Best & Worst Declarations
 

You know, I don't recall declarations ever having been discussed in any depth on CW in the 3 years+ I've been a resident. Seems remiss of us so this is my attempt to redress the balance.

Can you think of a good declaration that forced a positive result (for the team who declared) where one might not have been possible otherwise or alternately can you think of an absurdly generous closure that had the opposite outcome?

This would get my vote for the latter: http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/19...19MAR1968.html

Which captains have handled them well and who's been too cautious?

All opinions welcome :) ('cept Richard's, obv... :p).

The Declaration of Independence was quite poorly handled in my opinion. :sleep:

Kim Hughes at Headingley in 1981.:)

8-)










;)

The Sobers one obviously surely has to be at or near the top, but another one I'd like to mention was Shaun Pollock's in Bridgetown in 2001 - CBA to link to the card as I'm in a rush, but he seemed to think there was absolutely no chance of getting a result, yet after he finally declared - 20 or 30 overs after he could have, with a massive first-innings lead - WI collapsed and almost lost even in the little time there was left (saved partly by some unsportsmanlike behaviour). Had he declared earlier and the same thing happened, it'd have been a certain victory.

One I hope is NEVER called a bad declaration is Gilchrist at Headingley in 2001. :dry:

Thought Flemings declaring behind and Waugh's subsequent declaration in this match were great.

Yeah, quite agree. With the benefit of hindsight it looks a wee bit generous, but at the time it just looked like Oz closing in for the kill. 315 (IIRC, at work & CBA to check) on a 5th day pitch was a very stiff ask and it took the innings of his life from Butch to get us there. I suspect that had the series been in the balance Gilly would have batted on longer.

One decision that I've thought of that was possibly the right one for the match situtation, but extremely bad man-management, was Atherton's decision to pull the plug with Hick on 98*. It was one of our tours to Oz, 94/5 (? again from memory) The big fella always seemed more of a carrot than a stick sort of a player, so for his captain to do that to him was rather short-sighted.

How do you guys fit all this stuff in your brains? I seriously can only vaguely name several recent declarations by England captains, let alone analyse in detail those that happened years and years ago, and not all of them in particularly famous matches anyway.

Hats off to you all for having far better memories than me. Unless being in France is just destroying my ability to talk about cricket...I choose to blame that. If in doubt, blame the French.

One bad one was by Dravid in Pakistan 2003/4 when he left Sachin on 194*.

It's a form of sickness, tbh. :p

Have a mind that hoovers up random, unrelated factoids. Can also name the score of every FA Cup final since 1970. Sad, but true..

Haha, that's impressive. I thought I had a good mind for stats. Well, I do have a good mind for random info, but lately I've been forgetting a lot of it. Haven't watched cricket in so long I probably forget the rules these days, same goes for footy with the exception of the odd France match here and there.

Roll on the 19th Dec - back to England for two weeks. :)

Yeah, he himself said it was not a decision he'd have taken again, and reckons that had he let Hick get the century it'd have improved the mood in the camp and maybe helped win the game which they ended-up just failing to.

Hick did not speak to him for the rest of the tour. And yeah, it was 1994\95, Atherton's only Ashes tour as captain.

Wow, pretty selfish on his part, I would think. Its his duty and responsibility as a professional cricketer to accept the decisions his captain makes to help England win, and personally I don't care if he was on 399*, he should be willing to leave whenever it would benefit his country. Such behavior would be a bit of a black mark on the legacy of any cricketer, one would think.

Nah. I'd side with Hick except I'd not go as far as to alienate for the rest of the tour.

TBH it was only another couple of weeks - he left the tour with a prolapsed disc not long after said incident. Had he lasted the course, it's very possible the two would have made-up before the end.

I don't blame Hick at all TBH. You can say "it's a team game" all you want - it's a team game played by individuals, and individual achievements do mean a hell of a lot, whether some people like it or not. A century is a buoyancy-aid to a team, and denying a batsman a century is bound to have some effect.

Didnt he win the game???? So how was that bad declaration?