1. Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

1st Test, Australia vs. South Africa, 9 - 13 Nov at the Gabba!

Discussion in 'Cricket' started by The Red Baron, Oct 27, 2012.

  1. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    23,861
    We were scoring quickly at the end of day 4 and early day 5. If we'd declared earlier we would have had to bat again anyway. I think it was a better choice to keep batting whilst the runs were coming easily.

    I think Australia needed at least another session to be in a position to force a result. We would have still run out of time if we'd declared sooner.
  2. PaarlBok Rod McCall (65)

    Likes Received:
    1,382
    Off course you would have bat again but then at the least you would have known you gave your bowlers enough time to bowl our lot out. Wickets seems to come easier when the batters play shots. Eddie Barlow had in his days many successe with positive captaincy and out of the box thinking. In the modern days the captains and coaches always want to make the test safe for themself before taking any risk to get in a winning position. Cant understand why you lot cant see this, I'd be a bit frustrated if we were in this position.
  3. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    23,861
    I think a declaration whilst behind on runs in the first test match of a series would be a ridiculous risk to take. If we'd done that and lost the test it would have been one of the dumbest captaincy decisions in history. Declaring whilst behind is the type of action you'd take when you're losing a series and have to pull a win out of the hat.

    I also think that as a bowling side you always think that the best time to take wickets is at the end of a test match. There is a reason teams get rolled on a 5th day pitch.

    I think Clarke is a very aggressive captain and is close to Steve Waugh in his level of aggressive decision making. I really don't think I'd want him pushing the envelope any further. I think he's doing a fantastic job as Australian test captain.
    Penguin and The_Brown_Hornet like this.
  4. barbarian Nick Farr-Jones (63)

    Likes Received:
    9,601
    I'm with Clarke 100%. Put it this way: when the scores were level, to win the match Australia still would have had to score 150-odd runs. It's merely a question of scoring them now or later. So do you want to score them:

    a) Now, when the pitch is still OK, the ball is old, the bowlers are tired and you have both batsmen well set (with one on 200)

    or

    b) Later, with new batsmen, a new ball and a potentially crumbling pitch.

    It's an absolute no-brainer for me.
    .
  5. PaarlBok Rod McCall (65)

    Likes Received:
    1,382
    Barbs you wanted that trophe Boet.
    [IMG]
    Spilled your first change. No way that pitch would have crumbled and it was 4 not 5 days. If they knew they would declared towards the end of day4, they would have batted quicker and would end up with a decent lead.
  6. PaarlBok Rod McCall (65)

    Likes Received:
    1,382
    End Of Day4: Australia - 487/4 in 121.0 overs (MJ Clarke 218, MEK Hussey 86)
  7. The_Brown_Hornet Michael Lynagh (62)

    Likes Received:
    5,178
    Paarl, they scored 180 in the last session alone, at one stage going at 6 an over. How much more rapid do you want? All of this deflects the attention away from the conservative approach of the Saffers of course, who barely got above three per over for the whole first innings. I reckon we could have declared overnight and had 90+ overs at them on day five, but I don't think that would have been enough to knock them over and get the runs. As far declaring behind, you only do that if you're really chasing a result on a track that will break up big style on day five.
    Penguin likes this.
  8. The Red Baron Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    1,372
    Paarl, I can't tell if you are trolling or you are serious about this declaration fantasy of yours.
  9. PaarlBok Rod McCall (65)

    Likes Received:
    1,382
    Bumped for my RB who think I was trolling.
  10. PaarlBok Rod McCall (65)

    Likes Received:
    1,382
    Whats Greg Richie up to?
  11. The_Brown_Hornet Michael Lynagh (62)

    Likes Received:
    5,178
    He's a serial buffoon. Pay him no mind.
  12. The Red Baron Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    1,372
    Greg Ritchie? I have to concur with TBH, he is a buffoon. Wasn't he also the joker that dressed up as the character Mahatma Coat? Ugh.
  13. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    23,861
    Greg Ritchie is a racist clown.

    For him to not consider some of the jokes he makes racist, he is either a bare-faced liar or has no idea what racism is.
  14. Penguin Arch Winning (36)

    Likes Received:
    1,088
    Fat Cat Richie has always been one of the biggest dickheads in Australian cricket, unfortunately he thinks he's funny & well liked.
    Even more unfortunate is that local media encouraged this buffoon when he retired from the game by giving him air time on radio & tv.

Share This Page