Best & Worst Declarations

[Scaly piscine]

I understand your point. But at the moment, the game is fully live. If we'd batted on, I'm not sure that would have been the case. You could argue that we could have batted on to 500 or 600 or 700, but as it stands, we're in a good spot to win this match, but very unlikely to lose it. So, yeh...

Australia were already in a great spot to win the match. That's generally how it is with declarations.

How would another 15 overs of batting have had any bearing on Sri Lanka's batting performance? If Australia had tried to up the rate they'd typically be a further 50+ runs ahead right now, all things being the same. Could also have had the option to enforce the follow-on, although I suspect Clarke wouldn't anyway as he's incredibly averse to using it.

 

[uvelocity]

Australia were already in a great spot to win the match. That's generally how it is with declarations.

How would another 15 overs of batting have had any bearing on Sri Lanka's batting performance? If Australia had tried to up the rate they'd typically be a further 50+ runs ahead right now, all things being the same. Could also have had the option to enforce the follow-on, although I suspect Clarke wouldn't anyway as he's incredibly averse to using it.

do you have anything useful to say? please enlighten us all how many times Clarke has declined to enforce the follow on in his captaincy career.

lyon took the wicket of samaraweera in the last over of the day. this would not have happened except for the declaration.

 

[Scaly piscine]

do you have anything useful to say? please enlighten us all how many times Clarke has declined to enforce the follow on in his captaincy career.

lyon took the wicket of samaraweera in the last over of the day. this would not have happened except for the declaration.

Oh lord.

 

[Top_Cat]

Sensational declaration by Clarke. The man knows what's up.

 

[uvelocity]

Oh lord.

sorry how many times?

 

[Burgey]

With scheduling the way it's heading, I think we will see more declarations made on lower scores. The idea of piling on 600 plus and enforcing a follow on isn't as attractive when a captain knows he could lose the toss five days later and have his bowlers in the field again after three or so days' work in the preceding test.

 

[Jono]

Yeah exactly, very good point.

 

[uvelocity]

Clarke wouldn't anyway as he's incredibly averse to using it.

once. once clarke has had the opportunity, vs india at roadelaide. we won by 298 runs.

nonsense posting

 

[hendrix]

What complete nonsense.
You also make the follow-on a much less likely route to victory, which is typically the quickest route.

Sorry, but the wicket has shown enough flatness that enforcing a follow-on would not have been a good idea.

Other than that I agree with you that you can't judge a decision on what happened after it

I also think they could've easily made another quick hundred and still have half a session before the end of play on day 2. I would've completely taken a SL win out of play and not reduced the chances of victory for Aus.

 

[Tricia McMillan]

If I were a captain, instead of enforcing a follow on I'd probably go out and have a bat for a bit but then declare after only a session or two (would depend on the lead, if I lead by 450 after the first innings I'll declare after a session, etc.). Give the bowlers a bit of a break by batting instead, but still go for the innings victory.

That's my primary concern is the fatigue of having bowlers have to bowl two consecutive innings. I've never been a fan of it.

 

[uvelocity]

how do you bat twice and win by an innings

 

[SteveNZ]

Obviously wasn't going to lose the match from there and all he has done is maximise the victory chance which will probably happen midway through day 5.

Time hasn't quite proven you right. This could be one of the great egg on the face moments.

 

[centurymaker]

no, aus will not lose even if sri lanka are 100 for 0

 

[Spikey]

don't understand why australia declared with one wicket in hand

 

[SteveNZ]

no, aus will not lose even if sri lanka are 100 for 0

If Sri Lanka reach 393, they will win. That's all you need to know right now.

 

[centurymaker]

they won't reach 393

(aus won't lose i.e at least a draw )

 

[SteveNZ]

You can't possibly know that.

 

[centurymaker]

330 still to get and that too on the last day with 8 wickets in hand. come on

no more than a 5% chance of a win.

 

[SteveNZ]

Certainly. $18 would suggest nigh on exactly what you're saying. I might put a fiver on the win

 

[Jamee999]

Did you actually read anything I posted?

To momentarily drop down to this level of argument - 27-0 off 14 overs - how many runs do you think Australia would have taken off 14 overs with licence to go for it from 450-5? This sort of thing would happen in well over 90% of games if you kept re-running the game from 450-5.

This is what I meant earlier. When you're not in a position that you likely won't need to bat again, isn't it going to be much easier to get the runs you need at 450-5 with two guys set at the crease against a bowling attack that's been in the field for ages, rather than with two openers against a fresh bowling attack?

And it's a freeroll too - you tell Hussey and Wade "your wickets don't matter, just try and get as many quick runs as you can". If they get out attacking, you're not really any worse off than if you had declared, but the upside is 50-100 quick runs that you then don't need in the 3rd innings, which will almost certainly be harder conditions to score.

It's not a big thing, and it'll affect the result of the Test a small %age of the time, but it's possible that Sri Lanka could bat the day out tomorrow, and (as you said) Australia having scored 27 runs in 4 overs rather than 14, would have given 10 more overs to try and get Sri Lanka out.