Summer of 16/17

[Quick Hands]

Tighter than a really tight thing, that. Shades of Trent Bridge 1973 when NZ made 440 chasing 479 which I think is still the closest anyone's got to chasing down 450+.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/63108.html

Pakistan showed that they can match it with anyone - but they also showed their other trait of inconsistency.

Still, well done to Pakistan. I thought that Smith put himself and the team under huge pressure by not enforcing the follow on. He had to judge when was the right time to declare and then had to restrict runs and take wickets on a pretty good pitch, without a match winning spinner.

The follow-on used to be enforced almost every time. Ever since Steve Waugh made a poor choice to enforce it in India all those years ago, captains tend to avoid it. There's a need to recalibrate the thinking.

 

[No4918]

Hypothetical, Smith enforces the follow on. Day 4/5 Aus find themselves needing to chase down 200+ to win and the bowlers are stuffed. I think he made the right decision regarding the follow on.
A few of his others were questionable. Asking for the extra half hour and then the filed placings. Think he learnt some lessons this test that will see him a better captain in the future.

 

[Braveheart81]

Hilton Cartwright has been added to the squad to presumably replace Maddinson at 6 for the Melbourne Test.

Asking for the extra half hour

I thought this was entirely from the umpires due to some lost overs and wasn't requested by Smith.

The follow-on used to be enforced almost every time. Ever since Steve Waugh made a poor choice to enforce it in India all those years ago, captains tend to avoid it. There's a need to recalibrate the thinking.

I saw some stats yesterday and the percentage of games won, lost and drawn are pretty much identical when the follow on is enforced to when it isn't.

At the end of the day, if we'd needed to score 170 in our second innings to win the test, it was easier doing it in the third innings of the game than the fourth.

Having a 490 run lead with about 7 sessions to bowl the other side out should be enough every single time. As No4918 said, there were things to criticise Smith for in that final innings but the scenario set up for Australia to win the game wasn't one of them in my opinion.

 

[Highlander35]

Not enforcing the follow on suggests a strategy of "don't lose, then try and win", at least to me.

Which is fine. This is Cricket, not some funny Americanised sport where draws aren't fair results.

The "issue", shall we say, is that 490 runs and 7 sessions amounts to about 2.35 runs an over.

If Pakistan could hold out for a draw, they were always going to be close to a win.

So if you were looking to "not lose", you probably needed a little more runs, and a little less time.

In contrast, if Pakistan had put on 550 in their 2nd innings batting 3rd, they still have to take 10 wickets, which is still the most difficult thing in Cricket.

 

[Braveheart81]

The "issue", shall we say, is that 490 runs and 7 sessions amounts to about 2.35 runs an over.

If Pakistan could hold out for a draw, they were always going to be close to a win.

How many fourth innings result in scores of 490 or more? The answer is 1 in the entire history of test cricket.

Pakistan's score of 450 was the fourth highest of all time.

They would have needed to last around 200 overs to draw the game. Again, that is unbelievably longer than most test innings, particularly fourth innings. India took 190.4 overs to score their 7/759 yesterday.

I don't think it is reasonable to suggest that giving yourself 7 sessions and 490 runs to bowl a side out to win the test match is anything other than setting yourself up to win every single time.

 

[RugbyReg]

Hilton Cartwright comes into the squad for the Boxing Day test.

Never heard of him, personally, but hard to deny his stats...

 

[light]

Just when you thought the obsession with having an all-rounder at 6 had ended...

That said Cartwright's record is very good, so the selection does make sense.
Good luck to him.

 

[Highlander35]

Interesting pick.

Has to be better than Maddinson anyway.

 

[No4918]

Just when you thought the obsession with having an all-rounder at 6 had ended.

That said Cartwright's record is very good, so the selection does make sense.
Good luck to him.

Stats I saw have him with 5 wickets at 76 this year. Not inspiring confidence.

I don't mind Lyon but the bigger issue is having a spinner the captain trusts. Plenty of speculation about what is going on there and the current situation is not ideal. Not sure we have a match winning spinner anywhere in Aus but the captain needs to be able to count on them to keep it tight and not let the pressure off that our quicks can create.

 

[light]

Good to see SO'K return for the 6'ers and get amongst the wickets.

His fitness will at least give the selectors another spin option.

 

[Highlander35]

Fuck me the Sixers look awful right now.

SOK is going at 3 an over having bowled 3, but the Thunder still going at well above 9.

Edit: lol. Soon as I post, Thunder collapse.

 

[Quick Hands]

Interesting pick.

Has to be better than Maddinson anyway.

And either of the Marshes.

 

[The torpedo]

Interesting pick.

Has to be better than Maddinson anyway.

I'm better than Maddinson

/s

 

[Quick Hands]

I saw some stats yesterday and the percentage of games won, lost and drawn are pretty much identical when the follow on is enforced to when it isn't.

Statistics don't tell the full story. As a general rule you would look at how long your bowlers have been bowling, how hot it is etc.

Clearly, enforcing the follow-on in Calcutta in 2001 and keeping your bowlers going for 3 days was a poor decision which resulted in a loss by Australia. Also to note that in that match, we had two of the greatest bowling match-winners of all time in the history of cricket. Warne and Mc Grath bowling in the 4th innings in Calcutta - you'd back them every time to lead us to victory.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/63920.html

A night test in Brisbane, where the bowlers weren't overly taxed by the conditions. Nor did we have a match-winner spinner to rely on in the fourth innings. We batted for barely 2 sessions on the third day and the bowlers were back into it. By not enforcing the follow-on, the pressure immediately reverts to Smith - how long to bat when to declare etc. The initiative also passes to Pakistan when they have so long to bat at the end. The fact that they got so close was a surprise, but in the end we were a little lucky. As soon as Shafiq was dismissed, Yasir seemed to just give up. He took a couple of slogs which missed and then run out in a manner which you'd expect from a 10 year old.

Certainly the follow-on should not be an automatic reaction to a big lead, but in these circumstances it would have presented the least risk for Australia losing the game.

 

[Quick Hands]

I'm better than Maddinson

/s

The only good thing about Maddinson being in the test team is that he can't play for the Sixers.

 

[I like to watch]

The only good thing about Maddinson being in the test team is that he can't play for the Sixers.

....without doubt,best sledge in the thread!

 

[light]

England lose 10 wickets in two sessions on day 5 after lunch in Chennai.

India win by an innings and 75 runs. Jedeja 7/48. We should be very afraid.

 

[Brumby Runner]

How many fourth innings result in scores of 490 or more? The answer is 1 in the entire history of test cricket.

Pakistan's score of 450 was the fourth highest of all time.

They would have needed to last around 200 overs to draw the game. Again, that is unbelievably longer than most test innings, particularly fourth innings. India took 190.4 overs to score their 7/759 yesterday.

I don't think it is reasonable to suggest that giving yourself 7 sessions and 490 runs to bowl a side out to win the test match is anything other than setting yourself up to win every single time.

That stat doesn't tell the whole story, does it BH? Just in tests in Brisbane, there were a couple of fourth innings winning totals of 0/190 and 2/270 or thereabouts. Had those innings required a total of around 450 or more, and time was available as it was in this test, then there is no telling if both might still have resulted in a win to the chasing side and new record fourth innings totals established in the doing.

The thing is, that wickets do not seem to deteriorate so much these days over the five days, chasing sides have better strategies for getting the required totals learnt from one-day matches, and the Aussie attack was not one that would put fear into first class batsmen as capable as Pakistan are at playing run of the mill spin bowling.

The result vindicates the decision by Smith, but he was a very worried man for much of the Pakistan second innings.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I think Smith erred in not enforcing the follow on and if indeed he was offered the extra time on day four, he erred there too. When you're up by nearly 300 runs and your bowlers have trundled through roughly 50 overs I would enforce the follow on around 9/10 times. That result in 2001 certainly changed the way captains view following on and sometimes to a ridiculous degree.

On Hilton's selection, I'm chuffed for him. Met him once, through a mate who played WACA grade cricket with him. Ripper bloke and talented to go with it. I was as shocked as anyone with him being picked though, but I think the bowlers workload must have a lot to do with it. Still, his batting has looked pretty decent this season and he could scarcely be less successful as Maddinson. I feel for Nic and think he is an international player in the making. He's just been selected at the wrong time, unlike a bloke like Handscomb, who was absolutely cherry ripe when he was picked (and then stepped up magnificently).

 

[No4918]

My understanding on the extra half hour is that one of the captain's must ask for it. The umpires can allow it or deny the request but don't make the initial call.