***Official*** 2nd Test at the Adelaide Oval

[FaaipDeOiad]

Australia declaring 100 behind when they're beating all comers and are not playing for the Ashes against the second best team in the world, when they're one up in the series needing to win, is one thing (although offhand i still can't think of any examples).

I can think of precisely one "captain's agreement" involving England in the modern era...

Yeah, I don't think Flintoff would actually agree to any sort of declaration agreement, so that would certainly put a spanner in the works (didn't I say that somewhere?). I wouldn't be at all surprised if Ponting tried it though, he's very much that sort of captain, who likes to see his role as looking out for the "good of the game" in certain situations (misguided or not), and would like to push for a result provided that he wasn't totally selling out his team in the process. I can see Flintoff turning him down though, and Ponting complaining about it post-match to the media. It would be in Flintoff's interests to do it though, given that his team really needs to win this test while they are in a good position and not relying on picking up a game later in the series.

 

[Laurrz]

Really Really looking forward to tomorrow..like i said earlier.. i enjoy watching Australia bat most when its Gilchrist and tailenders and yea watch Clarkey show everyone young talent, y not yeah.gif played some wonderful shots today
anyways thank god we got the pluckiest tailend in the world... Warne Lee are both mini allrounders and Clark is in terrific form .... and McGrath i think if he stays in with Gilchrist, i think they can make a big partnership ..as funny as it sounds...

anyways how good was Hoggard...seriously.. without that guy England would be in big big trouble... he just keeps hussling in ... like i said, he is Evil... meaning he bowls to plans..every delivery has a meaning...

luckily this ball is starting to get a bit oldish now... i think its great for Gilly to have come in against the newish ball..just like in ODI's.. i think he'd like the feel of leather on bat

Bring on tomoz... bat out the session = we are officially pretty safe

 

[greg]

Yeah, I don't think Flintoff would actually agree to any sort of declaration agreement, so that would certainly put a spanner in the works (didn't I say that somewhere?). I wouldn't be at all surprised if Ponting tried it though, he's very much that sort of captain, who likes to see his role as looking out for the "good of the game" in certain situations (misguided or not), and would like to push for a result provided that he wasn't totally selling out his team in the process. I can see Flintoff turning him down though, and Ponting complaining about it post-match to the media. It would be in Flintoff's interests to do it though, given that his team really needs to win this test while they are in a good position and not relying on picking up a game later in the series.

Well i disagree about England having to win this test. As Howard says - they fancy their chances of wearing Australia down over the series. Not even Fletcher would have picked Giles over Panesar if they thought they were in a position of S**t or bust, and they aren't.

As for Ponting complaining about Flintoff turning down declaration challenges in the post-match media - they'd just say he was away with the fairies

 

[Slow Love™]

Not in test cricket, but I'm not sure he's ever been in a situation like this has he? He certainly played under Waugh when he did similar things though. Can't remember a specific instance where Waugh declared behind, though I believe he did so at least once, but there's a few cases of him setting extremely generous targets to try and win games, like at Brisbane in 2001 against New Zealand.

I guess what I'm asking is what makes you think he would? Yes, he played under Waugh, but his captaincy is very much unlike Waugh. And yeah, I can see Waugh doing it (even to his own detriment), but that's precisely because he was an extremely aggressive captain, unlike Ponting.

And frankly, I think the idea of having a possible home-series sequel to "Edgbaston" (except worse) that would expose him to more ridicule would be a really strong disincentive for Ponting. He still has many doubters, but at least at the moment the team's winning their games.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I guess what I'm asking is what makes you think he would? Yes, he played under Waugh, but his captaincy is very much unlike Waugh. And yeah, I can see Waugh doing it (even to his own detriment), but that's precisely because he was an extremely aggressive captain, unlike Ponting.

And frankly, I think the idea of having a possible home-series sequel to "Edgbaston" (except worse) that would expose him to more ridicule would be a really strong disincentive for Ponting. He still has many doubters, but at least at the moment the team's winning their games.

His fairly extensive history of seeking to "advance the game" with other captains is the main thing. Ponting is a guy who pays fairly close attention to way he is percieved as a captain, and if he got the chance to play the aggressive role and look to force a result with another captain in what would otherwise be a draw he'd take it. You're right that Ponting would be hesitant to risk losing the game, and he's not an especially aggressive captain (though I think that perception has a lot to do with the fact that he follows Waugh and Taylor), but if it came down to a choice of playing for a draw or getting a chase of 350 odd in a day he'd take the chase, certainly. A lot depends on the sort of situation he finds himself in tomorrow though, as his first choice would definitely to keep batting for as long as possible and hopefully get a lead and push for a win that way.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I have two things to say.

My opinion on Giles has decreased several notches, and neither team should lose from here. IMO the only way England can win is skittling them tomorrow and getting them to follow on - we won't want to make a risky declaration at all, and it'll take more than a day to bowl them out on that pitch, so follow-on or bust IMO. We really shouldn't lose either, unless we majorly **** it up 2nd innings.

 

[howardj]

John Buchanan's words of wisdom from this morning were that;

- Warne bowled well but didn't get the 'rub of the green'.
- Australia would make 700 and win the game that way.

Seriously, this guy is a danger to our chances. He should be locked in the team bus.

 

[howardj]

Fair play to the umpires this Series too. They've generally been outstanding. And Ponting - well, what can you say? The man is a champion. I'm just surprised England got off so lightly from Giles' drop!

 

[Slow Love™]

His fairly extensive history of seeking to "advance the game" with other captains is the main thing. Ponting is a guy who pays fairly close attention to way he is percieved as a captain, and if he got the chance to play the aggressive role and look to force a result with another captain in what would otherwise be a draw he'd take it. You're right that Ponting would be hesitant to risk losing the game, and he's not an especially aggressive captain (though I think that perception has a lot to do with the fact that he follows Waugh and Taylor), but if it came down to a choice of playing for a draw or getting a chase of 350 odd in a day he'd take the chase, certainly. A lot depends on the sort of situation he finds himself in tomorrow though, as his first choice would definitely to keep batting for as long as possible and hopefully get a lead and push for a win that way.

I think you're misconstruing his ideas which generally seem to relate to honoring fielder's words, playing on with floodlights, etc (unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by his fairly extensive history of seeking to "advance the game" with other captains), and applying them to what his attitudes towards declaring might be in a situation where he has an opportunity to press for victory at some risk of losing. But I think just about everything we've seen from him has shown the absolute contrary to what you suggest.

Sure, if he's faced with a 300-350 chase on the last day through no choice of his own, I'm sure he'd press for victory (at least initially) rather than playing for the draw, but that has nothing to do with him declaring behind in the hope of pressing for a victory with the real risk of losing the game.

I guess we may very well see if this gets tested tomorrow, but as I said, I wouldn't mind at all if his conservative instincts prevail on this occasion.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

John Buchanan's words of wisdom from this morning were that;

- Warne bowled well but didn't get the 'rub of the green'.
- Australia would make 700 and win the game that way.

Seriously, this guy is a danger to our chances. He should be locked in the team bus.

To be fair, Warne did bowl very well for the first half of day 1 and was extremely unlucky. Can't blame poor fortune on day 2 at all though, or in the final session on day 1. The 700 comment was a bit silly, I guess exactly how silly depends on what question he was asked. The Peter English article which had those quotes didn't really specify.

If he was asked "is there still a posibility Australia could win the game from here", it's not that unreasonable. Ponting said a similar thing today when asked, and said that Australia still felt they could win if they got a lead and bowled well.

I don't think much of Buchanan either, but I don't really see the coach as having a major role in the success or failure of a team like Australia. Seems to be the one cricket nation in which the role is given little consideration, based on the amount of power people like Woolmer, Fletcher and Greg Chappell have by comparison.

 

[howardj]

How damn good has Clark been in this Series!

Absolutely outstanding.

 

[Son Of Coco]

John Buchanan's words of wisdom from this morning were that;

- Warne bowled well but didn't get the 'rub of the green'.
- Australia would make 700 and win the game that way.

Seriously, this guy is a danger to our chances. He should be locked in the team bus.

I think he said something along the lines of "If we make 700 and bowl them out for 150 it's still possible to win the game", not "we will make 700 and win the game"

 

[howardj]

The guy is just so contrary and deliberately off-beat. For instance, in Andrew Symond's book, he tells the story of last Autumn's tour and Symonds expressing his disappointment at getting dropped from the Test team. Buchanan's advice was 'quit ODI's and play Pura Cup' and focus on being a Test player. He was apparently serious too. He just goes out of his way, every damn time, to be off-beat and distinguish himself from everyone else. Whatever is obvious, he just does the opposite.

 

[Dravid]

England unable to follow up with their bowling I believe. They had a chance to get Australia all out under the follow on limit, but they blew it when Giles dropped Ponting. That was the turning point of the match I believe, and it really hurt England. This match is headed for a draw no doubt.

 

[techno t]

England unable to follow up with their bowling I believe. They had a chance to get Australia all out under the follow on limit, but they blew it when Giles dropped Ponting. That was the turning point of the match I believe, and it really hurt England. This match is headed for a draw no doubt.

was a big drop, thought so at the time. Dont think even Monty would have caught it

*

 

[silentstriker]

Monty wouldn't have caught it, he might have actually gotten some wickets.

If you are not going to pick Monty, you just need to pick another full time batsman instead and use Pieterson as your spinner. He's not taking a wicket and its clear you're just using him to give your fast guys a rest anyway. So might as well get a real batsman instead.

 

[silentstriker]

I guess there's another issue then in that they can only use the people they employ - and since the office is in London - that tends to be people based in London...

So what? They can't find people in London who can give an impartial commentary? I mean its one thing to internally rooting for someone, but you don't have to put that in your commentary.

I know cricinfo has been trying to be a bit more colorful in recent times, but that doesn't mean it has to be biased.

 

[Matteh]

Monty wouldn't have caught it, he might have actually gotten some wickets.

If you are not going to pick Monty, you just need to pick another full time batsman instead and use Pieterson as your spinner. He's not taking a wicket and its clear you're just using him to give your fast guys a rest anyway. So might as well get a real batsman instead.

Pietersen isn't your average part-timer and Australia are playing him as well as they're playing Giles, so really Giles' role is defunct. Really may as well shove in another batsman and tell Pietersen to bowl some more offies in the nets.

 

[PhoenixFire]

To be fair on Giles, he very rarely drops catches, and can make good run-outs.

 

[silentstriker]

To be fair on Giles, he very rarely drops catches, and can make good run-outs.

So get a nice batsman who can field.