It might be a culture thing, I don't know. I do know that if any of Mark Taylor, Michael Clarke or David Warner didn't declare, or get declared on, in order to try and hit 400+ and it cost a win they would have been annihilated by fans and in the media. And rightly so.
Probably would've been banned for fixing.
As I said, I don't recall my opinion or thoughts during the innings, or what the commentators or media were saying. But I'm sure that discussion was had, especially as to if it was selfish.
Yeah Stephen Fleming declared with himself on 274* with NZ 7 down against SL back in 2003. We were probably never going to take 20 SL wickets over there on a road and it would've been nice for him to get NZ's 1st triple ton (after Crowe had got the 299) but he won respect by declaring. Some NZ fans and media wanted him to bat on though. BMac's 300 was different as that was saving a test from a big loss so he could bat and bat.
Amazing that Fleming only averaged 33ish in about a million tests at home but absolutely owned Murali in Sri Lanka.
Yeah Clarke was almost virtue signalling with that declaration tbh.
Honestly I was thinking the opposite about you. I think Chanderpaul, Kallis and even Sachin were more selfish players than Lara overall by a country mile. It was just that one innings that is indefensible and so blatant, I feel like you're trying really hard to find reasons to defend it.Seems to be looking for a reason to downgrade him in your mind. ??
Not trying to say he's not selfish. More, trying to make the point you want a batsman who can, if he chooses, just stay in. Brian has that. It's just that you'd never rate his captaincy as a consequence.
Very good example, could have kept batting but would have been exceptionally selfish
Hey I'm not advocating picking Devon Smith over Lara for an ATG team. But if it's a choice between him and another player that is about as good but would always put the team first then it's going to be a factor for sure
I know mr_mister also holds this opinion.
Yet, if you watched the game, you would realize it was such a batathon pitch that the only way to create pressure was to mount runs on the board. India did similar at the SCG in the same year, a little earlier. When your bowling is not exactly world class and its a road, sometimes having a mountain of runs to play with is a strategy. IIRC, India batted almost the same length as Windies did in that game for a similar score (maybe slower). It was not like batsmen were blocking out maiden overs to get Lara the record either. I find more fault with how they fielded in that game than the strategy of batting 7 sessions tbh.
It honestly doesn't bother me in the slightest. And after Hayden broke the record, everyone was wondering if Lara would ever get it back?
Yeah I don't really know much about the specifics of the game in question. If people want to argue that it was actually the best strategy to win it or whatever then fine, I have nothing to give back on that. I'm only going to bite at "who cares about winning? wOrLD rEcOrD!!111"
It was a bit of both though. It was not a track where even 700 was enough. But at the same time, I think if it was not for Lara on 350 odd, they may have not batted as long as they did. In the end, I did not mind it coz I felt it gave them the best chance, with the high of the record and the score being as tall as it was, and defeat being out of the question. It was also a track where you could have declared after scoring 600 and still lost the game. Like I said, I find more fault with how they fielded when they did actually bowl. It was not a track you can give chances to batsmen.
