India v Australia - test series

This forum is for discussion of other sports.

Moderators: Randoman, Ernie Cooksey, Forum Admins

User avatar
Bomber
Vice Chairman
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

Post by Bomber »

Anyone can be an expert in hindsight. :roll:
Ignore this signature

User avatar
God is an Englishman
Board Member
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

Post by God is an Englishman »

Bomber wrote:Anyone can be an expert in hindsight. :roll:

I laughed when he did it and to quote myself "what a ridiculous decision" :lol: 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.
Image

User avatar
Bomber
Vice Chairman
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

Post by Bomber »

God is an Englishman wrote:
Bomber wrote:Anyone can be an expert in hindsight. :roll:

I laughed when he did it and to quote myself "what a ridiculous decision" :lol: 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.
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?
Ignore this signature

User avatar
DOC
Assistant Coach
Assistant Coach
Posts: 12834
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:37 am

Re: India v Australia - test series

Post by DOC »

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
ImageImage

User avatar
God is an Englishman
Board Member
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

Post by God is an Englishman »

Bomber wrote:
God is an Englishman wrote:
Bomber wrote:Anyone can be an expert in hindsight. :roll:

I laughed when he did it and to quote myself "what a ridiculous decision" :lol: 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.
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?
10 runs would have been an increase of nearly 5% on their score. Every run counts when you're bowled out that cheeply.

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.
Image

User avatar
Bomber
Vice Chairman
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

Post by Bomber »

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

rulebritannia
Squad Player
Squad Player
Posts: 1528
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 4:47 pm

Re: India v Australia - test series

Post by rulebritannia »

was stupidity, you cant rationalise it any other way

User avatar
Bomber
Vice Chairman
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

Post by Bomber »

rulebritannia wrote:was stupidity, you cant rationalise it any other way
As I said, the english wouldnt understand what risk taking is all about. Your lot wouldnt even declare unless 600 ahead these days.
Ignore this signature

User avatar
God is an Englishman
Board Member
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

Post by God is an Englishman »

Bomber wrote:
rulebritannia wrote:was stupidity, you cant rationalise it any other way
As I said, the english wouldnt understand what risk taking is all about. Your lot wouldnt even declare unless 600 ahead these days.

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?
Image

rulebritannia
Squad Player
Squad Player
Posts: 1528
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 4:47 pm

Re: India v Australia - test series

Post by rulebritannia »

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

User avatar
God is an Englishman
Board Member
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

Post by God is an Englishman »

Just looked up England last 5 declarations

The highest amount is 345

Also, looked up our declerations in the last Ashes. 517 & 620.
Image

User avatar
Bomber
Vice Chairman
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

Post by Bomber »

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.
Ignore this signature

User avatar
God is an Englishman
Board Member
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

Post by God is an Englishman »

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.

:lol:

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?
Image

User avatar
Bomber
Vice Chairman
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

Post by Bomber »

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.

:lol:

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?
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.
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

User avatar
God is an Englishman
Board Member
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

Post by God is an Englishman »

Bomber wrote:
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.

:lol:

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?
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.
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.
Image

User avatar
Bomber
Vice Chairman
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

Post by Bomber »

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.
Ignore this signature

User avatar
God is an Englishman
Board Member
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

Post by God is an Englishman »

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.
Image

User avatar
Bomber
Vice Chairman
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

Post by Bomber »

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.
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.
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

User avatar
God is an Englishman
Board Member
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

Post by God is an Englishman »

Bomber wrote:
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.
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.
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!!
Image

User avatar
Bomber
Vice Chairman
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

Post by Bomber »

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!
Ignore this signature

User avatar
God is an Englishman
Board Member
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

Post by God is an Englishman »

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!! :lol:
Image

User avatar
Bomber
Vice Chairman
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

Post by Bomber »

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!! :lol:
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")
Ignore this signature

User avatar
God is an Englishman
Board Member
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

Post by God is an Englishman »

How do you know he has more courage?

Just watch the last test and his ball chasing field placings to dhoni. Simples!
Image

rulebritannia
Squad Player
Squad Player
Posts: 1528
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 4:47 pm

Re: India v Australia - test series

Post by rulebritannia »

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!
he might have balls but he's got no brains

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

User avatar
God is an Englishman
Board Member
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

Post by God is an Englishman »

Apparently Doherty has gone for over 100 in an innings in his lat 3 tests. :lol:
Image

rulebritannia
Squad Player
Squad Player
Posts: 1528
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 4:47 pm

Re: India v Australia - test series

Post by rulebritannia »

i think Clarke may be after the record for the first team to lose a match by an innings after declaring in the first

User avatar
God is an Englishman
Board Member
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

Post by God is an Englishman »

Seeing as England won't ever declare unless they have 600 accoring to bomber. Anyone know what the lowest declaration ever is?
Image

User avatar
Bomber
Vice Chairman
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

Post by Bomber »

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?
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.
Ignore this signature

User avatar
God is an Englishman
Board Member
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

Post by God is an Englishman »

Bomber wrote:
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?
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.
Keep digging Bomber, keep digging.

What's the lowest test declaration ever?
Image

Delete Your Account
Club Captain
Club Captain
Posts: 6246
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:47 pm
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: India v Australia - test series

Post by Delete Your Account »

God is an Englishman wrote:
Bomber wrote:
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?
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.
Keep digging Bomber, keep digging.

What's the lowest test declaration ever?
0/0

Post Reply