That is a ridiculous blanket statement. Plenty of people still bag Waugh for 2001.
400 in front and bowl with a new ball at the best time and have them in the field longer. Can benefit Melbourne as well as this Test.
Ashes Discussion
- Thread starter Unbreakable
- Start date
That is a ridiculous blanket statement. Plenty of people still bag Waugh for 2001.
400 in front and bowl with a new ball at the best time and have them in the field longer. Can benefit Melbourne as well as this Test.
BooKhaki
NRL Player
- Sep 16, 2020
- 2,958
- 3,897
I don't think you know what blanket statement means. I explained the situation specifically.
You do know that you can make a right call, and still lose? And a wrong call, and still win?
I said a while ago Smith was an average, safe captain. This is further evidence to that.
It was a blanket statement- a good captain enforces the follow on.
ridiculous blanket statement.
BooKhaki
NRL Player
- Sep 16, 2020
- 2,958
- 3,897
A good captain does in the specific situation I described.
Not a blanket statement. It was a correct statement, backed up by several good former test captains.
- Aug 5, 2013
- 4,112
- 2,737
Grind England bowlers down , Stokes on one leg. Root getting more and more frustrated. You want to give them a rest? No Cummins or Hazelwood. Batting was the right call.
BooKhaki
NRL Player
- Sep 16, 2020
- 2,958
- 3,897
It was weird seeing him used as a night watchman, mainly because of how good he is with the stick. I think they gambled with him being able to survive, and then have the ability to set the tone that Lyon wouldn't be able to do. Well, I at least hope that was the thinking.
BooKhaki
NRL Player
- Sep 16, 2020
- 2,958
- 3,897
England openers already struggling, No Cummins or Hazlewood, meaning we have 2 quick bowlers fresh who won't be needed in the next test. Put them in under the lights with a new rock.
Should have enforced.
Blindside Bronco
Broncos Fanboy
- Oct 17, 2019
- 900
- 852
You should always do what the opposition doesn't want.
That was, they didn't want to bat again.
So follow on and put the sword
to them!
That was, they didn't want to bat again.
So follow on and put the sword
to them!
- Jul 28, 2016
- 23,512
- 34,585
By not enforcing the follow on I think it brings the draw back into the equation.
At the time of making the decision there were basically 7 sessions left in the game with 3 of them being evening sessions.
By batting we are now committing ourselves to batting through at least 3 of those sessions, including 1 of the evening sessions, because we will want them to start their batting in an evening session.
So we are basically giving ourselves 4 sessions to bowl England out... there's every chance England fail to hold on for 4 sessions, but I think it's an unnecessary risk when the pace bowlers hadn't really had to do a whole lot of work in the first innings
At the time of making the decision there were basically 7 sessions left in the game with 3 of them being evening sessions.
By batting we are now committing ourselves to batting through at least 3 of those sessions, including 1 of the evening sessions, because we will want them to start their batting in an evening session.
So we are basically giving ourselves 4 sessions to bowl England out... there's every chance England fail to hold on for 4 sessions, but I think it's an unnecessary risk when the pace bowlers hadn't really had to do a whole lot of work in the first innings
It was not a correct statement. It was an opinion. It may or not be correct.
I think they will always choose to rest the fast bowlers now rather than enforce the follow on.
Blindside Bronco
Broncos Fanboy
- Oct 17, 2019
- 900
- 852
to feed the beast!!
BooKhaki
NRL Player
- Sep 16, 2020
- 2,958
- 3,897
Nah, it was bang on.
Fitzy
NRL Captain
- Sep 10, 2018
- 4,273
- 5,985
Not at all. David Saker once said give your bowlers a day and they will win you a test match. A 230 lead halfway through day 3 and they will have done what they did last test match and learnt how the wicket is going in order to bat and make runs. Your just a Smith hater if you seriously think that was a one man decision. It was a good decision because 200+ runs knocks any chance of them winning. It really was a 50/50 decision and by batting again we send them out into the field for a 3rd day essentially out of 4 and they will just be so deflated. Think about it from the long term view of the series. Make them bowl as much as they can.
I will be honest I haven’t been in a position to watch much of this test match so far but from highlights and just the general public perception, I think it might be fair to say that Smudge should’ve been the captain.
Fitzy
NRL Captain
- Sep 10, 2018
- 4,273
- 5,985
I think they will go Dinner, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they go earlier so they get the new ball halfway through day 5 to knock them over.
- Mar 4, 2008
- 34,777
- 41,476
You should always do what the opposition doesn't want.
That was, they didn't want to bat again.
So follow on and put the sword
the other school of thought is that you force their bowlers back into the field to continue putting overs into the legs of an already over-worked bowling lineup, while zapping whatever remaining confidence they have left.
the important thing is to declare with enough time to bowl them out. I suspect a declaration with come about an hour (maybe 90mins) before the lights come on.
BroncosFever
State of Origin Rep
- Jun 6, 2014
- 6,126
- 10,930
Ideally we'd love to beat these ***** by an innings but the reality of it is that there's no reason to take that risk given it's the 2nd test of a 5 test series and the next game is only a week away.
Bat a couple of sessions, maybe they bat for 65-70 overs today, 20 overs at them tonight and win the game tomorrow.
Bat a couple of sessions, maybe they bat for 65-70 overs today, 20 overs at them tonight and win the game tomorrow.
