Quintin is chilled but the Proteas finally win one…

Forum » Cricket » Quintin is chilled but the Proteas finally win one…

Oct 30, 2021, 17:58

….and the two players our resident experts always slag off, Bavuma and David Miller do the business. Those sixes of Miller were epic.

I thought for sure we were toast when de Ock failed again….and then when Markram, Bavuma and Pretorius became hat trick victims, it seemed all over. A great six by Rabada was crucial and then Miller!

This is the first necessary WC win I can ever remember the Proteas pulling off from so far behind. Will this give them the impetus to be contenders. In Nortje we probably have the best fast bowler at the tournament and Shamsi is increasingly being played with respect, the necessary ingredient for a spin bowler.

Why not start with Bavuma again and move de Ock back to number 6. That might avoid some of the early pressure of a lost wicket, allow Bavuma to play his natural game and let de Ock partner  Miller at the death.

Just a thought.

Oct 31, 2021, 12:42

Yeah, Miller has BMT. I fancy him in a pinch-hitting role on these reliable UAE tracks.

Markram in the early mid order is a certainly the play. He improved the moment he batted there.

Bavuma has lost all my support. I hope he fails.

On paper were on of the better batting teams and our batters are getting us over the line, for now. But it doesn’t look like we can chase down much above 160. And someone is gonna hit that much against us soon.

Oct 31, 2021, 16:11

Why has Bavuma lost your support Plum, was it the kneeling thing?

I would have the following batting line-up:








That gives us fast scoring potential in the 4 to 6 slots, and doesn’t have big hitters like Ock and Markram playing 5 defensive overs to open. I would also slip Rabada in ahead of Pretorius if we are in attack mode.

Nov 01, 2021, 00:18

I’d leave the batting order as it is. de Kock is too lethal to be wasted at 6

He is too good not to come good

Nov 01, 2021, 02:34

Spot on Dave, Quinton is needed for his big hitting in the power play there simply isn't anyone else to fulfill the role, miss out in the power play then it's goodnight and goodbye, game over.

Nov 01, 2021, 04:57

It’s interesting to look at how run rates change as the innings progresses.

Nov 01, 2021, 04:59

So this study shows your biggest hitters should be batting in the overs 12 through 20….rather than in the 1 through 6. A bit of analysis usually clarifies a lot of myths.

Nov 01, 2021, 11:42

But we have Miller down there as the big hitter, it makes sense to have another like de Kock at the top of the order given we are only talking 20 overs

Attack at the start and at the end. In any format of short cricket be it 20 or 50 overs the end of the innings will always see a spike in the run rate

By having Miller and de Kock at 5 and 6 you stand the chance of both not getting to bat in 20 over cricket - better to ensure one of the big hitters gets to bat

Nov 01, 2021, 11:44


The little wanker lost my support some time back on account of him leaning so heavily into race politics. I can’t can’t stand the hypocrisy.

There is middle ground here in terms of the batting order. If you don’t want to risk your best batters early yet at the same time the power play is an opportunity to get ahead of the game…

Have pinch hitters in at 1 and 3. Rabada and Linde are good candidates for these roles.

Trying that, I’d have… Linde Reeza Rabada Markram Rassie Quintie Miller

And I’d have Bavuma kneeling somewhere at an ANC conference.

Nov 01, 2021, 12:30

George Linde isn't in the squad proper.

Nov 01, 2021, 12:48

Yeah. Was just giving an example.

Fortuin or Nortje.

Nov 01, 2021, 16:48

I haven’t seen a good analysis of the power play thing Plum, but I think you are on the right track. The common view is the power play is a huge scoring opportunity. It isn’t,  it’s a modest opportunity because the need to avoid wicket loss at the outset, is an offset.

Also the idea you need a big hitter is a fallacy. You need an accurate stroke player who can hit the gaps…when you do that it’s likely to be a boundary because there is no cover.

Later in the innings with 3 more players patrolling the boundaries an accurate hitter is contained. That’s when you need a big hitter to penetrate the field or go for sixes.

Thus de Ock and Miller should be targeted at the last 10 overs….there are always 2 batsmen out there, so just having Miller, even if he comes off, may not be enough.

Bavuma is there whether we like it or not and can be quite effective during the Power Play…..and any case Ock in the power play tends to be cautious against the better teams.

I still like my batting line up given those available. But Dave has a point that maybe you don’t get enough of either player…in which case you could always shuffle Markram/Miller/Ock one slot forward and adjust the first 3.

Nov 01, 2021, 19:05

Nope Moz you are wrong de Kock stays opening where he is lethal and Miller at 6 where he is brilliant

Nov 01, 2021, 19:32

Well Ock probably will stay there….I was just thinking he might make a few runs at 6. But maybe against Bangladesh he’ll avoid another embarrassing flop opening the innings.

Nov 01, 2021, 23:16

Well his record tells us he is one of the best in the business across all disciplines

He and Markram are our best bats

Nov 02, 2021, 09:18

 You could argue that T20s are shorter and thus you want the best possible bats to face as many balls as possible. And this is basically the exact same strategy as employed in 50/o matches. Wisdom of the conventional kind.

Let’s assume that you reverse your batting order. Worst to best while giving your opening(worst batters) a license to swing.

After the powerplay, you are on 40-50/4 while your best batters are still to come.

Would that be a stronger position than being 40-50/2 at the same stage with a conventional batting line-up?

It would be interesting to look at stats but, and I speak under correction, a score of 50 after the powerplay is relatively rare with most teams scoring between 30-40 during that time and often for the loss of a wicket or two.

An extra 10 or 20 runs in the first 6 overs is gold.

It’s not a question of batting out overs since it’s extremely rare for teams not to bat out their 120 balls.

Considering the fielding restrictions, where edges, lofts, and mistimed shots will often go to the boundary, it doesn’t appear inconceivable that 4 tail-end batters could score 40-50 runs between them during a powerplay. In fact, the chances are that one of them will hit his straps and give you a quick 20 on his own.

And, even if everything falls apart and you end up on 20/4 after 3 overs, you still have your best batters to come and could easily continue to post a competitive total.

While I agree with Dave to some degree and follow the conventional wisdom, there is a feeling that a different approach is required in this mini-cricket format.

Perhaps when I have time I’ll look at some stats.

Nov 03, 2021, 08:28

Interesting points indeed, nice analogy Plum

The one aspect which I would place a bit more emphasis on would be, who you would rather have coming in, in the beginning stages of the game, if they did in fact hit their straps from ball one....

Meaning, would I want Rabada there, hitting a quick fire 30 off 15..... but I could have had Miller, coming in earlier and staying longer throughout the innings...… hitting 85 off 52.... whereas if he came in later, he may have only contributed 38 off 24.

It's all hypothetical, I know, because you will never know the true numbers, but if I had to make the choice now, it would be to have my most “consistent” run scorers coming in as early as possible, to make as much impact on the innings as possible, than giving them a 5 – 10 over cameo….. especially if they have their eye in

Nothing worse than seeing a AB or Miller type batsman coming in later in the innings and smashing a quick-fire 50 off 20 balls, when he could have then hit a 90 off 40 if he came in earlier…. but he could also have come in earlier and got a duck….

Classic example..... look at that historic 438 game….. if Boeta Diepenaar had not gone early for 1 run, we could and probably would have lost that game, but who knows…. we do know that Boeta was always known as a very slow starter, so imagine how many balls he would have used up, that Smith or Gibbs or Boucher would not have been able to dispatch if Diepenaar had remained for another 3 overs 

It’s a funny game

Nov 03, 2021, 10:18

Agreed, it is conventional wisdom. 

I guess that the way I see it is similar to looking at gear ratios in different types of racing vehicles haha

Something about going from ODIs to T20 while changing hardly anything about the way a batting line-up is presented doesn't feel quite right.

Quick acceleration at low risk is mega important at the start of a T20 innings. And that means that whether it's your best or worst bat facing the first ball, they will be taking risks. 

I don't have the numbers but would guess that the disparity between how long it takes a good and a bad player to get out while playing risky shots is proportionally not as large as if both were playing conservatively. Meaning that if the disparity in test matches is 30% then I'm sure that in T20 that % is smaller. 

Later in an innings, you require both control and acceleration. By having less chance of your best batters being there, you sacrifice some control.

Of course, two people in your conventional top 6 could commence murdering the bowling from ball 1. There's always that. 

Nov 03, 2021, 12:51

"I don't have the numbers but would guess that the disparity between how long it takes a good and a bad player to get out while playing risky shots is proportionally not as large as if both were playing conservatively"

I would hedge that your more experienced players would be more successful because even less experienced players playing conservatively would edge, nick or miss more, purely because of their ability or experience

"Later in an innings, you require both control and acceleration. By having less chance of your best batters being there, you sacrifice some control."

Most definitely

You need to Log in to reply.
Back to top