Defeated after declaring

[susudear]

If SA pulls off an amazing chase tomorrow

It will be the sweet revenge for SA's defeat after declaring in the 06 series.

 

[biased indian]

in that tied test in Madras Border had declared rite ????

 

[social]

There'll be hundreds but Waugh's follow-on at Eden Gardens wasn't an error and I doubt anyone would've acted differently. It was the only decision that made sense and no-one should think any lesser of Waugh for it. Australia were beaten that game because Laxman and Dravid produced one of the greatest partnerships in history, not because they enforced the follow-on.

Ponting's decision to field first at Edgbaston in '05, though, rather like Dravid's at Wankhede in '05/06 against the same opposition, smacked of complacency and was undoubtedly a mistake that many would have done differently.

Waugh's decision did not make sense

His bowlers were tired after toiling in the heat and it left his batsmen to play in the worst conditions of the match

 

[Richard]

Yet 99 times out of 100, his batsmen would've had to chase about 40 or 50 - if that - and the bowlers, while being tired, would've wrapped-up the series before the Third Test begun, so said tiredness wouldn't have been an issue.

If Australia had won that Test I doubt there'd have been so much as a single dissenting voice. Criticism came from people being wise after the event, which any fool can do.

 

[Matt79]

I read somewhere that it was frustration at England's go-slow tactics (ie, slow over-rate), which seems bizarre TSTL. Not surprisingly there's just the one place I've read that.

From Sobers autobiography (the one done with Bob Harris, 2002):
"In the 1967-68 series it was rare for more than 60 or 70 overs to be bowled in a day and there was a lot of time wasting... That series was not played in the spirit in which I expected it to be played. I always thought cricket should be a game with people challenging each other, not looking to see how you can draw. I always tried to win and only if that option failed would I try not to lose. It seemed to me that England captain Colin Cowdrey looked for a draw first and a win second. It probably forced me as a captain to try to inject something into the cricket, to see what I could do to resurrect the way it was going. By the time we reached Trinidad there had been three insipid Test matches and I saw an opportunity to open up the series, to bring some interest into it, and try to break the stalemate... There did not seem to be any likelihood of them coming out and playing in the way they would need to win. For me, it was worth taking the risk, it was calculated."

 

[The Sean]

Interesting to see that our closure in Adelaide in 06/07 was the highest first innings declaration from where a game has been lost. Is it the highest ever first innings score from a defeated side generally too?

I know Australia got 586 in the famous match in Sydney in 1894/95 (I think) that began our proud and unique tradition of being able to lose after enforcing the follow on. I'm pretty sure that remains the highest first innings score ever made by a team that went on to lose.

 

[Richard]

It does, though TBF it's still the first of only 3 instances in 114 years.

What it started more than anything was Australia's much more notable tradition of failing to chase small totals.

 

[Richard]

From Sobers autobiography (the one done with Bob Harris, 2002):
"In the 1967-68 series it was rare for more than 60 or 70 overs to be bowled in a day and there was a lot of time wasting... That series was not played in the spirit in which I expected it to be played. I always thought cricket should be a game with people challenging each other, not looking to see how you can draw. I always tried to win and only if that option failed would I try not to lose. It seemed to me that England captain Colin Cowdrey looked for a draw first and a win second. It probably forced me as a captain to try to inject something into the cricket, to see what I could do to resurrect the way it was going. By the time we reached Trinidad there had been three insipid Test matches and I saw an opportunity to open up the series, to bring some interest into it, and try to break the stalemate... There did not seem to be any likelihood of them coming out and playing in the way they would need to win. For me, it was worth taking the risk, it was calculated."

 

[archie mac]

I know Australia got 586 in the famous match in Sydney in 1894/95 (I think) that began our proud and unique tradition of being able to lose after enforcing the follow on. I'm pretty sure that remains the highest first innings score ever made by a team that went on to lose.

Although tbf the follow on was compulsory. I don't think the option came in until 1908

 

[The Sean]

It does, though TBF it's still the first of only 3 instances in 114 years.

What it started more than anything was Australia's much more notable tradition of failing to chase small totals.

Indeed, though in fairness to that run chase the Aussies were cruising until an overnight thunderstorm turned the (uncovered) pitch into a quagmire.

 

[The Sean]

Although tbf the follow on was compulsory. I don't think the option came in until 1908

Well that's actually something I never knew - thanks mate.

 

[archie mac]

Well that's actually something I never knew - thanks mate.

That is OK, I have to educate you Seans