• 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.

*** Official*** South Africa in England 2017

9

91Jmay

International Coach
SA highest opening stand in last 12 innings is 21. Pretty impossible to win consistently with that frailty
 
vcs

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
3rd Test, India tour of New Zealand at Wellington, Apr 3-Apr 7 | Match Summary | ESPNCricinfo

This is the worst example of a conservative declaration I can recollect. At least Dhoni had the excuse that a lot of play was lost to rain on day 5. Still, pretty bad. Setting 600+ for 5 sessions is just way too conservative.

The Adelaide decision by Michael Clarke should have been heavily scrutinized in my opinion, even though they won. That gave India a legitimate chance to win a match they had no business being close to winning.
 
StephenZA

StephenZA

Hall of Fame Member
91Jmay said:
SA highest opening stand in last 12 innings is 21. Pretty impossible to win consistently with that frailty
Click to expand...
And puts Amla, who is not the player he was, under huge pressure. Particularly when Duminy was playing 4. It is amazing that SA have done what they have with the frailties in the last 18 months. RE:See discussion in SA selection thread.
 
9

91Jmay

International Coach
StephenZA said:
And puts Amla, who is not the player he was, under huge pressure. Particularly when Duminy was playing 4. It is amazing that SA have done what they have with the frailties in the last 18 months. RE:See discussion in SA selection thread.
Click to expand...
Yeah, great bowling attacks paper over a multitude of sins.
 
S.Kennedy

S.Kennedy

International Vice-Captain
Adders said:
Look mate, cricket is a team game and sometimes a batsmen has to play a different game for the betterment of the team. This argument re Malan and protecting the batsmen's averages is just a nonsense and should never be in consideration when making declaration/follow on decisions.

The other point you made that I just can't get my head around, was what you said before about rest time. Lets say Root had enforced the follow on (if it was available as you were screaming for) and we ended up winning by an innings........we'd have ended up bowling more overs in the test than the Saffers. As it is they've now bowled 180+ overs to our current 58 with 6 wickets left to get. In terms of workload and recuperation this is a vastly better situation for England with a test starting on Friday.

And with an earlier declaration you're just reducing that 180 overs that they've bowled........so you're reducing their workload and giving them an extra day off. What benefit is there in that to us?

Edit:

This post is all over the place on account of the fact I forgot they got passed the follow on target. Either way, in either scenario that you wanted, ie enforcing the follow on or early declaration you're letting them off the hook in terms of workload......and your trying to use rest time for us to prove your point just doesn't work.
Click to expand...
I'd have only enforced it if England bowled them out that evening with overs to go (in ideal bowling conditions).
 
S.Kennedy

S.Kennedy

International Vice-Captain
vcs said:
3rd Test, India tour of New Zealand at Wellington, Apr 3-Apr 7 | Match Summary | ESPNCricinfo

This is the worst example of a conservative declaration I can recollect. At least Dhoni had the excuse that a lot of play was lost to rain on day 5. Still, pretty bad. Setting 600+ for 5 sessions is just way too conservative.

The Adelaide decision by Michael Clarke should have been heavily scrutinized in my opinion, even though they won. That gave India a legitimate chance to win a match they had no business being close to winning.
Click to expand...
I sometimes wonder what they are being so conservative about. Has there actually been a Sobers style declaration balls up in recent years?
 
morgieb

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
vcs said:
The Adelaide decision by Michael Clarke should have been heavily scrutinized in my opinion, even though they won. That gave India a legitimate chance to win a match they had no business being close to winning.
Click to expand...
But on the other hand had he waited it would've been far too hard to push for a result. It wasn't like there was 200 overs left or something.
 
vcs

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
morgieb said:
But on the other hand had he waited it would've been far too hard to push for a result. It wasn't like there was 200 overs left or something.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know that it worked and they actually won the match by throwing India the bait. Maybe that played a part in some of the wickets.

Still feel those tactics should be reserved for when you're behind and trying to square the series, dead rubbers, etc. First game of a 4-match series is not the time and place.
 
Gnske

Gnske

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
vcs said:
The Adelaide decision by Michael Clarke should have been heavily scrutinized in my opinion, even though they won. That gave India a legitimate chance to win a match they had no business being close to winning.
Click to expand...
They could have been a run away and it still would have been too far in a squad with Dhawan and Saha in it.
 
StephenZA

StephenZA

Hall of Fame Member
Why is Bavuma reverse sweeping... we are not trying to chase this down. Stay in till tea then we can see what is going on....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top