Best & Worst Declarations

[Red]

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.

It's not nonsense at all. And it's nonsense that it achieved nothing, we have Sri Lanka at 4/100 at the end of the second day in a test, with Sanga and Jayawardene out, and we are still 350 runs ahead of them in the first innings in a match that's been (and may still be) effected by rain. Ask any captain if they'd take that and they'd say yes, which shows Clarke was right.

 

[Scaly piscine]

It's not nonsense at all. And it's nonsense that it achieved nothing, we have Sri Lanka at 4/100 at the end of the second day in a test, with Sanga and Jayawardene out, and we are still 350 runs ahead of them in the first innings in a match that's been (and may still be) effected by rain. Ask any captain if they'd take that and they'd say yes, which shows Clarke was right.

Trolling or are you actually serious?

 

[Scaly piscine]

So when should Clarke have declared Scaly?

I don't know how bad the weather forecast is, but Australia should have looked to have blasted for another 15-20 overs at least. If you're looking at losing over a day's play then a tough follow-on target is key. Scoring 550 makes it a lot harder to pass the follow-on than 450. 550 runs would take about 2 days batting to surpass, so unless the game goes to 4 days or more you've pretty much eliminated the risk of losing and have a good chance of forcing a follow-on. Also the 550 runs will be needed if the game goes for another 7 sessions, so you're not wasting time by getting superfluous runs.

The tricky bit is gauging the right time to declare if the follow-on becomes pretty much the principle way of winning (~3 1/2 day game on a flattish pitch). As then you may want to go to higher to set a tougher follow-on target, even though it's unlikely your opponent would score the runs across two innings in the time remaining. Then it's a balance between increased chance of a follow-on v less time to bowl a team out twice.

 

[Red]

Trolling or are you actually serious?

Fully serious.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Okay. I'll state this again for everyone.

You cannot justify a declaration based on what happens after it. Particularly in that scenario. There's no reason to believe Sri Lanka wouldn't have been 100-4 if Australia had managed 550, 600 or whatever. So the scoreline that follows doesn't justify a terrible declaration. If it was in the UK and the cloud cover came in and the ball started hooping around then you could argue there are conditions to exploit so you want to bowl in those to sacrifice runs for extra wickets, there was no such difference in Australia - also it means Australia get a few more overs of batting later in the game and Sri Lanka a few more overs batting on a Day 2 pitch.

The reality is Australia were well ahead anyway at 450-5 before they declared, so to say that they're ahead later because of the declaration is nonsense. It's also irrelevant for the reason given above.

A declaration is all about maximising your odds of getting the best result. Declaring at 450-5 greatly increases the chance of Australia losing. Unless the game is massively shortened to basically 270 overs of play or thereabouts then declaring at 450 does not increasing the odds of winning. Australia will need to score more runs unless it's a massively one-sided game (in which case Australia win anyway), it's easier to score quickly at 450-5 on Day 2 against tired/demoralised bowling and fielding than later on if Sri Lanka manage any sort of total. It also makes it easier for Sri Lanka to avoid the follow-on.

 

[Johnners]

It wasn't a terrible declaration given the weather forecast imo, but I do agree it was too early. Hussey & Wade looked like they could've added another 100 at a reasonable clip which would've still given Siddle 'n co a crack at Sri Lanka in the final session.

 

[Burgey]

Okay. I'll state this again for everyone.

You cannot justify a declaration based on what happens after it. Particularly in that scenario. There's no reason to believe Sri Lanka wouldn't have been 100-4 if Australia had managed 550, 600 or whatever. So the scoreline that follows doesn't justify a terrible declaration. If it was in the UK and the cloud cover came in and the ball started hooping around then you could argue there are conditions to exploit so you want to bowl in those to sacrifice runs for extra wickets, there was no such difference in Australia - also it means Australia get a few more overs of batting later in the game and Sri Lanka a few more overs batting on a Day 2 pitch.

The reality is Australia were well ahead anyway at 450-5 before they declared, so to say that they're ahead later because of the declaration is nonsense. It's also irrelevant for the reason given above.

A declaration is all about maximising your odds of getting the best result. Declaring at 450-5 greatly increases the chance of Australia losing. Unless the game is massively shortened to basically 270 overs of play or thereabouts then declaring at 450 does not increasing the odds of winning. Australia will need to score more runs unless it's a massively one-sided game (in which case Australia win anyway), it's easier to score quickly at 450-5 on Day 2 against tired/demoralised bowling and fielding than later on if Sri Lanka manage any sort of total. It also makes it easier for Sri Lanka to avoid the follow-on.

Thanks for that. It also means you can't **** can a declaration based on what happens afterwards, thereby taking away one of the 25 negative things you enjoy talking about.

 

[Satyanash89]

Clarke's declaration made no sense... all its done is ensure that Australia will have to bat again. Should have just blasted away for 10 odd overs more... 450 at adelaide is just not a big total. Came off as arrogant from Clarke and felt as though he was underestimating the SL batting.

 

[NasserFan207]

Declaration looked a bit too arrogant for me.

 

[Johnners]

Clarke's declaration made no sense... all its done is ensure that Australia will have to bat again. Should have just blasted away for 10 odd overs more... 450 at adelaide is just not a big total. Came off as arrogant from Clarke and felt as though he was underestimating the SL batting.

Good thing they aren't playing at Adelaide then I guess

 

[Cevno]

Yeah, the runs were coming pretty quickly for the 5 or so overs before it which i assume was a deliberate effort.

Could have batted on for another 10/15 overs and gone hell for leather and taken whatever they got, if indeed he wanted to declare quickly anyway.

 

[benchmark00]

Great declaration.

 

[Spark]

Love the idea that a declaration shouldn't take into account what might happen next. It's the kind of thinking you get from (ahem) only watching the game via scorecards, without taking into account pitch conditions, weather, mental energy...

 

[Satyanash89]

Good thing they aren't playing at Adelaide then I guess

wouldnt change anything in my post apart from that

 

[Tom Halsey]

Love the idea that a declaration shouldn't take into account what might happen next.

Not what he said.

It should obviously take into account what might happen next, but judging it purely on what did happen next is result orientated thinking which is irrelevant.

 

[Spark]

Which is still a weird way to think about it given that what happened next was exactly what Clarke would have been looking for. You've got to take that into account, that what the captain thought would happen does happen.

 

[Tom Halsey]

OK, so if I take my entire net worth to a casino, put it all on red and it wins, is that a great idea because it won? No, for several obvious reasons.

Scaly's completely correct that a declaration is generally good if it moves the balance of your chances of winning vs losing in a positive way for your team (couple of exceptions such as being the last Test of a series and absolutely needing to win, but generally holds true). Whether it actually works or not is irrelevant - if it was probable to work is relevant.

I think Scaly pretty neatly outlined why this declaration was a bad one if everything he says is factually correct - I'm not actually following the Test, just making a theoretical point. I see results-orientated logic quite a lot and it always slightly irks me.

 

[Cevno]

Should have batted till tea at least.So 9 overs more iirc.

No wickets fell before that, so that would have been the right decision.

 

[Ruckus]

OK, so if I take my entire net worth to a casino, put it all on red and it wins, is that a great idea because it won? No, for several obvious reasons.

Scaly's completely correct that a declaration is generally good if it moves the balance of your chances of winning vs losing in a positive way for your team (couple of exceptions such as being the last Test of a series and absolutely needing to win, but generally holds true). Whether it actually works or not is irrelevant - if it was probable to work is relevant.

I think Scaly pretty neatly outlined why this declaration was a bad one if everything he says is factually correct - I'm not actually following the Test, just making a theoretical point. I see results-orientated logic quite a lot and it always slightly irks me.

Yeah from a logical pov what Scaly said was entirely correct. I reckon, though, the decision was made largely because of the weather forecast. If the weather turns out to be better than expected, and no time is lost, then yeah the declaration basically increased the risk of Aus losing with little to no gain. But given 450, in all likelihood, is still a good enough total for Aus to set up a win with, it was a risk Clarke was willing to take. So I don't think you can say it's a bad declaration given the circumstances.

 

[cnerd123]

I don't like enforcing a follow on against good batting sides, unless you've shot them out for like under 100 or within half a day.

Because your bowlers will have just bowled a sizeable amount of deliveries, and will have to come back and start all over without a breather in between. The same batsmen who you just dismissed will now come back and bat on the pitch pretty much identical to the one that they have just batted on, with added determination to not get bowled out as easily as before. And you are also now the side chasing in the 4th innings on a 4th/5th day pitch.

It varies situation to situation, depending on pitch, conditions, mental state, the teams involved and the actual scores...but more times than not I'd think I'd do what Clarke did, and declare at something like 450/5 rather than post up 700 and look to my bowlers to take 20 wickets in a row. Especially when you've experienced your bowlers dropping like flies with their injuries as Clarke has.