Posts
Loading ...I’m not sure I agree. Monty’s one of my favorite players, but his real value to the side is proportional to the number of overs he can bowl, because he can hold down an end without getting tired and take the odd wicket. In 20/20 he’s only allowed to bowl 24 deliveries, and probably some of them will go for boundaries. Plus in 20/20 wickets are less valuable. They serve to put pressure on the batsmen, and the wicket of an in-form batsman can be worth a lot (as when Collingwood played the Monty role on Friday and got Gayle out), but fielding mistakes can take off as much pressure as wickets add. And having stronger tail-end batsman can counteract some of the pressure on the middle order. So I agree Monty’s got skills, and that’s why he’s in the 13-man 20/20 squad, but it’s not the same equation as in ODI’s or test matches.
Twenty20 short-sightedness
By Ian last year, at the start of July Leave a comment on this post
I see Sir Viv has called for England to pick a team of 20-20 specialists for the World Cup later this year. It shouldn’t take a genius to point this out to the ECB. We have players capable of winning the thing, so why not give them a run out now against the Windies, rather than using this as a warm-up for the ODIs?
Colly, who seems to have graduated from the Alec Stewart academy of interviewing, says that these are the best ODI players in the country and that they’ll adapt. Wrong! 50-50 is a different game from 20-20, so pick a different team! The only concession they made in team selection was to drop Monty, presumably because he doesn’t bat or field. Have they learned nothing from Fletcher’s mistakes?! Spin is vital in 20-20 and he’s our best spinner. Play him! How long before they wheel Gilo out again? Sheesh.
Tags: monty-panesar, paul-collingwood, Twenty-20, viv-richards |
One Response to “Twenty20 short-sightedness”
July 2nd, 2007 at 12.04 pm
Comments
« Cruel game for those on debut | Main | Shiv Chanderpaul is…Kurt Cobain? »
