Pak Aus Test 1 2009 - Final day
noman
nicely. 170 runs in 45 overs while losing only three wickets would look
good even on a first day pitch. Doing that, while under pressure of
surviving 135 overs to save the game on a fourth day pitch was a great
achievement.
Looking at the overall score and the target, Pakistan's chances don't
look too bright. However if you look at the final day in isolation,
where the team has to make about 250 runs with seven wickets in hand,
and the pitch is generally fine, Pakistan victory potential seems lot
more real.
I'd say the probabilities are:
Australia - 70%
Pakistan - 29%
Draw - 1%
Australia should let Hauritz bowl to Akmal a lot. Let him go on
back-foot and cut the ball, and eventually one will go through either
to stumps or the keeper. This, by the way, can get the elder Akmal out
as well. Umar is lucky, he's still there.
Pakistan need to forget about the target and play out the first two
sessions. If the two batsmen survive the first session and score 60-70
runs, the match will turn towards Pakistan. If one of them gets out
within first hour, match will be over by middle of second session.
Good game.
--
Noman
Andrew Dunford
"noman" <no_...@zzzyahoo.yycom> wrote in message
news:hhdldq$gu1$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
It's a shame Pakistan's eight to eleven batting is so poor. If they had
Johnson and Hauritz, or Broad and Swann I'd give them half a chance.
Andrew
Krquet
I consider myself as one of the few that are fans of Ricky Ponting,
albeit often grudgingly. Something he has earned in my book, mostly
during this decade. When he declared their 1st innings maybe a 50-100
runs short early in this test, I cheerily welcomed the decision. Who
wants to see a predictable game being played out year after year? And
because of this, any result is a possibility (though heavily in favour
of Mr. Ponting's 11 still), and that makes it a fantastic game of
cricket played out on a final day pitch.
Whoever may win, or even an unlikely draw, let it be entertaining.
Kudos to Mr. Ponting.
aA...
hl@yM..
noman
>
>
> "noman" <no_...@zzzyahoo.yycom> wrote in message
> news:hhdldq$gu1$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
[snip]
> > I'd say the probabilities are:
> > Australia - 70%
> > Pakistan - 29%
> > Draw - 1%
>
> It's a shame Pakistan's eight to eleven batting is so poor. If they
> had Johnson and Hauritz, or Broad and Swann I'd give them half a
> chance.
Actually Aamer at number eight isn't half bad. It's the last three
batters who are truly dismal. Asif has somehow gotten worse lately. I
remember he did very well in the series against South Africa. In second
test Inzamam added 90 or so runs for the last wicket, where Asif held
on for a long time. There was another match in the same series, where
he hit more than a few runs in partnership with umm.. Gul/Kaneria? to
give South Africa an additional 50-80 odd runs to chase in the last
innings.
In any case, the last three can collectively keep an opponent team
waiting for a maximum of half an hour or so. To survive, Pakistan has
to reach the tea interval with at least five wickets left.
--
Noman
skp
> "noman" <no_m...@zzzyahoo.yycom> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Totally agree. Not only would Broad and Swann likely score more runs
than (say) Asif and Rauf but the added bonus is that Yousuf, the
Akmals, and Ul Haq could then play with less stress knowing that they
have Broad and Swann to perhaps help win the day.
Frankly, I have a difficult time accepting that some of the tailenders
in world cricket (particularly in the Pak and Indian teams) are as bad
as they are. Back in the days without helmets etc., one could
understand why the tailenders were generally not very good. But now
with all the protective equipment, surely they could be coached to be
at least somewhat adequate.
I suspect that Munaf Patel is as hopeless as he is simply because he
does not work on his batting i.e. it would be astonishing to learn
that he spends hours in the nets with a bat but that despite his toil,
he simply lacks the talent to play out an over out in the middle.
Harbhajan's batting has improved quite a bit over the years and I
suspect that this is because he is in fact putting in some batting
practice.
noman
> I consider myself as one of the few that are fans of Ricky Ponting,
> albeit often grudgingly. Something he has earned in my book, mostly
> during this decade. When he declared their 1st innings maybe a 50-100
> runs short early in this test, I cheerily welcomed the decision. Who
> wants to see a predictable game being played out year after year? And
> because of this, any result is a possibility (though heavily in favour
> of Mr. Ponting's 11 still), and that makes it a fantastic game of
> cricket played out on a final day pitch.
>
> Whoever may win, or even an unlikely draw, let it be entertaining.
> Kudos to Mr. Ponting.
I don't agree. If Ponting's intention was to ask Pakistan to follow on,
then Australia should have batted for couple of hours more going
berserk on the bowlers. They could have easily added 100-150 more runs.
If he was trying to build a last inning lead, once again Australia
could have added to the total and planned for batting very few overs in
their second innings with an aggressive declaration.
It was an idiotic move, paid off initially by an even more idiotic (and
timid) batting display by Pakistan.
--
Noman
noman
> I'd say the probabilities are:
> Australia - 70%
> Pakistan - 29%
> Draw - 1%
[snip]
> Pakistan need to forget about the target and play out the first two
> sessions. If the two batsmen survive the first session and score 60-70
> runs, the match will turn towards Pakistan. If one of them gets out
> within first hour, match will be over by middle of second session.
>
> Good game.
Umar Akmal got out in the first over. Now Misbah and Yousuf will likely
go in a shell and Pakistan will be blasted out soon. K Akmal will throw
his wicket anyway.
Revised probabilities:
Australia - 95%
Pakistan - 4.5%
Draw - 0.5%
--
Noman
alvey
>
> I consider myself as one of the few that are fans of Ricky Ponting,
> albeit often grudgingly. Something he has earned in my book, mostly
> during this decade. When he declared their 1st innings maybe a 50-100
> runs short early in this test, I cheerily welcomed the decision. Who
> wants to see a predictable game being played out year after year? And
> because of this, any result is a possibility (though heavily in favour
> of Mr. Ponting's 11 still), and that makes it a fantastic game of
> cricket played out on a final day pitch.
>
> Whoever may win, or even an unlikely draw, let it be entertaining.
> Kudos to Mr. Ponting.
Seconded. It'll be interesting to see if he gets a nod from the media.
alvey
skp
But surely Ponting's declaration had nothing to do with making the
test match more interesting and appeasing test cricket fans etc.. He
must have declared because the declaration, in his opinion, maximized
the chances of an OZ win. And it seems to me that his thinking was
wrong (as pointed out by noman in this thread and others such as
Eusebius in a separate thread).
Now, if you are simply "seconding" the fact that the declaration has
made the match more interesting, then I would "third" that. It's
unlikely that the media will give him a nod for that nor should they
because the fact remains that the declaration was not a very wise
decision.
I hadn't followd the first 2 days of the match. When I checked out
the score on Cricinfo and saw that Ponting had declared at 450 odd for
just 5 down and with lots of overs still to go on day 2, I assumed
that the weather forecast must have shown a very high probability of
at least a day's play being washed out. There aren't very many other
good tactical reasons for such a declaration.
Krquet
Without having access to Mr. Ponting's confidantes, I thought I gave
him the benefit of the doubt anyway, considering his vast experience
from a long career in cricket. What I am trying to say is, I don't
know exactly what prompted him to declare so early with both wickets
and time in hand; however, I can't just dismiss it either as a
callous, careless or thoughtless decision. Matter of fact, the
decision to bat longer would have been so 'no-brainer' that he had to
make that decision with an intent.
If I am allowed to take a few guesses, I would offer that maybe he has
less confidence on the visitor's batting prowess especially on the 4th
innings. Maybe he read the pitch differently than all our analyses
from a distance. Maybe he sensed a weather change. Maybe he wanted to
test the visiting team without risking too much, before they get
acclimatised a bit for the 2nd test. Or just maybe, he was bored out
of his mind by the prospect of witnessing another Pakistani collapse
and fold by the skin of the 4th day, and wanted to spice things up a
bit.
Who knows. I'm hoping for a better game, win or lose, and maybe he
felt the same way too.
aA...
hl@yM..
Asif Zaidi
> Krquet wrote:
>
> I don't agree. If Ponting's intention was to ask Pakistan to follow on,
> then Australia should have batted for couple of hours more going
> berserk on the bowlers. They could have easily added 100-150 more runs.
> If he was trying to build a last inning lead, once again Australia
> could have added to the total and planned for batting very few overs in
> their second innings with an aggressive declaration.
>
> It was an idiotic move, paid off initially by an even more idiotic (and
> timid) batting display by Pakistan.
> --
> Noman
Ponting made the move because in his gut he knows Pak batting (against
Aus) is incapable of going past 300.
He made the right move - reflects very poorly on Pak
R Bharat Rao
> Harbhajan's batting has improved quite a bit over the years and I
> suspect that this is because he is in fact putting in some batting
> practice.
Apparently he (Singh) has been asking Tendulkar for some advice, and
he (SRT not HS) tips him (Singh again) to score a Test hundred
sometime in his career. Harbhajan's batting has been a revelation --
he played a couple of very useful knocks in Australia (including the
60-odd that included the "maa ki" / "monkey" incident) and his batting
with Zaheer was critical for India in two home Tests (one vs Aus, and
another vs. England).
Both his and Zak's Test batting has fallen off a bit since then, but
hopefully they can recapture form. England with Broad & Swann at 8 &
9, have shown how valuable strong tail-end batting can be...
Bharat
R Bharat Rao
> Who knows. I'm hoping for a better game, win or lose, and maybe he
> felt the same way too.
If so, IMO, he should be summarily stripped of the captaincy. His
aim, pure and simple, should be to give his team the best chance to
win. Making it entertaining, while important, is a secondary issue.
Winning will bring crowds out in droves, much more so than a series of
entertaining losses.
Bharat
jzfredricks
> aim, pure and simple, should be to give his team the best chance to
> win. Making it entertaining, while important, is a secondary issue.
> Winning will bring crowds out in droves, much more so than a series of
> entertaining losses.
Whilst I fully agree with you, I imagine there is SOME pressure from
above to maximise the number of days played. Enough to make a big
impact, tactically? I certainly hope not.
R Bharat Rao
Fair enough -- but I actually don't think batting on would reduce the
# of days played. The Test would have taken a pretty similar course,
I imagine, except Aus would have scored 100 runs more in I1 and 100
fewer runs in I3 (yes, bat again and put on 150 in double quick time,
but with virtually no risk of a loss) -- Ironically, in hindsight
Ricky's declaration may increased the chances for a draw, because Aus
had to crawl in I3 to avoid the risk of being bundled out for 100-ish
and thus hand Pak the chance of a win.... whereas with a 300-run lead,
as the target was only 150-ish, this wouldn't have been a big deal..
Bharat
Krquet
It would appear, that is where our opinions diverge.
aA...
hl@yM..
alvey
You've managed to omit the relevant "series of boring draws" as an option.
hth
alvey
alvey
Poor old Punter... When he loses he cops it, when he wins he cops it.
alvey
noman
> On Dec 29, 5:26�pm, "noman" <no_m...@zzzyahoo.yycom> wrote:
> > [Talking about Ponting's first inning declaration]
> > It was an idiotic move, paid off initially by an even more idiotic
> > (and timid) batting display by Pakistan.
>
> Ponting made the move because in his gut he knows Pak batting (against
> Aus) is incapable of going past 300.
> He made the right move - reflects very poorly on Pak
The only way this could be the right move was if the last day was under
threat of getting rained out. There's absolutely no rational
justification for scoring fewer runs in first innings and relying on
second innings to build additional lead, when you don't know what will
happen in the next innings. And Australia did slip in the second,
taking forever to score those 200 runs, where as they could score about
the same runs in half the time in first innings.
His declaration didn't give him more time to dismiss Pakistani batsmen.
It gave him less without enhancing their own chances either. It was an
idiotic decision, like I said.
--
Noman
alvey
Consider this. If a batsman is trying to score runs then their chances of
being dismissed increase dramatically. So, if Punter had batted on until
there was no realistic possibility of Pakistan winning the Test then they
would've just blocked it out. This wouldn't have presented any problems to
Oz if McWarne was bowling, but they ain't and our current bowling, in case
you hadn't noticed, struggles to dismiss sides. That's one theory anyway,
but the bottom line is that Punter did something unusual and Aus won.
Perhaps that's worth congratulations rather than condemnation?
> It was an idiotic decision, like I said.
Aus 1 - Pak 0 doesn't look idiotic.
alvey
skp
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:46:54 +0000 (UTC), noman wrote:
> > Asif Zaidi wrote:
>
> >> On Dec 29, 5:26 pm, "noman" <no_m...@zzzyahoo.yycom> wrote:
> >>> [Talking about Ponting's first inning declaration]
> >>> It was an idiotic move, paid off initially by an even more idiotic
> >>> (and timid) batting display by Pakistan.
>
> >> Ponting made the move because in his gut he knows Pak batting (against
> >> Aus) is incapable of going past 300.
> >> He made the right move - reflects very poorly on Pak
>
> > The only way this could be the right move was if the last day was under
> > threat of getting rained out. There's absolutely no rational
> > justification for scoring fewer runs in first innings and relying on
> > second innings to build additional lead, when you don't know what will
> > happen in the next innings. And Australia did slip in the second,
> > taking forever to score those 200 runs, where as they could score about
> > the same runs in half the time in first innings.
>
> > His declaration didn't give him more time to dismiss Pakistani batsmen.
> > It gave him less without enhancing their own chances either.
>
> Consider this. If a batsman is trying to score runs then their chances of
> being dismissed increase dramatically. So, if Punter had batted on until
> there was no realistic possibility of Pakistan winning the Test then they
> would've just blocked it out.
From all reports, the Pak bastmen batted very defensively until Umar
came on even with the declaration.
>This wouldn't have presented any problems to
> Oz if McWarne was bowling, but they ain't and our current bowling, in case
> you hadn't noticed, struggles to dismiss sides.
Perhaps but IMO, it just about never pays for the batting side to get
into a defensive shell. If Oz had scored 600 in I1 and put Pak even
more on the defensive in their I1, it would have further played into
Oz's hands.
>That's one theory anyway,
> but the bottom line is that Punter did something unusual and Aus won.
> Perhaps that's worth congratulations rather than condemnation?
>
> > It was an idiotic decision, like I said.
>
> Aus 1 - Pak 0 doesn't look idiotic.
But by the same token, the 1-0 result does not mean that the
declaration was a wise decision.
noman
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:46:54 +0000 (UTC), noman wrote:
>
> >
> > His declaration didn't give him more time to dismiss Pakistani
> > batsmen. It gave him less without enhancing their own chances
> > either.
>
> Consider this. If a batsman is trying to score runs then their
> chances of being dismissed increase dramatically. So, if Punter had
> batted on until there was no realistic possibility of Pakistan
> winning the Test then they would've just blocked it out.
This argument works for second innings declarations, not the first.
There's no point to declare first innings early (especially on middle
of second day), when you can easily score few more runs and potentially
at a much quicker pace. With the early declaration, Ponting had to rely
on second inning batting to build the lead even when Pakistan batsmen
performed below-par, and by then the conditions were much different
where Australia wasted almost a day.
> That's one theory anyway, but the bottom
> line is that Punter did something unusual and Aus won. Perhaps
> that's worth congratulations rather than condemnation?
>
> > It was an idiotic decision, like I said.
>
> Aus 1 - Pak 0 doesn't look idiotic.
By that reasoning and since Australia won by 170 runs, an unusual
second inning declaration at 100 would be fine too. It would have given
Australian bowlers more time and held an even lower hanging fruit for
Pakistani batsmen to go crazy with. You can't always look back from the
result to justify an earlier decision.
If any thing, the 422 target (from 135 overs) was more than enough to
put Pakistani batsmen in a siege mentality on most occasions. I was
surprised they actually played so well on the fourth day.
--
Noman
Haydos
"alvey" <al...@play.com> wrote in message
news:o2wyqrx8kp54.aoo0pho70hsf$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:46:54 +0000 (UTC), noman wrote:
>> It was an idiotic decision, like I said.
>
> Aus 1 - Pak 0 doesn't look idiotic.
If results vindicate the action, then the decison to select Baby Buttocks
when
he was selected seems like a brilliant decision.
BB is the top ranked Australian batsmen in the ICC Rankings.
eusebius
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:46:54 +0000 (UTC), noman wrote:
> > Asif Zaidi wrote:
>
> >> On Dec 29, 5:26 pm, "noman" <no_m...@zzzyahoo.yycom> wrote:
> >>> [Talking about Ponting's first inning declaration]
> >>> It was an idiotic move, paid off initially by an even more idiotic
> >>> (and timid) batting display by Pakistan.
>
> >> Ponting made the move because in his gut he knows Pak batting (against
> >> Aus) is incapable of going past 300.
> >> He made the right move - reflects very poorly on Pak
>
> > The only way this could be the right move was if the last day was under
> > threat of getting rained out. There's absolutely no rational
> > justification for scoring fewer runs in first innings and relying on
> > second innings to build additional lead, when you don't know what will
> > happen in the next innings. And Australia did slip in the second,
> > taking forever to score those 200 runs, where as they could score about
> > the same runs in half the time in first innings.
>
> > His declaration didn't give him more time to dismiss Pakistani batsmen.
> > It gave him less without enhancing their own chances either.
>
> Consider this. If a batsman is trying to score runs then their chances of
> being dismissed increase dramatically. So, if Punter had batted on until
> there was no realistic possibility of Pakistan winning the Test then they
> would've just blocked it out.
That's what they were doing all test match. Just blocking.
Ponting's declaration didn't enhance Australia's chance of victory one
iota, but it did make the match more interesting. If that was what he
was trying to do.
Andrew Dunford
"alvey" <al...@play.com> wrote in message
news:o2wyqrx8kp54.aoo0pho70hsf$.dlg@40tude.net...
The reality is that when the teams are so far apart in ability the captain
of the better side doesn't have to make good tactical decisions to ram home
the advantage.
That said, the only way Pakistan could compete was if Australia batted for
too long thus enabling Pakistan to cling on for a draw and in that respect
the early declaration worked well.
Andrew
skp
wrote:
Huh?
If OZ had gone on to bat "too long" in I1, they could have batted for
a lot shorter time in I3 (than they did) and still set the same I4
target in the same number of overs.
Andrew Dunford
"skp" <vika...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bdc7083b-2db5-4bb2...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Indeed, but that strategy may have resulted in the Australian bowlers
getting insufficient rest between Pakistan batting innings. It's the main
thing that tendulkar.com's constant bleating for teams to score 750 batting
first ignores.
Andrew
krquet
Admit it, you just wanted to open up a can of worms in an otherwise
fine thread. Here's hoping no one will notice.
aA...
hl@yM..
eusebius
> Andrew Dunford wrote:
> > Andrew
>
> Admit it, you just wanted to open up a can of worms in an otherwise
> fine thread. Here's hoping no one will notice.
>
> aA...
> hl@yM..-
That's not a can of worms, that's just a pointless canard.
krquet
Not unless the point was to entice a certain poster from another
thread; I suppose you didn't notice it either.
aA...
hl@yM..