***Official*** West Indies in Australia

[Nate]

Great day for Australia.

 

[superkingdave]

Thats the greatest thing Ive ever seen. Im forever in debt to you

Have you ordered a t-shirt?

 

[Pratters]

Brett Lee hard done by again. He gets more chances dropped off him than any1 else in Aus team.

Its the sheer pace I tell you!

 

[Scaly piscine]

First they did not enforce the follow on. I find no logic in that. You want to finish the match as quickly as possible to avoid an usual circumstance of rain or some great Windies performances in their inning (which may be vital if you have declared not anticpiating that great performance).

WI follow-on, Lara inspires a decent score of over 400 with a backs-to-the-wall effort, Australia collapse under pressure chasing 200 and lose (doesn't even need to be as high as 200). There's a far greater risk of losing by enforcing the follow-on than there is of Australia batting on without any pressure whatsoever and setting 500+ and WI somehow chasing it (on an older pitch).

 

[Zinzan]

Great day for Australia.

Was a great day....but has anyone honestly thought it would be any different ....against the West Indies that is..

 

[Pratters]

WI follow-on, Lara inspires a decent score of over 400 with a backs-to-the-wall effort, Australia collapse under pressure chasing 200 and lose (doesn't even need to be as high as 200). There's a far greater risk of losing by enforcing the follow-on than there is of Australia batting on without any pressure whatsoever and setting 500+ and WI somehow chasing it (on an older pitch).

Australia had a lead of 225 after the first innings. If the Windies would make 450 and then bowl out Australia for less than the required runs, you would have to say well played even though the pitch would have favoured the Windies in that situation.

On the other hand, as things stand, Australia has a lead of more thna 500! A dominating position. But what if there is rain the next two days or for the greater portion of the remaining match? It would mean Australia would have to settle for a draw - a red face situation.

You win the test match ONLY if you firstly dismiss the opposition out twice, and secondly for lower runs. So enforcing the follow on would have given Australia the opportunity to dismiss the West Indies and then chase.

If there was the Lara blinder you were talking about and Windies manage a lot of runs, and lets say there is some rain also, it gives Australia the target on the face. Even if its 200 in 40 overs, they would know they have to get the runs at what specific rate.

Also regarding the 4th inning factor - the Gabba doesnt traditionally support spin that much and Windies does not have great spinners in their side.

It would have made much better cricketing sense to enforce the follow on any way I look at it. Also more than the pitch, the over cast conditions and the swing is of more importance in this match according to me.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Australia had a lead of 225 after the first innings. If the Windies would make 450 and then bowl out Australia for less than the required runs, you would have to say well played even though the pitch would have favoured the Windies in that situation.

On the other hand, as things stand, Australia has a lead of more thna 500! A dominating position. But what if there is rain the next two days or for the greater portion of the remaining match? It would mean Australia would have to settle for a draw - a red face situation.

You win the test match ONLY if you firstly dismiss the opposition out twice, and secondly for lower runs. So enforcing the follow on would have given Australia the opportunity to dismiss the West Indies and then chase.

If there was the Lara blinder you were talking about and Windies manage a lot of runs, and lets say there is some rain also, it gives Australia the target on the face. Even if its 200 in 40 overs, they would know they have to get the runs at what specific rate.

Also regarding the 4th inning factor - the Gabba doesnt traditionally support spin that much and Windies does not have great spinners in their side.

It would have made much better cricketing sense to enforce the follow on any way I look at it.

As I said it doesn't even need to be that many, WI could make 350 and Australia could choke chasing 126 for victory. History shows teams can collapse chasing almost anything and because of the pressure don't chase over 300 very often, so you're far more likely to make a decent score following-on than you are chasing a target and since this effect would be doubled in favour of WI by the follow-on being enforced it's not really worth the risk of losing. Set them 500+ and they'll collapse obligingly most times and you don't have to worry about saving runs.

As for the rain I have no idea how likely that is... but if you're only likely to lose a couple of hours it's not worth worrying about.

 

[Pratters]

Of the seven matches in which follow on has been enforced, it has lead to the team enforcing the follow on winning 6 times with just 1 draw - a match which had a lot of rain.

http://stats.cricinfo.com/guru?sdb=...ershigh=;event=0;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype

So I really do not understand the reason for your apprehension. Agreed its harder to chase in the 4th inning but enforcing a follow on has much more advantages which I have spelt out. And if Australia cant make 126 in the 4th inning, they wouldnt deserve to win the test match any way.

 

[Pratters]

However it must be said Australia has some phobia in enforcing the follow on at the Gabba. It is not that there is some past example of teams making Australia or a visiting team pay when they have enforced a follow on by drawing a match. Just Australia have not enforced the follow on on these two recent ocassions at the Gabba and did manage to win the matches.

http://ind.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1996-97/WI_IN_AUS/WI_AUS_T1_22-26NOV1996.html

http://ind.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1994-95/ENG_IN_AUS/ENG_AUS_T1_25-29NOV1994.html

It must also be said however, that Windies managed 296 and England 323 in those matches in the 4th inning. So the chance of collapsing around 200 in the 4th inning look improbable to me even if Australia would have been given around 225 to chase if Windies had managed to score a lot of runs in a third inning.

These two matches were of course between another test match at Brisbane where Australia enforced the follow on and won quite comfortably.

http://ind.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1995-96/PAK_IN_AUS/PAK_AUS_T1_09-13NOV1995.html

So whether they enforce the follow on or not, they usually do win!

[edit]

IF we discount the possibility of rain (which I dont find reason to discount even if weather forecasts say differently - havent checked them) the only possible reason Australia may augur for not enforcing the follow on would be they had a lot of time left for the Windies to pile up a lot of runs which may prove trouble some in the end (which is the arguement of Scaly).

I for one strongly believe that you should enforce the follow on except when the opposition team has some quality spinner or the pitch is likely to wear very badly.

Windies has no real threatening spinner. So enforcing the follow on and having as much time to dismiss the opposition as possible would have been the sensible thing to do.

 

[Nate]

Methinks Australia will bat until right before the end of session one.

 

[Linda]

Have you ordered a t-shirt?

Im thinking about it.
How good is the term Martophile.

 

[Pratters]

Im thinking about it.
How good is the term Martophile.

Damned from Damien would be more like it.

 

[Tom Halsey]

It was the right decision not to enforce the follow-on, for reasons SP has cited.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The point was his runs are irrelevant if he's not doing the job he's selected for, so what was the point in mentioning them?

His batting average might be 21, but his bowling is about 34 and rising.

The point is that it's impressive. And yes, in fact if Lee is averaging 30s with the bat like he has been recently and fielding well and so on, it makes his 30s bowling average easier to swallow than it would be if he was a total bunny. Obviously he's not going to make the team for his batting, but it certainly can't hurt and it does add some confidence to the team when you need some runs and the 7th wicket falls to know that Lee is coming in next instead of someone who's not going to be able to hang around.

 

[mavric41]

Methinks Australia will bat until right before the end of session one.

The way the weather is here at the moment, they will declare overnight and then bowl them out before the end of session one.

 

[Mister Wright]

I haven't seen anyone say anything like that at all. Most people are of the same opinion that Clarke's numbers don't tell the whole story and that he was far from the worst Aussie batsman all tour.

As fro Haydos, his tour was flattered by that last-ditch ton. Without it, his numbers would have been significantly worse. He definitely looked in worse touch than Clarke did before that knock.

So did Clarke's 91.

 

[Top_Cat]

So did Clarke's 91.

Had he been dismissed for less, I'd still be saying the same thing; Clarke, in my view, looked better than his numbers suggested.

 

[Mister Wright]

Hayden is out of form, Langer isn't playing, Clarke is out form , Katich looks terrified at the crease. And I think the Ashes failures have knocked Australia's confidence - Players are worried for their place and you can see it at the crease - Katich a case in point.

And the fact that theyv'e struggled on flat pitch (baring Pointing), aginst the worst bowling attack out of any of the top test nations who are also bowling below their best sort of illustrates my point.

I know this post was made before Hayden's century yesterday, but to say a man who is coming off 134, 111 & 77 is out of form is a bit of a stretch, and he backed that up with 118 today.

 

[King_Ponting]

he looked good today...... back to the hayden of yester year

 

[Mister Wright]

Haha. Edwards/Powell/Collymore/Lawson isn't the worst bowling attack from a top test nation for one, I'd rather face Martin/Franklin/Mills/Oram/Vettori for one. The pitch is flat, but not an absolute road, it's got grass on it and Ponting was saying the pace was hard to judge, and the Windies didn't bowl brilliantly but they were a long way from "well below their best", aside from Lawson.

Hayden is coming off back-to-back centuries, Hussey's more than capable of opening for any test side in the world, and while Clarke and Katich are out of form both are capable of making runs. To suggest this team "can't" make a big score against a decent attack is ridiculous. It would be akin to suggesting that because England have Strauss, Bell and Pietersen who are inexperienced and Flintoff who averages in the 30s they have a rubbish batting lineup.

That's questionable.