Parmi | #1 draft pick | Jake King is **** | Big Bash League tipping champion of the universeCome and Paint Turtle
I think the idea that there is any kind of "maths" in that there's some kind of formula you should follow when it comes to a declaration is the main fallacy here.
It should be done on intuition on feel, because the captain will be best placed to make a judgement on the match situation, the pitch, the opposition and the conditions, and let's face it, the captain will know faaaaaaar more about those than us armchair captains here.
It's not about a strict runs vs. time remaining formula. It's clear to me that Clarke felt that, given that time might be lost, his best chance of winning the match would come by making inroads into the SL middle order before stumps and put them under pressure going into Day 3. It's more about gut feel than about maths.
And I say that as a mathematician.
Last edited by Spark; 16-12-2012 at 06:02 AM.
do you think people will be allowed to make violins?
who's going to make the violins?
No point arguing with him, he still thinks Monty is a donkey. Clarke was fully justified in this match to do what he has done given the weather forecast was dodgy. Obviously wasn't going to lose the match from there and all he has done is maximise the victory chance which will probably happen midway through day 5. Quite exciting as a neutral to see a captain prepared to take the odd risk even when he hasn't got an all conquering team like they were when he started playing.
was a great positive declaration, unlike dhoni's today
Proud Supporter of All Blacks
Clarke's intuition is clearly a load of horse**** in this instance. You can use some cricketing intelligence to factor in that maybe you're a bowler down, or they're a batsman down and that sort of thing. But really you're getting most of the intuition from seeing the game play out and the scores on the board.
Ultimately whether the pitch is doing a lot, will break up and so on doesn't really have a impact in most declarations. The conditions don't tend to change much - which takes away most of the strategy and intuition.
The numbers dictate roughly when you should declare. You cannot get away from that.
All of the responses about Clarke pulling off a masterstroke because the team took a couple of early wickets after a declaration, these people need to GTFO of the thread (not talking about you, but one or two members posting in this thread).
It's like when Australia used to have a good cricket team and whether they batted first or second they made it work - because they were better than the other team. Not because their captain made a genius call at the toss, or the other captain made a bad one. This sort of **** goes on so much in all sport. A captain is a genius when he's revolving his bowlers in limited overs cricket and they happen to take a wicket. It's like the way good teams appear to be 'lucky'. Australia used to be lucky because it looked like they were bowling on a bowler-friendly pitch and batting on a batting-friendly pitch.
In sport there is apparently no such thing as coincidence. Everything has to be apportioned to inexperience, lack of concentration, great captaincy, good/bad form and the like. The same happens with any major decision they make. People can't just look at the big picture and balance the pros and cons, no a lot of the commentators are too stupid to do that - so instead we have this preposterous situation where they go purely by instinct or the end result and that is followed through by many on these forums. There are no grey areas, marginally good or bad decisions. It's black and white, right and wrong. A lot of it reminds me of Deal or No Deal the way decisions that are essentially as justifiable as each other are made into something else, and a whole load of bull**** is trotted out.
In the end scoreboard maths should dictate 99% of a declaration. Virtually all of the other factors end up being fluff, like on Deal or No Deal.
Why do those people need to gtfo? Because it happened? And the wickets were lost (big wickets) on that day? And Sri Lanka are now in a precarious position. None of which supports your assertion that it was a bad declaration?
Maybe (gasp), it was an excellent declaration?
(insert mumblings from you about mathematics and chance and not predicting what might happen....)
Could it be you're being proven wrong? Perhaps you need to gtfo? But I wouldn't be rude enough to suggest that to you...
Don't get me wrong, I liked the declaration - I thought there was perhaps a touch of misguided arrogance about it but good on them for having a hunch and going with it. But to say they obviously weren't going to lose is wrong, otherwise every side in the world would declare at 450.
To momentarily drop down to this level of argument - 27-0 off 14 overs - how many runs do you think Australia would have taken off 14 overs with licence to go for it from 450-5? This sort of thing would happen in well over 90% of games if you kept re-running the game from 450-5.
How would another 15 overs of batting have had any bearing on Sri Lanka's batting performance? If Australia had tried to up the rate they'd typically be a further 50+ runs ahead right now, all things being the same. Could also have had the option to enforce the follow-on, although I suspect Clarke wouldn't anyway as he's incredibly averse to using it.
lyon took the wicket of samaraweera in the last over of the day. this would not have happened except for the declaration.
Sensational declaration by Clarke. The man knows what's up.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)