Best & Worst Declarations

[Scaly piscine]

This is what I meant earlier. When you're not in a position that you likely won't need to bat again, isn't it going to be much easier to get the runs you need at 450-5 with two guys set at the crease against a bowling attack that's been in the field for ages, rather than with two openers against a fresh bowling attack?

And it's a freeroll too - you tell Hussey and Wade "your wickets don't matter, just try and get as many quick runs as you can". If they get out attacking, you're not really any worse off than if you had declared, but the upside is 50-100 quick runs that you then don't need in the 3rd innings, which will almost certainly be harder conditions to score.

It's not a big thing, and it'll affect the result of the Test a small %age of the time, but it's possible that Sri Lanka could bat the day out tomorrow, and (as you said) Australia having scored 27 runs in 4 overs rather than 14, would have given 10 more overs to try and get Sri Lanka out.

Yep.

The 'small percentage' is part of the problem. People can't always perceive it. The sort of difference it makes is small because the games are typically not on the margins, they're not 50-50. In a 50-50 game one wicket, dropped catch, partnership makes a 50-50 game go 60-40 - that's a tangible difference. When one team is declaring they're usually dominant, when you're 90-95 percent chance to draw/win then an incident like those mentioned (or a crap declaration) has a small impact. Instead of say 95% to draw/win you could become 94% or 96%. So of those games you're losing, you would lose an extra 20% or 20% less, but when you're only losing 1 game in 20 to start with - it's barely noticeable. It is hard to tell between massively on top and slightly more/less massively on top (apart from easily comparable positions like 220 runs ahead is better than 200 runs ahead - but add in factors like overs remaining, probable run-rates, pitch breaking up, bowlers/batsmen injured, fatigue...)

This lack of perception means people are trying to use other things to judge, such as instinct or the end result. Which doesn't really work.

 

[uvelocity]

if you do something different at any point, everything afterwards will happen different. of course the end result is the judge.

 

[Scaly piscine]

if you do something different at any point, everything afterwards will happen different. of course the end result is the judge.

So Ricky Ponting was the best captain in the history of cricket during the mid to late 2000s then?

Because he happened to always make the right call (bat or bowl) at the toss and most of his bowling changes resulted in wickets and Australia won a lot?

 

[NasserFan207]

For my money Clarke's declaration was wrong, you should never, ever be declaring midway through day 2 at 450/5. That said I do kind of understand re: the weather and not feeling threatened by SL, plus as a neutral it makes for much more exciting cricket to watch.

Still a dumb move though.

 

[Tricia McMillan]

how do you bat twice and win by an innings

Ooops. I wasn't thinking straight last night when I posted that.

 

[Neil Pickup]

This is what I meant earlier. When you're not in a position that you likely won't need to bat again, isn't it going to be much easier to get the runs you need at 450-5 with two guys set at the crease against a bowling attack that's been in the field for ages, rather than with two openers against a fresh bowling attack?

Isn't it going to be much easier to get the early wickets you need when you've reached 450-5, have demoralised an opposition that's been in the field for ages, and are taking on two exhausted openers against a fresh bowling attack?

Talking about hypothetical probabilities is moot unless someone finds some empirical evidence for (say) wickets taken in evening sessions.

 

[Daemon]

Why the **** would you declare at 450/5? Surely you just tell whoever's in to have a whack until you get up to about 500-550 so there's a higher chance of enforcing the follow on. Especially when the two guys are set batsmen on a century and a half century.

 

[Furball]

Why the **** would you declare at 450/5? Surely you just tell whoever's in to have a whack until you get up to about 500-550 so there's a higher chance of enforcing the follow on. Especially when the two guys are set batsmen on a century and a half century.

Burgey's point about scheduling and not enforcing the follow on is valid though. Particularly when the Australian fast bowling stocks seem to consist of bowlers made of glass.

 

[Burgey]

Why the **** would you declare at 450/5? Surely you just tell whoever's in to have a whack until you get up to about 500-550 so there's a higher chance of enforcing the follow on. Especially when the two guys are set batsmen on a century and a half century.

Because of the weather forecast.

 

[Burgey]

This is what I meant earlier. When you're not in a position that you likely won't need to bat again, isn't it going to be much easier to get the runs you need at 450-5 with two guys set at the crease against a bowling attack that's been in the field for ages, rather than with two openers against a fresh bowling attack?

And it's a freeroll too - you tell Hussey and Wade "your wickets don't matter, just try and get as many quick runs as you can". If they get out attacking, you're not really any worse off than if you had declared, but the upside is 50-100 quick runs that you then don't need in the 3rd innings, which will almost certainly be harder conditions to score.

It's not a big thing, and it'll affect the result of the Test a small %age of the time, but it's possible that Sri Lanka could bat the day out tomorrow, and (as you said) Australia having scored 27 runs in 4 overs rather than 14, would have given 10 more overs to try and get Sri Lanka out.

Because he doesn't want to make them follow on if at all possible.

Also, wade isn't capable of batting for the team. Selfish **** he is.

 

[SteveNZ]

For my money Clarke's declaration was wrong, you should never, ever be declaring midway through day 2 at 450/5. That said I do kind of understand re: the weather and not feeling threatened by SL, plus as a neutral it makes for much more exciting cricket to watch.

Still a dumb move though.

I never thought it was dumb, but I certainly raised eyebrows at the time.

But if Australia win late in the third session today, doesn't that make him a risk-taking genius? That may still happen being a bowler plus himself down.

 

[uvelocity]

So Ricky Ponting was the best captain in the history of cricket during the mid to late 2000s then?

Because he happened to always make the right call (bat or bowl) at the toss and most of his bowling changes resulted in wickets and Australia won a lot?

none of that has anything to do with this. if we win it was a good declaration, if we lose it was a bad one. It's even quite possible that we could have declared later and won by now. Anything else done differently would have resulted in something different, and it's the winning and losing that matters.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Ooops. I wasn't thinking straight last night when I posted that.

Had downed your 300mL of orange soda?

 

[Jono]

Had downed your 300mL of orange soda?

 

[Scaly piscine]

none of that has anything to do with this. if we win it was a good declaration, if we lose it was a bad one. It's even quite possible that we could have declared later and won by now. Anything else done differently would have resulted in something different, and it's the winning and losing that matters.

How is not relevant? It's an extension of your end result dictates everything logic - the logic which says Ponting was the best ever Test captain as well as one of the worst ever against England.

 

[uvelocity]

How is not relevant? It's an extension of your end result dictates everything logic - the logic which says Ponting was the best ever Test captain as well as one of the worst ever against England.

I guess you'd take a bloke off straight after a hat-trick as you'd pre-determined the bowling changes with your statistics too

 

[Red]

You'd have to say Clarke was spot on, eh?

 

[NasserFan207]

Hard to say really. Match might've turned out very differently if Australia had batted on to 600+, SL might've been rolled easily and Hilfenhaus might not be injured.

On the surface though it looks like a good call from your man Clarke

 

[Daemon]

still don't get it. probably because i didn't watch the match.

 

[SteveNZ]

You'd have to say Clarke was spot on, eh?

I can't see the logic for anyone who tries to argue otherwise. Sure, 600 might have also produced a result - how can we ever know - but he took a punt and its proven to have paid off