Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > International Cricket
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 7th January 2016, 23:18   #801
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
I wonder if FS put anything on SA on Sunday afternoon?
Not exactly, I got hugely burned laying the draw this test, from a set of positions where I really thought it very unlikely. Lost almost all the money I won first test, in fact. SA winning would have been great for me financially but staggeringly catastrophic for England. Amazing how often odd stuff happens on the final day of hitherto fairly clearly drawn tests though, isn't it?

Oh and interesting to discover that Bairstow was a possible MotM option. I think Stokes was a better choice but the obvious and persistent biased absurdity of the person suggesting it has probably led to more ridicule than otherwise necessary: Bairstow did score 150* first innings and helped close the game out for a draw second innings. Dropping a catch hardly helps his already slightly hopeless cause though.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde

Last edited by Fatslogger : 7th January 2016 at 23:36.
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th January 2016, 00:58   #802
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by YAMS View Post
It's not like us to panda to the clearly ignorant, is it?

I say, let em crash do the poll.
They'll have to bear it and not be too grizzly.
__________________
As balanced and focused as the next man
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th January 2016, 09:52   #803
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by YAMS View Post
It's not like us to panda to the clearly ignorant, is it?

I say, let em crash do the poll.
Ignorant? What delicious irony! Here's some much needed help for you to correct a small part of your ignorance...

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de...english/pander
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th January 2016, 09:56   #804
Aidan11
Harmisonesque
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Somewhere cold and wet
Posts: 39,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer View Post
They'll have to bear it and not be too grizzly.
I fear a teddy stream of puns could be on the way.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northantsfanone View Post
Speaking to Geoff Cook today they may released Mark Wood from Durham. He rates him but the kid has had an operation and maybe one too many bowlers on the books type deal.
Aidan11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th January 2016, 10:14   #805
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,100
I wonder if there's anyone on here with a sound grasp of the meaning of statistics and well versed in the art of taking advantage of odds who could calculate the chances of getting anything other than the polar opposite of sense from someone who thinks a bowler never signals to a keeper simply because no bowler ever signalled to him in a self-proclaimed long, and distinguished amateur career.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th January 2016, 10:24   #806
Comte Nom de Plume
County 2nd Team
 
Comte Nom de Plume's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gloucestershire
Team(s): Worcs and Yorks CCCs
Posts: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aidan11 View Post
I fear a teddy stream of puns could be on the way.
Golly!
Comte Nom de Plume is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th January 2016, 10:40   #807
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
... This x1000 ...
I'm surprised anyone's still sticking up for Cook's declaration given what happened. Wouldn't it have been a good idea for England to bat on in order to make the game safe? Though it was said at the time that England had taken their own defeat out of the equation already by scoring as many as 629, this wasn't the case, partly because in scoring them so fast they had still left SA enough time to win -- which they might have done, given a little bit more luck and better weather. The runs that took England's defeat out of the equation came painfully slowly on day 5, when they might have already been in the bank from day 2.

Likewise I would say it was probably a bad idea for Amla to have declared when he did. To win from that point SA needed to bowl England out and then score some runs. But there was no better time to score those runs than the position they were already in, with an attacking batsman in his stride at the crease.

In both cases I think the captains got carried away by feeling they were in an unexpectedly good position. Those declarations, in my opinion, were foolishly aggressive.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th January 2016, 11:50   #808
YAMS
Banned
 
YAMS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer View Post
They'll have to bear it and not be too grizzly.
Ha, very good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
Ignorant? What delicious irony! Here's some much needed help for you to correct a small part of your ignorance...

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de...english/pander
Thank you for your guidance. Greatly apreciated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aidan11 View Post
I fear a teddy stream of puns could be on the way.
Again, very good. Thank you. Sig updated to celebrate my faux paw.

Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
I wonder if there's anyone on here with a sound grasp of the meaning of statistics and well versed in the art of taking advantage of odds who could calculate the chances of getting anything other than the polar opposite of sense from someone who thinks a bowler never signals to a keeper simply because no bowler ever signalled to him in a self-proclaimed long, and distinguished amateur career.
Define amateur for me please?
__________________
Available via PM.

Last edited by YAMS : 8th January 2016 at 12:22.
YAMS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th January 2016, 15:03   #809
square leg umpire
World Class
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: yorkshire
Team(s): yorkshire
Posts: 7,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
I'm surprised anyone's still sticking up for Cook's declaration given what happened. Wouldn't it have been a good idea for England to bat on in order to make the game safe? Though it was said at the time that England had taken their own defeat out of the equation already by scoring as many as 629, this wasn't the case, partly because in scoring them so fast they had still left SA enough time to win -- which they might have done, given a little bit more luck and better weather. The runs that took England's defeat out of the equation came painfully slowly on day 5, when they might have already been in the bank from day 2.

Likewise I would say it was probably a bad idea for Amla to have declared when he did. To win from that point SA needed to bowl England out and then score some runs. But there was no better time to score those runs than the position they were already in, with an attacking batsman in his stride at the crease.

In both cases I think the captains got carried away by feeling they were in an unexpectedly good position. Those declarations, in my opinion, were foolishly aggressive.
It is ridiculous to say that South Africa were unlucky given that England dropped 10 catches in their innings. South Africa used up a series worth of luck in that innings. Cook wasn't to know England's catching would be so bad when he made the declaration. The Saffers were also very lucky in the conditions changing on the final day when England batted 2nd. Otherwise it would have been easy to bat out the final day.
square leg umpire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th January 2016, 15:51   #810
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by square leg umpire View Post
It is ridiculous to say that South Africa were unlucky given that England dropped 10 catches in their innings. South Africa used up a series worth of luck in that innings. Cook wasn't to know England's catching would be so bad when he made the declaration. The Saffers were also very lucky in the conditions changing on the final day when England batted 2nd. Otherwise it would have been easy to bat out the final day.
I didn't say SA were unlucky. But given the huge amount of luck they did have, it's perhaps lucky for us that they didn't also have a bit more.
I agree that Cook didn't know what was going to happen in the days following the declaration. In a way, that's my point.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th January 2016, 15:57   #811
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 26,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
I'm surprised anyone's still sticking up for Cook's declaration given what happened. Wouldn't it have been a good idea for England to bat on in order to make the game safe? Though it was said at the time that England had taken their own defeat out of the equation already by scoring as many as 629, this wasn't the case, partly because in scoring them so fast they had still left SA enough time to win -- which they might have done, given a little bit more luck and better weather. The runs that took England's defeat out of the equation came painfully slowly on day 5, when they might have already been in the bank from day 2.

Likewise I would say it was probably a bad idea for Amla to have declared when he did. To win from that point SA needed to bowl England out and then score some runs. But there was no better time to score those runs than the position they were already in, with an attacking batsman in his stride at the crease.

In both cases I think the captains got carried away by feeling they were in an unexpectedly good position. Those declarations, in my opinion, were foolishly aggressive.
You think England drawing is evidence that the declaration was too aggressive?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer
It was a poor innings by Bell with the bat.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th January 2016, 16:03   #812
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
You think England drawing is evidence that the declaration was too aggressive?
No.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th January 2016, 17:52   #813
square leg umpire
World Class
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: yorkshire
Team(s): yorkshire
Posts: 7,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
I didn't say SA were unlucky. But given the huge amount of luck they did have, it's perhaps lucky for us that they didn't also have a bit more.
I agree that Cook didn't know what was going to happen in the days following the declaration. In a way, that's my point.
Suppose if Bairtow's stumping had been upheld and the rain stayed away there would have been lot of nail biting. Mind you it was a situation in which South Africa would have been on the verge of bowling England out and Jimmy would have batted for an hour with somebody. That type of game.
square leg umpire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th January 2016, 13:07   #814
Rebelstar
International Material
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by square leg umpire View Post
Cook wasn't to know England's catching would be so bad when he made the declaration.
Precisely. I can't criticise his captaincy (on this occasion), made 600+ quickly and declared is fair enough with a reasonable expectation your fielders wouldn't spurn that many chances and so reasonably expect a lead.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, I'll risk stirring an old argument about the 551/6d in Australia where many slate Flintoff for declaring. England might have pressed on and scored some handy runs, but then England wouldn't have had a little spell at the end of the day during which time Flintoff had removed Langer and the aussies were 28/1

Not only did England take a 1st innings lead, but at 78/3, wheelie bin spilled a chance of Hoggard off Ponting (35 at the time) who subsequently added 107 runs.

Giles should have caught that, not a very difficult chance even if just above head height.

Flintoff couldn't have foreseen England capitulating for only 129 runs 2nd innings, you can argue he should have maybe batted on a bit, but he might reasonably have expected his fielders to back him up and the batting not to fold - and before that capitulation England were 69/1 and so 107 ahead with 9 wickets in hand.............

And at 0-1 down hindsight is a wonderful thing, usually kicks in just as things stop going to plan and start going titsup, but being positive in a series England were hoping to compete in given 2005, talk of making sure you go into the 3rd Test only 0-1 down is truly out of the hindsight genius handbook

Or to sum up, it wasn't the declaration that was why England lost in Adelaide and it wasn't the declaration that was why England were in trouble last Test, it was what should have happened and didn't ie didn't bat well enough and/or didn't field well
Rebelstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th January 2016, 13:10   #815
luckyluke
International Cricketer
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
A populist award for those such as yourself and a few others on here who seem not to have thought too deeply about the real meaning of the award, and a few other things too.

Perhaps it should be renamed "Entertainer of the Match".
Like what?
__________________
Most heartless decision:

In a women's league match in Denmark, a heavily pregnant woman arrived at the crease, and asked for a runner. Her request was denied, on the grounds that her incapacity had not occured during the course of the match.
luckyluke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th January 2016, 13:53   #816
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelstar View Post
... Flintoff couldn't have foreseen England capitulating for only 129 runs 2nd innings ...
I can foresee it every test. You wouldn't expect it to happen, but you know it's the kind of thing that might.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th January 2016, 14:42   #817
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelstar View Post
Precisely. I can't criticise his captaincy (on this occasion), made 600+ quickly and declared is fair enough with a reasonable expectation your fielders wouldn't spurn that many chances and so reasonably expect a lead.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, I'll risk stirring an old argument about the 551/6d in Australia where many slate Flintoff for declaring. England might have pressed on and scored some handy runs, but then England wouldn't have had a little spell at the end of the day during which time Flintoff had removed Langer and the aussies were 28/1

Not only did England take a 1st innings lead, but at 78/3, wheelie bin spilled a chance of Hoggard off Ponting (35 at the time) who subsequently added 107 runs.

Giles should have caught that, not a very difficult chance even if just above head height.

Flintoff couldn't have foreseen England capitulating for only 129 runs 2nd innings, you can argue he should have maybe batted on a bit, but he might reasonably have expected his fielders to back him up and the batting not to fold - and before that capitulation England were 69/1 and so 107 ahead with 9 wickets in hand.............

And at 0-1 down hindsight is a wonderful thing, usually kicks in just as things stop going to plan and start going titsup, but being positive in a series England were hoping to compete in given 2005, talk of making sure you go into the 3rd Test only 0-1 down is truly out of the hindsight genius handbook

Or to sum up, it wasn't the declaration that was why England lost in Adelaide and it wasn't the declaration that was why England were in trouble last Test, it was what should have happened and didn't ie didn't bat well enough and/or didn't field well
But he could and should have foreseen that Australia would have no difficulty matching England's total, and he should have batted on to get as many runs as possible first time round. Cook can be forgiven for thinking that South Africa's batting unit was in disarray given recent results and form. But it would still have been more sensible to have carried on to get as many runs as possible while England were on top. Did someone say that Stokes shouldn't have been sent messages about the timing of the declaration and that might have contributed to his dismissal?

So many people are unwilling to acknowledge that premature declarations have a detrimental effect on outcomes. Why is this? Because it demonstrates proactive thinking? Confuses the opposition? Shows we're on top? But none of this applies these days. If England fans and pundits were waiting for England to declare, then SA must have been doing so too. No surprise or shock factor, a welcome relief for their bowlers, and of course the knowledge that no more runs could be scored by England until they batted again, when things might just be different....

I thought the rule was to do what the opposition least wanted?
__________________
As balanced and focused as the next man
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th January 2016, 15:39   #818
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,865
Maybe they should just ban the declaration
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th January 2016, 15:54   #819
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
Maybe they should just ban the declaration
No let's not do that. We wouldn't have the fun of arguing about it, would we?
__________________
As balanced and focused as the next man
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th January 2016, 16:20   #820
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer View Post
No let's not do that. We wouldn't have the fun of arguing about it, would we?
I just thought the same.

As much as your analysis suggests that tactically it's flawed to declare early there are equally plausible reasons against batting on. Batting on may not cause any more grief for the fielding side- they may be beyond any point of further suffering. Not declaring may also be viewed as a defensive decision by a captain who'd rather ensure a draw than force a game towards a result, giving the opposition a boost.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:35.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org