Hypothetical question?

[Howe_zat]

I wasn't saying it was a disadvantage. Just remarking that when you play aggressively, you take less time out of the game. This leaves more time for you to claim the win, but also more time for the possibility of a reversal. Naturally, if you're on top in the match, you do play aggressively as the more in charge you are, the less chance of losing.

Bowling well isn't really related to this, as there you're talking about cutting down on the runs as well as time taken.

 

[vcs]

I wasn't saying it was a disadvantage. Just remarking that when you play aggressively, you take less time out of the game. This leaves more time for you to claim the win, but also more time for the possibility of a reversal. Naturally, if you're on top in the match, you do play aggressively as the more in charge you are, the less chance of losing.

Bowling well isn't really related to this, as there you're talking about cutting down on the runs as well as time taken.

Yes, but when you are scoring runs quickly, you are not just buying time (which can benefit either side as you rightly pointed out), but also giving yourself the cushion for setting aggressive fields etc. later.

 

[ankitj]

To be honest, if you let Ajit Agarkar taking 6/41 amid being bowled out for 196, that's probably more of an issue than scoring 556 rather quickly.

Of course, scoring quick is never going to be the reason for losing a test, but it can be a contributing factor as it was in Adelaide. But yes, I don't think that happens very often.