*Official* West Indies In Australia

[Son Of Coco]

I wasn't talking in hindsight though; I was talking in general. No matter what happened after that point, the decision to bat on (had it actually been made) would not have resulted in a draw that could have been avoided by declaring unless it rained heaps. There was no potential loss by making that decision at the time regardless of what happened after it. I'm not just saying that in the context of what actually did happen after that point - I'm saying it in general because if the West Indies actually did manage to bat out the rest of the game, they'd pass the score anyway so Australia would have to bat again.

Essentially my point is that you should never, ever declare your first innings until you get to a point where you believe the opposition could bat out the remainder of the game without actually reaching your score. If you think the opposition would reach your score by batting out the rest of the game, you might as well keep batting as you'll be batting again anyway unless you bowl them out twice quickly, in which case batting on wouldn't have mattered anyway. Winning the game doesn't become any less likely at all by batting on until you reach the point of your innings where your opposition would not pass your score if they batted for the remainder of the game. 520 is not that point.

You need hindsight to know exactly what that number is though as it will vary every game and be dependent on how conditions change. If you're never going to declare your first innings until you get to a point where you think the other team could bat the remainder of the game and not make that score then we're talking between 600-800 every game. And are we then saying every time a team has declared under 520 in their first innings that's been a bad decision? I think the game is a bit more fluid than that and that's reflected in the numerous things that have to be taken into account at each point of declaration.

You have to factor in what might happen throughout the rest of the game. if you're playing for a draw every game then batting until you get 600 is definitely the right way to go.

 

[Prince EWS]

If you're never going to declare your first innings until you get to a point where you think the other team could bat the remainder of the game and not make that score then we're talking between 600-800 every game. And are we then saying every time a team has declared under 520 in their first innings that's been a bad decision?

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. Unless there has been a forecast of a lot of rain or a lot of rain has already fell, declaring at 520 has always been a bad call.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. Unless there has been a forecast of a lot of rain or a lot of rain has already fell, declaring at 520 has always been a bad call.

Hmmm, interesting.

I can't see what the fuss is about personally, either with this decision or those previously. Can see your point about batting on though re: potential results.

 

[Goughy]

Surely the whole idea of batting on is so that you dont have to bat again in the game and give you as much time as possible to bowl the opposition out twice especially as scoring runs in an innings where you already have a big total is far easier than starting again.

To me it makes no sense to declare at 500 and odd. Im not sure of what the strategy is. Obviously there was never an intention to enforce a follow-on, otherwise the total would have been built up in the first place.

I cant understand it at all. To me it is simple, score 650+ if possible and enforce the follow on. It eliminates so may variables.

Im pretty confused by all this. I really dont get the logic at all of of not enforcing a follow-on and choosing to score runs in the 2nd innings that could easily have been scored in the 1st without risking 2nd inning problems. Makes no sense at all. All it does is increase risk.

All I can think of about declaring at 520 is that Aus expected to roll them over twice. But not enforcing the follow on shows that isnt the strategy. Really, really strange.

 

[Prince EWS]

Surely the whole idea of batting on is so that you dont have to bat again in the game and give you as much time as possible to bowl the opposition out twice especially as scoring runs in an innings where you already have a big total is far easier than starting again.

To me it makes no sense to declare at 500 and odd. Im not sure of what the strategy is. Obviously there was never an intention to enforce a follow-on, otherwise the total would have been built up in the first place.

I cant understand it at all. To me it is simple, score 650+ if possible and enforce the follow on. It eliminates so may variables.

Im pretty confused by all this. I really dont get the logic at all of of not enforcing a follow-on and choosing to score runs in the 2nd innings that could easily have been scored in the 1st without risking 2nd inning problems. Makes no sense at all. All it does is increase risk.

All I can think of about declaring at 520 is that Aus expected to roll them over twice. But not enforcing the follow on shows that isnt the strategy. Really, really strange.

Yeah, AWTA so very very much.

 

[social]

Surely the whole idea of batting on is so that you dont have to bat again in the game and give you as much time as possible to bowl the opposition out twice especially as scoring runs in an innings where you already have a big total is far easier than starting again.

To me it makes no sense to declare at 500 and odd. Im not sure of what the strategy is. Obviously there was never an intention to enforce a follow-on, otherwise the total would have been built up in the first place.

I cant understand it at all. To me it is simple, score 650+ if possible and enforce the follow on. It eliminates so may variables.

Im pretty confused by all this. I really dont get the logic at all of of not enforcing a follow-on and choosing to score runs in the 2nd innings that could easily have been scored in the 1st without risking 2nd inning problems. Makes no sense at all. All it does is increase risk.

All I can think of about declaring at 520 is that Aus expected to roll them over twice. But not enforcing the follow on shows that isnt the strategy. Really, really strange.

Mate, I think the answer is very simple

Our 4 man plus bits and pieces atack cannot be relied upon to back up and bowl the opposition out twice with no rest

We no longer have the luxury of McGrath, Warne, Gillespie etc who could be relied upon to bowl world class spells totalling 25 overs a day or more EACH day in, day out

I dont blame Ponting - we're just not that good anymore and, aside from the WI of the late 70s/80s/very early 90s, no-one has been

 

[Goughy]

Mate, I think the answer is very simple

Our 4 man plus bits and pieces atack cannot be relied upon to back up and bowl the opposition out twice with no rest

We no longer have the luxury of McGrath, Warne, Gillespie etc who could be relied upon to bowl world class spells totalling 25 overs a day or more EACH day in, day out

I dont blame Ponting - we're just not that good anymore and, aside from the WI of the late 70s/80s/very early 90s, no-one has been

I dont buy that at all. You dont need a world class attack to enforce the follow-on. Never have. Especially in this case. Christ, they only bowled 80 overs in the first innings. That is nothing.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I dont buy that at all. You dont need a world class attack to enforce the follow-on. Never have. Especially in this case. Christ, they only bowled 80 overs in the first innings. That is nothing.

I think it's more a lack of confidence in the batting, chasing anything on a pitch that could well be difficult on day 5. Inherent to that is some level of respect for West Indies batting.

 

[Furball]

I dont buy that at all. You dont need a world class attack to enforce the follow-on. Never have. Especially in this case. Christ, they only bowled 80 overs in the first innings. That is nothing.

Particularly with Bollinger on fire, high on confidence and having just taken his maiden 5 wicket haul.

If there was ever a time to enforce the follow on, that was it.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. Unless there has been a forecast of a lot of rain or a lot of rain has already fell, declaring at 520 has always been a bad call.

True, though recent history in Perth suggests you need a shed load of time to roll a team on days 4 and 5. Then again, take out Gayle's freak show in the first innings and you've got a pretty weak batting line up for the Windies.

Personally think this is shaping as a great Test match. Hope it finishes that way.

Also, Windies with some Wato-like douchebaggery on getting Ponting's wicket yesterday. Bit OTT given the injury imo.

Anyway, none of it matters - Dougy to ton up.

Dougeh.

 

[Burgey]

Exactly

Oz should be 350-400 runs ahead with say 5 wickets in hand

If that was the case, this would not even be an issue

Problem is that Oz bats have collapsed AGAIN

This.

 

[Burgey]

Now where are the Aussies banned by Broad? come on? why hide behind crappy comments?

Because your posts are well worthy of crap tbh.

I'll try to keep it simple for you, so here goes. I was asking you how many players have been banned AT ALL over the years? Not fined, not censured, not given a suspended sentence but actually banned. And not just by Broad, but by anyone.

You make it sound like there are players being banned by Broad and other referees every day of the week, just not Australians. Seriously, that's bollocks.

Nice idea that you get to make these assertions that Broad is racist (and that's what they are, don't deny it), but it's the posters who call you on these theories who have to provide evidence to DIS-prove them, rather than you putting up a single shred of evidence to support your case. And even if no Australian has been banned by Broad, that in no way means the proposition you're putting forward is correct, because you'd have to examine the incidents in question to see where blame might lie. You can't just come on here, or indeed anywhere else, and bandy this **** around about people - it's wrong, it's small minded and it's just bitter.

Go back to Area 51 and sell crazy some place else. We're all full up here*









*apologies to Jack Nicholson from As Good As It Gets

 

[Beamer]

True, though recent history in Perth suggests you need a shed load of time to roll a team on days 4 and 5. Then again, take out Gayle's freak show in the first innings and you've got a pretty weak batting line up for the Windies.

Personally think this is shaping as a great Test match. Hope it finishes that way.

Also, Windies with some Wato-like douchebaggery on getting Ponting's wicket yesterday. Bit OTT given the injury imo.

Anyway, none of it matters - Dougy to ton up.

Dougeh.

I think the celebration was big because they genuinely thought Ponting could take away the game from them the next morning. That is how much they respect him.

Also Roach hasn't got half the wickets that the standard of his bowling has deserved and so any reward he gets must be celebrated.

Cricket is such a strange game sometimes. IMHO if you were asked who has been the more impressive bowler in this series between Roach and Johnson, Roach would win by a distance but their wicket tallys really don't reflect that.

 

[Burgey]

It is painful to see Ponting becoming bunnies of rookie fast bowlers like Sharma, Roach etc.

Of course, the fact he's batting 9 with one arm had nothing to do with his getting out to a ball he'd normally put 10 rows back, did it?

I also name thee Precam.

 

[Burgey]

I think the celebration was big because they genuinely thought Ponting could take away the game from them the next morning. That is how much they respect him.

Also Roach hasn't got half the wickets that the standard of his bowling has deserved and so any reward he gets must be celebrated.

Cricket is such a strange game sometimes. IMHO if you were asked who has been the more impressive bowler in this series between Roach and Johnson, Roach would win by a distance but their wicket tallys really don't reflect that.

Can't disagree with you re Roach - plainly better than Johnson this series, and by a large margin imo.

 

[Cruxdude]

I think Migara's post is because of the general feeling in the sub-continent that the Aussies get away with most stuff while teams from the sub continent get fined. This issue has come well down in recent times but they were pretty rampant a decade ago or so. These incidents just stay in the mind and come out at times.

 

[Beamer]

Of course, the fact he's batting 9 with one arm had nothing to do with his getting out to a ball he'd normally put 10 rows back, did it?

I also name thee Precam.

You do have to consider that Roach has given Ponting loads of grief through this series as well and that Roach got a fully fit Ponting with a mistimed pull shot from an almost identical ball in Adelaide.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I don't understand. No one would be complaining about Ponting's declaration if Australia hadn't suddenly collapsed in the 2nd innings. Too many people are being way too results orientated.

Actually those who are defending the declaration at 480 and 520 are the ones being too results orientated. The only argument used to defend it has been 'Australia won anyway' or a variation thereof.

Both ridiculous decisions. Most of the time it won't matter. We might be talking one game in fifty where it negatively changes the result. But if you give away percentages through dumb decisions it all adds up. I mean if early on during an innings Ponting decided to walk 3 feet to off and try to paddle the ball for four that sort of decision would maybe only cost you one game in a hundred (a lot of the time he'd get away with it, sometimes he'd score runs from it) but it would still be a horrible decision which warrants criticism.

 

[aussie]

I think it's more a lack of confidence in the batting, chasing anything on a pitch that could well be difficult on day 5. Inherent to that is some level of respect for West Indies batting.

Exactly. Only if as already mentioned McGrath/Warne/Dizzy where playing that enforcing the follow on would have made sense. AUS aren't playing with the level of consistently that their potential suggest to do such stuff ATM..

 

[Smudge]

Just think it's funny that you're the first one to get narky when there's even a slightly off-handed comment coming NZ's way. A bit of a joke can send the toys, blanket and wheels flying in all directions.

A bit of a joke? Your jokes towards NZers generally consist of sheep-shagging. Wow, really creative - think of that all by yourself, even though Australia has a crapload more sheep than New Zealand?

And yes, rubbish jokes usually do make me narky - but then, as I said at the start, you are one of the first to leap to any defence required for Australia. At least someone like Top Cat doesn't think the sun shines out of the arse of every single player to ever put on the baggy green. Perspective's fun - you should try it sometime.