• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Poll: Should Smith have allowed Voges to get his triple century?

Should Smith have allowed Voges to get his triple century?


  • Total voters
    36
  • Poll closed .

Ike

Cricket Web Staff Member
There's a fair bit of discussion of this question in the Official thread, but the question fascinates me, and I think it's worth a poll.
 

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
In answer to the poll, yes. Because Australia's obsession with declaring at 550ish when there's no shortage of time left in the game, because #intent, is ****ing stupid. Almost bit them in the arse at Perth, but they don't ****ing learn.
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
It's kind of BS that this is a question. You shouldn't have to 'allow' someone to get a triple century.

~

Smith's declarations have shown an increasing arrogance as time goes on. He's decided that he has no intention of batting once - though only after he is out
 

Ike

Cricket Web Staff Member
Didn't want to prejudice the poll in the initial post, but now I'll give my opinion. Voges is 35, never expected to make his national Test team. Then he gets a shot at a triple century (and free drinks at Gayle's!), and Smith declares instead. I'm a huge Windies fan, but no way the Aussies couldn't get 20 wickets in 2 days, leaving a full day for rain. I don't understand it.
 

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
I get that Smith has decided he always wants to bat twice. That makes complete sense; his bowling attack seems to always be made of glass, so enforcing the follow on is understandably low on his list of priorities.
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Tough to answer the question unless the situation is such that it is tactically a good time to declare, but one of your blokes is nearing a milestone. In this case declaring didn't give them an advantage, and so it's hard to look at the issue of the triple century in isolation. All that we can say is that it probably wasn't a good choice to declare, tactically speaking.

Reckon he declared because he doesn't want to enforce the follow on, knowing the injury history of his bowlers. If Aus scored too much, then even if the follow on wasn't enforced, there wouldn't be much of a break for the bowlers before Smith had to declare again.
 

Gnske

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Pretty sh*te decision really. Smith seems utterly malleable when it comes to pressure on his captaincy in buying into this meme aggression thing he's picked up from Clarke and Boof, the Channel 9 Box constantly in his ear sprouting their poison isn't helping either.
 

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I get that Smith has decided he always wants to bat twice. That makes complete sense; his bowling attack seems to always be made of glass, so enforcing the follow on is understandably low on his list of priorities.
He could always bat again anyways even with 650 on the board in the first dig.
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
He could always bat again anyways even with 650 on the board in the first dig.
Then his bowlers get less rest, because you don't bat as long before you have to declare again

It's arrogant, but looking at this pathetic WI unit it's hard not to be
 

Hurricane

Hall of Fame Member
No. You declare on scores like 83 and 269. You don't declare on 198 or whatever Hick was on.

I like Smith's captaincy more than I liked Clarke's. Smith is one of the better Australian captains I can remember, his poor treatment of Burns at short leg at the GABBA notwithstanding.
 

Hurricane

Hall of Fame Member
The reason why I like Smith and that he gets the Hurricane seal of approval is that he has values.
For example, Mitchell Starc got a telling off for throwing a ball at a batsman. Those comments wouldn't have happened under Clarke who enjoyed his team misbehaving.
Siddle got taken aside by the vice captain for losing the plot against an umpire.

He runs a tight ship. And as a result will get more victories all other factors being equal.

Where he can develop further is that he seems to be exasparated when someone does something ridiculously poor in the team. Smith has such high standards that he can't relate when some less talented player does something surprisingly stupid.
If he keeps that up then people will stop approaching him with issues and concerns and the team will dsyfunction.
 

kiwiviktor81

International Debutant
Smith has such high standards that he can't relate when some less talented player does something surprisingly stupid.
If he keeps that up then people will stop approaching him with issues and concerns and the team will dsyfunction.
This is not only an astute observation but the core of my concern with the impending Williamson captaincy. Apart from Warner, Smith is miles better than anyone else in the team.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Sometimes you just have enough runs. Going out to bat facing 500-odd means the WI bats feel the pressure of some chance of getting back into the game which creates more chances for the bowlers and gets them back in the sheds sooner if they take advantage, keeps their mind on taking wickets. Facing 7002452340+, the game is dead, the bats are just going to bat time because they're out of it and bowlers have to work harder for wickets ("God, why doesn't he just get out already?!" The game's done."). Batting less here makes it more likely Voges won't be shot in a game down the track too.

So yeah, I back Smith's declaration, I'm guessing it's just him maintaining the style in which he wants the team to play because letting things get too flabby mentally is dangerous, indulging for selfish reasons doesn't promote good habits. I mean, if you're maintaining a good fitness level and you're confronted with a buffet of all your favourite foods, do you gorge? No, you show some discipline because 'just this once' can go down a bad road. It's not an #intent or aggression thing, an early declaration keeps things moving in a team, fitness and positive psychology sorta sense. Has nice flow-ons when you play against someone good.
 
Last edited:

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
The WI bats have batted as if they have no chance of getting back in the game, though. Whether they'd declared at 500, 550, 600 or 1000, I don't think it'd have mattered.

Keeping them interested would probably have required a declaration around the 380 mark IMO
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Probably should've given him another hour to easily get it. I'm biased because I like Voges, and tbh most guys dont even get one chance at one in their career.

Weather also might factor into this test so I can see the pros and cons.
 

Top