Best & Worst Declarations

[Burgey]

You're going to see more of this as captains look to manage their bowlers in tightly scheduled series. Worst case scenario was NZ set SA about 100 or so with two days to get them. That affords the SA bowlers rest ahead of the next match.

 

[BoyBrumby]

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.

Not quite true.

 

[GIMH]

No side in Test history has ever overturned a 300+ lead.

Ahem

Brumby WAC

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Yeah well Brownlie's going to slam a double hundred to bring us to a 150 lead and then Boult will grab all 10 wickets. You just gotta have faith, y'know?

 

[nightprowler10]

Not quite true.

Didn't actually over turn it though. Gul was bound to get 6/5 or something if Hair had let us keep that ball.

 

[Daemon]

I expect to see NZ all out half an hour post lunch.

 

[Daemon]

I expect to see NZ all out half an hour post lunch.

Close enough.

 

[Maximas]

How about Greame smith at Sydney in 2006 when he gave the Aussies 2 sessions to chase 288, to be fair, SA needed a win to level the series.

 

[BoyBrumby]

So 237/9 dec plays 311/1 and counting.

How are we rating that one?

 

[wpdavid]

So 237/9 dec plays 311/1 and counting.

How are we rating that one?

I thought it was a fair call, even if it didn't work out. I certainly don't think it lost them anything significant.

 

[Howe_zat]

I should think the people who earlier claimed that the result always shows how good a declaration it was will stick to principle.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I thought it was a fair call, even if it didn't work out. I certainly don't think it lost them anything significant.

Probably not, but I thought at the time a slogged 30-40 from Pattinson and Doherty was a shorter odds punt than a wicket in three overs.

Neither's a rank tailend charlie either; the former is averaging 40+ in fact. Obviously inflated, but it at least shows he has some ability.

 

[Howe_zat]

I think they probably should have declared overnight if they'd batted out the overs anyway, I'd think in 35 degree heat having Pattinson fresh with the new pill in the morning would be more of an asset than trying to have him get his eye in again. Probably wouldn't have valued three overs of bowling before stumps though.

 

[uvelocity]

I should think the people who earlier claimed that the result always shows how good a declaration it was will stick to principle.

didn't like it at the time, but it's clearly irrelevant to the result in this case, India was going to be well in front no matter when we declared or if we didn't. Clarke was probably just pissed at getting rolled for the doherty selection and didn't want him to score any runs.

 

[benchmark00]

Probably not, but I thought at the time a slogged 30-40 from Pattinson and Doherty was a shorter odds punt than a wicket in three overs.

Neither's a rank tailend charlie either; the former is averaging 40+ in fact. Obviously inflated, but it at least shows he has some ability.

The more runs India make increases the validity of the declaration.

If Australia end up losing the game by a margin equivalent to 30-40 runs, then it would have be a bad declaration, but because Clarke saw Australia as short of runs he knew their was an added premium on wickets, and your best chance of getting wickets is that dicey period before stumps.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I thought it was a fair call, even if it didn't work out. I certainly don't think it lost them anything significant.

Yeah I agree. He probably could've even declared a little earlier if getting wickets was the intention, but it would've looked worse. I don't think it makes a difference either way in the end.

Selections have made a far bigger difference than 30-40 runs in this match.

 

[honestbharani]

I honestly think it was a good declaration, not just a "not bad" or "ok" declaration. The guy surprised India and went for the kill when least expected.. Thank God we still have captains willing to do this in this day and age..

 

[Howe_zat]

Yeah I agree. He probably could've even declared a little earlier if getting wickets was the intention, but it would've looked worse. I don't think it makes a difference either way in the end.

Selections have made a far bigger difference than 30-40 runs in this match.

And besides, regardless of Pattinson's encouraging ability with the bat, they were collapsing and away from home. 30+ for the last wicket was a long shot anyway.

 

[social]

So 237/9 dec plays 311/1 and counting.

How are we rating that one?

A poor declaration would've been 237/5

A questionable declaration would've been 237/8

237/9 was positive and if Vijay had edged one of the 4 balls that he played and missed, we'd be calling him a genius

 

[uvelocity]

he's still a genius, but i'd not be wasting any of my scant resources on a gamble at that point