*Official* Fifth Test at The Oval

[Adders]

I find it hard to believe English fans would be pissed off with the days play when leaving The Oval today too...without Clarke's declaration they would've been sitting on their pasty, pie-laden arses watching us block out a draw. Instead, he was nice enough to give them the opportunity to get pissed off about something.

I think a little slack must be afforded the fans that actually went to the game, purely for the fact they were so caught up in the emotional rollercoaster. Booing Clarke was piss poor and I don't go for that one bit, as you say it was only down to him that the game took the direction it did.

But having got to the stage it did it was gut wrenching to have it taken away like that, through nobody's fault, just circumstance. It is fairly natural when feeling frustrated to lash out with the blame game........reckon the reaction would have been the same at the MCG if the situation was reversed. Don't think any England fans on here have played the "we was robbed" card and I'll bet those lucky buggers that were at the Oval yesterday wont be thinking that with their foggy heads this morning.

 

[Ruckus]

I hate that mindset. Losing a Test match should be a big deal. There shouldn't be anyone in the dressing room who wouldn't 'mind much' about a loss, just because they tried to manufacture a result. Our inability on the fifth day of Test matches is a big area that we need to improve in batting and bowling. England and South Africa are better Test Cricket teams than Australia because they understand the importance of drawing a Test match when being outplayed and realize that they have some great (if sometimes inconsistent) players who will produce moments of brilliance that will win them games and series.

That's fair enough, but how does that apply to the context of this match? Australia had every right to try and push for a win.

 

[Adders]

I have a question re the bad light ruling that I hope someone can answer.....

So when the umpires took the players off at the end yesterday it was because the reading reached the same level it had when they stopped the game earlier in the test on day 2. So yesterday they had a benchmark that the umpires had to adhere to.........what were they going by on day 2?? What was the benchmark then?

Presumably if they had been a bit more lenient on day 2 it would have allowed more room to move yesterday?? All sounds very wishy washy to me.......why can't they just have a certain reading that is universally accepted and used in every instance??

 

[NUFAN]

That's fair enough, but how does that apply to the context of this match? Australia had every right to try and push for a win.

It applies to England because they batted sensibly in the first innings which went a long way to eliminating defeat out of the equation with rain helping too.

If we had every right to push for a win, why did we stop pushing for one and not just go for broke? I'll answer: It's because we realized that a draw was better than a lose after all, which basically rendered our second innings rubbish attempt at posting a sizable total, useless.

I have to point out that if we were losing a series by just 1, I would have liked the move.

 

[Spark]

I have a question re the bad light ruling that I hope someone can answer.....

So when the umpires took the players off at the end yesterday it was because the reading reached the same level it had when they stopped the game earlier in the test on day 2. So yesterday they had a benchmark that the umpires had to adhere to.........what were they going by on day 2?? What was the benchmark then?

Presumably if they had been a bit more lenient on day 2 it would have allowed more room to move yesterday?? All sounds very wishy washy to me.......why can't they just have a certain reading that is universally accepted and used in every instance??

I think yesterday, given that the fielders seemed to be really struggling to pick up the ball, was probably well below any reading they took all series. Generally I agree though, there should be a standard where they say "this constitutes bad light".

 

[Ruckus]

It applies to England because they batted sensibly in the first innings which went a long way to eliminating defeat out of the equation with rain helping too.

If we had every right to push for a win, why did we stop pushing for one and not just go for broke? I'll answer: It's because we realized that a draw was better than a lose after all, which basically rendered our second innings rubbish attempt at posting a sizable total, useless.

I have to point out that if we were losing a series by just 1, I would have liked the move.

Well yeah, it just as equally eliminated the possibility of win for Eng too though.

You seem to be looking at everything in hindsight; at the start of the declaration, whilst small, there was still a chance of victory for us. I mean of course we stopped pushing for one when the only options became a draw vs a loss. Playing positively doesn't meaning being idiotic and throwing everything away. It's a calculated risk. Cricket is a dynamic game though, the context of the game is always changing, and consequently so to are the aims of the team. If Eng happened to have lost a couple of early wickets, I'm sure Clarke would have pushed way harder for a victory. But it didn't turn out that way, so he did the next best thing - closing up shop.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I hate that mindset. Losing a Test match should be a big deal. There shouldn't be anyone in the dressing room who wouldn't 'mind much' about a loss, just because they tried to manufacture a result.

Ordinarily, yes it should be. In the context of 3-0 down in a series though and when trying to push for a win to get something out of the series it shouldn't be the main focus. Australia would have drawn the match anyway if it had taken its natural course, and if it was 0-0 I doubt a declaration would've been made.

If not losing becomes our main focus then you might as well call us England

I really don't think the declaration is a big deal, especially at the end of a series we'd lost anyway. Good on him for having a crack. And as someone else said above, making a declaration to try to push for victory doesn't mean then going kamikaze and getting belted if you don't get early wickets.

 

[Flem274*]

If you're 3-0 down in a test series and you're thinking "oh well" about the prospect of 4-0 you should get out of test cricket.

"oh well" at 3-0 might turn into "oh well" at 2-0 and so on. Win or draw, never lose.

 

[Ruckus]

If you're 3-0 down in a test series and you're thinking "oh well" about the prospect of 4-0 you should get out of test cricket.

"oh well" at 3-0 might turn into "oh well" at 2-0 and so on. Win or draw, never lose.

Do or do not. There is no try.

 

[GIMH]

Ruckus, we weren't playing for a draw on day three. Why won't you get that?

 

[NUFAN]

Well yeah, it just as equally eliminated the possibility of win for Eng too though.

You seem to be looking at everything in hindsight; at the start of the declaration, whilst small, there was still a chance of victory for us. I mean of course we stopped pushing for one when the only options became a draw vs a loss. Playing positively doesn't meaning being idiotic and throwing everything away. It's a calculated risk. Cricket is a dynamic game though, the context of the game is always changing, and consequently so to are the aims of the team. If Eng happened to have lost a couple of early wickets, I'm sure Clarke would have pushed way harder for a victory. But it didn't turn out that way, so he did the next best thing - closing up shop.

How can you say that I'm only looking in hindsight when we've been debating the point during the game? It doesn't ****ing matter anyway. I want to support a country that show fight and don't give other countries good opportunities to win Test matches out of nowhere. If/when we end up bossing other countries and are leading the series 3-0 or something I promise I wont care so much. We are playing with false bravado, but we aren't the same team as we used to be.

Ordinarily, yes it should be. In the context of 3-0 down in a series though and when trying to push for a win it to get something out of the series it shouldn't be the main focus. Australia would have drawn the match anyway if it had taken its natural course, and if it was 0-0 I doubt a declaration would've been made.

If not losing becomes our main focus then you might as well call us England

I'm sorry that I have less confidence in our bowlers ability to take 10 wickets in a session and a half against quality opponents than you do. This whole getting something out of the series would have been blown if we got beaten 4-0. I mean luckily for bad light, we've sort of managed to make it a little bit better. I can't be the only one who would have rather have seen us bat properly in the second innings. I don't mind Faulkner moving up the order, but for him on debut to be stepping away from the ball every single ball does no favours for him in the long run.

 

[Ruckus]

Ruckus, we weren't playing for a draw on day three. Why won't you get that?

Because I think you were, or at least were unconcerned with any push for a victory (but it effect it's the same thing). As somone on cricinfo put it "When England are under pressure, they commit themselves zealously to pre-programmed, conservative, risk-free cricket. There will be a computer programme somewhere suggesting that the careworn approach they displayed on the third day of the Oval Test has improved their victory chances by 5.62% and their chances of avoiding defeat by rather more."

But christ all these points have been done to death now...

 

[GIMH]

I thought it was brilliant when Ian Bell said 'I don't think I was very good back then' when asked by Athers about 2005. Bell's generally a pretty dull interview so I expected some generic remark about learning and personal growth but no, straight up.

What a series he's had, ticked all the boxes that people have questioned about him. Difficult situations and quality bowling and we'd have been right up the ****ter without him.

Hope he maintains this form over there as I have a feeling we will need him just as much.

 

[wpdavid]

Anyway, I think a draw was a fair result. Australia declared twice, England had a crack at it on day five and it was a great day of Test cricket, albeit one which was pretty odd in the scheme of things.

I agree. The 1st innings declaration probably didn't amount to much, but Aus 2nd innings was obviously not how they would normally approach things, and it gave England a sniff at victory which probably wouldn't have happened if Day 4 hadn't been rained off. And 4-0 would have been a nonsense.

btw I only caught part of the highlights, but what was Clarke's black armband all about?

 

[GIMH]

@Ruckus - Look, it's pretty simple. We don't go in for the Warne theory of being prepared to lose in order to win. Instead the onus is on avoiding defeat in such a situation before going for it.

How many teams lose after posting 500 first up? Honestly I can hardly think of any. There's Adelaide and I remember us beating Pakistan after a high scoring first dig in 06 (don't think it would have been 500 though) but conventional wisdom says you don't win in those situations unless you can get level and then invoke a collapse because all of a sudden the side batting 3rd is on a bit of a hiding to nothing.

As Burgey said, there could well come a time where slow scoring costs us but at the moment our approach is working. After a rough couple of years we've won in India and retained the Ashes comfortably, sure it was disappointing to draw in NZ but I'd rather us play cricket this way for these results than play 'enterprising cricket' and lose.

 

[Ruckus]

How can you say that I'm only looking in hindsight when we've been debating the point during the game? It doesn't ****ing matter anyway. I want to support a country that show fight and don't give other countries good opportunities to win Test matches out of nowhere. If/when we end up bossing other countries and are leading the series 3-0 or something I promise I wont care so much. We are playing with false bravado, but we aren't the same team as we used to be.

Because you said "It's because we realized that a draw was better than a lose after all, which basically rendered our second innings rubbish attempt at posting a sizable total, useless.". I.e. it can only be rendered a rubbish attempt in hindsight. Before Eng started the chase there was a small chance of victory, or at least that's how it was perceived by most involved.

 

[greg]

I have a question re the bad light ruling that I hope someone can answer.....

So when the umpires took the players off at the end yesterday it was because the reading reached the same level it had when they stopped the game earlier in the test on day 2. So yesterday they had a benchmark that the umpires had to adhere to.........what were they going by on day 2?? What was the benchmark then?

Presumably if they had been a bit more lenient on day 2 it would have allowed more room to move yesterday?? All sounds very wishy washy to me.......why can't they just have a certain reading that is universally accepted and used in every instance??

I'm not sure if you could come up with a consistent standard. I don't know if a light meter reading in one country would reflect the same conditions as the same reading in another. There are also other considerations dependent on individual ground conditions - quality of sightscreens, size of stands etc. Especially if you are taking into account the conditions for the fielding side.

Some of the cant produced by the talking heads on this is IMO ridiculous. The only reason the crowd were booing was because it was England who were 'robbed'. Had Australia been on the verge of victory they would have been cheering. Remember 2005? Or, another occasion i recall - when Ramprakash and Atherton were offered the light at Lords vs Windies in 2000 (the day we bowled them out for 54).

No doubt there should be something done about the slow over-rates - it simply should not be acceptable to deliberately slow the game down when in trouble - but all talk about never going off under flood lights etc is nonsensical with a red ball. Maybe one solution would be to revert to "offering the light", but offer it to both teams, but with the offer only being made to the fielding side once they have bowled the overs they were expected to bowl at the time of the offer (eg. if they have been in the field for 3 hours when the light offer is made, then they can't accept until they have bowled 45 overs). Umpire's discretion could be employed on any time-wasting by the batsmen.

 

[Tangles]

Missed all the action after I went to bed last night. I wasn't surprised Clarke tried to manufacture something. I saw about 50 mins of our second innings and didn't care for the funky order. Faulkner was just silly and so was his backing away.

Having read the thread I understand that some don't like what Clarke did but I think jagging a win would have been better in the big picture. Despite how low the odds were of us winning with the declaration. Somewhat fitting to have the light and the Umps center stage at the end.

 

[fredfertang]

Ruckus, we weren't playing for a draw on day three. Why won't you get that?

Must admit I struggle with that idea too

 

[Dan]

I want to support a country that show fight and don't give other countries good opportunities to win Test matches out of nowhere.

Would you prefer to support a country who, when 3-0 down, are happy play out a tame draw; or a country who, at 3-0 down, do everything in their power to make that scoreline 3-1?

I'm sorry that I have less confidence in our bowlers ability to take 10 wickets in a session and a half against quality opponents than you do. This whole getting something out of the series would have been blown if we got beaten 4-0. I mean luckily for bad light, we've sort of managed to make it a little bit better. I can't be the only one who would have rather have seen us bat properly in the second innings. I don't mind Faulkner moving up the order, but for him on debut to be stepping away from the ball every single ball does no favours for him in the long run.

I don't understand how this argument works. He was told to go out there and make runs quickly, and he did that well. One innings isn't going to suddenly rework his technique so he can only play in that manner in the future, nor are the selectors going to use it to judge his batting ability. Are we really suggesting that the selectors and the public are so intellectually vapid that they can't take the context of the performance into account when forming opinions? It's playing for the team, and nobody will ever be penalised for that.*

And in terms of bad light making it "a little bit better", I wholeheartedly disagree. The scoreline reads exactly the same as it did coming into the Test match. It looks no better on paper. If England made the extra 20 runs, it doesn't mean the positives of the series (Rogers proving himself, Smith's development, Harris proving his class, Lyon proving himself, Watson finally doing something) are all completely lost.

*Or more accurately, I refuse to believe any selection panel, even if they don't have a modicum of common sense, would penalise a player for following the captain's orders.


I'm an advocate of aggressive captaincy and nothing will change that. I'd risk a loss to try and win a game any day. Playing out pointless draws doesn't cut it for me. I'm guessing you're not one to share that view.