India v Australia - test series
Moderators: Randoman, Ernie Cooksey, Forum Admins
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: India v Australia - test series
Bomber wrote:Anyone can be an expert in hindsight.
I laughed when he did it and to quote myself "what a ridiculous decision" Immeidately, a text came through. "Clark is an idiot, he's making ponting look like a decent captain."
I might have taken it back if he took a wicket but I didn't have to.
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60364
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 128 times
Re: India v Australia - test series
Highlighted the main word for you. If he batted on and we made an extra 10 runs, do you think it would have made a big difference?God is an Englishman wrote:Bomber wrote:Anyone can be an expert in hindsight.
I laughed when he did it and to quote myself "what a ridiculous decision" Immeidately, a text came through. "Clark is an idiot, he's making ponting look like a decent captain."
I might have taken it back if he took a wicket but I didn't have to.
Ignore this signature
Re: India v Australia - test series
Lyon needed to be dropped, tweak his tactics in the nets, will be back for the next test, he is the best spinner we have and I think he can be very good
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: India v Australia - test series
10 runs would have been an increase of nearly 5% on their score. Every run counts when you're bowled out that cheeply.Bomber wrote:Highlighted the main word for you. If he batted on and we made an extra 10 runs, do you think it would have made a big difference?God is an Englishman wrote:Bomber wrote:Anyone can be an expert in hindsight.
I laughed when he did it and to quote myself "what a ridiculous decision" Immeidately, a text came through. "Clark is an idiot, he's making ponting look like a decent captain."
I might have taken it back if he took a wicket but I didn't have to.
Highlighting a word IF when it didn't happen.
I am amazed you are defending that decision, it was idiocy in it's purest form.
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60364
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 128 times
Re: India v Australia - test series
And if India were one down for no runs at stumps on day 1 you wouldnt have even mentioned it. Would I have done it? I'm not sure, but I doubt I would have thought that by batting on we would have made 400 either. He made a bold call, it didnt work. No guts, no glory sometimes (hence I understand that you wouldnt understand).
Ignore this signature
-
- Squad Player
- Posts: 1528
- Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 4:47 pm
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60364
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 128 times
Re: India v Australia - test series
As I said, the english wouldnt understand what risk taking is all about. Your lot wouldnt even declare unless 600 ahead these days.rulebritannia wrote:was stupidity, you cant rationalise it any other way
Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: India v Australia - test series
Bomber wrote:As I said, the english wouldnt understand what risk taking is all about. Your lot wouldnt even declare unless 600 ahead these days.rulebritannia wrote:was stupidity, you cant rationalise it any other way
Why take an unnecessary risk? An unnecessary risk is declaring on 237 on day 1.
What socres did we declare on in the last ashes series?
-
- Squad Player
- Posts: 1528
- Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 4:47 pm
Re: India v Australia - test series
i'd go further than unnecessary risk to completely pointless risk
there was nothing to gain by it as the light in that ground is as good at days end as the start
these Australians live in such a bubble they convince themselves that every decision they make has some hidden genius behind it whilst the rest of the world is laughing at their quaint naivety
your 10th wicket partnership was one of the better ones in the last test and this time you throw away any chance of adding another 20 or 40 runs on a batting paradise
there was nothing to gain by it as the light in that ground is as good at days end as the start
these Australians live in such a bubble they convince themselves that every decision they make has some hidden genius behind it whilst the rest of the world is laughing at their quaint naivety
your 10th wicket partnership was one of the better ones in the last test and this time you throw away any chance of adding another 20 or 40 runs on a batting paradise
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: India v Australia - test series
Just looked up England last 5 declarations
The highest amount is 345
Also, looked up our declerations in the last Ashes. 517 & 620.
The highest amount is 345
Also, looked up our declerations in the last Ashes. 517 & 620.
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60364
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 128 times
Re: India v Australia - test series
Bottom line - I've heard of "Scotland the brave", never "England the brave".
An unnecessary risk is declaring at 4/237 (or similar). 9 for 237 to the brave is an opportunity with a few overs left. I like Chappelli's stance on cricket in general - do what the opposition least want you to do. I doubt the Indian openers were doing high fives at the time.
An unnecessary risk is declaring at 4/237 (or similar). 9 for 237 to the brave is an opportunity with a few overs left. I like Chappelli's stance on cricket in general - do what the opposition least want you to do. I doubt the Indian openers were doing high fives at the time.
Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: India v Australia - test series
Bomber wrote:Bottom line - I've heard of "Scotland the brave", never "England the brave".
An unnecessary risk is declaring at 4/237 (or similar). 9 for 237 to the brave is an opportunity with a few overs left. I like Chappelli's stance on cricket in general - do what the opposition least want you to do. I doubt the Indian openers were doing high fives at the time.
They probably weren't doing high 5's, they were too busy laughing. Maybe the idea was to confuse them into giving up a wicket.
Do you really think it was a sensible decision? Look at it with hindsight - did it work?
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60364
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 128 times
Re: India v Australia - test series
Of course in HINDSIGHT (refer previous comments which seem to go over your head) it didnt work, but who's to say India wouldnt be 0/400 instead of 1/311 if they batted on for another over or two? Point being, again, anyone can be expert after the event.God is an Englishman wrote:Bomber wrote:Bottom line - I've heard of "Scotland the brave", never "England the brave".
An unnecessary risk is declaring at 4/237 (or similar). 9 for 237 to the brave is an opportunity with a few overs left. I like Chappelli's stance on cricket in general - do what the opposition least want you to do. I doubt the Indian openers were doing high fives at the time.
They probably weren't doing high 5's, they were too busy laughing. Maybe the idea was to confuse them into giving up a wicket.
Do you really think it was a sensible decision? Look at it with hindsight - did it work?
If India were 1 or two wickets down after the two or so overs, you wouldnt have even mentioned it.
The only thing I find funny is you blokes carrying on thinking that our no 10 and no 11 batsmen may have put on a ton for the last wicket!
Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: India v Australia - test series
Bomber wrote:Of course in HINDSIGHT (refer previous comments which seem to go over your head) it didnt work, but who's to say India wouldnt be 0/400 instead of 1/311 if they batted on for another over or two? Point being, again, anyone can be expert after the event.God is an Englishman wrote:Bomber wrote:Bottom line - I've heard of "Scotland the brave", never "England the brave".
An unnecessary risk is declaring at 4/237 (or similar). 9 for 237 to the brave is an opportunity with a few overs left. I like Chappelli's stance on cricket in general - do what the opposition least want you to do. I doubt the Indian openers were doing high fives at the time.
They probably weren't doing high 5's, they were too busy laughing. Maybe the idea was to confuse them into giving up a wicket.
Do you really think it was a sensible decision? Look at it with hindsight - did it work?
If India were 1 or two wickets down after the two or so overs, you wouldnt have even mentioned it.
The only thing I find funny is you blokes carrying on thinking that our no 10 and no 11 batsmen may have put on a ton for the last wicket!
So with hindsight you disagree with the decision to declare?
I said at the time it was a stupid decision, I didn't need hindsight.
Earlier you mentioned 10 runs, now it's up to 100.
Wasn't your last wicket in the last test for about 70 runs? That would have been a 30% increase! Just turned down, considered not important.
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60364
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 128 times
Re: India v Australia - test series
Oh, so no 10 and 11 batsmen made a score last time out, hell, they MUST do it every time. Good to know that for future, maybe they should bat up the list.
If India were one out for no runs at stumps day 1.............???? I notice no response on that one.
If India were one out for no runs at stumps day 1.............???? I notice no response on that one.
Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: India v Australia - test series
Bomber wrote:Oh, so no 10 and 11 batsmen made a score last time out, hell, they MUST do it every time. Good to know that for future, maybe they should bat up the list.
If India were one out for no runs at stumps day 1.............???? I notice no response on that one.
You obviously didn't notice that I said at the top of this discussion that I would have had to take my comment back about the ridiculous decleration, but I didn't have to. Strange how you didn't notice it though, seeing as you even quoted it in one of your responses.
They did it last time, what's to say they wouldn't have done it this time? Even another 12 runs would have been an extra 5% on your total. Maybe you shouldn't bat with number 11 at all as obviously they are incapable and their runs are pointless.
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60364
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 128 times
Re: India v Australia - test series
So, the whole argument is based on "what ifs". It can be called stupid declaration because India are way out in front. If Australia took a wicket on that final over, then India were all out for 200 or less, Clarke would be called a genius for being so bold. Something tells me you wouldnt be blowing the horn about laughing at the declaration if that scenario had occurred.God is an Englishman wrote:Bomber wrote:Oh, so no 10 and 11 batsmen made a score last time out, hell, they MUST do it every time. Good to know that for future, maybe they should bat up the list.
If India were one out for no runs at stumps day 1.............???? I notice no response on that one.
You obviously didn't notice that I said at the top of this discussion that I would have had to take my comment back about the ridiculous decleration, but I didn't have to. Strange how you didn't notice it though, seeing as you even quoted it in one of your responses.
They did it last time, what's to say they wouldn't have done it this time? Even another 12 runs would have been an extra 5% on your total. Maybe you shouldn't bat with number 11 at all as obviously they are incapable and their runs are pointless.
As I said, i dont expect you to understand certain decisions that are made like Clarke's, as english captains rarely venture into territory where they may lose at the expense of going for a victory (and/or going for a safe draw).
Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: India v Australia - test series
Bomber wrote:So, the whole argument is based on "what ifs". It can be called stupid declaration because India are way out in front. If Australia took a wicket on that final over, then India were all out for 200 or less, Clarke would be called a genius for being so bold. Something tells me you wouldnt be blowing the horn about laughing at the declaration if that scenario had occurred.God is an Englishman wrote:Bomber wrote:Oh, so no 10 and 11 batsmen made a score last time out, hell, they MUST do it every time. Good to know that for future, maybe they should bat up the list.
If India were one out for no runs at stumps day 1.............???? I notice no response on that one.
You obviously didn't notice that I said at the top of this discussion that I would have had to take my comment back about the ridiculous decleration, but I didn't have to. Strange how you didn't notice it though, seeing as you even quoted it in one of your responses.
They did it last time, what's to say they wouldn't have done it this time? Even another 12 runs would have been an extra 5% on your total. Maybe you shouldn't bat with number 11 at all as obviously they are incapable and their runs are pointless.
As I said, i dont expect you to understand certain decisions that are made like Clarke's, as english captains rarely venture into territory where they may lose at the expense of going for a victory (and/or going for a safe draw).
so far you have missed my quote and made the mistake about English declarations. Are you going for the hat trick?
Of course it's about what ifs? The whole game is about ifs.
BUT bottom line is simple, I said clark's declaration was stupid and I've been proven right! AGAIN!!
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60364
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 128 times
Re: India v Australia - test series
Who's Clark?
End of, the skip's got balls - live by the sword, die by the sword.
As for you being proven right "again" (LOL), you conveniently only mention things where things turn in your favour - otherwise, guaranteed silence. At least we know Clarke has bigger balls than you!
End of, the skip's got balls - live by the sword, die by the sword.
As for you being proven right "again" (LOL), you conveniently only mention things where things turn in your favour - otherwise, guaranteed silence. At least we know Clarke has bigger balls than you!
Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: India v Australia - test series
Bomber wrote:Who's Clark?
End of, the skip's got balls - live by the sword, die by the sword.
As for you being proven right "again" (LOL), you conveniently only mention things where things turn in your favour - otherwise, guaranteed silence. At least we know Clarke has bigger balls than you!
How do you know that?
and it's die by the sword on this occasion because he shiraz up AGAIN!!
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60364
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 128 times
Re: India v Australia - test series
Of course he's got bigger balls - he has more courage! All these other times he has "shiraz up" as captain - feel free to list them, but feel free to list all the things he got right too if you want any credibility. I remember him getting the toss wrong (bat or bowl decision) once but that could be argued against any captain thats been at the helm for a while (in, wait for it - that magic word - "hindsight")God is an Englishman wrote:Bomber wrote:Who's Clark?
End of, the skip's got balls - live by the sword, die by the sword.
As for you being proven right "again" (LOL), you conveniently only mention things where things turn in your favour - otherwise, guaranteed silence. At least we know Clarke has bigger balls than you!
How do you know that?
and it's die by the sword on this occasion because he shiraz up AGAIN!!
Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: India v Australia - test series
How do you know he has more courage?
Just watch the last test and his ball chasing field placings to dhoni. Simples!
Just watch the last test and his ball chasing field placings to dhoni. Simples!
-
- Squad Player
- Posts: 1528
- Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 4:47 pm
Re: India v Australia - test series
he might have balls but he's got no brainsBomber wrote:Who's Clark?
End of, the skip's got balls - live by the sword, die by the sword.
As for you being proven right "again" (LOL), you conveniently only mention things where things turn in your favour - otherwise, guaranteed silence. At least we know Clarke has bigger balls than you!
Australian sporting mentality = "step up", "back yourself", "get in their face" etc. that's the extent to which they analyse their performances
they've been far outsmarted by the Indians here, not that that was difficult given the gifts they've provided their hosts
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: India v Australia - test series
Apparently Doherty has gone for over 100 in an innings in his lat 3 tests.
-
- Squad Player
- Posts: 1528
- Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 4:47 pm
Re: India v Australia - test series
i think Clarke may be after the record for the first team to lose a match by an innings after declaring in the first
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: India v Australia - test series
Seeing as England won't ever declare unless they have 600 accoring to bomber. Anyone know what the lowest declaration ever is?
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60364
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 128 times
Re: India v Australia - test series
In shield cricket I remember 0/0 and done more than once I reckon. Again, in trying to force a result (rain affected most likely), something you may find hard to fathom.God is an Englishman wrote:Seeing as England won't ever declare unless they have 600 accoring to bomber. Anyone know what the lowest declaration ever is?
Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: India v Australia - test series
Keep digging Bomber, keep digging.Bomber wrote:In shield cricket I remember 0/0 and done more than once I reckon. Again, in trying to force a result (rain affected most likely), something you may find hard to fathom.God is an Englishman wrote:Seeing as England won't ever declare unless they have 600 accoring to bomber. Anyone know what the lowest declaration ever is?
What's the lowest test declaration ever?
-
- Club Captain
- Posts: 6246
- Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:47 pm
- Been thanked: 6 times
Re: India v Australia - test series
0/0God is an Englishman wrote:Keep digging Bomber, keep digging.Bomber wrote:In shield cricket I remember 0/0 and done more than once I reckon. Again, in trying to force a result (rain affected most likely), something you may find hard to fathom.God is an Englishman wrote:Seeing as England won't ever declare unless they have 600 accoring to bomber. Anyone know what the lowest declaration ever is?
What's the lowest test declaration ever?