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.
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.
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.
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
Originally Posted by John Singleton
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
"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."
Having said that, I'm happy to say it was less than entertaining. It was just hard, attritional test cricket.
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...
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 +
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)