List A Limited-Overs Declared Innings

[Stefano]

Hello, Friends.

I am reading this page from cricinfo. It is about "Limited-Overs Declared Innings". Could you please explain me the tactical reasons which invited those team to declare?

Thank you.

 

[Richard]

I only know one, and it was Somerset (Brian Rose) in 1979, well-explained here.

 

[Ash_A55]

1-0d (1) Somerset v Worcestershire Worcester 1978
Innings declared because Somerset would qualify for next stage on run-rate.
Somerset were later thrown out of the competition.

 

[Richard]

Beat ya to it, Ash.

 

[Goughy]

Purely a theory but one I would back with my own money.

For example taking this game.

361-2d (54.4) Natal v South Africa African XI Durban 1975/76
Innings Declared for tactical reasons

In 1974/5 Natal were the Gillette Champions in South Africa. They would then play in the next season (1975/76) a team made up of the best non-white (or even all black) players from the Black Cricket Union ie South Africa African XI.

As the scores were getting so big for so few wickets, Natal would have declared to prevent any further embarassment to their overmatched opponents. There were certainly political and social considerations to such things.

 

[Richard]

Let me get this right - the white team declared to prevent further embarrassment to the coloured one?

If so, why would they have done that?

 

[Goughy]

Let me get this right - the white team declared to prevent further embarrassment to the coloured one?

If so, why would they have done that?

Because the World is complicated and as I said there are political and social forces at work. South Africa isn't as simplistic and clear cut as people may want to think it and its history is.

Also, why wouldn't they? You think that under apharteid all whites hated Blacks and treated them with disdain? If so thats a very naive perspective. I have no doubt that players would be embarrassed to witness other cricketers be dismantled in such a way, especially when they knew they were far superior as players and that the game meant nothing apart from giving opportunities to those that usually didnt have them.

South Africa is a disfunctional society and there is a hell of a lot wrong in its past and possibly its future but it exists on many different levels.

 

[Richard]

Because the World is complicated and as I said there are political and social forces at work. South Africa isn't as simplistic and clear cut as people may want to think it and its history is.

Also, why wouldn't they? You think that under apharteid all whites hated Blacks and treated them with disdain? If so thats a very naive perspective. I have no doubt that players would be embarrassed to witness other cricketers be dismantled in such a way, especially when they knew they were far superior as players and that the game meant nothing apart from giving opportunities to those that usually didnt have them.

I don't think all Whites hated all Blacks and Coloureds, not at all. In fact, I don't think anything. My knowledge of the Apartheid era is not extensive, and that was why I was asking the question.

Your two posts make sense to me where the first alone did not.

 

[Goughy]

Without wanting to stereotype and tar everyone with the same brush, a distinctive feature of South Africa is the paternal nature of the Whites towards the Blacks (especially with the older generation).

Many whites had Black members of their household and workplace who were treated as family but more like children than equals. They were rewarded, disciplined and to a certain extent 'looked after' (though they had to work damn hard for the dubious privilege). With co-workers, staff etc there were bonds between Black and White but seldom (if ever) on an equal footing. Blacks were reliant on Whites and became even more reliant and less self-sufficient in a vicious circle (a legacy that is still hard to break now).

With this type of attitude being prevelant, I would suggest that noone took any enjoyment from a far superior white cricket team taking apart a black team. Many would have been embarrassed that people had to go through the ordeal.

Anyway, Im probably overly simplifying things myself and going way off topic. But as I said SA is a dysfunctional society and people have ideas and opinions that are always capable of suprising.

Another theory would be that the declarations were made as a protest for playing a meaningless game against a team that had little chance of competing. Whatever the reason, I have no doubt that race and social and political considerations were behind the South African games having a List A declaration.

 

[SJS]

As the scores were getting so big for so few wickets, Natal would have declared to prevent any further embarassment to their overmatched opponents. There were certainly political and social considerations to such things.

I would look at the declaration as humiliation too. It reeks of a condescending attitude. Just an opinion

 

[pasag]

I only know one, and it was Somerset (Brian Rose) in 1979, well-explained here.

Seems like a massive overreaction to me there. Fine what he did was unsavoury and against the spirit of the game, but the reaction and massive vilification that Rose faced seems way harsh especially when he didn't actually break any rules. Interesting(good) thread.

 

[Jono]

In the following month's Wisden Cricket Monthly, the editor David Frith wrote that he hoped the events at New Road had restored some sanity to the game. "I have been waiting, with some trepidation, with six runs needed off the final ball and a lot of money at stake, the bowler informs the umpire of a change of action and rolls the ball along the ground. Maybe this dreadful vision will now vanish."

Sadly for Frith and the world of cricket, 20 months later Chappell did just that at Melbourne.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Here's one for you Jono:

Richmond had to play in Round 22 about 8 or 9 years ago. They were in the 8, and with a superior percentage to whom they were on equal points with who were currently 9th and had already played that weekend. Therefore, if Richmond just forfeited they would have made the 8. However, Richmond being Richmond lost and by a sufficient margin for their percentage to plummet low enough so that they missed out on the 8 and finished 9 - for a change.

Should have declared, IMO.

 

[pasag]

Here's one for you Jono:

Richmond had to play in Round 22 about 8 or 9 years ago. They were in the 8, and with a superior percentage to whom they were on equal points with who were currently 9th and had already played that weekend. Therefore, if Richmond just forfeited they would have made the 8. However, Richmond being Richmond lost and by a sufficient margin for their percentage to plummet low enough so that they missed out on the 8 and finished 9 - for a change.

Should have declared, IMO.

Hahaha, such a cruel bloke.

 

[Jono]

Here's one for you Jono:

Richmond had to play in Round 22 about 8 or 9 years ago. They were in the 8, and with a superior percentage to whom they were on equal points with who were currently 9th and had already played that weekend. Therefore, if Richmond just forfeited they would have made the 8. However, Richmond being Richmond lost and by a sufficient margin for their percentage to plummet low enough so that they missed out on the 8 and finished 9 - for a change.

Should have declared, IMO.

Haha, the amount of times round 22 has destroyed Richmond fans is ridiculous actually. We've either had to win, and lost, or had to not lose by a lot, and did. ****'s sake.

Recent Richmond culture though has been different, whereby its been better for the season to simply end by about round 10, when we're well in the top 8, sometimes even top 4.

This year is a bit different though

 

[JASON]

Here's one for you Jono:

Richmond had to play in Round 22 about 8 or 9 years ago. They were in the 8, and with a superior percentage to whom they were on equal points with who were currently 9th and had already played that weekend. Therefore, if Richmond just forfeited they would have made the 8. However, Richmond being Richmond lost and by a sufficient margin for their percentage to plummet low enough so that they missed out on the 8 and finished 9 - for a change.

Should have declared, IMO.

is it allowed in AFL to declare ?

 

[Richard]

Yep, were my thoughts exactly.

 

[Poker Boy]

Could anyone explain the Rhodesia declaration v Transvaal? We know what Brain Rose was up to (and it just proves if there is a loophole in the rules man will exploit it) and the patronising reasons of the declarations against the SA African XI (just proves how obnnoxious that regime was - I bet you they were in that tournamnet to get hammered and to prove (in the eyes of the regime) that the SA Afriacans can't play cricket) - but that Rhodesia match doesn't fit into that pattern. I wouldn't say 171-5 off 51 overs was a score to declare at. So does anyone know why they declared - and did Duncan Fletcher play in that match? Was it his brainwave?

 

[Jono]

is it allowed in AFL to declare ?

Nah, Jack's just being a smartarse

 

[Goughy]

and the patronising reasons of the declarations against the SA African XI (just proves how obnnoxious that regime was - I bet you they were in that tournamnet to get hammered and to prove (in the eyes of the regime) that the SA Afriacans can't play cricket)

Where did that rant come from? Pretty obnoxious presumptions made there and way off base.

The old SA regime was plenty bad enough without randomly making stuff up as well.