*Official* Third Test at Old Trafford

[dontcloseyoureyes]

The people giving it to Clarke for not declaring earlier, how many of you have genuinely captained a cricket side at any level? Not trying to be a dick about this, just genuinely curious.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Be rained off tomorrow so no point us all arguing anyway.

 

[Uppercut]

The people giving it to Clarke for not declaring earlier, how many of you have genuinely captained a cricket side at any level? Not trying to be a dick about this, just genuinely curious.

Probably none of us. Assuming you have, what would it change about how you view the situation?

 

[Expressway76]

The people giving it to Clarke for not declaring earlier, how many of you have genuinely captained a cricket side at any level? Not trying to be a dick about this, just genuinely curious.

None of us.

If we applied your line of thinking to every post we made on this site, any posting would be strictly limited to professional players of past and present. I'm sure it would be a blast though,

 

[Riggins]

he didn't say captaining a professional side ffs. he said at any level. if noone on the site had played cricket at any level before im sure this forum would be a blast.

 

[Spikey]

although i dont see how captaining the U14s in an OD match is in any way, shape or form comparable to Clarke captaining in a test match

 

[Cabinet96]

I've captained my fair share of under 15 T20 games tbf

Look, I respect that it's much harder to be as attacking with your declarations when you face the responsibility of losing the game, and am usually one of the biggest criticisers of commentators who are always moaning about declarations being too late, but that doesn't mean I can't think he should have declared earlier. I'd be very surprised if England got half the runs they'll be set.

 

[Cabinet96]

although i dont see how captaining the U14s in an OD match is in any way, shape or form comparable to Clarke captaining in a test match

Haha, exactly. Hence the ninja smiley in my post.

 

[Riggins]

you never got burned by a sporting declaration as a 13 year old, the painful memory of which guided the rest of your life?

 

[benchmark00]

The people giving it to Clarke for not declaring earlier, how many of you have genuinely captained a cricket side at any level? Not trying to be a dick about this, just genuinely curious.

Heh, wasting your time here boi.


Fact is that you need a certain amount of runs to allow you to be aggressive and dictate the game. If you can't bowl a team out in the best part of four sessions at the arse end of a game you probably don't deserve to win anyway.

 

[Spikey]

you never got burned by a sporting declaration as a 13 year old, the painful memory of which guided the rest of your life?

we didnt have access to in depth weather reports while playing tbf

 

[BeeGee]

The people giving it to Clarke for not declaring earlier, how many of you have genuinely captained a cricket side at any level? Not trying to be a dick about this, just genuinely curious.

Does the Marlborough 2nd division count as any level?

IMO he should have declared earlier, but the game is going to be ruined by the weather either way.

If I was an English fan I'd take no satisfaction from this game. Australia has been the dominant team and a weather induced draw is a lame outcome.

 

[Riggins]

we didnt have access to in depth weather reports while playing tbf

why did you declare so early then?

 

[Cabinet96]

Heh, wasting your time here boi.


Fact is that you need a certain amount of runs to allow you to be aggressive and dictate the game. If you can't bowl a team out in the best part of four sessions at the arse end of a game you probably don't deserve to win anyway.

With the expected weather around they were never going to be getting the best part of four sessions in though. I know you can't completely dictate your decision making on a changeable and unpredictable weather reading, but you have to, at the very least, factor it in to a small extent IMO. Once the lead was 300, England were always going to be needing over three an over to win the game, and under such circumstances (only needing to draw to retain the urn and being notoriously defensive) it was always unlikely that they would go for it.

I usually agree with the idea of making the game safe and then going all out attack in the field, but in this situation it was never going to work.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Probably none of us. Assuming you have, what would it change about how you view the situation?

I'm not sure if it really does, I'm just curious as to how many people will criticise someone without any real frame of reference for the situation. I understand that very few of us will ever have any sort of real experience at that level, but it's still not unreasonable to expect people to have some sort of similar knowledge base. I personally think he played it right, and to m00pheh's point, blind aggression without a base to be aggressive from is basically suicide. Especially when the pressure on your decision isn't just your own but the weight of 10-20 of your peers and 20 million others. But I'm not sure whether my view of it comes from having several years of captaincy experience at as high a level as my meager talent will allow, or whether it says more about my personality. That is why I asked the question.

Also; for the 15 year olds posting in here (ie. Spikey) I quite obviously meant at a senior level.

None of us.

If we applied your line of thinking to every post we made on this site, any posting would be strictly limited to professional players of past and present. I'm sure it would be a blast though,

For the sake of the future of our planet, please do not reproduce.

 

[Spikey]

i mean, most would consider 290 odd runs to be a fairly solid base.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

i mean, most would consider 290 odd runs to be a fairly solid base.

That is why I asked the question, young one.

 

[benchmark00]

i mean, most would consider 290 odd runs to be a fairly solid base.

Ok, but then what happens when Clarke comes out and is really aggressive and then the batsmen make 100+ in a session.

For the rest of the match Clarke is then forced to be less aggressive, meaning his chances of taking wickets is reduced.

Having closer to 350 means that fast start doesn't stop the Australians from taking the game deep.

 

[Spikey]

clarke's chances of taking wickets are reduced anyway by lowering the amount of deliveries at his disposal, no?

 

[BeeGee]

I'm not sure if it really does, I'm just curious as to how many people will criticise someone without any real frame of reference for the situation. I understand that very few of us will ever have any sort of real experience at that level, but it's still not unreasonable to expect people to have some sort of similar knowledge base. I personally think he played it right, and to m00pheh's point, blind aggression without a base to be aggressive from is basically suicide. Especially when the pressure on your decision isn't just your own but the weight of 10-20 of your peers and 20 million others. But I'm not sure whether my view of it comes from having several years of captaincy experience at as high a level as my meager talent will allow, or whether it says more about my personality. That is why I asked the question.

Most food critics aren't former chefs. Most film critics aren't former directors. Most art critics aren't former artists.

Everyone criticises politicians but very few have been in politics.

Are you seriously suggesting sports fans shouldn't criticise players unless they've been players themselves? That is completely unreasonable, IMO.