Cricket Player Manager
Page 226 of 240 FirstFirst ... 126176216224225226227228236 ... LastLast
Results 3,376 to 3,390 of 3591
Like Tree308Likes

Thread: *Official* Fifth Test at The Oval

  1. #3376
    International Captain Ruckus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    7,117
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    How can you say that I'm only looking in hindsight when we've been debating the point during the game? It doesn't ****ing matter anyway. I want to support a country that show fight and don't give other countries good opportunities to win Test matches out of nowhere. If/when we end up bossing other countries and are leading the series 3-0 or something I promise I wont care so much. We are playing with false bravado, but we aren't the same team as we used to be.
    Because you said "It's because we realized that a draw was better than a lose after all, which basically rendered our second innings rubbish attempt at posting a sizable total, useless.". I.e. it can only be rendered a rubbish attempt in hindsight. Before Eng started the chase there was a small chance of victory, or at least that's how it was perceived by most involved.

  2. #3377
    State Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,751
    Quote Originally Posted by Adders View Post
    I have a question re the bad light ruling that I hope someone can answer.....

    So when the umpires took the players off at the end yesterday it was because the reading reached the same level it had when they stopped the game earlier in the test on day 2. So yesterday they had a benchmark that the umpires had to adhere to.........what were they going by on day 2?? What was the benchmark then?

    Presumably if they had been a bit more lenient on day 2 it would have allowed more room to move yesterday?? All sounds very wishy washy to me.......why can't they just have a certain reading that is universally accepted and used in every instance??
    I'm not sure if you could come up with a consistent standard. I don't know if a light meter reading in one country would reflect the same conditions as the same reading in another. There are also other considerations dependent on individual ground conditions - quality of sightscreens, size of stands etc. Especially if you are taking into account the conditions for the fielding side.

    Some of the cant produced by the talking heads on this is IMO ridiculous. The only reason the crowd were booing was because it was England who were 'robbed'. Had Australia been on the verge of victory they would have been cheering. Remember 2005? Or, another occasion i recall - when Ramprakash and Atherton were offered the light at Lords vs Windies in 2000 (the day we bowled them out for 54).

    No doubt there should be something done about the slow over-rates - it simply should not be acceptable to deliberately slow the game down when in trouble - but all talk about never going off under flood lights etc is nonsensical with a red ball. Maybe one solution would be to revert to "offering the light", but offer it to both teams, but with the offer only being made to the fielding side once they have bowled the overs they were expected to bowl at the time of the offer (eg. if they have been in the field for 3 hours when the light offer is made, then they can't accept until they have bowled 45 overs). Umpire's discretion could be employed on any time-wasting by the batsmen.

  3. #3378
    State Captain Tangles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    63*
    Posts
    1,812
    Missed all the action after I went to bed last night. I wasn't surprised Clarke tried to manufacture something. I saw about 50 mins of our second innings and didn't care for the funky order. Faulkner was just silly and so was his backing away.

    Having read the thread I understand that some don't like what Clarke did but I think jagging a win would have been better in the big picture. Despite how low the odds were of us winning with the declaration. Somewhat fitting to have the light and the Umps center stage at the end.

  4. #3379
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Trapped
    Posts
    12,445
    Quote Originally Posted by GIMH View Post
    Ruckus, we weren't playing for a draw on day three. Why won't you get that?
    Must admit I struggle with that idea too


  5. #3380
    Dan
    Dan is offline
    Global Moderator / Cricket Web Staff Member Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse
    Posts
    7,130
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    I want to support a country that show fight and don't give other countries good opportunities to win Test matches out of nowhere.
    Would you prefer to support a country who, when 3-0 down, are happy play out a tame draw; or a country who, at 3-0 down, do everything in their power to make that scoreline 3-1?


    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    I'm sorry that I have less confidence in our bowlers ability to take 10 wickets in a session and a half against quality opponents than you do. This whole getting something out of the series would have been blown if we got beaten 4-0. I mean luckily for bad light, we've sort of managed to make it a little bit better. I can't be the only one who would have rather have seen us bat properly in the second innings. I don't mind Faulkner moving up the order, but for him on debut to be stepping away from the ball every single ball does no favours for him in the long run.
    I don't understand how this argument works. He was told to go out there and make runs quickly, and he did that well. One innings isn't going to suddenly rework his technique so he can only play in that manner in the future, nor are the selectors going to use it to judge his batting ability. Are we really suggesting that the selectors and the public are so intellectually vapid that they can't take the context of the performance into account when forming opinions? It's playing for the team, and nobody will ever be penalised for that.*

    And in terms of bad light making it "a little bit better", I wholeheartedly disagree. The scoreline reads exactly the same as it did coming into the Test match. It looks no better on paper. If England made the extra 20 runs, it doesn't mean the positives of the series (Rogers proving himself, Smith's development, Harris proving his class, Lyon proving himself, Watson finally doing something) are all completely lost.

    *Or more accurately, I refuse to believe any selection panel, even if they don't have a modicum of common sense, would penalise a player for following the captain's orders.


    I'm an advocate of aggressive captaincy and nothing will change that. I'd risk a loss to try and win a game any day. Playing out pointless draws doesn't cut it for me. I'm guessing you're not one to share that view.

  6. #3381
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Remembering The Prince - 63*
    Posts
    49,375
    Quote Originally Posted by fredfertang View Post
    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...)

  7. #3382
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    44,197
    Quote Originally Posted by GIMH View Post
    @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.
    ~ Cribbertarian ~

    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09

    Quote Originally Posted by John Singleton
    Recognition of Property Rights in material objects is the recognition of a manís right to exist; his right to pursue his own goals in his own manner at his own discretion with what is rightfully his to command. Just as the Right to Life is the right to the property of oneís own person, so the right to own material products is the right to sustain oneís life and to keep the results of oneís own efforts.


  8. #3383
    Hall of Fame Member Howe_zat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Top floor, bottom buzzer
    Posts
    16,786
    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
    Adders and Son Of Coco like this.
    "Your averages, captain, coaches and players can probably survive incompetence over a relatively short series, so if youíre going to be rubbish, make sure itís against Pakistan, Sri Lanka, New Zealand or someone."

  9. #3384
    Cricket Web Staff Member Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    42,372
    Quote Originally Posted by fredfertang View Post
    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.

  10. #3385
    Hall of Fame Member Howe_zat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Top floor, bottom buzzer
    Posts
    16,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    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.

  11. #3386
    State Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,751
    Quote Originally Posted by fredfertang View Post
    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...

  12. #3387
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    33,526
    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.
    + time's fickle card game ~ with you and i +


    forever 63*

  13. #3388
    Dan
    Dan is offline
    Global Moderator / Cricket Web Staff Member Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse
    Posts
    7,130
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    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.

  14. #3389
    International Debutant Adders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    ***RIP THE PRINCE***
    Posts
    2,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruckus View Post
    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.

  15. #3390
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    #banblocky
    Posts
    20,458
    Quote Originally Posted by GIMH View Post
    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.
    ​63*



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. *Official* Fourth Test at The Oval
    By Spark in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 1214
    Last Post: 23-08-2011, 12:37 AM
  2. *Official* Fifth Test at the SCG
    By Craig in forum Ashes 2010-2011
    Replies: 3603
    Last Post: 15-01-2011, 02:07 PM
  3. *Official* Second Test at the Adelaide Oval
    By James in forum Ashes 2010-2011
    Replies: 3905
    Last Post: 13-01-2011, 04:25 PM
  4. *Official* Fifth Test at The Oval
    By GIMH in forum Ashes 2009
    Replies: 2955
    Last Post: 28-08-2009, 01:38 PM
  5. ***Official*** 2nd Test at the Adelaide Oval
    By James in forum Ashes 2006/07
    Replies: 1596
    Last Post: 07-12-2006, 06:20 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •