I love cricket but can any players explain this?

[John Watts]

Hi folks,
Right all, i do love, understand and enjoy cricket but sometimes declarations leave me perplexed.
Of course i realise why that with 9 overs left in the day England put the Ozzie's in to bat yesterday and it worked (we got JL out) But my point is,
With say 15 or 20 overs left with the intent of declaring why did the team management not get a message to the batsmen to just go mad! As in go for it like the last 2 or 3 overs of a one day game. Okay we could have got all out, BUT is it not better to be say 650 all out (with the same amount of overs left in the day) Than 550 odd for 6 declared?
Please help crickerters,
Regards,
John.

[Ian J]

Part of the England management was at the crease batting so it would have been Flintoff's decision and whilst they probably trying to pile on as many runs as possible in the afternoon session they were still facing Warne, McGrath & Lee who are world class bowlers. The rules for one day cricket are slightly different with no bouncers or leg side delivers allowed coupled with fielding restrictions which makes life much easier for One Day batsmen. Giles is a capable batsman but hardly a gifted strokemaker and they were aware that Hoggard was due in next and the only stroke that he knows is the forward defensive block.

[CFC1]

Originally Posted by Ian J

they were aware that Hoggard was due in next and the only stroke that he knows is the forward defensive block.

He would be some player if he was a batsman and a taker of 7 wicket hauls!

[CFC1]

Was anyone watching at about 5 past 2 this morning when Warne started whinging about the sledging/chat from Geraint Jones et al......priceless!

[KevD]

Originally Posted by CFC1

Was anyone watching at about 5 past 2 this morning when Warne started whinging about the sledging/chat from Geraint Jones et al......priceless!

And choosing this test to tell Colly that he is not that good Hows a double ton for you Shane.

[CFC1]

Originally Posted by KevD

And choosing this test to tell Colly that he is not that good Hows a double ton for you Shane.

[John Watts]

Thanks Ian J and others but you didn't really answer my question. Why not just throw the bat at every ball if you intend to declare in say 5 overs sure you may get all out but then again you may put on another 50 or so runs.

[ReggieDaMole]

As far as I am aware the decision is based on time, i.e. you need to leave yourself enough time to finish the game and not let it slip into a draw...

[Ian J]

Originally Posted by John wilks

Thanks Ian J and others but you didn't really answer my question. Why not just throw the bat at every ball if you intend to declare in say 5 overs sure you may get all out but then again you may put on another 50 or so runs.

It's highly unlikely that Flintoff & Giles would have been able to score at 10 runs an over in a Test Match as Warne would have just stifled the runs by bowling down the legside as he did earlier to Pietersen to stop him from scoring. The two batsamen at the crease did score quite well in the context of the first innings scoring rate

[John Watts]

Point taken Reggie but!

Ian, If he bowles down leg side move out toward leg side when he bowles and smash him for a few. Or sweep him! I know your only going to get maybe 5 or 10 shots at best going about it like that but hey its not a one day game where the D/L method comes into play and preserving wickets could swing a game

[KevD]

Originally Posted by John wilks

Ian, If he bowles down leg side move out toward leg side when he bowles and smash him for a few. Or sweep him! I know your only going to get maybe 5 or 10 shots at best going about it like that

As KP found last night, when Warne bowls down the leg side, the ball doesnt neccessarily always end up on the leg side

[John Watts]

Hi KevD,
I know mate,
But i think your all missing my point.
Right- your going to declare (6 down like England were) in say a few overs WHY NOT GET OUT GOING STUPID AND PERHAPS NICKING ANOTHER 50 RUNS than keep your wicket intact.
Whats the point of declaring on say 550 for 6 when you could be 600 all out 5 overs later?
Ok you may not get the 50 extra runs but it dousn't matter you were going to declare anyway.

[Ian J]

Originally Posted by John wilks

WHY NOT GET OUT GOING STUPID AND PERHAPS NICKING ANOTHER 50 RUNS than .

Because it's a balance between reward and risk. Instead of nicking another 50 runs he may have nicked the first ball to the keeper leaving Hoggard as the next man in who isn't the most offensive of batsmen and we could have ended up 50 runs less than we did.

[John Watts]

Sorry Ian perhaps i'm not making it clear.
Ok lets say we are 530 for 6 and intend to declare at 550. Why not at this point go mad/crazy and see what happens? If we lose all four last wickets for only a few (lets say 10) then so what we were going to delare on another 10 more anyway but on the other hand we could (and probably would) make a lot more.

[Primmy]

I agree the declaration was VERY premature. England should have at least got to 602 before declaring (get one up on the Aussies score). Unfortunately the tactics were very defensive from the start (i.e. selection).

If i was in the middle I would have pushed on for a higher score, so what if we used up all the wickets/time and got to 600+....There would have been the possibility of bowling the Aussies out and forcing a follow on...

Lets not even talk about the appalling defensive field settings for the 2nd innings....

But there you go what do I know (only 15 years of village cricket), I am not paid hundreds of thousands ala DF and FF to make those decisions. But I know they would have got value for money from me!!!!