wellAlbidarned
International Coach
Indeed, he's wrong because of the manner in which the game played out, not the result.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Best & Worst Declarations
- Thread starter BoyBrumby
- Start date
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah. I mean imagine if there was another hour's worth of rain and the match was drawn (and there could very well have been), would that have changed whether the declaration was a good one or not?
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2610480-post1361.html
Bit of discussion from that post onwards around the declaration. Largely against.
Similar game all round actually from what I can remember
Bit of discussion from that post onwards around the declaration. Largely against.
Similar game all round actually from what I can remember
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Wish it had been washed out then.I was at that Lord's game mother****erssssssssssss
Saw Dhoni bowl live
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The problem as I see it Scaly is that you apply the same formula for declarations to every single match, i.e you should never declare under 500, and you ignore all the other variables that go into the game - like where it's being played, the weather forecast for the whole 5 days, the fact that a bowler got injured and couldn't bowl, how the wicket's going to play out over the 5 days etc etc
In short, basically what Benchmark said.
In short, basically what Benchmark said.
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
But that's just it isn't it? You take into account who you are playing and what you think you need to score (amongst other things), you don't just say "We'll try to get 550 plus every game and see what happens from there".
I think it's also possible Clark thought they'd have a crack at getting into the top order while the wicket was doing a bit early on.
BoyBrumby
Englishman
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Harsh on your sister.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Lack of me having a sister makes this ineffective.
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
She disowned you iirc.
wellAlbidarned
International Coach
It's kept the game ever so slightly alive but that's not the captains job. He should've let the tail have a swing to frustrate us. Trailing by only 300 means we've still got a realistic goal to shoot for - making SA bat again. Another 100 runs and I don't think we'd have seen the same resistance.
Howe_zat
Audio File
No side in Test history has ever overturned a 300+ lead. How many more do you need to make a significant difference to that? 100 maybe? 50 would be minimum. And they were 8 down, including all the batsmen, so it's not like putting on more than another 50 was really on the cards. Their fast bowlers getting injured or at least knackered seems a lot more likely than getting them enough runs to make a difference.
Weighing up what they could've lost with what they could have gained, it was a sound declaration. Not entirely necessary, but completely justifiable.
Weighing up what they could've lost with what they could have gained, it was a sound declaration. Not entirely necessary, but completely justifiable.
Last edited: