Ganguly's declaration in that Kolkata match

[Glacier]

Yes I know I'm about 8 years too late with this thread but I've only recently had the chance to watch the highlights of that match.

Anyways as amazing as India's win was, why did Ganguly declare so late? Shouldn't he have declared the moment VVS got out or at the very latest when Dravid did?

Also why did Waugh enforce the follow-on, instead of setting a target and making India bat last.

 

[gettingbetter]

Yes I know I'm about 8 years too late with this thread but I've only recently had the chance to watch the highlights of that match.

Anyways as amazing as India's win was, why did Ganguly declare so late? Shouldn't he have declared the moment VVS got out or at the very latest when Dravid did?

Also why did Waugh enforce the follow-on, instead of setting a target and making India bat last.

Its all about hindsight. Ever since then, there has been a trend for teams not to enfore the follow on - how much that has to do with that with this Test match is still up for debate, but many people do cite this Test for the change.

As for the declaration for India, just think about Ganguly's perspective. India's second innings was probably about saving the Test rather than saving it.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yes I know I'm about 8 years too late with this thread but I've only recently had the chance to watch the highlights of that match.

Anyways as amazing as India's win was, why did Ganguly declare so late? Shouldn't he have declared the moment VVS got out or at the very latest when Dravid did?

Grinding the opponent into the dust. Even if the Aussies were able to bat out the draw, the momentum probably would have carried over into a win in the 3rd.

Also why did Waugh enforce the follow-on, instead of setting a target and making India bat last.

The question is why would he have not enforced the follow-on? He had a team which had killed India in the first Test, were well on top in the match and the bowlers fresh because they'd bowled India out quickly (50-odd overs the innings lasted, from memory). How was he to know Laxman would play the innings of several lifetimes and a previous well out-of-form Dravid would play a similar freak knock?

And even then, as well as Harbhajan bowled in the Aussie second innings, it was Tendulkar knocking over Hayden, Gilchrist and Warne that delivered the knock-out punch. Was a weird match and as entertaining as they are, the highlights don't tell the full story.

 

[Glacier]

Grinding the opponent into the dust. Even if the Aussies were able to bat out the draw, the momentum probably would have carried over into a win in the 3rd.



The question is why would he have not enforced the follow-on? He had a team which had killed India in the first Test, were well on top in the match and the bowlers fresh because they'd bowled India out quickly (50-odd overs the innings lasted, from memory). How was he to know Laxman would play the innings of several lifetimes and a previous well out-of-form Dravid would play a similar freak knock?

And even then, as well as Harbhajan bowled in the Aussie second innings, it was Tendulkar knocking over Hayden, Gilchrist and Warne that delivered the knock-out punch. Was a weird match and as entertaining as they are, the highlights don't tell the full story.

I'm not saying the decision to enforce the follow-on was a howler but surely it would have made more sense to get 275-300 more runs, set India an impossible target and give Warne the last day to bowl in.

That would have guaranteed that Australia didn't lose as opposed to giving India a chance, albeit an unbelievably slim chance, of winning.

 

[gvenkat]

I'm not saying the decision to enforce the follow-on was a howler but surely it would have made more sense to get 275-300 more runs, set India an impossible target and give Warne the last day to bowl in.

That would have guaranteed that Australia didn't lose as opposed to giving India a chance, albeit an unbelievably slim chance, of winning.

That was one hell of a game.. I dont know if many remember this.. Ponting would have a very good shout against Dravid on the 4th day morning which would be turned down.. to me that was hitting the middle stump.

Australia could have easily drawn that game, instead they chose to chase glory and ended up losing the game. they had to bat what 2 sessions and they decided to go after the Indian bowling and a couple of decisions where iffy towards the end. Not the one to get Warne out though...

 

[Top_Cat]

I'm not saying the decision to enforce the follow-on was a howler but surely it would have made more sense to get 275-300 more runs, set India an impossible target and give Warne the last day to bowl in.

That would have guaranteed that Australia didn't lose as opposed to giving India a chance, albeit an unbelievably slim chance, of winning.

Hindsight. India were utterly demoralised after their first innings.

 

[Glacier]

That was one hell of a game.. I dont know if many remember this.. Ponting would have a very good shout against Dravid on the 4th day morning which would be turned down.. to me that was hitting the middle stump.

Australia could have easily drawn that game, instead they chose to chase glory and ended up losing the game. they had to bat what 2 sessions and they decided to go after the Indian bowling and a couple of decisions where iffy towards the end. Not the one to get Warne out though...

Yeah that did look out, but it may just have impacted outside off.

 

[silentstriker]

What was the downside in enforcing? By not enforcing the follow on you reduce the time you have for a win. Your bowlers are fresh and you've dominated the first Test, and you're on a fifteen game winning streak in Tests. India are falling apart. It was absolutely the right decision IMO.

 

[Glacier]

Hindsight. India were utterly demoralised after their first innings.

Yeah, I guess. And that Indian team really was a pretty poor outfit. Both the openers were liabilities, they had Prasad on his last legs, and FFS Venkatapathy Raju.

 

[gvenkat]

What was the downside in enforcing? By not enforcing the follow on you reduce the time you have for a win. Your bowlers are fresh and you've dominated the first Test, and you're on a fifteen game winning streak in Tests. India are falling apart. It was absolutely the right decision IMO.

and they were trailing by what 274 runs after having been bowled out for 159... who would not enforce the follow on? Australia lost the game when they decided to be attacking in their second innings.

I think Steve Waugh said something to the effect of we don't play draw cricket ...

 

[Glacier]

@SS

Like I've just said above, I think I'm subconsciously thinking of this current Indian side rather then the side of 2001.

Also I forgot to mention Mongia, a decent keeper who could hold up an end but he was no Dhoni.

That team was heavily reliant on Dravid and Tendulkar, if I remember correctly and quite prone to collapses, especially under a bit of pressure.

Your current Indian side is so different its unbelievable. They've got lots more mental strength, better bowlers, better openers, better fielders, I could go on and on.

 

[Jono]

That Ponting ball to Dravid was actually not out, the right decision was made, as it hit him outside the line of off stump. But in real time it looked bloody close. I would have given it. Great umpiring in the end.

Punter was getting some good shape in during that spell. Hayden had a bowl as well didn't he?

 

[gvenkat]

That Ponting ball to Dravid was actually not out, the right decision was made, as it hit him outside the line of off stump. But in real time it looked bloody close. I would have given it. Great umpiring in the end.

Punter was getting some good shape in during that spell. Hayden had a bowl as well didn't he?

The umpire was Bansal i think.. he was pretty clueless towards the end of the game...

 

[bagapath]

one of the greatest test matches i have seen, in fact for inspiration and entertainment it should be right on top of the list.

with two of the greatest bowlers of all time, mcgrath and warne, on his side steve waugh had every right to enforce the follow on. once laxman and dravid turned the whole match around with that historical partnership, ganguly wanted to make sure the aussies were totally demoralized before he declared. i remember shastri wondering in the commentary what was keeping the indian team go on and on beyond a lead of 325. and, yes, sachin's wickets were the final nails in the coffin.

 

[Burgey]

That Ponting ball to Dravid was actually not out, the right decision was made, as it hit him outside the line of off stump. But in real time it looked bloody close. I would have given it. Great umpiring in the end.

Punter was getting some good shape in during that spell. Hayden had a bowl as well didn't he?

Nah, we woz robbed mate!!!!!!!!!

 

[gvenkat]

Nah, we woz robbed mate!!!!!!!!!

That was as plumb as u could get...

 

[DaRick]

The umpire was Bansal i think.. he was pretty clueless towards the end of the game...

Actually, he was clueless throughout. Witness that decision against Gilchrist during Harbhajan's 'hat-trick' (yes, I used the apostrophes for a reason).

As for the decision of Waugh's to follow-on, it was correct. Why?
- India were trailing by 270+
- India had been bowled out for 159
- Precedent: only 2 (?) teams prior had been victorious after following on
- Most of the Indian line-up was not exactly brilliant at that time

As for Ganguly declaring late, it was justified. Bar some tailend resistance, Australia's batting order had looked shaky in the first innings (especially Ponting). Plus, Harbhajan was in the middle of a phenomenal series and got to bowl on a fifth day track, no less.

Where the game was lost was through some insipid captaincy and some poor bowling (Waugh getting his bowlers to bowl down the legside, despite large legside gaps), along with some wonderful batting (referring specifically to THAT partnership). That match epitomises why I think of Waugh as an overrated captain.

 

[Top_Cat]

Where the game was lost was through some insipid captaincy and some poor bowling (Waugh getting his bowlers to bowl down the legside, despite large legside gaps), along with some wonderful batting (referring specifically to THAT partnership). That match epitomises why I think of Waugh as an overrated captain.

Haha, there are so many better examples than that match in Waugh's career.

Still, he was never quite as quickly on the defensive as Rick Ponting is.

 

[DaRick]

Haha, there are so many better examples than that match in Waugh's career.

Still, he was never quite as quickly on the defensive as Rick Ponting is.

I don't believe going on the defensive is necessarily a bad thing. In fact, when your bowling attack is not quite world-class (as has been the case with Ponting recently) it is probably better not to all-out attack and sap your bowlers of confidence as they get pounded for boundaries. Then again, there are the odd times (as with McGain) where the boundaries become irrelevant.

Waugh's problem was an inability to adapt when batsmen took it to his world-class bowling unit. This is partially evidenced by his inability to beat India at home in 2003-04 (and his team were nearly beaten), when he didn't have such a great unit.

 

[Top_Cat]

I don't believe going on the defensive is necessarily a bad thing. In fact, when your bowling attack is not quite world-class (as has been the case with Ponting recently) it is probably better not to all-out attack and sap your bowlers of confidence as they get pounded for boundaries.

Yeah but Ponting seems, until recently, to be the type of captain who sees one ball go to the fence and puts a bloke there the ball after.

Waugh's problem was an inability to adapt when batsmen took it to his world-class bowling unit. This is partially evidenced by his inability to beat India at home in 2003-04 (and his team were nearly beaten), when he didn't have such a great unit.

In short, no plan B.