Big Bash

Remove this Banner Ad

Interloperer said:
I think Local Replacement Players have to be signed immediately after the player they're replacing and named in the next match day squad too. So it would have to be for Short?

Harry Manenti is worth a try though. He did well in the top end tournament for the strikers. And is much better than his brother for Italy. Albeit mostly in beating up on low-tier nations. Does have a 3-for vs Ireland though.
Click to expand...

I am glad you understand the local replacement rules. Very confusing.

I see Tom Andrews got picked up by the Thunder.

Harry Manenti is listed as an all rounder but is he more of a batsman or bowler?
 
Redline said:
I am glad you understand the local replacement rules. Very confusing.

I see Tom Andrews got picked up by the Thunder.

Harry Manenti is listed as an all rounder but is he more of a batsman or bowler?
Click to expand...
Bowls some fairly innocuous medium pace (wicket keeper up at times)

Slogging batter mostly
 
Redline said:
I am glad you understand the local replacement rules. Very confusing.
Click to expand...
I don't. I can't actually find the rules anywhere, and am piecing it together from multiple official press releases from Strikers/Cricket Australia. They only concrete thing I found was the bit about it being compulsory to immediately select a local replacement player in the match day team or 12th man if you use one to replace an injured player.

Redline said:
Harry Manenti is listed as an all rounder but is he more of a batsman or bowler?
Click to expand...
He was better with the bat for the Strikers team that played in the top end. But historically he bowls better against real opposition for Italy, and beats up on lesser teams with the bat as well.

So late order slogger who bowls an over or two?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

crowholder said:
Disappointing result, but we fought hard and just lost in the end. Great last over by Scott under pressure. He almost got us into a super over.
Click to expand...

Great over by Scott. I thought all his overs were well bowled.

We probably didn't deserve to win but it feels like the second game this year that we lost from a winning position in the field. I think it might be part poor captaincy / coaching and part personnel.
 
Redline said:
Great over by Scott. I thought all his overs were well bowled.

We probably didn't deserve to win but it feels like the second game this year that we lost from a winning position in the field. I think it might be part poor captaincy / coaching and part personnel.
Click to expand...
Short is not having a good season.

Hasn't fired with the bat and has made some very questionable captaincy calls.
 
Thornton doesn't have a slower ball so is a bit of an all-or-nothing risk in a Power Surge and at the death.

Gets wickets or gets smashed. No Plan B

Maybe we're better bowling Scott along with Overton in those two Surge overs?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Thornton's the bowler I trust the least at the end of an innings, his reaction to getting smashed is to somehow think that the batter was 'wrong' and just bowl the same ball again. I feel like he should bowl his 4 overs in one spell at the start, where this is an admirable trait when seeking wickets.

I don't feel like Ollie Pope has been an amazing recruit either.
 
Real good game that one.

As with the Thunder game it was the little things again that cost us, but a final ball result against the reigning champs away shows we are going to be pretty competitive all season.

Not sure you can judge Ollie Pope too much after a couple of games either.
 
Interloperer said:
Thornton's the bowler I trust the least at the end of an innings, his reaction to getting smashed is to somehow think that the batter was 'wrong' and just bowl the same ball again. I feel like he should bowl his 4 overs in one spell at the start, where this is an admirable trait when seeking wickets.

I don't feel like Ollie Pope has been an amazing recruit either.
Click to expand...
Ollie Pope cost us the game with that drop in the end off McSweeney that went for 4
 
Interloperer said:
Thornton's the bowler I trust the least at the end of an innings, his reaction to getting smashed is to somehow think that the batter was 'wrong' and just bowl the same ball again. I feel like he should bowl his 4 overs in one spell at the start, where this is an admirable trait when seeking wickets.

I don't feel like Ollie Pope has been an amazing recruit either.
Click to expand...

Thornton is definitely better in the first ten overs. I wouldn't bowl him in the power play or finals overs.

We might make a change to try something different on Friday. Maybe one of Doggett, Buckingham or Haskett for Thornton.

Pope has been okay. The advantage of Pope is he can bat in the top 5 which allows us to play the six bowlers. All the good teams have a keeper who who plays as a batsman in T20.

Having said that we haven't bowled Bazely in the last two games. His batting has been good but he is a bowler.

Matt Short.is a worry, just because you don't want your Captain worrying about making runs. I noticed when the Stars got him out all the players congratulated Siddle even though he wasn't bowling. I wonder if he maybe had a plan for Short that worked.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Big Bash

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top