*Official* Fifth Test at The Oval

[GIMH]

Must admit I struggle with that idea too

The rained off day means we will never know but for me we were playing with the aim of repeating Cardiff 11 or pulling out our own Adelaide. It was the only way we could win (save for funky captaincy obviously...)

 

[Prince EWS]

@Ruckus - Look, it's pretty simple. We don't go in for the Warne theory of being prepared to lose in order to win. Instead the onus is on avoiding defeat in such a situation before going for it.

How many teams lose after posting 500 first up? Honestly I can hardly think of any. There's Adelaide and I remember us beating Pakistan after a high scoring first dig in 06 (don't think it would have been 500 though) but conventional wisdom says you don't win in those situations unless you can get level and then invoke a collapse because all of a sudden the side batting 3rd is on a bit of a hiding to nothing.

As Burgey said, there could well come a time where slow scoring costs us but at the moment our approach is working. After a rough couple of years we've won in India and retained the Ashes comfortably, sure it was disappointing to draw in NZ but I'd rather us play cricket this way for these results than play 'enterprising cricket' and lose.

Completely playing devil's advocate here, but it could actually be argued that scoring slowly gave England their best chance of winning. Clarke propensity for generous declarations is well known and Australia had already lost the series, so perhaps England were trying to use that against Australia, deciding their best chance of victory was in fact forcing Clarke into a really optimistic declaration very late in the game and then chasing that score down. It certainly worked to a large extent in hindsight; they were extremely close to winning the game.

I watched every ball fo Day 3 though and I certainly didn't get the feeling England were playing for a draw. As I said at the time, it would have been a mistake for England to just try and bat time at the expense of their chances to score as many runs as possible, but I really don't think they did that. They were scoring at the natural rate that allowed them to score as many runs as possible per wicket, which is a pretty natural sort of thing for Test cricket, especially the opposition scores 500 odd. Only Root, IMO, could really be accused of turning down easy scoring opportunities; the rest of the batsmen just struggled for timing on a slow wicket against some good bowling. They were neither chasing the game nor actively playing for the draw, which IMO was by far the best approach in the circumstances.

 

[Howe_zat]

Some good posting this morning. Though I take except to Coco's "pasty arse" comment. I feel if you're trying to give your backside a suntan then your priorities aren't really in order

 

[Burgey]

Must admit I struggle with that idea too

Yeah there's a subtle but important distinction between playing in a way so as to take losing out of the equation and specifically playing for a draw. Had there been a clutter of wickets in, say, session three of day three with England having played conservatively then they'd have been in a **** load of trouble, but that doesn't mean they were only playing to draw.

Having said that, I'm happy to say it was less than entertaining. It was just hard, attritional test cricket.

 

[Howe_zat]

I watched every ball of Day 3 though and I certainly didn't get the feeling England were playing for a draw. As I said at the time, it would have been a mistake for England to just try and bat time at the expense of their chances to score as many runs as possible, but I really don't think they did that. They were scoring at the natural rate that allowed them to score as many runs as possible per wicket, which is a pretty natural sort of thing for Test cricket, especially the opposition scores 500 odd. Only Root, IMO, could really be accused of turning down easy scoring opportunities; the rest of the batsmen just struggled for timing on a slow wicket against some good bowling. They were neither chasing the game nor actively playing for the draw, which IMO was by far the best approach in the circumstances.

This is certainly true. And I'm inclined to think Root's slow scoring could well be down to a combination of nervousness over how uncomfortable he's been this series and an excusable lack of nous.

 

[greg]

Must admit I struggle with that idea too

I think the point is not that we were "playing for a win" or "playing for a draw" but playing the match situation. There was still a hell of a lot of time left in the game. If it hadn't rained all Saturday then it might have looked different. When batting against a big first innings the first priority is to aim for parity. And then take it from there. And changing strategy because of the weather forecast hardly made sense when most agreed that the weather pretty much ruled out any chance of a win anyway!

In fact this is arguably the approach Australia took at the Oval in 2005 (batting within themselves, taking the light when offered etc etc). Of course they were denied by the weather as well...

 

[Spark]

Yeah tbh the overriding feeling I had on Day 3 wasn't that England was playing for the draw, it was that they were being cautious against accurate bowling with well-set fields on a dog****-slow deck.

If you're going to take aim at someone, take aim at the curator.

 

[Dan]

Completely playing devil's advocate here, but it could actually be argued that scoring slowly gave England their best chance of winning. Clarke propensity for generous declarations is well known and Australia had already lost the series, so perhaps England were trying to use that against Australia, deciding their best chance of victory was in fact forcing Clarke into a really optimistic declaration very late in the game and then chasing that score down. It certainly worked to a large extent in hindsight; they were extremely close to winning the game.

That thought had crossed my mind as well, however I highly doubt any international cricket team would allow themselves to formulate a plan around that. Use it against them, yes. Plan for it ahead of other options, no.

 

[Adders]

As somone on cricinfo put it "When England are under pressure, they commit themselves zealously to pre-programmed, conservative, risk-free cricket. There will be a computer programme somewhere suggesting that the careworn approach they displayed on the third day of the Oval Test has improved their victory chances by 5.62% and their chances of avoiding defeat by rather more."

I had all intentions of posting a bit of a smart arse comment to this but in light of all the other excellent postings that are being made I didn't want to be responsible for being the dick and dragging the thread down.

I will say Ruckus though that you and your cricinfo mate would do well to look at England's record of the last few years and then look at Australias, I admire Clarkes balls but I'd rather have Cooks results.

 

[Furball]

Ruckus, we weren't playing for a draw on day three. Why won't you get that?

Because apparently when teams don't score at 4 an over they're being defensive and negative.

 

[Dan]

I had all intentions of posting a bit of a smart arse comment to this but in light of all the other excellent postings that are being made I didn't want to be responsible for being the dick and dragging the thread down.

I will say Ruckus though that you and your cricinfo mate would do well to look at England's record of the last few years and then look at Australias, I admire Clarkes balls but I'd rather have Cooks results.

The argument against that (playing Devil's Advocate here, btw) is that Clarke's balls have improved Australia's results from where they would have been otherwise - declaring behind in the WI series one such example. I think it's safe to say Cook wouldn't have done that, and from that position the game would have been drawn. That could then potentially be coupled with the argument that if Cook captained with balls, he might well have ended up with even better results than he has achieved.

Captaincy is hard to analyse like that, because it's inherently difficult to separate the captaincy from team performance.

 

[Ruckus]

They were scoring at the natural rate that allowed them to score as many runs as possible per wicket, which is a pretty natural sort of thing for Test cricket, especially the opposition scores 500 odd. Only Root, IMO, could really be accused of turning down easy scoring opportunities; the rest of the batsmen just struggled for timing on a slow wicket against some good bowling. They were neither chasing the game nor actively playing for the draw, which IMO was by far the best approach in the circumstances.

Those are the points I would contest. I don't think the bowling was anything special; as I said before Harris and Lyon were the only impressive ones (even Harris I don't think was quite as good as he had been). The others were ok, but there was plenty more on offer than the Eng batsmen took advantage of imo. I also think the slow, difficult nature of the pitch has been overstated. Given that I don't think a natural rate of scoring should have been as slow. They might not have been deliberately thinking let's play out a draw here, but imo they were playing with some kind of negative attitude - along the lines of 'we are going to try and make it as difficult for Aus as possible to win this match'. I understand that Eng often play more defensively than some other teams, and that's what usually fits best with their line-up, but given the context of the series I think they could have been a bit more positive.

 

[MW1304]

Tbf to Clarke and his declaration, I don't think many of us were expecting England to get anywhere near the chase at 5.5 rpo.

 

[Burgey]

The argument against that (playing Devil's Advocate here, btw) is that Clarke's balls have improved Australia's results from where they would have been otherwise - declaring behind in the WI series one such example. I think it's safe to say Cook wouldn't have done that, and from that position the game would have been drawn. That could then potentially be coupled with the argument that if Cook captained with balls, he might well have ended up with even better results than he has achieved.

Captaincy is hard to analyse like that, because it's inherently difficult to separate the captaincy from team performance.

This. There's also an element of playing to the strength of your side. If you have a line up that's suited to batting in a more conservative way because of the player which make up the team, you have to tailor your captaincy accordingly, and vice versa. I don't know that Australia would have batted as England did in day three because the way out blokes play doesn't lend itself to doing so. They may play a little more circumspectly than they otherwise would, but if Clarke told his blokes to bat like England did day three they'd likely have tied themselves down to the extent they'd have got rolled anyway.

 

[Spark]

I lost count of the number of pull shots and cut shots which were so mistimed that they didn't get off the square on Day 3.

That pitch was slow as hell. This really shouldn't be a point of contention.

In the end, I think judging a captain by his results is about as valid a method of analysis as judging a game simply by looking at the scoreboard. It tells you a little, but far, far less than watching the actual cricket does. Ricky Ponting winning 16 Tests in a row did not make him a good tactician, the same logic applies here.

 

[morgieb]

And with the declaration, what if England collapsed heavily? Then Clarke would've been seen as a genius.

Yes it's one of those 'if my aunt had balls' issues now, but I imagine Clarke would've been thinking like that when he declared.

 

[Howe_zat]

Tbf to Clarke and his declaration, I don't think many of us were expecting England to get anywhere near the chase at 5.5 rpo.

I really think that getting bowled out in a session was much less likely than a fairly typical 40-over chase. Especially on that wicket.

 

[Ruckus]

I lost count of the number of pull shots and cut shots which were so mistimed that they didn't get off the square on Day 3.

That pitch was slow as hell. This really shouldn't be a point of contention.

Prior didn't seem to gave a problem, nor did Eng in their second innings.

 

[Spark]

And with the declaration, what if England collapsed heavily? Then Clarke would've been seen as a genius.

Yes it's one of those 'if my aunt had balls' issues now, but I imagine Clarke would've been thinking like that when he declared.

In the end, the nature of the pitch meant that there wasn't really any realistic chance of a victory because England could simply have shut up shop - which they are very good at - but I don't think he knows any other way than to have a crack. It's all well and good to say that Clarke might have given them a bit too much of a chance to win without sufficient compensation for us, but if he didn't do it then he wouldn't be Michael Clarke.

 

[Spark]

Prior didn't seem to gave a problem, nor did Eng in their second innings.

Because they were throwing the bat, ie. taking serious risks. What if one of the many thick edges off Prior had went to gully?

You can do that when it's Day 5 and you probably won't lose the game. You can't that on Day 3 when you're 250, 300, 400 runs behind.