Best & Worst Declarations

[Richard]

Hussain's reaction when he heard the suggestion (Alec Stewart walked past him on the fourth evening and said "have you spoken to Hansie? He wants to make a game of it.") was "nah, no way, this isn't Essex v Hampshire at Colchester, this is a Test, you don't mess around with Tests". Exactly as you say - the idea was unthinkable.

The point is, though - why? I think it was a downright odd thought. The Test was a dead one, and there was a large crowd of English spectators. Why not make a game of it? There was no good reason not to. Sure, the victory wouldn't have meant much to anyone - Atherton recalls how (long before anyone suspected gambling-related intervention) he felt "completely hollow" as he watched the fans celebrate. It wasn't a true Test-match victory. I felt exactly the same as you and Atherton did. Even now, I think of that series as a 2-0 victory for SA.

But it would, had the idea been raised by, let's say, Graeme Ford or Duncan Fletcher and not the aforementioned Aronstram, have been a wonderful thing for cricket. It turned what would otherwise have been a meaningless day into a thrilling one. And that, really, is all that would have mattered had Aronstram not been involved.

 

[silentstriker]

Imran Khan once created a huge furore in Pakistan by declaring in a match against India in 1983 when Javed Miandad was unbeaten on 280. Would you consider that wrong?

Yes. He should have given Miandad (as an example) five overs to get the runs. Or told him earlier when he would declare so Miandad could plan his innings. Otherwise, absolutely it was wrong.

 

[shortpitched713]

Yes. He should have given Miandad (as an example) five overs to get the runs. Or told him earlier when he would declare so Miandad could plan his innings. Otherwise, absolutely it was wrong.

Hmm... not sure I would agree with that. Making a declaration is a dynamic thing, sometimes if your team is scoring too slow you might need to delay the declaration and if the team has scored very quickly it might be advantageous to make it earlier.

Would probably agree with your first idea though, if they're close to a very big milestone and you as a captain are close to a declaration it would be a great idea to inform them.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Think there was a thread about this a week or two ago, about Somerset's declaration on.....wait for it.....1 run.

A mate of mine at the time (RIP Nick) was one of the 20 something spectators who paid to get in, he got his 75p back though.

 

[Perm]

I don't blame Hick at all TBH. You can say "it's a team game" all you want - it's a team game played by individuals, and individual achievements do mean a hell of a lot, whether some people like it or not. A century is a buoyancy-aid to a team, and denying a batsman a century is bound to have some effect.

Pretty much my feelings on the matter. Although as sp713 it was a tad selfish on Hick's behalf, and quite unprofessional. I feel as though Hick had a right to be angry for a day or two, maybe even 4 or 5, depending on what kind of character he was, but to not speak to the captain for two weeks is pretty poor and would not have helped the mood in the dressing room at all.

 

[Perm]

Imran Khan once created a huge furore in Pakistan by declaring in a match against India in 1983 when Javed Miandad was unbeaten on 280. Would you consider that wrong?

http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1980S/1982-83/IND_IN_PAK/IND_PAK_T4_14-19JAN1983.html

Imran insisted it was because he didn't believe in records, but it never really sat well with Miandad, who dedicated an entire chapter of his autobiography on this incident.

To Imran's credit, he is the only captain to declare with himself being in the 90s, I guess he didnt believe in personal milestones.

http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1991-92/SL_IN_PAK/SL_PAK_T1_12-17DEC1991.html

I've no problem with that, it's not a though Imran had one rule for himself and another for the team when he was captain.

 

[Craig]

It's an interesting viewpoint. Captains have colluded in the county championship since it began to set agreed targets to give the possibility of a result, but before that tour it was unheard of in tests. I remember being stunned rigid that we'd won, having left for work (& having no internet access at work back then) with the 5th day about to begin and SA's 1st innings still in progress. When I flicked on teletext (this was the dark ages) to read the details I was surprised, but didn't suspect anything amiss at all. Cronje was seen at the time as a paragon of Calvinist rectitude, so the idea that he'd "fix" a match was laughable.

What is undeniable is that it created an exciting finish to a test match, which is usually a good thing. Unfortunately the circumstances are such that no two captains are likely to come to a similar arrangement any time soon because the finger of suspicion would inevitably point in their directions. Which is maybe a pity.

Yeah it is pretty much spot on for mine, even Richard's posts as well. I would have to say ignorance is bliss as like you and Richard say, the idea that Hansie would fix a game is laughable and you wouldn't think a lot of it, then of course he got found out to be a cheating scumbag.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The mention of the 1st Ashes test in the Harris/Hauritz/Swann thread made put me in mind of this thread, as one always feels slightly paternal towards those one's started.

Oz came near as dammit to pulling off what looked an unlikely triumph when Punter pulled the plug, but, in retrospect, did he wait too long? North and Haddin had long since made their tons and the lead was 239 when the end came. Whilst acknowledging hindsight is always 2020, perhaps drawing proceedings to a conclusion with a lead of 200 would've been better, with an eye on a quick dart at a smallish chase?

I think there is a tendancy towards conservatism with declarations around just now. On our 2008/09 Windies tour Strauss declared 6 times in 6 innings (!) and we were never once able to force a result. Should captains grasp the game by the scruff of the neck more? Slightly increase the chance of a loss for a greater dart at glory? Thoughts?

 

[Uppercut]

Strauss's declarations on that tour were terrible. Particularly the one at Antigua.

I definitely think Ponting left it a bit too long too, but you can't really blame him for the rain closing in. You'd hope he'd be a bit more positive with a whole innings left, but remember that at the end of England's innings they'd overtaken Australia, so he would have had to go out and bat a bit more then anyway. Very small error, really.

 

[GIMH]

Strauss's declarations on that tour were terrible. Particularly the one at Antigua.

I definitely think Ponting left it a bit too long too, but you can't really blame him for the rain closing in. You'd hope he'd be a bit more positive with a whole innings left, but remember that at the end of England's innings they'd overtaken Australia, so he would have had to go out and bat a bit more then anyway. Very small error, really.

No but he could have checked the weather forecast.

If he had declared earlier, I doubt we'd have ended up overtaking them. Monty would have been gone by the third ball if the situation wasn't so close.

 

[Uppercut]

Different game altogether though, England might not have lost two quick wickets that evening if he hadn't left it a little later.

What swings it for me is that no one was criticising Ponting much at the time. It wasn't with his other decisions where the entire country is like "wtf, batting at Headingley on a cloudy day? bell-end." or "why the ****ing **** is ****ing Hussey bowling to the tail when Watto's reversing the ball into the pads" but Ponting proceeds to make absurdly idiotic decisions that everyone knows are idiotic. People only decided he'd declared too late after England saved the match with a wicket to spare. That makes it a considerably lesser mistake, although still a mistake. When Strauss kept on batting in Antigua the entire match thread was livid.

 

[Furball]

The direness of the declaration in Antigua was made worse by not enforcing the follow on.

 

[BoyBrumby]

So, Clarke's today then...?

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Forecast isn't great so probably a good one as they shouldn't lose the match and they ended up with 3 wickets before the close.

 

[wpdavid]

Adelaide in 2006 was a pretty dire call by Flintoff, even allowing for hindsight being a wonderful thing. Staying put and making 700 would have made us absolutely fireproof, as well as depriving Aus of the chance of batting when the pitch was still an absolute road.

 

[Red]

So, Clarke's today then...?

Spot on I reckon. Time will tell though.

He's put Australia in a decent position to win the test, and that's all you can ask.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Spot on I reckon. Time will tell though.

He's put Australia in a decent position to win the test, and that's all you can ask.

I thought it was a good, challenging closure too. One eye on the weather and all.

He does have past form in this area, doesn't he? Declared whilst still in arrears versus the Windies & ended up winning at least partly because of it.

Reading some of the posts in the tour thread (which partly inspired my dig) it's fair to say not all agree.

 

[Red]

I thought it was a good, challenging closure too. One eye on the weather and all.

He does have past form in this area, doesn't he? Declared whilst still in arrears versus the Windies & ended up winning at least partly because of it.

Reading some of the posts in the tour thread (which partly inspired my dig) it's fair to say not all agree.

There's been a bit of criticism of it. I don't get that. He's given us a massive chance to win it.

I don't think there was any point in going on to score 600 here, I think that would have guaranteed a draw. And I also don't think we can lose from this point. So, perfect!

 

[Scaly piscine]

There's been a bit of criticism of it. I don't get that. He's given us a massive chance to win it.

I don't think there was any point in going on to score 600 here, I think that would have guaranteed a draw. And I also don't think we can lose from this point. So, perfect!

What complete nonsense.

Australia will probably bat again. It achieved nothing to declare early as he did. You can easily lose scoring 450 first up in 3/4 day games - see England v Sri Lanka when play was heavily reduced. See that game Australia won against West Indies when declaring from behind. If the team batting second gets anywhere near your total there's pressure on your 2nd innings not to fall in a heap. Which means you can't score as freely as well as risking defeat.

You also make the follow-on a much less likely route to victory, which is typically the quickest route.

 

[Noble One]

So when should Clarke have declared Scaly?