***Official*** South Africa in India 2015

[cnerd123]

Dunno. Losing a game having a go is better than losing it playing pointless boring cricket. Even if they had drawn the match it's certainly an achievement but I don't feel that there is as much to be proud about as a lot of other posters tbh.

Nothing wrong with it being a weird concept to you, but try to keep an open mind. Otherwise you're sounding just as close-minded as social, just on the other side of the coin.

This is interesting. An insight into the ultra-aggressive Aussie Cricketing mindset I guess. A draw is scarcely better than a loss.

In what scenario would you justify your side playing for the draw instead of chasing the win? Only when you are up in the series, or when the series is in the balance?

 

[indiaholic]

Dunno. Losing a game having a go is better than losing it playing pointless boring cricket. Even if they had drawn the match it's certainly an achievement but I don't feel that there is as much to be proud about as a lot of other posters tbh.

Nothing wrong with it being a weird concept to you, but try to keep an open mind. Otherwise you're sounding just as close-minded as social, just on the other side of the coin.

How is it an opinion to think that Wins>Draws>Losses? As for the cricket, lots of people loved watching it.

 

[OverratedSanity]

This whole discussion is moot anyway since even if SA had batted normally and got it down to 16 in 3 overs, they'd have blocked out 17 balls before Steyn bops Shami over long on for six.

 

[TheJediBrah]

This is interesting. An insight into the ultra-aggressive Aussie Cricketing mindset I guess. A draw is scarcely better than a loss.

In what scenario would you justify your side playing for the draw instead of chasing the win? Only when you are up in the series, or when the series is in the balance?

Good question. Not sure how I feel about tbh. I would be disappointed in my side not going for the win unless is was something stupid like 700 in 40 overs (exaggeration obviously).

On the flip side, I would be pissed off if my captain gave the opposition a sniff if they didn't have to. Like in the recent NZ-Aus series, Smith withheld his declaration so NZ were well out of the game. I think this was the right thing to do given Aus were up in the series.

How is it an opinion to think that Wins>Draws>Losses?

If you can't understand that then I'm not going to bother explaining it to you. Ever seen Braveheart?

As for the cricket, lots of people loved watching it.

couldn't be less relevant. Lots of people loved watching Hitler lead Germany to prosperity pre-WWII.

 

[cnerd123]

How is it an opinion to think that Wins>Draws>Losses? As for the cricket, lots of people loved watching it.

I think the mentality here is that conceding that you cannot win the game is as good as an admission of defeat. The moment you stop playing to win is the moment that you have admitted that the other side is better than you. If they are better than you, then you have lost. What good is a draw from here? You just put in a ton of effort playing negative cricket only to frustrate your opponent and probably just lose anyways.

I think TheJediBrah and people like him will accept that playing for the draw is fine when the series is still on the line - it's similar to calling back your troops and retreating in order to re-group for a better attack the next time around. You're more likely to win the series from 0-0 than from 0-1, so playing for the Draw in such a situation is a positive act. But when the series has been decided? Why are you shutting up shop then? What's the difference between 2-0 and 3-0? You were thumped anyways. Atleast go for glory and try to get the 2-1. Then you've actually won something instead of returning home empty handed.

On the flipside, our mentality is that saving a Test is a noble feat. The fact that you clung on for a draw shows that, despite taking a beating for 5 days, you did not give up, and your opponent wasn't able to finish you off. You may not be able to beat them, but they sure as hell couldn't beat you either. At the end of the day, you achieved parity. Win > Draw > Loss. 2-0 shows you lost 2 games, but were equal to your opponent for 2 games too. It's better than 3-0. Over the course of a season, you get more points for draws than you do for losses. In the long run, drawing games beats losing a lot for a handful of victories.

Interesting contrast.

 

[indiaholic]

Good question. Not sure how I feel about tbh. I would be disappointed in my side not going for the win unless is was something stupid like 700 in 40 overs (exaggeration obviously).

On the flip side, I would be pissed off if my captain gave the opposition a sniff if they didn't have to. Like in the recent NZ-Aus series, Smith withheld his declaration so NZ were well out of the game. I think this was the right thing to do given Aus were up in the series.



If you can't understand that then I'm not going to bother explaining it to you. Ever seen Braveheart?



couldn't be less relevant. Lots of people loved watching Hitler lead Germany to prosperity pre-WWII.

Hahahahaha never expected the Hitler counter to show up in CC.

 

[Gnske]

I would've thought 'Win or lose, there is no draw' is a mentality practiced everywhere in most if not all sports as an incentive albeit blatant built early in an athlete's life to do their best. To sort of devalue anything less than victory to prevent tardiness or doing just enough to scrape even.

 

[M0rphin3]

couldn't be less relevant. Lots of people loved watching Hitler lead Germany to prosperity pre-WWII.

Yeah that analogy doesn't make sense, tbh.

His point was that a lot of people (probably majority, if you go by the polls or posts and whatnot) loved watching the game. Hence you can't just go on saying that it's "boring" in any objective sense. Ofc you might have found it boring, personally. Then your argument should perhaps be rephrased as "They should have gone for a win because *I* find draws like these boring", which isn't exactly a justifiable argument IMO.

He's not some populist arguing that majority = right, then you could have made that analogy.

 

[cnerd123]

I would've thought 'Win or lose, there is no draw' is a mentality practiced everywhere in most if not all sports as an incentive albeit blatant built early in an athlete's life to do their best. To sort of devalue anything less than victory to prevent tardiness or doing just enough to scrape even.

I think this is a very Aussie thing, not necessarily a global thing.

As a kid, my friends and I were all taught to play cricket with the mentality of giving nothing to our opponents - that means no extras, and no loose shots. If they want runs, they will have to score them themselves. If they want wickets, they will have to take them. That was 'Test Cricket' mentality for us. Bowl in good areas, bowl to your field, build pressure. If you can't get them out, then make them work for every run. Similarly, if you can't score off them, then don't let them take your wicket. Keep occupying the crease. Tire them out. Don't let them have it easy.

A draw was a good result when you play against a better side. Playing aggressively to try and spring an upset was rubbished. You get points for a draw. You don't get any points for a loss. The draw is more probable than the victory. Playing for the draw is less likely to result in a loss. Playing for a draw means that, if you lose, you atleast made them work for their win. And if you draw the game, it means you were as good as them. The scoreline is 0-0. Thats respectable.

This applied to football too. Men behind the ball. Keep possession, wait for the gaps, wait for them to give you an opening. No glory shots from outside the D. Don't lose possession. Defend tightly. A draw is fine. A draw is better than a loss.

Interesting contrast to the Aussie mentality.

 

[indiaholic]

I would've thought 'Win or lose, there is no draw' is a mentality practiced everywhere in most if not all sports as an incentive albeit blatant built early in an athlete's life to do their best. To sort of devalue anything less than victory to prevent tardiness or doing just enough to scrape even.

That's one of the things that makes test matches interesting, no? You have a legit third option.

 

[silentstriker]

Very rare that I'm happy with my team trying for a draw tbf. I'd rather go down trying for a win. Basically the only exception is when a draw would ensure a series win or something.

 

[Cabinet96]

Re people going crazy about how great SA's batting was; from my perspective, I just like it because it proves people like Ian Chappell wrong. They say it's impossible to survive more than 20-30 overs without looking to score, and it's a pretty standard accepted theory that lots of people believe. I think it's nonsense and used because of people's want for what they consider entertaining cricket and to justify selfish I want to score runs batting, and I think once again this SA side has somewhat proved that, by providing by far their longest innings when adopting their most defensive approach.

So I basically like it because it suits my agenda, so I wouldn't expect all, if even most, to feel the same way.

 

[Cabinet96]

I think it is a very Australian thing to always aim for the win btw. Losing is awful, no matter what the sport, and as far as I'm concerned, everything possible should be done to prevent it. If it was a case that SA were likely to draw and had a shot at the win, then fine, I'd agree with going for the win, but just thinking well we're going to lose, might as well play some shots and hope, is an awful mentality for a test match IMO.

 

[Howe_zat]

Yep don't see them surviving 160 overs while scoring at 3 rpo. They took the best available strategy, executed it very well and would have been praising them to high heavens if they stuck around for 9 more overs or so.

*executed it okay.

It's the sort of thing that really needs the whole team to get on with before you can say they did it very well. It's not like chasing 200 in a T20 where you get the whole side swinging and the percentages are so low you only expect 2 blokes to come off. Duminy, Vilas had to go out there and block, and that was it. If they couldn't manage 50 balls of 'literally do not score a run', it was a bit weak from that end.

Whichever tactics they used, it pretty much came down to AB and Amla again. 3 of the top 7 didn't hold up their end of the deal and that's why it's not worked.

 

[Dan]

I think this is a very Aussie thing, not necessarily a global thing.

As a kid, my friends and I were all taught to play cricket with the mentality of giving nothing to our opponents - that means no extras, and no loose shots. If they want runs, they will have to score them themselves. If they want wickets, they will have to take them. That was 'Test Cricket' mentality for us. Bowl in good areas, bowl to your field, build pressure. If you can't get them out, then make them work for every run. Similarly, if you can't score off them, then don't let them take your wicket. Keep occupying the crease. Tire them out. Don't let them have it easy.

A draw was a good result when you play against a better side. Playing aggressively to try and spring an upset was rubbished. You get points for a draw. You don't get any points for a loss. The draw is more probable than the victory. Playing for the draw is less likely to result in a loss. Playing for a draw means that, if you lose, you atleast made them work for their win. And if you draw the game, it means you were as good as them. The scoreline is 0-0. Thats respectable.

This applied to football too. Men behind the ball. Keep possession, wait for the gaps, wait for them to give you an opening. No glory shots from outside the D. Don't lose possession. Defend tightly. A draw is fine. A draw is better than a loss.

Interesting contrast to the Aussie mentality.

I think its worth noting here, too, that this isn't a first-innings approach at all. No point at all playing for the draw from ball one; you play your natural game and hope you're better over the five days. But when it becomes apparent that a win is entirely off the table (as it was here; RSA had near-zero chance of chasing this down), then, of the options actually available, Draw > Loss so you play for the draw.

Which is why, IMO, you should generally declare with a lead that is high enough to comfortably defend, without it being so high that the chase is near-enough to impossible. Batting people out of the game incentivises this type of 'defend for 160 overs' cricket.

 

[mr_mister]

***** dropping mad truth here

draw > loss


and when a win is basically impossible, as it was here, the best way to achieve the desired draw is to bat as SA batted

 

[indiaholic]

*executed it okay.

It's the sort of thing that really needs the whole team to get on with before you can say they did it very well. It's not like chasing 200 in a T20 where you get the whole side swinging and the percentages are so low you only expect 2 blokes to come off. Duminy, Vilas had to go out there and block, and that was it. If they couldn't manage 50 balls of 'literally do not score a run', it was a bit weak from that end.

Whichever tactics they used, it pretty much came down to AB and Amla again. 3 of the top 7 didn't hold up their end of the deal and that's why it's not worked.

Agreed.

 

[cnerd123]

Which is why, IMO, you should generally declare with a lead that is high enough to comfortably defend, without it being so high that the chase is near-enough to impossible. Batting people out of the game incentivises this type of 'defend for 160 overs' cricket.

Yea I was wondering at stages today if Kohli had waited too long to declare. Maybe we would have been better off if, as in Nagpur, SA actually had a shot at the target.

480 in 6 sessions is a steep chase even in good batting conditions - maintaining 80 runs/session for 6 sessions is tough. The target basically ensured SA would enter blockathon mode, and made it even tougher to take wickets. It's a reasonable tactic against lineups that do not have stonewallers of Amla, ABDV and Faf's calibre though.

 

[weldone]

Yea I was wondering at stages today if Kohli had waited too long to declare.

I don't think so, but I think this may well be the last match where Kohli doesn't play 5 bowlers. I'm sure at some stages he missed Mishra.

 

[OverratedSanity]

he target basically ensured SA would enter blockathon mode, and made it even tougher to take wickets. It's a reasonable tactic against lineups that do not have stonewallers of Amla, ABDV and Faf's calibre though.

Yeah absolutely. I think we had this discussion when we were thinking of when to declare vs SL recently. Their middle/lower order is filled with players who can play their shots and go for a chase (Chandimal,Kusal, Tharanga) but those same guys simply donot have the defensive techniques required to deadbat everything. Dangling the carrot isn't the best option every time.