Discussion BBL|14 Teams & In Game Discussion: GW 7 starts FRI 10th JAN 6:15pm AEST [HOB v SYT]
- Thread starter KLo30
- Start date
I think you might be underappreciating the sophistication of T20 captaincy when it’s done well. The captain has to make proactive decisions far more frequently, with significantly greater restrictions to manage, and a far more volatile team position (ie winning percentage) to try to adjust to and ultimately optimise.
A few differences that I think support this view:
Tests: no restriction on bowlers’ overs. T20s: bowlers bowl a maximum of 4, which makes the captain’s role harder, because they can’t always bowl who they want, as well as meaning that they need to use at least 5 bowlers. Cummins has called on his 5th bowler or beyond for only 40 overs in the whole series so far … he’s largely rotating the same 4 guys. Given that they bowl in pairs, there’s not a lot of options, even when he elects to make a change. Starc and Lyon will typically bowl from opposite ends because one is creating footmarks for the other, which reduces options/decision making complexity further.
Tests: bowling spells last a significant period, often determined by how long it takes the bowler to fatigue (ie it’s often not a particularly proactive decision to rotate them). T20s: spells are often only 1-2 overs, which means more frequent decisions, and those decisions are almost always made proactively (no one gets tired bowling 1-2).
Tests: the new ball is almost always given to two fast bowlers, and first change is almost always a quick. T20s: opening with a spinner, or bowling a spinner early, are relatively common but not universally used strategies - which means the captain has more to think about. I think it’s probably fair to say that the “standard play” of opening with two quicks in Tests hasn’t changed in decades, if ever - which I see as revealing. [It’s not a difficult job if many of the decisions are obvious.]
Tests: bowling changes seldom depend on who is on strike. T20s: bowling changes often depend on who is on strike.
Tests: very limited fielding restrictions. T20s: significant fielding restrictions in place for much of each innings. This makes the T20 captain’s role harder.
Tests: fielding restrictions are consistent. T20s: fielding restrictions change frequently, often having 4 different phases in a 20 over innings. This requires more changes to be made.
Tests: no limit on innings length, so end game strategy (which is different, and usually more complex) is much less frequently used. T20s: every innings has finite length, so end game strategy is used for a significant portion of every match.
Tests: scoring rates are modest. T20s: scoring rates are high, meaning that projected totals and win percentages, and therefore optimal strategy, change more frequently.
Tests: average scores are high, which means that the impact of conceding a single or a boundary is smaller in context. T20s: average scores are low, which magnifies the impact of each scoring shot and decision.
Tests: scoring rates are relatively consistent. T20s: scoring rates vary materially across an innings. This requires greater adjustment, all else being equal.
Tests: scoring areas, and therefore fielding positions, are typically quite orthodox. T20s: scoring areas are increasingly unorthodox. What Konstas did was so notable for this reason.
Tests: the match plays out slowly, over 4-5 days, and 2 innings per team. T20s: the match is over within 40 overs and only 1 innings per team. This means that each play has a magnified impact, and that captains have far more time to make decisions in Tests than in T20s.
If anyone hasn’t listened closely to a smart captain miked up for a T20 match (or even a former captain - often they can give great insight without being reluctant to give away their own plans), I would highly recommend it.
There is a lot to it, and the sophistication has increased significantly since the format started.
Some of the good ones include Maxwell, Warner, Henriques and previously Finch, Ponting and Warne.
A few differences that I think support this view:
Tests: no restriction on bowlers’ overs. T20s: bowlers bowl a maximum of 4, which makes the captain’s role harder, because they can’t always bowl who they want, as well as meaning that they need to use at least 5 bowlers. Cummins has called on his 5th bowler or beyond for only 40 overs in the whole series so far … he’s largely rotating the same 4 guys. Given that they bowl in pairs, there’s not a lot of options, even when he elects to make a change. Starc and Lyon will typically bowl from opposite ends because one is creating footmarks for the other, which reduces options/decision making complexity further.
Tests: bowling spells last a significant period, often determined by how long it takes the bowler to fatigue (ie it’s often not a particularly proactive decision to rotate them). T20s: spells are often only 1-2 overs, which means more frequent decisions, and those decisions are almost always made proactively (no one gets tired bowling 1-2).
Tests: the new ball is almost always given to two fast bowlers, and first change is almost always a quick. T20s: opening with a spinner, or bowling a spinner early, are relatively common but not universally used strategies - which means the captain has more to think about. I think it’s probably fair to say that the “standard play” of opening with two quicks in Tests hasn’t changed in decades, if ever - which I see as revealing. [It’s not a difficult job if many of the decisions are obvious.]
Tests: bowling changes seldom depend on who is on strike. T20s: bowling changes often depend on who is on strike.
Tests: very limited fielding restrictions. T20s: significant fielding restrictions in place for much of each innings. This makes the T20 captain’s role harder.
Tests: fielding restrictions are consistent. T20s: fielding restrictions change frequently, often having 4 different phases in a 20 over innings. This requires more changes to be made.
Tests: no limit on innings length, so end game strategy (which is different, and usually more complex) is much less frequently used. T20s: every innings has finite length, so end game strategy is used for a significant portion of every match.
Tests: scoring rates are modest. T20s: scoring rates are high, meaning that projected totals and win percentages, and therefore optimal strategy, change more frequently.
Tests: average scores are high, which means that the impact of conceding a single or a boundary is smaller in context. T20s: average scores are low, which magnifies the impact of each scoring shot and decision.
Tests: scoring rates are relatively consistent. T20s: scoring rates vary materially across an innings. This requires greater adjustment, all else being equal.
Tests: scoring areas, and therefore fielding positions, are typically quite orthodox. T20s: scoring areas are increasingly unorthodox. What Konstas did was so notable for this reason.
Tests: the match plays out slowly, over 4-5 days, and 2 innings per team. T20s: the match is over within 40 overs and only 1 innings per team. This means that each play has a magnified impact, and that captains have far more time to make decisions in Tests than in T20s.
If anyone hasn’t listened closely to a smart captain miked up for a T20 match (or even a former captain - often they can give great insight without being reluctant to give away their own plans), I would highly recommend it.
There is a lot to it, and the sophistication has increased significantly since the format started.
Some of the good ones include Maxwell, Warner, Henriques and previously Finch, Ponting and Warne.
