openers and Marsh, the Scorchers lack power in their line up. They lost it tonight in the first 10 -12 overs of their bowling though. 181 was too much especially against the best balanced bowling attack in the competition in Rashid Khan, Siddle, Neser Stanlake and Agar. Strikers are my bet to win the tournament.

mikeh wrote:

gtrxuone wrote: Cannot believe the way Bancroft and Agar batted tonight.There just not the right type of players for this format.

Think you will find that they were preserving the run rate at that stage gtrx. They had probably already conceded the game and they didn't want to get bowled out for 130 as that would have had a pretty drastic impact on the NRR which may be crucial in terms of whether they make 4th or 5th. Its a bit academic though because the Scorchers have demonstrated that they are nowhere near the top 3 and would be making up the numbers in the finals. Livingstone is a powerful leg side player but he really needs to develop a few off side shots then maybe he wouldn't be hit on the body so much. Even so beyond the openers and Marsh, the Scorchers lack power in their line up. They lost it tonight in the first 10 -12 overs of their bowling though. 181 was too much especially against the best balanced bowling attack in the competition in Rashid Khan, Siddle, Neser Stanlake and Agar. Strikers are my bet to win the tournament.

Thanks Mike good post.Adelaide look very good but do lose Rashid before the GF.

I’ve never played cricket in a serious comp, so will stand corrected. But it seems to me that when chasing, they seem to want to win the game in 10 overs rather than chase a run rate. They are a very frustrating team to watch and I agree that if they make the finals, they will just be cannon fodder.

Here is a question I would like to ask to get your opinions. It doesn't concern the Scorchers so that may be good.

Why is there an apparent unwritten rule that the Man of the Match in 20/20 BBL matches has to come from the winning team?

In yesterday's Sixers v Renegades match won by the Sixers with 8 balls to spare:

Aaron Finch (Renegades) scored 109 in 68 balls out of a total score of 175 with 6 fours and 7 sixes.
Josh Phillipe (Sixers) scored 61 from 42 balls with 5 fours and 3 sixes and 1 stumping while fielding.
Steve Smith (Sixers) scored 66 from 40 balls with 7 fours and 1 six and did nothing while fielding.

Who got the Man of the Match? Smith. Why? Maybe because the match was played in Sydney. I don't know.

Can anyone offer any suggestions please?

Don't be fooled by the fightback in the last couple of overs, overall it was a dreadful performance by a team fighting for a finals berth. Probably a mercy killing but could someone please tell me why
1. The Scorchers batted first when they won the toss, didn't they read the forecast that there was likely to be a rain interruption?. The Thunder could barely believe their luck.
2. They dropped Patterson who used to play for the Thunder and has batted plenty of times on that wicket and instead chose David who has done nothing this season.
3. They would have expected anything from Morkel when he hadn't played a competitive game for a month.

Clean out needed and not just the players.

mikeh wrote: Don't be fooled by the fightback in the last couple of overs, overall it was a dreadful performance by a team fighting for a finals berth. Probably a mercy killing but could someone please tell me why
1. The Scorchers batted first when they won the toss, didn't they read the forecast that there was likely to be a rain interruption?. The Thunder could barely believe their luck.
2. They dropped Patterson who used to play for the Thunder and has batted plenty of times on that wicket and instead chose David who has done nothing this season.
3. They would have expected anything from Morkel when he hadn't played a competitive game for a month.

Clean out needed and not just the players.

I will try and answer some of these for you Mike-

1. M.Marsh (and his coach) obviously are not very bright (hence how he bowled Kelly in the last over who has been destroyed in the last overs all season)
2. Voges & M.Marsh are not very bright if they think David adds more than Patterson and how on earth does Turner continue to be selected when embarrassingly out of form
3. A poor selection choice from those who are not very bright!

Speaking of not very bright you can add Brad Hodge to that list in the commentary box who reckoned the rain reduced target was favourable towards Perth!

Mike, your 3 questions can be answered in one statement. Lack of brainpower.

The commentators said that Patterson was left out because he is not a match winner. I'll tell you what, neither is Kelly, who has proved this season that he is no longer a death bowler.

The Scorchers hierarchy (if they remain), should throw Langer's West Aussie policy in the bin and recruit the best players available regardless of where they are from.

If Livingston and Inglis don't get PS off to a good start then they're stuffed as the underperforming middle order are useless....and I agree Mike...why would you bat first knowing full well there was rain about the place...it's just dumb.

one time only wrote: Here is a question I would like to ask to get your opinions. It doesn't concern the Scorchers so that may be good.

Why is there an apparent unwritten rule that the Man of the Match in 20/20 BBL matches has to come from the winning team?

In yesterday's Sixers v Renegades match won by the Sixers with 8 balls to spare:

Aaron Finch (Renegades) scored 109 in 68 balls out of a total score of 175 with 6 fours and 7 sixes.
Josh Phillipe (Sixers) scored 61 from 42 balls with 5 fours and 3 sixes and 1 stumping while fielding.
Steve Smith (Sixers) scored 66 from 40 balls with 7 fours and 1 six and did nothing while fielding.

Who got the Man of the Match? Smith. Why? Maybe because the match was played in Sydney. I don't know.

Can anyone offer any suggestions please?

OTO the only thing I can offer is that the TV networks that cover the BBL have determined that only players from the winning team should win a man of the match award. I agree that any objective observer would have given Finch the man of the match yesterday and possibly Phillipe 2nd in front of Smith. Phillipe actually set the run chase up and made it easier for Smith at the end. Maybe the TV gurus wanted an exclusive with Smudge so there you are.