Best & Worst Declarations

[Monk]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

What complete nonsense.

Australia will probably bat again. It achieved nothing to declare early as he did. You can easily lose scoring 450 first up in 3/4 day games - see England v Sri Lanka when play was heavily reduced. See that game Australia won against West Indies when declaring from behind. If the team batting second gets anywhere near your total there's pressure on your 2nd innings not to fall in a heap. Which means you can't score as freely as well as risking defeat.

You also make the follow-on a much less likely route to victory, which is typically the quickest route.

It's not nonsense at all. And it's nonsense that it achieved nothing, we have Sri Lanka at 4/100 at the end of the second day in a test, with Sanga and Jayawardene out, and we are still 350 runs ahead of them in the first innings in a match that's been (and may still be) effected by rain. Ask any captain if they'd take that and they'd say yes, which shows Clarke was right.

[Scaly piscine]

Originally Posted by Monk

It's not nonsense at all. And it's nonsense that it achieved nothing, we have Sri Lanka at 4/100 at the end of the second day in a test, with Sanga and Jayawardene out, and we are still 350 runs ahead of them in the first innings in a match that's been (and may still be) effected by rain. Ask any captain if they'd take that and they'd say yes, which shows Clarke was right.

Trolling or are you actually serious?

[Scaly piscine]

Originally Posted by Noble One

So when should Clarke have declared Scaly?

I don't know how bad the weather forecast is, but Australia should have looked to have blasted for another 15-20 overs at least. If you're looking at losing over a day's play then a tough follow-on target is key. Scoring 550 makes it a lot harder to pass the follow-on than 450. 550 runs would take about 2 days batting to surpass, so unless the game goes to 4 days or more you've pretty much eliminated the risk of losing and have a good chance of forcing a follow-on. Also the 550 runs will be needed if the game goes for another 7 sessions, so you're not wasting time by getting superfluous runs.

The tricky bit is gauging the right time to declare if the follow-on becomes pretty much the principle way of winning (~3 1/2 day game on a flattish pitch). As then you may want to go to higher to set a tougher follow-on target, even though it's unlikely your opponent would score the runs across two innings in the time remaining. Then it's a balance between increased chance of a follow-on v less time to bowl a team out twice.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

Trolling or are you actually serious?

Fully serious.

[Scaly piscine]

Okay. I'll state this again for everyone.

You cannot justify a declaration based on what happens after it. Particularly in that scenario. There's no reason to believe Sri Lanka wouldn't have been 100-4 if Australia had managed 550, 600 or whatever. So the scoreline that follows doesn't justify a terrible declaration. If it was in the UK and the cloud cover came in and the ball started hooping around then you could argue there are conditions to exploit so you want to bowl in those to sacrifice runs for extra wickets, there was no such difference in Australia - also it means Australia get a few more overs of batting later in the game and Sri Lanka a few more overs batting on a Day 2 pitch.

The reality is Australia were well ahead anyway at 450-5 before they declared, so to say that they're ahead later because of the declaration is nonsense. It's also irrelevant for the reason given above.

A declaration is all about maximising your odds of getting the best result. Declaring at 450-5 greatly increases the chance of Australia losing. Unless the game is massively shortened to basically 270 overs of play or thereabouts then declaring at 450 does not increasing the odds of winning. Australia will need to score more runs unless it's a massively one-sided game (in which case Australia win anyway), it's easier to score quickly at 450-5 on Day 2 against tired/demoralised bowling and fielding than later on if Sri Lanka manage any sort of total. It also makes it easier for Sri Lanka to avoid the follow-on.

[Johnners]

It wasn't a terrible declaration given the weather forecast imo, but I do agree it was too early. Hussey & Wade looked like they could've added another 100 at a reasonable clip which would've still given Siddle 'n co a crack at Sri Lanka in the final session.

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

Okay. I'll state this again for everyone.

You cannot justify a declaration based on what happens after it. Particularly in that scenario. There's no reason to believe Sri Lanka wouldn't have been 100-4 if Australia had managed 550, 600 or whatever. So the scoreline that follows doesn't justify a terrible declaration. If it was in the UK and the cloud cover came in and the ball started hooping around then you could argue there are conditions to exploit so you want to bowl in those to sacrifice runs for extra wickets, there was no such difference in Australia - also it means Australia get a few more overs of batting later in the game and Sri Lanka a few more overs batting on a Day 2 pitch.

The reality is Australia were well ahead anyway at 450-5 before they declared, so to say that they're ahead later because of the declaration is nonsense. It's also irrelevant for the reason given above.

A declaration is all about maximising your odds of getting the best result. Declaring at 450-5 greatly increases the chance of Australia losing. Unless the game is massively shortened to basically 270 overs of play or thereabouts then declaring at 450 does not increasing the odds of winning. Australia will need to score more runs unless it's a massively one-sided game (in which case Australia win anyway), it's easier to score quickly at 450-5 on Day 2 against tired/demoralised bowling and fielding than later on if Sri Lanka manage any sort of total. It also makes it easier for Sri Lanka to avoid the follow-on.

Thanks for that. It also means you can't **** can a declaration based on what happens afterwards, thereby taking away one of the 25 negative things you enjoy talking about.

[Satyanash89]

Clarke's declaration made no sense... all its done is ensure that Australia will have to bat again. Should have just blasted away for 10 odd overs more... 450 at adelaide is just not a big total. Came off as arrogant from Clarke and felt as though he was underestimating the SL batting.

[NasserFan207]

Declaration looked a bit too arrogant for me.

[Johnners]

Originally Posted by Satyanash89

Clarke's declaration made no sense... all its done is ensure that Australia will have to bat again. Should have just blasted away for 10 odd overs more... 450 at adelaide is just not a big total. Came off as arrogant from Clarke and felt as though he was underestimating the SL batting.

Good thing they aren't playing at Adelaide then I guess

[Cevno]

Yeah, the runs were coming pretty quickly for the 5 or so overs before it which i assume was a deliberate effort.

Could have batted on for another 10/15 overs and gone hell for leather and taken whatever they got, if indeed he wanted to declare quickly anyway.

[benchmark00]

Great declaration.

[Spark]

Love the idea that a declaration shouldn't take into account what might happen next. It's the kind of thinking you get from (ahem) only watching the game via scorecards, without taking into account pitch conditions, weather, mental energy...

[Satyanash89]

Originally Posted by Johnners

Good thing they aren't playing at Adelaide then I guess

wouldnt change anything in my post apart from that

[Tom Halsey]

Originally Posted by Spark

Love the idea that a declaration shouldn't take into account what might happen next.

Not what he said.

It should obviously take into account what might happen next, but judging it purely on what did happen next is result orientated thinking which is irrelevant.