Great declaration

Great declaration

Post by R. Bharat Ra » Fri, 30 Dec 2005 14:36:54


I think 360+ was just about perfect.  Virtually impossible to get in I4,
with just over 4 sessions.

But enough of a sniff to make the South African's think -- maybe, just
maybe.  (As an aside, I am very surprised at the # of posts thinking RSA
have a real chance -- I'd have put RSA at no better than 1 in 15 odds
to win -- not to save the game, but to win.)

Ponting seems to have learned from the last Test.  If they draw here (which
is far far more likely than a RSA win), no blame can be attached to Ponting.
Nor should he be blamed if RSA pull out a miracle here (though he probably
will be).


of the interval, and with the 3 wickets in quick succession, probably was
concerned about getting too close to tea -- in which case the interval could
be moved up (or is that rule gone now?).

Bharat

At 0/0, I'd have said 70-25-5 (for Aus W-D-L).
At 60/3, I'd say Aus W-D-L == 88-10-2

Bharat

 
 
 

Great declaration

Post by dougi » Fri, 30 Dec 2005 17:42:38

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 05:36:54 GMT, "R. Bharat Rao"

Quote:

>I think 360+ was just about perfect.  Virtually impossible to get in I4,
>with just over 4 sessions.

Good decision. I don't think we can believe any of those stats like
RSA has only chased 200+ 6 times in history, or the record in mebourne
was 332. None of that counts on a drop-in pitch that looked like it
was still giving decent assistance to the bats.

[...]

--
The Yen Buddhists are the richest religious sect in the
universe. They hold that the accumulation of money is a
great evil and a burden to the soul. They therefore,
regardless of personal hazard, see it as their unpleasant
duty to acquire as much as possible in order to reduce
the risk to innocent people.
--
Terry Pratchett, Witches Abroad.

 
 
 

Great declaration

Post by denj.. » Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:41:06

Quote:

> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 05:36:54 GMT, "R. Bharat Rao"

> >I think 360+ was just about perfect.  Virtually impossible to get in I4,
> >with just over 4 sessions.

> Good decision. I don't think we can believe any of those stats like
> RSA has only chased 200+ 6 times in history, or the record in mebourne
> was 332. None of that counts on a drop-in pitch that looked like it
> was still giving decent assistance to the bats.

And on a smaller playing surface to boot.  Not that it helped SA any...

John Dennis

 
 
 

Great declaration

Post by JM » Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:34:25


Quote:

>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 05:36:54 GMT, "R. Bharat Rao"

>> >I think 360+ was just about perfect.  Virtually impossible to get in I4,
>> >with just over 4 sessions.

>> Good decision. I don't think we can believe any of those stats like
>> RSA has only chased 200+ 6 times in history, or the record in mebourne
>> was 332. None of that counts on a drop-in pitch that looked like it
>> was still giving decent assistance to the bats.

> And on a smaller playing surface to boot.  Not that it helped SA any...

> John Dennis

I still think (even after seeing the start to the SA 4th innings) that it
was a mistake to give them that chance; given what we've seen of SA they
were a good chance to make the runs, and fail that - bat out the time
easily.  Given the way Hayden & Roy (the luckiest guy on earth - buy
yourself a lottery ticket for the NY super lotto draw) played on the pitch
today would suggest that SA should be in a lot better position than they
are.

Ponting took a gamble after all the criticism he got in WA and it has paid
off - had SA been none or 1 for 100+ at stumps there would have been 20 ppl
on this NG calling for his ***.

 
 
 

Great declaration

Post by Jamm » Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:35:51


Quote:




>>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 05:36:54 GMT, "R. Bharat Rao"

>>> >I think 360+ was just about perfect.  Virtually impossible to get in
>>> >I4,
>>> >with just over 4 sessions.

>>> Good decision. I don't think we can believe any of those stats like
>>> RSA has only chased 200+ 6 times in history, or the record in mebourne
>>> was 332. None of that counts on a drop-in pitch that looked like it
>>> was still giving decent assistance to the bats.

>> And on a smaller playing surface to boot.  Not that it helped SA any...

>> John Dennis

> I still think (even after seeing the start to the SA 4th innings) that it
> was a mistake to give them that chance; given what we've seen of SA they
> were a good chance to make the runs, and fail that - bat out the time
> easily.  Given the way Hayden & Roy (the luckiest guy on earth - buy
> yourself a lottery ticket for the NY super lotto draw) played on the pitch
> today would suggest that SA should be in a lot better position than they
> are.

> Ponting took a gamble after all the criticism he got in WA and it has paid
> off - had SA been none or 1 for 100+ at stumps there would have been 20
> ppl on this NG calling for his ***.

What are you basing this good chance on. The statistics for the ground and
in general, plus the state of the pitch and 2 of the best leg spinners
bowling on a 5th all went against there being any chance of them winning the
match, as has been shown out.
 
 
 

Great declaration

Post by dougi » Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:43:24

Quote:

>I still think (even after seeing the start to the SA 4th innings) that it
>was a mistake to give them that chance; given what we've seen of SA they
>were a good chance to make the runs, and fail that - bat out the time
>easily.  Given the way Hayden & Roy (the luckiest guy on earth - buy
>yourself a lottery ticket for the NY super lotto draw) played on the pitch
>today would suggest that SA should be in a lot better position than they
>are.

>Ponting took a gamble after all the criticism he got in WA and it has paid
>off - had SA been none or 1 for 100+ at stumps there would have been 20 ppl
>on this NG calling for his ***.

It was a gamble but it was a great gamble. Easy to say in hindsight
but it was a low-scoring game (by runrate I mean). Until Sydmonds went
berserk it didn't look like either team was going to reach 3 an over.

Aus 355 in 119
RSA 311 in 111
Aus 321 in 83

Until Symonds went berserk it didn't look like either team could do
much better than 3 an over and it was only going to get worse.

RSA only scored 200+ 6 times in history to win a game.

The record in melbourne was 332? in the 4th inns.

Yeah yeah, records are made to be broken etc, but the whole history of
the game suggested they weren't up to it, especially on a wicket with
variable bounce against 2 leggies etc etc.

Brave decision, but not that brave in hindsight.

 
 
 

Great declaration

Post by JM » Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:52:47


Quote:






>>>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 05:36:54 GMT, "R. Bharat Rao"

>>>> >I think 360+ was just about perfect.  Virtually impossible to get in
>>>> >I4,
>>>> >with just over 4 sessions.

>>>> Good decision. I don't think we can believe any of those stats like
>>>> RSA has only chased 200+ 6 times in history, or the record in mebourne
>>>> was 332. None of that counts on a drop-in pitch that looked like it
>>>> was still giving decent assistance to the bats.

>>> And on a smaller playing surface to boot.  Not that it helped SA any...

>>> John Dennis

>> I still think (even after seeing the start to the SA 4th innings) that it
>> was a mistake to give them that chance; given what we've seen of SA they
>> were a good chance to make the runs, and fail that - bat out the time
>> easily.  Given the way Hayden & Roy (the luckiest guy on earth - buy
>> yourself a lottery ticket for the NY super lotto draw) played on the
>> pitch today would suggest that SA should be in a lot better position than
>> they are.

>> Ponting took a gamble after all the criticism he got in WA and it has
>> paid off - had SA been none or 1 for 100+ at stumps there would have been
>> 20 ppl on this NG calling for his ***.

> What are you basing this good chance on. The statistics for the ground and
> in general, plus the state of the pitch and 2 of the best leg spinners
> bowling on a 5th all went against there being any chance of them winning
> the match, as has been shown out.

Basing it on

1. Form: what SA did to save the WA test.
2. Pitch: Sure we have great leg spinners, but the pitch didn't look that
bad (i.e. Hayden & Symonds) despite SA not having quality spinner to compare
against (McGrath & Symonds aren't spinners and have 3 of the wickets)
3. Statistics for the ground: WACA wickets are favorable to quicks, lot's of
bounce etc.... but that wasn't the case - pitches chance, and the MCG pitch
doesn't exactly look like it's changed dramatically over the first 4 days.

This is a pitch which saw Hayden/Symonds put on 124 in 5 overs - and then
(let's leave the quality of Warne who took 3 of the 6 wickets out of it) SA
can only manage 6 for 99 - a pitch doesn't change that quickly.

I don't think the pitch holds any real deamons, SA are just *** pure and
simple - it happens.

 
 
 

Great declaration

Post by JM » Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:57:18


Quote:

>>I still think (even after seeing the start to the SA 4th innings) that it
>>was a mistake to give them that chance; given what we've seen of SA they
>>were a good chance to make the runs, and fail that - bat out the time
>>easily.  Given the way Hayden & Roy (the luckiest guy on earth - buy
>>yourself a lottery ticket for the NY super lotto draw) played on the pitch
>>today would suggest that SA should be in a lot better position than they
>>are.

>>Ponting took a gamble after all the criticism he got in WA and it has paid
>>off - had SA been none or 1 for 100+ at stumps there would have been 20
>>ppl
>>on this NG calling for his ***.

> It was a gamble but it was a great gamble. Easy to say in hindsight
> but it was a low-scoring game (by runrate I mean). Until Sydmonds went
> berserk it didn't look like either team was going to reach 3 an over.

> Aus 355 in 119
> RSA 311 in 111
> Aus 321 in 83

> Until Symonds went berserk it didn't look like either team could do
> much better than 3 an over and it was only going to get worse.

> RSA only scored 200+ 6 times in history to win a game.

> The record in melbourne was 332? in the 4th inns.

> Yeah yeah, records are made to be broken etc, but the whole history of
> the game suggested they weren't up to it, especially on a wicket with
> variable bounce against 2 leggies etc etc.

> Brave decision, but not that brave in hindsight.

Good decision in hindsight.  But at the WACA, same situation really - bad
decision in hindsight.  Now, had Ponting given SA another 30 overs to bad at
the WACA, they would have probably still saved the match - if not won it.

There was much criticism over the bowling attack and the inability of them
to take 10 wickets in the 4th innings at the WACA - now, all of a sudden
everyone has turned and said - 4th/5th day at MCG, no probs for us to take
the wickets.

I just think the criticism that Punter received after the drawn 1st test was
a little unjustified - considering that only 22 people got to really see how
the pitch was playing.

 
 
 

Great declaration

Post by JM » Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:59:49


Quote:








>>>>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 05:36:54 GMT, "R. Bharat Rao"

>>>>> >I think 360+ was just about perfect.  Virtually impossible to get in
>>>>> >I4,
>>>>> >with just over 4 sessions.

>>>>> Good decision. I don't think we can believe any of those stats like
>>>>> RSA has only chased 200+ 6 times in history, or the record in mebourne
>>>>> was 332. None of that counts on a drop-in pitch that looked like it
>>>>> was still giving decent assistance to the bats.

>>>> And on a smaller playing surface to boot.  Not that it helped SA any...

>>>> John Dennis

>>> I still think (even after seeing the start to the SA 4th innings) that
>>> it was a mistake to give them that chance; given what we've seen of SA
>>> they were a good chance to make the runs, and fail that - bat out the
>>> time easily.  Given the way Hayden & Roy (the luckiest guy on earth -
>>> buy yourself a lottery ticket for the NY super lotto draw) played on the
>>> pitch today would suggest that SA should be in a lot better position
>>> than they are.

>>> Ponting took a gamble after all the criticism he got in WA and it has
>>> paid off - had SA been none or 1 for 100+ at stumps there would have
>>> been 20 ppl on this NG calling for his ***.

>> What are you basing this good chance on. The statistics for the ground
>> and in general, plus the state of the pitch and 2 of the best leg
>> spinners bowling on a 5th all went against there being any chance of them
>> winning the match, as has been shown out.

> Basing it on

> 1. Form: what SA did to save the WA test.
> 2. Pitch: Sure we have great leg spinners, but the pitch didn't look that
> bad (i.e. Hayden & Symonds) despite SA not having quality spinner to
> compare against (McGrath & Symonds aren't spinners and have 3 of the
> wickets)
> 3. Statistics for the ground: WACA wickets are favorable to quicks, lot's
> of bounce etc.... but that wasn't the case - pitches chance, and the MCG
> pitch doesn't exactly look like it's changed dramatically over the first 4
> days.

> This is a pitch which saw Hayden/Symonds put on 124 in 5 overs - and then
> (let's leave the quality of Warne who took 3 of the 6 wickets out of it)
> SA can only manage 6 for 99 - a pitch doesn't change that quickly.

> I don't think the pitch holds any real deamons, SA are just *** pure
> and simple - it happens.

Ignore typo- 124 in 5 should obviously be 124 in 15 overs :)  who scores at
25 and over :) LOL... Wow, wish I was home to have seen the 124 in 15 overs
even, must have been good cricket to watch.
 
 
 

Great declaration

Post by Ian Galbrait » Fri, 30 Dec 2005 20:17:59

[snip]

Quote:
> I don't think the pitch holds any real deamons, SA are just *** pure and
> simple - it happens.

Yeah Warne and MacGill turning the ball square and Symonds swinging the
ball a mile were just illusions.

--
You Can't Stop The Signal

 
 
 

Great declaration

Post by JM » Fri, 30 Dec 2005 21:09:49


Quote:

> [snip]

>> I don't think the pitch holds any real deamons, SA are just *** pure
>> and
>> simple - it happens.

> Yeah Warne and MacGill turning the ball square and Symonds swinging the
> ball a mile were just illusions.

> --
> You Can't Stop The Signal

Yes, and like I said - ignore the spin (warne 3 wickets), SA can't do the
same on this pitch?
 
 
 

Great declaration

Post by JM » Fri, 30 Dec 2005 21:11:53


Quote:




>> [snip]

>>> I don't think the pitch holds any real deamons, SA are just *** pure
>>> and
>>> simple - it happens.

>> Yeah Warne and MacGill turning the ball square and Symonds swinging the
>> ball a mile were just illusions.

>> --
>> You Can't Stop The Signal

> Yes, and like I said - ignore the spin (warne 3 wickets), SA can't do the
> same on this pitch?

and given the talent, why didn't we bowl them out at the WACA?  I will back
Aust everytime - just trying to find out why everyone is saying this is such
a great declaration against the one in WA a week ago - fans are so two
faced....
 
 
 

Great declaration

Post by Jamm » Fri, 30 Dec 2005 21:42:03


Quote:




>> [snip]

>>> I don't think the pitch holds any real deamons, SA are just *** pure
>>> and
>>> simple - it happens.

>> Yeah Warne and MacGill turning the ball square and Symonds swinging the
>> ball a mile were just illusions.

>> --
>> You Can't Stop The Signal

> Yes, and like I said - ignore the spin (warne 3 wickets), SA can't do the
> same on this pitch?

Yes but unless the rules have changed they wouldn't have been bowling to
themselves, so to say their form is the basis for them being able to make
it, taking out the bowlers on the other team is a little bit redundant.
 
 
 

Great declaration

Post by Jamm » Fri, 30 Dec 2005 21:43:21


Quote:






>>> [snip]

>>>> I don't think the pitch holds any real deamons, SA are just ***
>>>> pure and
>>>> simple - it happens.

>>> Yeah Warne and MacGill turning the ball square and Symonds swinging the
>>> ball a mile were just illusions.

>>> --
>>> You Can't Stop The Signal

>> Yes, and like I said - ignore the spin (warne 3 wickets), SA can't do the
>> same on this pitch?

> and given the talent, why didn't we bowl them out at the WACA?  I will
> back Aust everytime - just trying to find out why everyone is saying this
> is such a great declaration against the one in WA a week ago - fans are so
> two faced....

Because the total was too hire(unlike this time hence the good declaration)
and SA closed up shop and didn't try and hit a thing they didn't have to.
Its very hard to get anyone out that will only hit balls that are going to
hit the stumps.
 
 
 

Great declaration

Post by shariq_ta.. » Sat, 31 Dec 2005 00:20:09

The thing is that too many captains in international cricket have no
faith in their bowlers' ability to be able to contain a side batting in
the 4th innings for under 300 and that's why time and again the third
innings has gone on and on and as a result very little time is left to
complete the task. The truth is that any total greater than 250 is
adequate in about 75-80% of the cases but captains are so afraid of
losing that they don't play the percentages. That can make a huge
difference

Shariq