**Official Comm Bank Series - Aus, Ind & SL ODI's***

[Spark]

and we didn't get enough runs

and clarke did his hammy

capital D-ire

ABC radio suggested referred pain from a back spasm, which is good in one way because it should clear up quick, but bad in another (anything bad happening to clarke's back is alarm bells galore)

 

[howardj]

What was Punter doing opening the batting? Even if it comes off, there's no future in it. Moreover, Wade had some momentum up in that spot.

 

[benchmark00]

McKay's ****. Does nothing with the ball except a handy slower ball. Would prefer James Hopes in the lineup because he can bat and field.

 

[uvelocity]

ABC radio suggested referred pain from a back spasm, which is good in one way because it should clear up quick, but bad in another (anything bad happening to clarke's back is alarm bells galore)

yeah that would be just as bad if not worse. looked a hell of a lot like right leg to me though

 

[Furball]

Your scenario is rubbish. But what does that have to do with it?


The whole idea of pacing is about risk-reward. If he goes harder at the total, he risks more. Dhoni obviously weighed up the risks, and backed himself to get to the target without needing to take any. Of course, he would be constantly doing this. He kept it close, so he obviously kept on thinking to himself "I don't need to take risks yet, this is under control".

"They won which automatically means the entire innings was paced perfectly"

This is bull**** quite frankly. Just the fact that they won does not mean the entire innings was paced perfectly. A player not taking risks, backing his ability, and getting his side home shows that the innings was paced perfectly.

That doesn't mean it was a great innings. But it does show that Dhoni knew what needed to be done, and did it.

I doubt Dhoni intended for it to go to 12 off 4. That's definitely cutting it a bit fine.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

How can you not see that before it was 12 off 4 it was 13 off 9.

Exactly!!!!!

See, I can understand criticism of the passage of play between 13 off 9 and 12 off 4. But why the rest? Because he could have done better? Well **** me, let's talk about what actually happened huh? Instead of this bull**** dreamworld that you ****ers live.

You want him to win it with an over to spare? Why even wait that long. Dhoni should have scored 72 off 12 and just got it over with.

 

[benchmark00]

See, I can understand criticism of the passage of play between 13 off 9 and 12 off 4. But why the rest? Because he could have done better? Well **** me, let's talk about what actually happened huh? Instead of this bull**** dreamworld that you ****ers live.

You want him to win it with an over to spare? Why even wait that long. Dhoni should have scored 72 off 12 and just got it over with.

I'm agreeing with you ****lord.

 

[Spark]

yeah that would be just as bad if not worse. looked a hell of a lot like right leg to me though

you'd think it'd have to be pretty bad for him to miss though.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

I doubt Dhoni intended for it to go to 12 off 4. That's definitely cutting it a bit fine.

Yeah, I don't disagree.

13 off 9 ------> 12 off 4 - Things got a little dicey.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

I'm agreeing with you ****lord.

I know dick****.

I was just adding to my point.

(and quoting for posterity)

 

[Ruckus]

Your scenario is rubbish. But what does that have to do with it?


The whole idea of pacing is about risk-reward. If he goes harder at the total, he risks more. Dhoni obviously weighed up the risks, and backed himself to get to the target without needing to take any. Of course, he would be constantly doing this. He kept it close, so he obviously kept on thinking to himself "I don't need to take risks yet, this is under control".

"They won which automatically means the entire innings was paced perfectly"

This is bull**** quite frankly. Just the fact that they won does not mean the entire innings was paced perfectly. A player not taking risks, backing his ability, and getting his side home shows that the innings was paced perfectly.

That doesn't mean it was a great innings. But it does show that Dhoni knew what needed to be done, and did it.

Yeah, fine, so it's all about risk/reward. And what part of needing 13 runs off the final over, yet still having 4 wickets in hand, is maximising that?

 

[thierry henry]

See, I can understand criticism of the passage of play between 13 off 9 and 12 off 4. But why the rest? Because he could have done better? Well **** me, let's talk about what actually happened huh? Instead of this bull**** dreamworld that you ****ers live.

You want him to win it with an over to spare? Why even wait that long. Dhoni should have scored 72 off 12 and just got it over with.

Because 13 off 9 is still too many? Because Dhoni's batting off Doherty's last two balls was simply a continuation of the way he batted throughout his whole innings? He batted throughout the innings without urgency and at a slower than normal pace and allowed the run rate to get higher than it should have, not because he was simply playing risk free but because he was batting markedly slower than normal in a seemingly very deliberate manner. This is inexplicable. Your standard "pick up the singles and let the other blokes go for it" type batting from Dhoni would've seen the side home easy.

 

[howardj]

I'm maintaining Forrest is a hack.

Sorry, but you don't average 30 in Shield before this year at his age, and then change your spots.

 

[benchmark00]

I'm maintaining Forrest is a hack.

Sorry, but you don't average 30 in Shield before this year at his age, and then change your spots.

Forrest averaged that low for NSW because he was never afforded a consistent crack at it (and deservedly so due to the playing stocks).

 

[howardj]

I'm saying his not out of the woods

 

[benchmark00]

I'm saying his not out of the woods

And I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Prince EWS]

Your scenario is rubbish. But what does that have to do with it?


The whole idea of pacing is about risk-reward. If he goes harder at the total, he risks more. Dhoni obviously weighed up the risks, and backed himself to get to the target without needing to take any. Of course, he would be constantly doing this. He kept it close, so he obviously kept on thinking to himself "I don't need to take risks yet, this is under control".

"They won which automatically means the entire innings was paced perfectly"

This is bull**** quite frankly. Just the fact that they won does not mean the entire innings was paced perfectly. A player not taking risks, backing his ability, and getting his side home shows that the innings was paced perfectly.

That doesn't mean it was a great innings. But it does show that Dhoni knew what needed to be done, and did it.

The point I'm making is that the fact that he was successful does not automatically mean his risk/reward assessment was good throughout his innings. Fact of the matter is that Dhoni was able to achieve those last 12 runs because McKay bowled three terrible deliveries; that was completely out of his control, which is the absolute definition of luck. He'd paced it poorly from when he came in to let it get to 12 off 4 required - or indeed even 13 off 9 required. 32 (52) and then 12 (4) - or even 13 (9) - is a lot harder and indeed more prone to wickets falling than 42 (52) and 3 (9). The risks to declined earlier in his innings magnified as the end drew nearer; he had timed it poorly and was lucky to get away with it.

I actually don't even have a problem with you disagreeing with that and thinking it was less risky for him to do what he did given the increased threat of his wicket falling had he tried to score slightly quicker earlier. Agree to disagree and all that. The problem I have is with the assertion that any successful chase was paced correctly as a matter of fact because of the result. If McKay had bowled the perfect over they would've lost which would then make it a poorly placed innings apparently, which is stupid because the quality of the risk/reward assessment at the time is unaffected by what happens after the fact; merely what gives you the best chance at the time. The way Dhoni paced his innings did not give India the best chance they had of winning the match; they just happened to win anyway. If you disagree that's fine but what actually happened in the last 9 balls or whatever shouldn't come into it.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Yeah, fine, so it's all about risk/reward. And what part of having 4 wickets in the final over, yet still needing 13 off it, is maximising that?

The fact that he was still there?

13 off 9 with 5 wickets in hand is comfortable. No real risks needed. **** happened.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Yeah, I don't disagree.

13 off 9 ------> 12 off 4 - Things got a little dicey.

13 off 9 is by no means a certainty either. A wicket puts you in trouble, new batsman etc. as happened. You'd be what about a 70-80% favourite? Even just conceding a dot ball makes it almost even money.

5 off 9 on the other hand with just the four wickets remaining well then you're a massive favourite.

 

[howardj]

You'll twig to it eventually