Can someone explain to me the thinking behind declaring with wickets in hand in test cricket.
Why does the captain not allow the 4 (4th ashes test) remaining batters to go 20/20 style and flog the ball over the park for 5-10 overs before he knows he's going to declare?. Seems a waste of wickets.
When you've got more than enough runs, why waste those 5-10 overs when u might need that time for the wickets
with the poms batting I think had enough runs after the poms batted, could have declared 0~0 and still win :P
Juggling act between available remaining time/wickets and required runs.
Extra runs aren't necessarily as valuable as limited number of remaining overs/time.
(Plus end of day remaining wickets for just before stumps nerves/wickets for opening batsmen)
haha never thought about that, it would be an entertaining end to a team's batting half. but as mentioned by nutnbut, it's to conserve time. you never know how much you'll need in the next half to win
You have to give yourself enough time to bowl out the other team.. in this case, about 40-50 overs will be ample to bowl out the England 5th grade team.. they have no chance of scoring 1/2 those runs if they had a week
.
I like the other thought train…
If you trust your bowlers enough, declare earlier and make a real competition of it instead of a boring block-a-thon… Give the opposition at least a glimmer of hope so its entertaining… nothing worse than watching sport where the result is known before the start.. come down to the last 5 overs where they need 30-40 runs and its exciting.. to me this is whats killed test cricket over last 10 yrs.
YMMV
Still love test cricket more than any other form of the game.
the problem is, as a captain a draw is at least expected and a par course. If you declare early and opposition chase down the total you'd get absolutely lambasted
yea, but this is England.. they couldn't chase their combined shoe sizes…
Commentators are now complaining the aussies declared too late, and IMWO they are right, there was no need to get 400 lead. England would need a 3rd innings….
After fielding for most of the day their concentration is starting to wane and therefore it is not uncommon to see a wicket in the last 10 overs or so of the days play. If you can declare and put in their opening batsman in and pick up a wicket (or 2) it makes your job that much easier the next day.
The concentration factor is why many (but not all) teams will use what they call a nightwatchman where if a wicket falls towards the end of the day they will promote a bowler up the order and their job is to simply stay in until the end of the day's play.
I was wondering/expecting the same. But in test cricket you can have much more defensive fields which makes it harder to score big runs compared to 20-20. The run rate was pretty decent for the later half of the day.
I suspect they were waiting for Khawaja to get his 100 and could have otherwise declared slightly earlier.
Another factor - often a team will declare with 10-15 overs left in the day.
Once batsmen are used to the conditions and the pitch and are in a rythym they are harder to get them out. So declaring late in the day gives an additional opportunity for a team to get the other team's best batsmen out before they get comfortable… In the 10-15 overs left and then again at the start of the next day.
Maybe they tried wthis approach, but then Carey got a golden, so they went to plan B which was to declare!
As a cricket novice, I'm finding these explanations very interesting!
So they don’t play for 5 days and end in a draw…
Test cricket is truely the stupidest game on the planet. I would sooner watch the Corn Hole World Championships over cricket.
That's your opinion, to me it CAN (certainly not always) be the most exciting nerve wracking watch on the planet - something limited overs cricket can just about never attain…when tailenders only are left to hold on for the draw and/or inch their way to the win on a tricky last session(s) wicket OR one skilled batsman is left with only the tail to do same - can he score the runs required while farming the strike so as to protect his lesser skilled batting partner(s) - will/can that partner buckle down to preserve his wicket, has that uncontrolled edge gone to a fielder or, wonder of wonders, the boundary…is there a new ball due to complicate the matter. Can the bowling side pin down the batters, can they set a field that restrains runs while at the same time is attacking enough to allow catchers, will a hit over the top break up the field or just lose a wicket and/or the game, or the whole series, etc etc….
Yours is a seemingly unthinking reply IMO richly deserving the negs it has attracted (no they are not from me as you are entitled always to your opinion.)
And lastly, a draw, obtained by a seemingly lesser team, can be a wonderful thing. A draw is not always to be sneered at.
Omg, reading your talk about test cricket almost put me to sleep.
it CAN (certainly not always) be the most exciting nerve wracking watch on the planet
Yeah, sorry, but I’m not buying that part, at all.
It’s a game… that takes 5 days to play. Where for 4.5 days, nothing happens and one team can be declared at 780 runs and the other team can have 38 runs and it can be declared a draw if they can just hold on until drinks time on the last day.
Imagine the riots that would happen if an AFL grand final was played over 5 days and Collingwood kicked 1894 points and Richmond kicked just 298, but because Richmond played out the whole 5 days, it was just declared a draw. Oh, and for those 5 days, players were at best only allowed a slow walk.
Oh, and thanks for the talk on garnering fake internet point, I’ll be sure to feel appropriately shamed and will consider my life choices in regard to the “skill” and “strategy” of test cricket.
I despise afl almost as much as you despise test cricket
@Downvoter: Oh, there is something I can agree upon.
I wasn't suggesting that AFL is better, just using it as an analogy to apply the "5 days of competition ending in a draw" test cricket rules.
a lot of things seem to be putting you to sleep, maybe you should do just that. tour de france is 23 days watching a person ride a bike. horses for courses, you need to accept that perhaps people may have different interests and respect that
a lot of things seem to be putting you to sleep
Source?
tour de france… (blah blah).
LOL… Because I totally offered Tour de France as alternatives to test cricket. (Strawman much? I actually offered "Corn Hole")
Tour de France would be the same as test cricket, if for 22 days, they all just slowly walked as groups through the course… and on the 23rd day, they all just rode a bike, and it was declared a draw for every rider who crossed the finish line on the 23rd day. I can see the headlines now "468 people finish 1st in this years Tour de France…" You get a yellow jersey, YOU get a yellow jersey. EVERYONE gets a yellow jersey!!!
Imagine riding in the TdF and you finish 4 hours ahead of the guy in 129th place, but the mere fact that he finished, he was declared tied for 1st place? Lol.
At least TdF is a test of fitness, stamina, balls, determination, money, research and development, technology and how well you are at hiding your drug cheating. Test cricket is a bunch of blokes standing around on an oval for 5 days tossing balls back to a catcher and then that catcher tossing the ball to a guy with a stick who hits it to the guys on the oval so they can toss it back to the catcher. Rinse and repeat, ad nausea.
…and respect that
And at no time did I disrespect other people for their love of test cricket (My opinion of test cricket is NOT a personal attack on an individual, even if my opinion upsets you).
If you love Festival of the Yawns (AKA: test cricket) have at it, I "accept" that (Else it wouldn't exist). But you see, this is a two way street, and my opinion is that test cricket is truly the stupidest game on the planet, and I know you don't like that opinion, but you also need to "accept and respect" that I don't have the same love for your favorite game as you do.
I couldnt get past his first line…
like any sports it's only exciting if you are interested and understand the rules/ strategic plays.
truly*
Should have declared earlier!
Yup, OP please watch Day 5 and you'll see why they made a mistake of deciding too late.
They might have had an extra 30 mins to win instead of draw if they had declared at 350…
Apart from factors already mentioned the second new ball (available after 80 overs) is also an important consideration.
Because they are bowlers, do you want to risk them getting injured batting?
Also they are rested and need to bowl immediately.