Quintin is chilled but the Proteas finally win one…

….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.

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

I would have the following batting line-up:

Bavuma

Hendricks

Dussen

Markram

Miller

Ock 

….

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.

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.

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

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.

George Linde isn't in the squa d proper.

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.

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 beginni ng 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

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. 

"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