Declaring Behind

[GotSpin]

Just had a thought last night. Have there been many, if any, recent cases of teams declaring behind in Test cricket. i know they sometimes do it in domestic first class cricket in Australia, but can't remember it being done internationally.

 

[Craig]

Last time I can think of was when New Zealand toured Australia in the 01/02 season and Stephen Fleming declared 199 runs behind Australia to try and set up a result which Steve Waugh in response set them around 280 odd with about 50-55 overs remaining and New Zealand fell 20 runs short.

Mind you it had been pissing down rain during that Test.

 

[GotSpin]

Thanks mate, interesting stuff. I thought Steve Waugh had done it but couldn't actually remember an occasion

 

[gwo]

Twin pair of captains declared 0/0 and 0/0 in the 2nd and 3rd innings of a test match once.

Can't remember which one.

 

[Somerset]

Actually happened less than two weeks ago with Bangladesh declaring fairly soon after they'd passed the follow-on in the second test against New Zealand (admittedly they were nine wickets down by then). I think the Stephen Fleming example is a better illustration of declaring behind in a situation to try and manufacture a result.

 

[gettingbetter]

Twin pair of captains declared 0/0 and 0/0 in the 2nd and 3rd innings of a test match once.

Can't remember which one.

Some game in South Africa around 2002-03. I think it was declared a a forfeiture of an innings.

 

[gettingbetter]

South Africa v England mind you, actually it might of been earlier and the captains might of been Atherton and Cronje. Either way, I'm 99% sure it was those two teams.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

http://cricketweb.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1676071&postcount=907

Gerald Whitehead, WAG

 

[silentstriker]

Actually happened less than two weeks ago with Bangladesh declaring fairly soon after they'd passed the follow-on in the second test against New Zealand (admittedly they were nine wickets down by then). I think the Stephen Fleming example is a better illustration of declaring behind in a situation to try and manufacture a result.

Weren't NZ down like eight-nine wickets too though?

 

[Craig]

Twin pair of captains declared 0/0 and 0/0 in the 2nd and 3rd innings of a test match once.

Can't remember which one.

Some game in South Africa around 2002-03. I think it was declared a a forfeiture of an innings.

South Africa v England mind you, actually it might of been earlier and the captains might of been Atherton and Cronje. Either way, I'm 99% sure it was those two teams.

You mean this Test?. Given the circumstances of what happened, I probably prefer not to count it as a Test match.

 

[Somerset]

Weren't NZ down like eight-nine wickets too though?

Sorry what I was meaning to say was that Bangladesh declared almost as soon as they passed the follow-on so they wouldn't have to bat their tailenders in a game that they had no intention of forcing a result in. New Zealand declared seven or eight down because it just happened that when they passed the follow-on they had lost seven or eight wickets and needed to pass the follow-on to declare and make a game of it. So the declaration came in the hope of Steve Waugh also declaring and setting them a target, which eventuated. So the long answer to your short question is yes, but in different circumstances.

 

[Richard]

Twin pair of captains declared 0/0 and 0/0 in the 2nd and 3rd innings of a test match once.

Can't remember which one.

Some game in South Africa around 2002-03. I think it was declared a a forfeiture of an innings.

South Africa v England mind you, actually it might of been earlier and the captains might of been Atherton and Cronje. Either way, I'm 99% sure it was those two teams.

It was South Africa and England in 1999/2000, Cronje was SA captain (and manufactued the result in an attempt to gain money for himself) and Hussain was England captain. The game was a dead one (Fifth Test with SA already two-nil up), obviously, otherwise such a thing would never have happened.

England's first-innings, given that first-innings either cannot or could not at that time be forfeited (not sure which), was taken down as 0 for 0 off 0 overs declared; South Africa's second-innings was forfeited.

Either way, as to behind-declarations in general, I can't believe it'll have happened very often in games which had not had lost time - probably substantial lost time. All three games mentioned so far (SA-Eng in '99/00, Aus-NZ in '01/02 and Ban-NZ in '08/09) fit such a description, and how.

 

[fredfertang]

A cracking example is the first test of the 50/51 Ashes series - Australia were all out for 228 and England barely started their first innings before a storm broke - uncovered wickets of course - next day Freddie Brown declared at 68/7 figuring his only chance was to get Australia back in while the pitch was at its worst - good move as Australia collapsed to 0/3 and eventually 32/7 - Hassett in turn wanted England back in so he declared with an hour left before the close and England lost six wickets before the close - next day England ended up 70 short with Len Hutton marooned on 62 not out, an innings which some describe as his finest ever

 

[Richard]

Yeah uncovered wickets, like lost play, are something that are always going to put the cat amongst the pigeons.

IIRR that would've been one of the last "stickies" in Australian Test cricket.

 

[fredfertang]

One odd thing about that game was that all the mayhem on the second day was caused by the seamers

 

[Richard]

Wasn't it usually the way on Australian stickies? As opposed to good ol' UK stickies where the spinners were almost always the called-upon.

 

[fredfertang]

I suppose the truth must be that all bowlers would prefer to bowl on a sticky irrespective of their pace - I suspect, and might research it a bit later if I am still curious, that the distinction is not so much which hemisphere as whether the run ups were covered - in 36/37, where stickies abounded, it was the England pace bowlers who did the damage when it was their turn despite having Verity (no doubt what happens when your skipper is a quick!) - for the Aussies their stickies were exploited by O'Reilly and Fleetwood Smith - but then their pace attack was pretty average - but the point is in that series, and no doubt 50/51 also, the run ups were fully covered

 

[Matt79]

A cracking example is the first test of the 50/51 Ashes series - Australia were all out for 228 and England barely started their first innings before a storm broke - uncovered wickets of course - next day Freddie Brown declared at 68/7 figuring his only chance was to get Australia back in while the pitch was at its worst - good move as Australia collapsed to 0/3 and eventually 32/7 - Hassett in turn wanted England back in so he declared with an hour left before the close and England lost six wickets before the close - next day England ended up 70 short with Len Hutton marooned on 62 not out, an innings which some describe as his finest ever

Fantastic!

 

[Richard]

I suppose the truth must be that all bowlers would prefer to bowl on a sticky irrespective of their pace - I suspect, and might research it a bit later if I am still curious, that the distinction is not so much which hemisphere as whether the run ups were covered - in 36/37, where stickies abounded, it was the England pace bowlers who did the damage when it was their turn despite having Verity (no doubt what happens when your skipper is a quick!) - for the Aussies their stickies were exploited by O'Reilly and Fleetwood Smith - but then their pace attack was pretty average - but the point is in that series, and no doubt 50/51 also, the run ups were fully covered

Oh yeah, certainly. When the experiment with re-uncovering wickets in this country in 1987 (or was it 1986?) was conducted, the run-up and followthrough was covered as well, and not only did the intention of bringing spinners back into the game fail miserably, but plenty of batsmen had plenty of nasty experiences against seamers on stickies. This demonstrated why the things had been abandoned in Australia - a quickish seamer on a sticky was genuinely dangerous.

IIRR, run-ups and followthroughs were never covered in England in the "original" uncovered wickets era, so seamers never operated on stickies as they could not keep their footing. I'd always presumed the same was not true in Australia - or, at least, if it was, the fact that the damp dried-out so much quicker meant that seamers could bowl on them.

Personally this is the main reason I myself dislike the idea of uncovered wickets. Even though it advantages the spinners, undoubtedly, if it is not to become dangerous to the batsmen it also has to specificaly disadvantage the seamers. An idea I don't like at all.

 

[fredfertang]

Law 11 is not the easiest to get your head round! - it seems to be essentially permissive rather than obligatory although I am confident I am correct in saying that prior to 1913 covering run ups was not allowed and after that it was permissible but not compulsory