World Cup Special Mailbag

Your questions answered!

As always, thanks so much for all your questions sent in over the last few days - it’s fascinating to read which topics and questions matter to you and I’m going to do my best to answer them here! This could be a long mailbag…

While I did ask for questions to be World Cup focused, I did get a question that I’ve been asked a few times over the last couple of months, so I thought I’d clarify that before moving on to World Cup discussion.

Sanjay - “What’s happening at Punjab Kings?” To be honest, I don’t know. I haven’t heard from the new management so it’s difficult to know what has been discussed. I’ve been consistent in saying that I would love to continue the project which we started earlier this year at the Mega Auction and I really enjoyed working with Anil, Sankar and the entire management group. It’s a real shame that Anil and Sankar have moved on, but I’d love to talk to the new management group. My phone is always on and that goes for any team in any league.

Also related to the IPL…

Raazi (Paraphrasing) - “How viable is it to send back a player to auction who had a bad IPL this year with a view to buying them back at the auction?”. Interesting question to debate, because in theory it’s very viable, and should be encouraged in an efficient marketplace because a player’s market value is like a stock - it goes up and down, and can often be very volatile. However, unlike a stock, there’s the human side of things to consider - if you are paying a player 10 Cr and you buy them back for 2 Cr after a bad season, how happy will they be? Will they be committed having taken an 80% wage cut? That’s where understanding the individual is critical.

Now to the World Cup…

Ronan - “Thoughts on Afghanistan? Not selecting Naveen and misusing Omarzai has stood out to me.” Completely agree. It seems that for every World Cup, Afghanistan make at least one really strange selection decision and leaving out Naveen is it this year. After they announced their team for the first game I tweeted this:-

Since then, Fareed has bowled four overs in two matches with an economy rate of 12. There are no guarantees in life but I’d be extremely confident Naveen would be much more effective, having worked with him at Leicestershire I can tell you that he’s an extremely intelligent bowler and particularly against England would have had great knowledge of their batters - he has a superb memory regarding opposition batters. He’s also a great team player and just a good human being in general. For me, Naveen would be one of the first names on the team sheet for Afghanistan, so their decision to leave him out looks utterly bizarre.

Naz - “What do you think of the fake fielding/5 penalty runs discourse with Bangladesh losing by 5 runs to India”. In my view it was fake fielding and the rules are clear in this respect. Several years ago in the Blast, Leicestershire benefited from this rule against Notts, so there is precedent for it being enforced.

However, it’s very first-level to say that if Bangladesh had got the 5 penalty runs they would have won because they lost by 5 runs, because if they had got those runs earlier in their innings then each ball would have a different dynamic to the ones that actually were played (e.g. Bangladesh approach batting differently, India approach bowling differently).

In my view, Bangladesh lost the match because their batting simply isn’t good enough and it’s something I’ve written about for years. If you need 85 runs from 49 balls with 10 wickets in hand, and a wet pitch hindering the bowlers too, there really is no excuse not to win the match. This would be a chase of about 105 in T10, which is utterly routine.

Ry - “Which team out of the Super 12 would have the best chance of winning if you were their analyst?” Great question but one I’m a little reticent to answer. I’d like to think I’d add value to any team but I’m sure there are analysts doing a great job throughout the World Cup, and perhaps it’s more a lack of influence on their team’s plans that is holding them back.

It would be easy to say one of the big teams, such as India, England or Australia, who I think have all made selection or strategic mistakes in the tournament so far, but I’m going to reframe the question slightly and approach it from the angle of which team I think I could help the most.

Close second - Afghanistan, but first, the West Indies. They have all the tools required to win the tournament but couldn’t even make it into the Super 12s. If I had to get down on my knees and beg Narine, Russell etc to play again, I would. Hetmyer the same, and the ‘fitness test’ which seems to rule players out on a regular basis would be scrapped. Simply because there’s a test which is much more important than that - the ability test. Some of the players selected aren’t fit to be mentioned in the same paragraph as some of the players omitted, so for a team without the depth of talent in the player pool to be ignoring some of their best players, or to have fallen out with them, is just a real shame and pretty much akin to them restricting their own chances in major tournaments.

Jonathan E - “Muhammad Haris is playing only his 2nd T20I in a must-win World Cup match. Does experience at the “higher” level matter, and should Pakistan have given him game time sooner?” Haris is a player I am really excited about - he looks a real intent merchant and in a batting group which is basically the polar opposite to that, could be a real point of difference for Pakistan both now and in the future.

To answer the questions, I don’t think experience at the International level matters, because many international teams aren’t even of the same standard as a PSL team. In many cases, this World Cup is a step down for many players. And yes, Pakistan should have given him a chance sooner as opposed to picking three anchors and/or a half-fit Fakhar Zaman. They should have also picked Azam Khan - and I was strong on that on my show on cricket.com before the tournament - but they didn’t select him even in their squad.

Jonathan W - “Are any players performing well in a role they are not well known for or experienced at?” and also “What are the new tactical and technical developments in T20I since the last WC and which teams are evolving best?”. To answer Jonathan’s first question, I’d say that Sam Curran stands out with his death bowling - he’s never been renowned for this phase with his bowling, and to give non-English readers insight into how many in English cricket perceived his career to develop, they thought he’d develop into a batting all-rounder. So to see his death overs skills improve is great to see.

Second question - I’m not sure there’s much - conditions dictate plenty, but one thing I’m noticing is a real reticence for death bowlers to go to Yorkers as much as previously. This is probably because bowlers have started to learn about the risks of missing their lengths, but choosing not to bowl Yorkers due to this is perhaps a flawed plan because then the bowler becomes predictable. It’s always a tricky tightrope between risk and reward as a bowler, and it will be interesting to see how this situation evolves over the next few years.

Andy - “Why do so many teams have blind spots about their captains? Bavuma, Finch, Rohit and Williamson!” Great question, and I think there are a few factors at play here. Firstly, their ability as a leader is probably overvalued, and teams probably also want continuity in their group as well - they might be worried about the after-effects on their squad of deposing a captain shortly before a major tournament. I also think that there’s an inherent flawed optimism in cricket that a previous great player will be able to recapture their former glories, which at the age of, say 35+, is an extremely unlikely proposition.

Plus, if a coach sacks a captain and the team do badly, then they’ve basically signed their own P45, because they’ll get blamed for it. On a general basis, many coaches seem to often make the decisions which attract the least criticism, because they fear for their own job - I’m not saying it’s the case here at all though - but I would be surprised if more than one or two of the four names Andy mentioned were captain post-World Cup, or at least, for the next one.

Kaushik - “Does non boundary strike [rate] matter?” Yes, of course it does. Batters can do simple stuff like sprinting the first run as opposed to jogging it, and putting the fielder under pressure. At Leics in the recent Blast, I was at the receiving end of a masterclass from Derbyshire in this area - I think they hit 18 x 2s - and they just continually put the fielder under pressure, and what do you know, the fielder often didn’t gather it cleanly.

That said, we know that 87% of teams who win the boundary percentage count in T20 matches win the match, and teams who win the dot ball percentage count win a far lower percentage than this, so as I’ve been consistent in saying in the past, non-boundary strike rates are a nice to have (and extremely useful) but strong boundary-hitting is mandatory. Also, don’t forget that a pre-meditated single is almost always giving a victory to the bowler for that individual ball.

Sarah - “My only question really is can England do it?”

Also Suhas - “What do you think about england's chances in knockout stages ??”

I can’t say if it’s coming home, but there’s a chance - probably around the 20% mark. The below is a very blunt way of looking at it, but they’ll have to win one match which they’re strong favourites for, and one match which they’ll be slight favourites for and another (assuming they face India) probably slight underdogs for. Throw that into a calculator and you get something like a 20% chance.

Telugu Sports Adda - “Teams being good at fielding = teams being good at set pieces in football? Basically impact of fielding in T20s” I’m not sure about the two things being equivalent. Fielding in T20s is a nice to have, and most coaches don’t want to hide more than two players in the field, but unless you’ve got the main skills to do well in T20, then you can be the best drilled fielding team and get thrashed in every match.

Conversely, I’ve read studies where teams have focused a lot of energy into set pieces and hired set piece specific coaches (FC Mytdjylland for example) and the number of goals they’ve scored from them has literally been the difference between success and failure. I’m also (as a Spurs fan) keen to see how the influence of the renowned Gianni Vio continues to develop Spurs’ set pieces. For years I’ve been sick of us hitting the first man at corners so the change is refreshing! Also, it’s great to see teams understand the benefit of hiring skills-specific coaches.

Ponraj - “Tell about pakistan's post WC changes”. Impossible to say, really! It’s difficult to apply a great deal of logic to their decision making, particularly among their batting group. I would like to see Muhammad Haris and Azam Khan get long runs in the team (at the expense of Iftikhar Ahmed and Khushdil Shah, perhaps Shan Masood - not because I don’t rate Shan, but they don’t need 3 anchors) and Haider Ali get backing to perform in a consistent role. Because unless they find another gem from somewhere, these players have got to form the backbone of their T20 batting moving forward in the future.

Mask - “What are some critical aspects of T20 cricket that teams neglect/don't pay enough attention when planning for a WC (or even during the tournament)?”

Related - Asjad Khan “Do you think teams have been a bit surprised by how friendly the wickets have been for bowlers at least in the power play and are scrambling to find solutions?”

I think an understanding of what it takes to win in venue/country specific conditions, and the implications this has on strategy and selection is often lacking among teams. Some teams appeared pretty shocked by conditions in Australia early on in the tournament, but there’s plenty of data available that a good analyst can interpret and give insight to the management group on what can be expected.

James - “What would be your preferred world cup format in terms of groups and how many teams?” I’d like to see an extension so that the teams who qualified but didn’t make it into the Super 12s this year would also be in the tournament (e.g. no preliminary round after qualifying).

I’d also like to have a qualification process similar to football where every team except the host has to qualify - the only way teams like the Netherlands can improve is to face teams like England more often. This process has improved so many national football teams over the last 10-20 years (routine thrashings are mostly now a thing of the past except for just a few teams) and should narrow the ability gap between countries. I’m sure the boards of big nations would disagree with me though!

Ollie - “Are England a stronger team with Curran at 7, or 8? When Archer and Topley are fit, would it make sense to move Curran back to 7? Should England be worried about Adil Rashid? England seem to be relying on Rehan Ahmed to take the baton, will he be ready soon enough?”

Related - Lew - “Is Adil Rashid in decline or is it short-term variance?”

Curran is far too good a batter to be a number 8, but by the same token, he’s an amazing safety net to have and allows, in theory, the top order to go much harder knowing that the safety net is in place.

Re: Rashid, I agree is a concern. It’s not going to be easy for an almost 35 year old to improve, particularly one with long-term shoulder issues. I hope he can do though, and let’s not forget that Australian conditions aren’t usually that spin-friendly.

Rehan Ahmed is still very young but is a precocious talent, and someone I think would be very unfazed by the prospect of playing international cricket - he takes everything in his stride. I don’t know when it will happen but I’d be amazed if he wasn’t the natural successor to Rashid in this England line-up. Also don’t under-value his batting either - he didn’t quite click in the Blast this year with the bat but he has all the shots and no fear either.

Player of the Match - “Does your data agree with Duckworth Lewis revised targets? Are there any instances where you think it is less correct compared to others?”

I don’t really keep data to compare where teams should be but I do feel that DLS should be more T20 focused and there’s a clear advantage for chasing teams. Look at Bangladesh yesterday, 66-0 from 47 balls and needing 185 to win (119 more from 73 balls) if the match wasn’t rain-shortened. That’s around 10 an over, which isn’t easy across 12 overs even with 10 wickets in hand. DLS changed the equation to 85 runs from 49 balls with 10 wickets in hand, which is basically a gift - yes, it’s still around 10 runs an over but in a shortened chase the wickets in hand is worth so much more. Perhaps fairer would be to give the chasing team six wickets with which to chase the shortened total.

Ram - “Since Kohli is back to form as an anchor/late accelerator, is he still a burden for India in this worldcup or is he vital for the team when the conditions and low scoring games are considered??”

Related - Snehal “What are your opinion on India's batting performance in WC so far?? Is there any issue that needs to be addressed going ahead in the tournament???”

Look, Kohli’s style is only a burden when he’s not the only person in the team scoring slowly. If KL Rahul and Rohit Sharma show positive intent and look to hit at 20%+ boundaries, then I’ve no problem with Kohli’s style of play. But when he’s in teams with other people unwilling/unable to start slowly (RCB can also be included in this) then it becomes a far greater problem. Also, India have strong bowlers, which helps too - because it generally means they won’t be chasing or needing to set huge scores, which helps Kohli’s style also.

The other debate is how to get Rishabh Pant into this team, either this World Cup or in the future. I want to see the attacking, brave, no fear, Pant that broke into the IPL, not the ‘responsible Pant’ that we’ve often seen for India and since he took over the captaincy at DC. I don’t think it should be a straight swap for Dinesh Karthik as a keeper and batting lower down, I think the solution long-term is for Rohit Sharma to step aside, move Kohli to opener and bat Pant at 3.

Lew - “Which team are the worst match-up for South Africa in a semi final, if they make it?” England, because they could bat them out of the match. It’s very unlikely that New Zealand can do that unless Finn Allen or maybe Glenn Phillips has a day out, and Australia look the least likely to qualify out of the three teams in Group 1.

Also Lew - “What would you have done differently if advising England ahead of that batting innings v Ireland when rain was always a threat?” For a start, be aware of it and make sure that by hook or by crook that the team is ahead of DLS - I still find Malan’s innings in that match unacceptable in the context of what was required if rain was to hit, which as I mentioned in the previous article on here, should have been prepared for. If Formula 1 teams can do it, why can’t cricket teams? Should we really just accept that some sports are more professional than others?

Also Lew - “Did we see a marked improvement in Jos Buttler's tactical nous in the win v New Zealand or were commentators being wise after the event in their praise?” Jury’s still out for me. Commentators always love to create a narrative, even when one may not exist!