BBL|12: Combined SCS Team
- Thread starter Ironhawk
- Start date
Does that mean we would have to upgrade Khawaja though if he (McDermott) fails tonight ?
Won't be able to have a look at his second score unless we trade update Khawaja or wait and trade Bancroft or Inglis (whoever is Bat 5 possibly to a Star or Thunder C option if required)
Wade / Handscomb
....Bancroft or Inglis / McDermott (E) , Khawaja
Plenty of Bat/Bowl to swing Sams onfield if we need him as the captain option
Still need a onfield donut though somewhere if VC works and McDermott fails
Might be easier to put the Emergency on Abbott and just trust all the Hurricanes onfield
Won't be able to have a look at his second score unless we trade update Khawaja or wait and trade Bancroft or Inglis (whoever is Bat 5 possibly to a Star or Thunder C option if required)
Wade / Handscomb
....Bancroft or Inglis / McDermott (E) , Khawaja
Plenty of Bat/Bowl to swing Sams onfield if we need him as the captain option
Still need a onfield donut though somewhere if VC works and McDermott fails
Might be easier to put the Emergency on Abbott and just trust all the Hurricanes onfield
Last edited:
I think that covers suggestions to date. Not entirely sure on VC, I think it’s better on a bowler across a double, but it is not just up to me. I know Wade was suggested, I honestly think he's better off looped via E if we can.
Two trades left. I'd ideally like to keep at least one available until after this first game, but if you want to load up on Hurricanes, we can do that too.
Edit: Hadn't seen Herbie's latest post efore posting this.
Getting confused.
That might restrict us if both Wade & McDermott fails as Handscomb locks out tomorrow so we can't see one of their second games.
What options are available for Bank + Bancroft + Handscomb if we need to upgrade them as the final trades ?
Hardie can work as a C donut if required but then relying on Bazley as E.
That might restrict us if both Wade & McDermott fails as Handscomb locks out tomorrow so we can't see one of their second games.
What options are available for Bank + Bancroft + Handscomb if we need to upgrade them as the final trades ?
Hardie can work as a C donut if required but then relying on Bazley as E.
Last edited:
I’m not averse to looping a Hurricane, but given we look like having only 5-7 of them, and 4-6 SGR players, I’m erring on thinking that the loops are better used to loop the players who only have one game to score.
I think having Bancroft at WK1 makes sense as an exception though, as a dedicated donut for the C loop if we want to take our VC’s score.
In theory this gives us a look at a Hurricane keeper’s score as well. McDermott is averaging lower than Wade, and doesn’t have the gloves, so perhaps he could be WK E if we are going to keep a trade or more in hand (allowing us to bring in a replacement keeper if McDermott fails badly, and we don’t want our VC score/can access it another way).
Given Heat players (who play game 3) will typically be the backup options on our BAT and BWL loops, having Abbott and possibly M Short as E could be sensible.
I think having Bancroft at WK1 makes sense as an exception though, as a dedicated donut for the C loop if we want to take our VC’s score.
In theory this gives us a look at a Hurricane keeper’s score as well. McDermott is averaging lower than Wade, and doesn’t have the gloves, so perhaps he could be WK E if we are going to keep a trade or more in hand (allowing us to bring in a replacement keeper if McDermott fails badly, and we don’t want our VC score/can access it another way).
Given Heat players (who play game 3) will typically be the backup options on our BAT and BWL loops, having Abbott and possibly M Short as E could be sensible.
True, we can get a reasonable idea after one game if we want to loop on the score though from either Wade/McDermott.
I'm a bit confused as to the best options too, just trying to keep up in breaks between working. As I said, I think that team covers off suggestions made to date, I posted it so people can find errors/ways to improve it. There's numerous ways to go from here with two trades in hand and options for fielding/benching, happy for people to discuss possibilities as usual.
I'm a bit confused as to the best options too, just trying to keep up in breaks between working. As I said, I think that team covers off suggestions made to date, I posted it so people can find errors/ways to improve it. There's numerous ways to go from here with two trades in hand and options for fielding/benching, happy for people to discuss possibilities as usual.
This is everything I would want to say better than I could put into words myself. The only remaining question appears to be whether to hold back a trade or not.
I'm not really seeing the downside on using all trades on Canes though? I get not wanting to leave yourself exposed in future rounds but in this case there are none!
I'm not really seeing the downside on using all trades on Canes though? I get not wanting to leave yourself exposed in future rounds but in this case there are none!
This is basically my preference/take.
Hurricanes have two games, so I would prefer that we more or less get as many as possible, and back them in, as a default strategy.
There aren’t any available SGR players who average meaningfully more than 60 (assuming Smith’s scoring is unsustainable), so a Hurricane who averages >30 should beat them, in a vacuum.
The loops then allow us to improve on the SGR scores we field alongside those. Abbott and Short are players I’d normally be pretty confident fielding, but they look like having to be part of the loop because of the game order. They could go low, and we save a bad score against a lot of competing sides.
I am fine with keeping one trade in hand to allow flex on ins, but given each trade forgoes a Hurricane, who should average 60++, I would limit this to one for flexibility.
Does anyone think there’s an SGR player we don’t have who beats our marginal Hurricane (Dooley if fit, averaging 63 x 2 = say 126, otherwise Crawley, averaging 38 x 2 = say 76) on average this round?
Hurricanes have two games, so I would prefer that we more or less get as many as possible, and back them in, as a default strategy.
There aren’t any available SGR players who average meaningfully more than 60 (assuming Smith’s scoring is unsustainable), so a Hurricane who averages >30 should beat them, in a vacuum.
The loops then allow us to improve on the SGR scores we field alongside those. Abbott and Short are players I’d normally be pretty confident fielding, but they look like having to be part of the loop because of the game order. They could go low, and we save a bad score against a lot of competing sides.
I am fine with keeping one trade in hand to allow flex on ins, but given each trade forgoes a Hurricane, who should average 60++, I would limit this to one for flexibility.
Does anyone think there’s an SGR player we don’t have who beats our marginal Hurricane (Dooley if fit, averaging 63 x 2 = say 126, otherwise Crawley, averaging 38 x 2 = say 76) on average this round?
One thing to keep in mind is if we want to lock a VC in we need to take an E score. It might be better to set up one of the loops with a player we are fairly confident goes well, and pair that with our preferred C loophole option?
Given Wade is being thrown up as a VC, that could be the "cleanest" option, where we just commit to looping him on field and set up that as our C loophole via Bancroft. If we overcomplicate it then we possibly get backed into a corner where a good VC is o***et by a poor E.
Apologies if that's been covered, lots to catch up on here so have been skim reading a bit!
Given Wade is being thrown up as a VC, that could be the "cleanest" option, where we just commit to looping him on field and set up that as our C loophole via Bancroft. If we overcomplicate it then we possibly get backed into a corner where a good VC is o***et by a poor E.
Apologies if that's been covered, lots to catch up on here so have been skim reading a bit!
I think David is a good sneaky VC, especially if Dooley misses and/or they bat first. Averages 41 per dismissal @ 169 SR when batting first.
http://bigbashboard.com/player/tim-david/splits
He’s scored 326 runs this season, only being dismissed by a bowler 4 times (5 not outs, 3 run outs - and he doesn’t have a history of lots of run outs).
http://bigbashboard.com/player/tim-david/splits
He’s scored 326 runs this season, only being dismissed by a bowler 4 times (5 not outs, 3 run outs - and he doesn’t have a history of lots of run outs).
It’s definitely a risk.
I was trying to find stats on the grounds previously, and didn’t uncover much. Blundstone seems fairly bowler friendly to me,
from the career averages of some of the Hurricanes.
In the absence of better data, this is the total number of balls faced by the top 3 in games at Blundstone this season (given the top 3 are the ones preventing #5 coming in). Hobart first, then opponent:
33, 11
70, 94
81, 61
15, 25
Ave: 50, 48
Only one game at UTAS, which was 55, 31 (midpoint 43).
So if the top 3 face, say, 50 balls, that leaves David with up to 35 to face, if he doesn’t get dismissed and gets half the strike. At his strike rate he would get a 50 off that many balls, and we’d score 80+ from batting. Of course, he may be dismissed earlier, but that’s not what we are worried about here.
Looking at the individual innings, I think the ones where we’d be getting a bit antsy if we owned David as VC would be the 81 (coming in at 14th over, c. 20 balls to bat) and the 94 (16th over, c. 13 balls to bat). In the first instance, he should easily get a quick 20 if he bats 20 balls, but obviously is unlike to go huge. In the second, he could be lineball to get the quick 20 (he would narrowly get there on career SR, but likely starts a fraction slower and may miss out). Overall it’s 2 out of 10 innings at those two grounds this season where it looks like being a concern using this approach.
Batting first provides some insulation, his record is much weaker batting second, in part because his batting opportunity is likely to be more constrained (eg if his bowlers dismiss the opposition for 120).
I was trying to find stats on the grounds previously, and didn’t uncover much. Blundstone seems fairly bowler friendly to me,
from the career averages of some of the Hurricanes.
In the absence of better data, this is the total number of balls faced by the top 3 in games at Blundstone this season (given the top 3 are the ones preventing #5 coming in). Hobart first, then opponent:
33, 11
70, 94
81, 61
15, 25
Ave: 50, 48
Only one game at UTAS, which was 55, 31 (midpoint 43).
So if the top 3 face, say, 50 balls, that leaves David with up to 35 to face, if he doesn’t get dismissed and gets half the strike. At his strike rate he would get a 50 off that many balls, and we’d score 80+ from batting. Of course, he may be dismissed earlier, but that’s not what we are worried about here.
Looking at the individual innings, I think the ones where we’d be getting a bit antsy if we owned David as VC would be the 81 (coming in at 14th over, c. 20 balls to bat) and the 94 (16th over, c. 13 balls to bat). In the first instance, he should easily get a quick 20 if he bats 20 balls, but obviously is unlike to go huge. In the second, he could be lineball to get the quick 20 (he would narrowly get there on career SR, but likely starts a fraction slower and may miss out). Overall it’s 2 out of 10 innings at those two grounds this season where it looks like being a concern using this approach.
Batting first provides some insulation, his record is much weaker batting second, in part because his batting opportunity is likely to be more constrained (eg if his bowlers dismiss the opposition for 120).