***Official*** India in Australia 2011/12

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I'm with you Cribb. The timing of the declaration meant that if India batted well, Australia could have had an awkward chase on day 5. Another hundred runs on the board, the Indians would have had no chance. The only mitigation though was the risk of rain that was mentioned by some on here at the time. Given that, the timing seems much more reasonable.

 

[Prince EWS]

So do you now concede that you were critical for no reason seeing as though it ensured the test match was wrapped up inside 4 days and gave the players an extra day of recovery?

Nah; not at all. Australia were always very likely to win whether he declared or not. Unless he thought it was going to rain though then the declaration gave the side less chance to win (or "more chance to somehow not win" if it comes across better) than batting on.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

GregBaum
OK, I'll start. Q: Who took 4 wickets in SCG Test in 2012? A: India

Rahul Dravid's stats in Australia outside of 03/04 tour

STATS

So if you take away the good stats, you are left with bad stats? Really?

 

[benchmark00]

Nah; not at all. Australia were always very likely to win whether he declared or not. Unless he thought it was going to rain though then the declaration gave the side less chance to win (or "more chance to somehow not win" if it comes across better) than batting on.

A lead of 450 is always enough. India batted pretty well in the second innings and fell 80 odd short. To make it a tricky run chase they would've needed to make a further 230 runs on top of that (to make the lead 150). Adding to the fact that there were clouds about.

Don't be ridiculous. It's such a non issue. If you don't back your team to bowl the opposition out for under 600 after they've been out in the field for 2 days then you will never ever ever ever ever back them.

 

[Spark]

So if you take away the good stats, you are left with bad stats? Really?

I'm fairly sure that outside of one innings, Michael Clarke has scored zero runs this year. Zero!

 

[Burgey]

A lead of 450 is always enough. India batted pretty well in the second innings and fell 80 odd short. To make it a tricky run chase they would've needed to make a further 230 runs on top of that (to make the lead 150). Adding to the fact that there were clouds about.

Don't be ridiculous. It's such a non issue. If you don't back your team to bowl the opposition out for under 600 after they've been out in the field for 2 days then you will never ever ever ever ever back them.

Zip it, ****.

 

[KungFu_Kallis]

I don't think he would have got to the record anyway. I'm watching highlights now and he was seriously struggling once he got past 300, played some wiiild shots. Not the shots of a batsman hunkering down for another hundred.

Nothing ventured nothing gained... he could have tried to slog his way there and if he got out no worries. Oh well moot point. Armchair psychology is about right. But we don't often get to debate whether player x should have gone for the 400 do we

 

[benchmark00]

Zip it, ****.

Gonna end you so bad ****.

 

[Doctor]

I'm fairly sure that outside of one innings, Michael Clarke has scored zero runs this year. Zero!

What about Haddin? In all innings he's played, he hasn't scored one run. (Plus -49 for bad keeping)

 

[Prince EWS]

A lead of 450 is always enough. India batted pretty well in the second innings and fell 80 odd short. To make it a tricky run chase they would've needed to make a further 230 runs on top of that (to make the lead 150). Adding to the fact that there were clouds about.

Don't be ridiculous. It's such a non issue. If you don't back your team to bowl the opposition out for under 600 after they've been out in the field for 2 days then you will never ever ever ever ever back them.

For me declarations aren't about backing your side, having what you think is "enough" or getting more recovery time; they're about giving your team more chance to win the match. If a declaration doesn't do that; don't make it.

I'm obviously in a minority there though because Clarke certainly isn't alone in declaring earlier than I thought necessary. It's an ideological difference that I have with a lot of captains; not a specific criticism of Clarke; which is why I didn't actually post about the declaration at the time.

 

[Spark]

What about Haddin? In all innings he's played, he hasn't scored one run. (Plus -49 for bad keeping)

If you're trying to be controversial, it ain't working

 

[benchmark00]

For me declarations aren't about backing your side, having what you think is "enough" or getting more recovery time; they're about giving your team more chance to win the match. If a declaration doesn't do that; don't make it.

I'm obviously in a minority there though because Clarke certainly isn't alone in declaring earlier than I thought necessary. It's an ideological difference that I have with a lot of captains; not a specific criticism of Clarke; which is why I didn't actually post about the declaration at the time.

By declaring when they did, it gave them a tricky period before tea, and the final session to get a couple of cheap wickets.

It also gave them the most amount of time to bowl them out, and given they were very very unlikely to make enough to set a remotely decent total, it was all about maximising time to bowl the opposition out when you know you have enough on the board.

 

[Son Of Coco]

India in Australia 2011-12: Injured James Pattinson out of series | Cricket News | Australia v India | ESPN Cricinfo

Lol Mr Clarke... 1. You call India's run rate of 3.60 as restricting the scoring and building pressure? Fact is they got themselves out most of the time due to poor concentration, and possibly some of them are just sadly on the decline.

2. Well played for 329* but I think you may regret for the rest of your life declaring when you did... you prefer to have an extra day off than be the number 1 le...gend... even 66% of oz viewers voted on the vodafone app that they would have gone for record.

3. I think a lot of people will be happy this pattinson guy is injured... he is the brand new (and one of the worst) example of the dark side of ozzy - yobbo boorish behaviour. No respect for the game of cricket, opposition, or even umpires or own team mates (e.g. when a catch was dropped). Good riddance yobbo please come back when you have grown up some more. And stop trying to act like an even badder version of brett lee and peter siddle, this snarling is just not a good look.

Ok, now crawl back into your hole.

 

[Ruckus]

A lead of 450 is always enough. India batted pretty well in the second innings and fell 80 odd short. To make it a tricky run chase they would've needed to make a further 230 runs on top of that (to make the lead 150). Adding to the fact that there were clouds about.

Don't be ridiculous. It's such a non issue. If you don't back your team to bowl the opposition out for under 600 after they've been out in the field for 2 days then you will never ever ever ever ever back them.

Yeah agree, especially about the non-issue part. I think it's a non-issue from the point of view of both the precise time Clarke declared and it's bearing on the game, and also any perceived 'intentions' some people are accusing Clarke of (as in ulterior motives for why declared when he did).

The is only one thing Clarke deserves in this game, whether you like him or not, and that is respect (as he would put it).

 

[Noble One]

The Pattinson injury is such a shame. The three best bowling talents in Australia in Pattinson, Cummins and Hazlewood all have a shocking run with fitness.

Starc was always going to be first choice replacement, however I still think he is far too raw. He is clearly not ready for Test cricket. Sometimes the selectors get it right by selecting young pacemen before they are proven, however Starc is largely proven at first class level and is a proven average performer (with good basic attributes).

 

[KungFu_Kallis]

If you're trying to be controversial, it ain't working

I guess there always has to be a fly in the ointment huh.. they keep hanging onto haddin... but selectors can't pick the perfect team because how would there be scope for improvement/discussion/derision/hilbitch-love

 

[Burgey]

By declaring when they did, it gave them a tricky period before tea, and the final session to get a couple of cheap wickets.

It also gave them the most amount of time to bowl them out, and given they were very very unlikely to make enough to set a remotely decent total, it was all about maximising time to bowl the opposition out when you know you have enough on the board.

I said zip it, ****.

 

[Burgey]

I guess there always has to be a fly in the ointment huh.. they keep hanging onto haddin... but selectors can't pick the perfect team because how would there be scope for improvement/discussion/derision/hilbitch-love

I found Kallis' twin failures in the second test against Sri Lanka most amusing. How about you?

 

[benchmark00]

I said zip it, ****.

I WILL NOT BE SILENCED!!!

z

 

[KungFu_Kallis]

Yeah agree, especially about the non-issue part. I think it's a non-issue from the point of view of both the precise time Clarke declared and it's bearing on the game, and also any perceived 'intentions' some people are accusing Clarke of (as in ulterior motives for why declared when he did).

The is only one thing Clarke deserves in this game, whether you like him or not, and that is respect (as he would put it).

I respect him.... but not because he declared like a dumbass....

But because in the last year he has made some Big runs... some tough runs... and led with such panache and imagination he's made ricky ponting look like george bush by comparison...

And because he's really sorted his **** since he tossed binglebells out.. and actually acts more like a man than a mouse now..

Probly already been mentioned but... lol @ new nick name suggested by hussey in press conference... "dog".. so apt