National Scrabble Champion 2009, 8th in 2009 World Championships, gold medal (team) at Causeway, 2011 Masters Champion
Australia’s Darren Lehmann is a ‘blatant loser’ insists Stuart Broad
Countdown Series 57 Champion
King of the Arcade
Reply from mods to my prank bans in public:
Reply from mods to my prank bans in private:
MSN - evil_budgie @ hotmail.co.uk
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.
Last edited by Scaly piscine; 15-12-2012 at 06:07 PM.
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.
Last edited by Scaly piscine; 15-12-2012 at 07:24 PM.
WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie
"People make me happy.. not places.. people"
"When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life." - Samuel Johnson
"Oh my God, there's a castle! A castle!"
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.
Declaration looked a bit too arrogant for me.
Batsman I tolerate: V. Richards, S. Tendulkar, E. Morgan, N. Hussain. KEVIN O F******* BRIEN
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.
Parmi | #1 draft pick | Jake King is **** | PM me for my list of CW posters you shouldn't talk cricket with in Cricket ChatCome and Paint Turtle
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...
+ time's fickle card game ~ with you and i +
get ready for a broken ****in' arm
MSN - email@example.com
Manchester United FC: 20 Times
R.I.P. Sledger's Signature, 2004-2008
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)