*Official* Fifth Test at The Oval

[Hooksey]

Well this makes it easy. Instead of playing the actual games we'll all sit around and make combined elevens to decide the winner.

Take a walk lad.

Didn't think you'd be up to it

 

[Maximas]

talk all you like about respecting the bowling and tough conditions, but it wasn't until the match was dangled in front of England until they actually tried to win, Root was just padding down half volleys on day 3, that's not great to watch, but I'll admit it was clever tactics given they knew it would push Clarke to take a big risk.

 

[Son Of Coco]

They saved a test after the opposition scored 500, and then they almost won it. That alone absolves criticism of their tactics. Add in the broader context of them being 3-0 up in the series, and the mind boggles...

Look, it doesn't really. You're using a result that came about due to a declaration made on Day 5 by Australia pushing for a win. The argument that the fact Clarke decided to declare means England's tactics somehow played a part in almost winning don't wash. England have every right to play how they wanted however. .

 

[Maximas]

England's tactics made a result difficult - the onus was on Clarke to take a risk, which he did, and England almost capitalized.

 

[Son Of Coco]

True, but if play had started on Day 4 England were still in a position where if they lost a couple of quick wickets they could've been in trouble. Maybe they were confident enough in the conditions to assume that wouldn't happen, but I'm not sure their tactics on Day 3 were reflective of a possible declaration after they'd avoided the follow on on Day 5.

 

[hendrix]

Look, it doesn't really. You're using a result that came about due to a declaration made on Day 5 by Australia pushing for a win. The argument that the fact Clarke decided to declare means England's tactics somehow played a part in almost winning don't wash. England have every right to play how they wanted however. .

Fair enough, but I'm not trying to say that England's tactics played a part in them almost winning - I certainly think that they could have played differently to give them a greater chance of winning. This would have also given them a greater chance of losing though. At the point that they were in in the series, why would you risk it?

As Graeme Smith said after a draw on SA's tour here when he was asked why he didn't offer a sporting declaration:
"Because they didn't deserve a shot at the win"

Sporting declarations and aggressive batting are nice, but winning a test match means scoring runs against good bowling and taking the wickets of batsmen who don't want to give anything away. Had Australia done that, they would have won. They didn't, and it as as you say, England have every right to play how they want.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Fair enough, but I'm not trying to say that England's tactics played a part in them almost winning - I certainly think that they could have played differently to give them a greater chance of winning. This would have also given them a greater chance of losing though. At the point that they were in in the series, why would you risk it?

As Graeme Smith said after a draw on SA's tour here when he was asked why he didn't offer a sporting declaration:
"Because they didn't deserve a shot at the win"
.

I agree. And I like Smith's quote, I didn't catch it at the time he said it. It's very good.

 

[hendrix]

I'm not sure if those were the exact words, but it was to that effect. And it was very true. It would've been a joke had NZ drawn that series.

 

[Hooksey]

..As Graeme Smith said after a draw on SA's tour here when he was asked why he didn't offer a sporting declaration:
"Because they didn't deserve a shot at the win"...

Michael Clarke wouldn't have made his bold play at winning on the final day because he thought England "deserved a shot at the win". They had done nothing over the previous four and a half days to suggest they deserved a shot.

Clarke dangled a carrot to Cook in a game that was otherwise going to end in a boring draw in the hope it could bring Australia a win, and though there wasn't a result the winner was cricket and the entertainment of those watching.

 

[hendrix]

Here it is:

New Zealand v South Africa, 3rd Test: 'New Zealand didn't deserve anything more' - Graeme Smith | Cricket News | New Zealand v South Africa | ESPN Cricinfo

Smith said he did not want to give the hosts any chance of levelling the series, since it was one South Africa had dominated.

"I don't think New Zealand deserved anything more," he said. "Being 1-0 up in the series I didn't think they deserved any more." Smith's statement suggested he did not think New Zealand had earned the right to be in with a chance of victory, and he was not going to allow them one with a sporting declaration.

Brendon McCullum admitted South Africa had been the team in control. "I think they deserved to win the series, they've been the better team throughout," he said. He also said he understood Smith's tactic to bat New Zealand out of the game before declaring. "They definitely didn't want to give us a sniff, and I completely understand that because they dominated the game for so long. They didn't need to entertain the thought of us winning."

 

[Maximas]

Michael Clarke wouldn't have made his bold play at winning on the final day because he thought England "deserved a shot at the win". They had done nothing over the previous four and a half days to suggest they deserved a shot.

Clarke dangled a carrot to Cook in a game that was otherwise going to end in a boring draw in the hope it could bring Australia a win, and though there wasn't a result the winner was cricket and the entertainment of those watching.

yeah this, I'm sick of all this "captains are paid to win matches" bull****, they're paid to entertain us, TV companies pay their salaries and we watch TV, so play in a way that actually makes us want to watch.

 

[hendrix]

yeah this, I'm sick of all this "captains are paid to win matches" bull****, they're paid to entertain us, TV companies pay their salaries and we watch TV, so play in a way that actually makes us want to watch.

no.

Get good pitches and crack down on timewasting.

Winning test matches is about bowling out batsmen whose number one objective is to not get out. Take 20 hard fought wickets. Not Glenn Maxwell.

 

[Maximas]

I think you are forgetting that draws are not always boring matches. For me it's about the brand of cricket each team plays, shutting shop for a tense day 5 finish is fine, shutting up shop on day three and wasting time with the ball is negative and poor to watch. Trying to win until it becomes impossible should be the philosophy of every team

 

[Hooksey]

Trying to win until it becomes impossible should be the philosophy of every team

With cricket now being high paid entertainment as much as it is sport it should be the responsibility of every team to try to win until it becomes impossible. Not just the philosophy.

 

[hendrix]

I could not disagree more.

You are never, ever, ever going to get players to sacrifice their team records and/or their personal records for the sake of good viewing.
And frankly you shouldn't.
Not losing first, winning second is a conservative mindset, but players are and should be entitled to take it. Other players might be more aggressive. Fine. That will get them the IPL contracts. There are already enough incentives there.

If you want more excitement, change the things that can be changed. Juicier pitches. Allow for more ball tampering. Eliminate the no LBWs outside the line law.
I would only advocate juicier pitches of those examples, but those are things that can be changed.

Even ****ing cheerleaders would be better than having "entertainment" dictate how players play.

Sport is entertaining because of the battle. But how the battle takes place should remain up to the players and teams.

 

[Hooksey]

..Not losing first, winning second is a conservative mindset, but players are and should be entitled to take it...

I'm so glad most Australian captains never thought that way, from recent times even back to when the sport was a poorly paid hobby.

 

[morgieb]

Lack of talent is the excuse of the loser.

And are you really going to sit there and tell me the Australian batting line up doesn't possess the same level of hand eye coordination as England?

England have scored more runs than Australia over the past few years because England are prepared to play to the situation, learn from their mistakes and work harder on ironing out flaws in their methods.

There are a few exceptions of course - of the young batsmen Hughes and Smith have shown they're prepared to take the game seriously and work on their issues, but they have been failed by a system that hasn't recognised their problems before they earned their test whites and happily drops them or shuffles them around the batting order at the first sign of failure, knocking their confidence and meaning they have to start over. Then there are others who, despite some dead rubber success, have largely been given a free ride despite showing no desire to improve.

So not only do England have more bottle and brains but they have a better system behind them for getting the best out of their players.

For a nation who used to have the best system by far for helping players achieve their potential, Australia have fallen a long way. It's pretty unacceptable and they have a lot of ground to make up.

I think that comes down to success and depth of each side. Imagine when Australia start winning more the system will improve, and there will be less tolerance towards players who pad their stats by dead rubber runs. Or at least I hope....

Don't get me wrong, Australia's lack of development with talent recently has been kinda awful, as as the treatment of certain players, but remember England had much of the same problems around the 1980's and 1990's.

 

[morgieb]

Here it is:

New Zealand v South Africa, 3rd Test: 'New Zealand didn't deserve anything more' - Graeme Smith | Cricket News | New Zealand v South Africa | ESPN Cricinfo

I think the difference is that test wasn't a dead rubber, this test was. If the test wasn't a dead rubber and Australia was ahead in the series I reckon Clarke would probably shut up shop.

The reward of 3-1 outweighs the risk of 4-0 IMO.

 

[Hooksey]

I think that comes down to success and depth of each side. Imagine when Australia start winning more the system will improve, and there will be less tolerance towards players who pad their stats by dead rubber runs. Or at least I hope....

Don't get me wrong, Australia's lack of development with talent recently has been kinda awful, as as the treatment of certain players, but remember England had much of the same problems around the 1980's and 1990's.

Prolonged success often leaves a generation of players without opportunity. Often the players from the successful era retire in fairly close proximity to each other and there's a void of adequately prepared talent to replace them with.

 

[Furball]

Cook & England made absolutely no attempt to play for a result for 4 and a half days. The only reason the final day became a contest was because Clarke was prepared to roll the dice by re-jigging his second innings batting order and sending them out to slog their way to a declaration enticing enough for England to have a go at.

Incorrect, they made sure Australia wouldn't win, something Australia seem to have forgotten how to do.