Bouncers in Twenty20 cricket

England celebrate in the middle of the pitch

England got their tactics right against India – brilliantly so. Admittedly, they stole these tactics off the West Indies who bounced India to defeat earlier in the week, but to be honest England probably carried out the plan even better.

Indian batsmen are used to low, slow pitches and one-day matches where the bouncer’s virtually outlawed. They have heavy bats with a low sweet spot and heave full pitched balls straight into the stands. So why bowl there? This isn’t the subcontinent. Why not bowl at the chest and throat?

Short balls are often no-balled in this form of cricket so it seems risky, but India were hopeless at getting anything out of these deliveries so the tactic was fully justified.

Share this article...Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0

Tired of checking the site for updates? Sign up for our near-daily email

10 Appeals

  1. as the first person to deride england’s tactics last time, may I be the first to say jolly well done.
    can i also ask why one stumping suddenly makes picking foster a materstroke, compared to the tens of thousands of runs matt prior would have scored?

  2. That stumping won the match. Prior would have scored as many runs as Luke Wright in the tournament.

    If England go through to the semis, Foster’s speed to get Yuvraj is what got England there. It wasn’t one stumping, it was such a supreme piece of work that the commentators thought Yuvraj had been bowled.

    It was an absolute joy.

  3. D Charlton –

    Agreed. India almost definitely would have won if Yuvraj had stayed in for a couple more overs.

    Foster is shite with the bat though.

  4. it was a good stumping, but I would expect any decent keeper to take that chance. It was an incredibly important wicket, of course, but lets not get too excited. I don’t think it’s fair to say that stumping won the match. England executed their plans and put good balls in good areas.
    As for the batting, prior has a test average of about 50. Luke wright, to whom you compare him, does not.

  5. I agree, Alex. Most decent keepers would take the chance – Matt Prior would have been lucky to take the ball cleanly.

    Luke Wright’s never played a Test, so that’s not a great comparison. Prior’s one-day record is pretty ordinary, and Wright’s is very similar.

  6. It is all about the balance of the team. We didn’t need a keeper with batting prowess for the T20 side but did need a specialist keeper. By the same token, the test side needs a keeper who makes runs because of the absence of a genuine all-rounder (can’t decide whether that sentence is still reliant on Freddie’s fitness any more). So I fully expect Prior to retain his place in the test side for The Ashes. And I don’t think it’s totally fair to label Foster as being shit with the bat just because he hasn’t made any T20 runs when he’s come in for the final few overs of slogging. His county averages have been more than respectable for several years now.

  7. Needing a keeper who can bat in Twenty20 shows that the top and middle order is weak. Fix that and get a wicketkeeper who can take these important half-chances.

  8. Foster’s runs are a bonus in Twenty20 – we need the best gloves in the country to stand up to as many balls as possible. If that bloke bats 11 he should still be in the side.

    Test cricket is the opposite, regrettably.

    And Alex, are you Matthew Hayden in disguise … ?

  9. Why is it when wicket keepers are involved the comments turn very serious and sensible and absolutely perfectly tedious?

  10. D Charlton-
    alex resents that remark.

    Ceci-
    spot on! alex apologises for his part into turning this into boring shit.

Comments are closed.

© 2017 King Cricket

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑