Best & Worst Declarations

[L Trumper]

In that sense he has taken over the team at the right time. Lack of established stars means he can pretty well so what he likes without risking big reputations or egos.

It is not just though, he is ridiculously pro active on field and seem to make positive decisions. A mixture of Border(team leader etc.) and Taylor(on field tactics etc.). Have to see how long he will keep it.

 

[Burgey]

No it's certainly not just luck, not at all. All I mean is it would be harder to say to a bloke like Warne or McGrath "Sorry mate, have a spell. I'm giving the keeper a bowl."

 

[watson]

Go read what I've said throughout about how you can't call a declaration as good or bad based on the result. So why the **** would I change my tune now - the start of Australia's 2nd innings showed they wasted 10-15 overs anyway and would have happened virtually every time. What happens after that is academic because it's not connected with the declaration - Sangakkara nor anyone else got dismissed because they got blinded by the sheer stupidity of Clarke's declaration. Australia had about 130 overs to bowl Sri Lanka out instead of 140. What happens then is irrelevant to the argument, unless someone wants to say that having fewer overs to bowl Sri Lanka out was an advantage.

You're not going to get it whatever I say anyway, but that makes two of us - as you're on ignore with a load of other time wasters who end up getting banned. Bye bye.

Steve Waugh probably would have batted to within 45 minutes of close of play and declared at about 550-600 because he was a strict pragmatist. Allan Border also liked to bat the other team out of the game and then go for the win if he could.

However, from an entertainment point of view Clarke's declaration was better as it kept Sri Lanka in the game. After all, from a spectator point of view, watching a one-horse race is pretty damned boring.

 

[centurymaker]

I think he should have tried to get another 50 in the first innings and then pulled the plug.

Anything under 500 is always risky imo.

But credit to him for challenging and backing his side to do the job with 450 in the 1st innings.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Despite declaring on 450, Sri Lanka never once looked liked trying to chase it down. How could anyone argue that an extra 100 runs would've improved Australia's chances?

 

[Top_Cat]

Yep and putting an opponent comprehensively out of the game can cost you chances of winning too. Generally have to give your opponents a sniff, especially on a pudding pie deck like Bellerive.

 

[Cabinet96]

Despite declaring on 450, Sri Lanka never once looked liked trying to chase it down. How could anyone argue that an extra 100 runs would've improved Australia's chances?

Because scoring 100 runs more in their first innings would have meant they would have needed to score 100 less in their second innings, when conditions were much harder to score quickly, hence more time would have probably have been used.

Obviously it all worked out really smoothly for Australia, but I would've batted until at least tea if not for a short while after as well.

 

[centurymaker]

550 v 450

let's settle it on 500.

 

[Burgey]

Because scoring 100 runs more in their first innings would have meant they would have needed to score 100 less in their second innings, when conditions were much harder to score quickly, hence more time would have probably have been used.

Obviously it all worked out really smoothly for Australia, but I would've batted until at least tea if not for a short while after as well.

Yeah but you're not factoring in the weather forecast ffs, which was patchy at best.

I can excuse Scaly this, because he never goes outside, but come on mate.

 

[Jono]

Man the whole argument about how Australia batting on an extra hour in the first innings would have allowed them to bat less time in the second innings is fair enough... IF THERE WERE NO WEATHER CONSIDERATIONS!

It could have rained more guys! And if it did, Clarke would not have batted as long in the 2nd innings as well.

Bruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuutal that people are not considering the weather properly.

Scaly's (and the others backing him) point is valid if there were absolutely no weather considerations. Australia could have saved time by having two established batsmen score in the first dig rather than slowly in the second dig. But if it rained more Australia would have set a chase of 300 or so (as SL would not have had time to chase it) and gone for a win earlier.

 

[Ruckus]

Yeah indeed. Not sure why Scaly is being shot down so much for his argument. If you're not considering weather, then what he is saying makes perfect sense - it seems most of the counter arguments are based on people not taking into account that more runs in the first innings means less needed in the second, which is pretty obvious. However, given the forecast at the time looked somewhat iffy, the declaration was a good one.

 

[benchmark00]

How do people not understand that declaring at 150 in the second innings would afford the bowlers less time to rest up than 250 would allow? Meaning their chances of effectiveness in the 4 innings would be less than what it otherwise would be.

The problem with Scaly's opinion, and the people backing him up, is that they don't take into variables, like weather but also like fatigue and how that effects performance.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall having a debate with Scaly about declarations towards the end of play one time on CW. He was saying that it's stupid to declare 8 overs before the end of play because you can get another 40 runs or whatever, refusing to take into consideration the last thing the opposition would want is to have to go out and face that period before stumps.

Cricket is played in real life, not on a blackboard ffs.

 

[Spark]

****mark00 has it

 

[Cevno]

Would have been interesting if Srilanka added up another 100 + runs in the first innings, which was possible as despite their main batsman didn't fire and their tail collapsed.

Think he backed his team to again outperform Srilanka in the second innings, so fair enough but would have been interesting if he had declared if it was some other team.

Would have personally have still slogged for about 9/10 overs till tea and taken whatever could be achieved.

 

[Top_Cat]

How do people not understand that declaring at 150 in the second innings would afford the bowlers less time to rest up than 250 would allow? Meaning their chances of effectiveness in the 4 innings would be less than what it otherwise would be.

The problem with Scaly's opinion, and the people backing him up, is that they don't take into variables, like weather but also like fatigue and how that effects performance.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall having a debate with Scaly about declarations towards the end of play one time on CW. He was saying that it's stupid to declare 8 overs before the end of play because you can get another 40 runs or whatever, refusing to take into consideration the last thing the opposition would want is to have to go out and face that period before stumps.

Cricket is played in real life, not on a blackboard ffs.

Not just that but the captain usually takes into account how well the oppo is travelling individually when setting a target, little signs which give you idea of how much they'll hurt you. Sangakkara, for example, doesn't really look like he's playing that well and had to fight really hard even though he got past 50, played a good knock on the ground years ago, etc. If you were Clarke, you'd back keeping him quiet at least. Only the openers looked any good, really. If anything, you'd be foolish if you didn't take that sort of info into account.

I mean, really, we look at the game as spectators, noting their recent records, etc. But the reality is, even if a bloke has been bashing the **** out of other attacks, you've no idea whether today is their day until you see them face up. Similarly, guys who've had a run of outs. You just don't know until you see them face up and I'd reckon Clarke would have picked up that the SL batsmen haven't been hitting them well in general of late so could chance an earlier declaration.

 

[Red]

Go read what I've said throughout about how you can't call a declaration as good or bad based on the result. So why the **** would I change my tune now - the start of Australia's 2nd innings showed they wasted 10-15 overs anyway and would have happened virtually every time. What happens after that is academic because it's not connected with the declaration - Sangakkara nor anyone else got dismissed because they got blinded by the sheer stupidity of Clarke's declaration. Australia had about 130 overs to bowl Sri Lanka out instead of 140. What happens then is irrelevant to the argument, unless someone wants to say that having fewer overs to bowl Sri Lanka out was an advantage.

You're not going to get it whatever I say anyway, but that makes two of us - as you're on ignore with a load of other time wasters who end up getting banned. Bye bye.

Don't be so arrogant. I fully get what you're saying, I just disagree. And you can't handle that, so you resort to insults and OTT reactions like ignoring me (woo) and calling me a time waster.

I understand that you think that Clarke should have let his team get another 50 or 100 runs in the first innings. It's a simple thing to understand. Bat for ages. Yeh yeh. But as it stands he didn't, and he won the test. So, he was spot on with his declaration.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

How do people not understand that declaring at 150 in the second innings would afford the bowlers less time to rest up than 250 would allow? Meaning their chances of effectiveness in the 4 innings would be less than what it otherwise would be.

The problem with Scaly's opinion, and the people backing him up, is that they don't take into variables, like weather but also like fatigue and how that effects performance.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall having a debate with Scaly about declarations towards the end of play one time on CW. He was saying that it's stupid to declare 8 overs before the end of play because you can get another 40 runs or whatever, refusing to take into consideration the last thing the opposition would want is to have to go out and face that period before stumps.

Cricket is played in real life, not on a blackboard ffs.

That is how I have viewed it all. Still, Scaly can stay in his bubble and tell us we are all wrong. Makes funny reading.

 

[Daemon]

I understand that you think that Clarke should have let his team get another 50 or 100 runs in the first innings. It's a simple thing to understand. Bat for ages. Yeh yeh. But as it stands he didn't, and he won the test. So, he was spot on with his declaration.

See I'm fine with benchmark's and burgey's (iirc) explanation but the whole concept of 'he declared and won - therefore it was a good declaration' is wrong imo.

 

[uvelocity]

I don't see how you can have any more important criteria for judging it. Like you're not captaining your country unless you are well around considering a short session at the end of the day, weather considerations, bowler fatigue, pitch conditions, time remaining, your own batting strength and so on. Are you going to say a declaration was good because it fit your mathematical formula even if a team goes on to lose or draw? Everything else than what was done in any scenario is just guess work, you can't create different theoretical outcomes to suit your argument.

 

[Uppercut]

You can make a bad declaration and win anyway, in the same way that you can play a bad shot and win anyway. And it's definitely not true that the only way to assess whether it was a good declaration or not is by looking at the result. Might as well say that the only way to tell whether scoring a century was the right thing to do or not is by whether you win.

I think it's usually best not to get too hung up on the result. Just as long as it doesn't get to Dicko-esque extremes. Where a bowler you don't like is picked and bowls brilliantly, but you insist that you were right anyway because the selectors 'couldn't have known' he was that good.

Not that Scaly isn't wrong, he's just not wrong purely because Australia won.