Cricket

Still think Australia will win but now without some heart palpitations. They'll find a way. Two balls and two chances taken is what this boils down to for them. For Pakistan, it's a case of stay in.
 
Phew! If Australia had lost that Steve Smith would have been savagely criticised.
 
Very good effort from Pakistan. Even if Pak would have won, Smith was right to declare. 490 is a big target to chase, 70 runs or so more than record successful run chase and I think the decision was taken keeping in mind the rains yesterday and having more overs to bowl at Pak on 3rd day, under lights.
 
The Man Himself said:
Very good effort from Pakistan. Even if Pak would have won, Smith was right to declare. 490 is a big target to chase, 70 runs or so more than record successful run chase and I think the decision was taken keeping in mind the rains yesterday and having more overs to bowl at Pak on 3rd day, under lights.
Click to expand...

In a normal day game it would have been a good declaration but I felt Australia didn't quite do their homework. A similar situation occured in the D/N test between Pak-WI. Pakistan felt they had more than enough runs but actually the pitch was at its flattest in the final four sessions of the match. The reason for that was simple, the pitch wasn't exposed enough to the daylight/sun and hence it didn't dry up. By day 5 it behaved like a day 3 pitch.

So when you take away the psychological fourth innings factor (scoreboard pressure, chasing a massive total etc.) and look at it in isolation then 490 in 200+ overs on a flat day 2-3 ish pitch doesn't sound impossible. Even with rain threat given how many overs were left when they declared (half the game actually), it was a risky declaration that almost backfired.
 
Samid said:
In a normal day game it would have been a good declaration but I felt Australia didn't quite do their homework. A similar situation occured in the D/N test between Pak-WI. Pakistan felt they had more than enough runs but actually the pitch was at its flattest in the final four sessions of the match. The reason for that was simple, the pitch wasn't exposed enough to the daylight/sun and hence it didn't dry up. By day 5 it behaved like a day 3 pitch.

So when you take away the psychological fourth innings factor (scoreboard pressure, chasing a massive total etc.) and look at it in isolation then 490 in 200+ overs on a flat day 2-3 ish pitch doesn't sound impossible. Even with rain threat given how many overs were left when they declared (half the game actually), it was a risky declaration that almost backfired.
Click to expand...
Pakistan were all out though in that test? Also, that target was 346, a good 150 runs less. Didn't Pak screwed it in 2nd innings batting with some poor shots as well?

I get your point that keeping aside psychological factor, if pitch is good on day 4-5, target of 500 is not impossible. More so after the big run chases in ODIs nowadays so batsmen around the world can have confidence that on good pitch, no target should be impossible but psychological factor matters still. As I said before, maybe 4th day rain/thunderstorm forecast and wanting to get full session to bowl at Pakistan under lights on day 3 was why Smith declared. Add to that, Pakistan's shambolic batting in 1st innings. Otherwise, in a normal day test, he would have waited for 50-60 runs more.
 
Wow! Brilliant effort by Pakistan. Lots of determination shown for once when our backs were against the wall.

Moral victors :D
 
The Man Himself said:
Pakistan were all out though in that test? Also, that target was 346, a good 150 runs less. Didn't Pak screwed it in 2nd innings batting with some poor shots as well?

I get your point that keeping aside psychological factor, if pitch is good on day 4-5, target of 500 is not impossible. More so after the big run chases in ODIs nowadays so batsmen around the world can have confidence that on good pitch, no target should be impossible but psychological factor matters still. As I said before, maybe 4th day rain/thunderstorm forecast and wanting to get full session to bowl at Pakistan under lights on day 3 was why Smith declared. Add to that, Pakistan's shambolic batting in 1st innings. Otherwise, in a normal day test, he would have waited for 50-60 runs more.
Click to expand...

They played reckless and were complacent thinking they had enough runs considering the opposition and that runs are hard to score on day 5. In a day game WI would not have reached 200 on day 5. As it turned out the pitch did nothing on day 5 and WI were favourites heading into the last session.

But the two factors you mention, forecast and shambolic first innings. Isn't that all the more reason to enforce the follow-on? If you believe rain could play a significant part, why not make them follow-on? And surely after a shambolic first innings you would want to put them straight back out there? The innings only lasted 55 overs so the bowlers were relatively fresh. Surely these arguments weigh heavier than the light factor. It's not like the lights wouldn't be there if he enforced the follow-on, they would have been turned on a session later anyway. Besides lights don't guarentee wickets. Yes there have been a couple of collapses under lights but we've also seen teams not lose any wickets at all under lights (day 1 for example).

The only viable reason to bat again is that he felt Pak could get their act together and make 450, meaning a tricky 150 chase. But if he felt they were capable of 450 in the third innings, why could they not make 450 in the fourth innings that started two hours later in the same afternoon?

Only other possible reason I see for not following on is that Smith wanted revenge for getting bullied in the third innings by Misbah in 2014. Australians never forget such stuff :D
 
Samid said:
They played reckless and were complacent thinking they had enough runs considering the opposition and that runs are hard to score on day 5. In a day game WI would not have reached 200 on day 5. As it turned out the pitch did nothing on day 5 and WI were favourites heading into the last session.

But the two factors you mention, forecast and shambolic first innings. Isn't that all the more reason to enforce the follow-on? If you believe rain could play a significant part, why not make them follow-on? And surely after a shambolic first innings you would want to put them straight back out there? The innings only lasted 55 overs so the bowlers were relatively fresh. Surely these arguments weigh heavier than the light factor. It's not like the lights wouldn't be there if he enforced the follow-on, they would have been turned on a session later anyway. Besides lights don't guarentee wickets. Yes there have been a couple of collapses under lights but we've also seen teams not lose any wickets at all under lights (day 1 for example).

The only viable reason to bat again is that he felt Pak could get their act together and make 450, meaning a tricky 150 chase. But if he felt they were capable of 450 in the third innings, why could they not make 450 in the fourth innings that started two hours later in the same afternoon?

Only other possible reason I see for not following on is that Smith wanted revenge for getting bullied in the third innings by Misbah in 2014. Australians never forget such stuff :D
Click to expand...
I think follow-on would have enforced if not for additional runs by tail. Even 50 or so more lead and follow-on was likely. Batting 3rd, scoring 200 and declaring and batting 4th chasing 150, on last day, is different. Add to that, Australia have been on wrong end of follow-ons often so they might have just kept it out of system.
 
Could you guys tell me how I could listen to cricket commentary? Either online or through a radio app on the phone? I like listening to commentary sometimes while I'm out or if I can't watch cricket on TV. Mark Nicholas, Michael Atherton, Nasser Hussain, David Lloyd and some of the others are really good.
 
Nikhil said:
Could you guys tell me how I could listen to cricket commentary? Either online or through a radio app on the phone? I like listening to commentary sometimes while I'm out or if I can't watch cricket on TV. Mark Nicholas, Michael Atherton, Nasser Hussain, David Lloyd and some of the others are really good.
Click to expand...
http://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/15665499 - for India/England series.
 
I know the team was selected in September

But how laughable is Cook as captain of the test team of year and no Kohli
 
@KM your man Herath is in team of the year

_93075720_testteamoftheyear.png
 
Why did they vote on that team in September? I mean, in this day & age where everything is electronic, how fecking hard would it have been to have a vote in late November/early December & announce it in January.
 
I was one of the people deriding Jadeja being picked(and I don't think I have been proven wrong as he was included as a batting all rounder on the back of his triples) but his reinvention as a spinning all rounder has been unbelievable.

Bowls well, handy with the bat in the last year and a bit, and a brilliant fielder. Priceless asset to the team.
 
Australia unchanged for the Boxing Day test, can't say the same about channel 9 with the the return of the venerable Bill Lawry to their telecast. He's a beautiful man who's work commentating on cricket has lessened in recent years due to the health of his wife which isn't the best at the moment. Below, is a wonderful article on the great man even if it is tinged with some sadness. I hope it's not behind a paywall, well worth a read.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/lif...s/news-story/6973c0a01f51f8a1de62b91a67fdbf59
 
Mitchell Nicholas said:
Australia unchanged for the Boxing Day test, can't say the same about channel 9 with the the return of the venerable Bill Lawry to their telecast. He's a beautiful man who's work commentating on cricket has lessened in recent years due to the health of his wife which isn't the best at the moment. Below, is a wonderful article on the great man even if it is tinged with some sadness. I hope it's not behind a paywall, well worth a read.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/lif...s/news-story/6973c0a01f51f8a1de62b91a67fdbf59
Click to expand...

Brilliant, thanks for posting that.
 
Mitchell Nicholas said:
Australia unchanged for the Boxing Day test, can't say the same about channel 9 with the the return of the venerable Bill Lawry to their telecast. He's a beautiful man who's work commentating on cricket has lessened in recent years due to the health of his wife which isn't the best at the moment. Below, is a wonderful article on the great man even if it is tinged with some sadness. I hope it's not behind a paywall, well worth a read.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/lif...s/news-story/6973c0a01f51f8a1de62b91a67fdbf59
Click to expand...
Fantastic!
 
Always loved watching the Boxing Day Test match after having Xmas dinner with the family. fecking BT cnuts taking the rights.

Pakistan need a strong batting performance today.
 
Christmas was hot and sunny but today rainy as, thats melborune for you.

Also Nathan Lyon trolled everyone by getting a wicket on the ball everyone was going to yell Nice Garrry on
 
favourite part of the days play here: Bill Lawry having a good old laugh at Shane Warne's expense.

 
There is some very good fast bowling talent in test cricket these days.

Steyn, Morkel, Philander, Abbott, Rabada is an incredible fast bowling repertoire. Australia have Hazlewood, Starc, Bird and quite a few others. England, Pakistan have pretty good fast bowlers as well.
 
Impressed with BT's coverage of cricket so far. Best thing is being able to rewind / have dynamic highlights online and on the app.

Sky's coverage of all non England / domestic is pretty lame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.