Mohali, 2016. India played three anchors and two out-of-form middle-order batsmen in Raina and Yuvraj, and four of those five got stuck that day. A routine chase ended up looking incredibly difficult, and Kohli's innings ended up looking like an all-time-great knock.

He batted extremely well that day, but the scorecard shows the danger of having too many anchors rather than proving the need for having them as so many seem to believe. https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/8604/scorecard/951363/india-vs-australia-31st-match-super-10-group-2-world-t20-2015-16

If you read my piece yesterday rather than simply ranted at the headline, you'd realise that I actually said Kohli is the best anchor going around currently, but the benefits of the role itself remain up for debate.

Are there enough top-class hitters going around for teams to pack their sides with them *right now*? No. But T20 is evolving towards that.

You might bring up the CPL that just took place, with low totals on incredibly slow turners, and say you can't just hit in all conditions. And that's true. But Pollard and Russell and Pooran still played the key knocks in that tournament. Narine made back-to-back fifties.

The argument that you need anchors in bowling-friendly conditions assumes that good T20 hitters can't play within themselves for an over or two. Keeping out an over of Rashid Khan isn't remotely the same as surviving for an hour against the new ball with three slips and a gully.

And yes, you'll have excellent bowlers in the opposition, who match up perfectly against a hitter's weaknesses. But we're talking about having teams with hitting depth, not one superstar hitter whose dismissal is catastrophic.

West Indies can pick this team right now: Narine, Lewis, Hetmyer, Pooran, Pollard, Russell, Allen, Holder, Bravo + two bowlers. I haven't even included Gayle. If other teams were able to pick such a team, they would. They only pick anchors because they don't have a choice.