Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Should Sammy have declared
62 views
Skip to first unread message
Bharat Rao
May 20, 2012, 3:07:47 PM5/20/12
to
When the 9th wicket fell, at the 124 over mark, England was looking at about 50 minutes of batting time. After the 127th over, WI were 339/9 and I thought that would have been an ideal time to declare. Instead they batted 4 more overs, for only 6 more runs...
How would Roach & Edwards have liked another 4-5 overs at the English? WI's only hope lay in forcing a win. A draw would have required the last pair to bat at least an hour into D5 and adding 50 more runs -- not very likely. 184 versus 190 as a lead makes little difference, but with 8-9 overs of flat out attack, and maybe even a couple more wickets, England would have been in deeper trouble.. Chances are that England would simply have sauntered along, but I thought it would have been a great gamble...
On Sammy, I was disappointed with his batting. He played two exquisite cover drives for 4, where he didn't hit the ball -- just timed it. Then he absolutely crushed one to the point fence, middling it perfectly -- terrific shot, but somewhat expansive. He then went nuts trying to crush a lot of deliveries, when he should have been well advised to just stay there. With him and Ramdin, they had a decent chance of pushing their inning well into the first session of D5..
Of the WI dismissals today, although they batted very well indeed, only Ramdin, and to some extent Samuels, fell to tough deliveries. Ramdin b Andersen was an absolute brute. Everyone else was guilty of gifting it away to some extent or the other. Nevertheless, in overcast conditions, WI did amazingly well, especially the human limpet, Shiv Chanderpaul.
Bring back Gayle & Sarwan, add Sunil Narine, and this team could well play England even... even carrying Sammy, who is not a good enough bowler to be in the side as a bowler, and not a good enough bat (though he has the talent) to be an all-rounder who bowls a bit...
Bharat
How would Roach & Edwards have liked another 4-5 overs at the English? WI's only hope lay in forcing a win. A draw would have required the last pair to bat at least an hour into D5 and adding 50 more runs -- not very likely. 184 versus 190 as a lead makes little difference, but with 8-9 overs of flat out attack, and maybe even a couple more wickets, England would have been in deeper trouble.. Chances are that England would simply have sauntered along, but I thought it would have been a great gamble...
On Sammy, I was disappointed with his batting. He played two exquisite cover drives for 4, where he didn't hit the ball -- just timed it. Then he absolutely crushed one to the point fence, middling it perfectly -- terrific shot, but somewhat expansive. He then went nuts trying to crush a lot of deliveries, when he should have been well advised to just stay there. With him and Ramdin, they had a decent chance of pushing their inning well into the first session of D5..
Of the WI dismissals today, although they batted very well indeed, only Ramdin, and to some extent Samuels, fell to tough deliveries. Ramdin b Andersen was an absolute brute. Everyone else was guilty of gifting it away to some extent or the other. Nevertheless, in overcast conditions, WI did amazingly well, especially the human limpet, Shiv Chanderpaul.
Bring back Gayle & Sarwan, add Sunil Narine, and this team could well play England even... even carrying Sammy, who is not a good enough bowler to be in the side as a bowler, and not a good enough bat (though he has the talent) to be an all-rounder who bowls a bit...
Bharat
John Hall
May 20, 2012, 3:26:36 PM5/20/12
to
In article <b92e3afd-b2bf-45d4...@googlegroups.com>,
by a narrow margin, and 6 runs might well turn out to make all the
difference. And how was Sammy to know that only 6 more runs would accrue
in those 4 overs? Until then, Edwards and Gabriel had been going along
at a reasonable pace.
> but with 8-9 overs of flat out attack, and maybe even a couple
>more wickets, England would have been in deeper trouble..
>Chances are that England would simply have sauntered along, but
>I thought it would have been a great gamble...
It might have worked, and if the wicket hadn't fallen when it did it
might have been worth declaring to bowl those overs at England tonight.
But I suspect that Sammy would have done what I would have done and let
the innings continue, just in case the last pair could add a further 20
or 30. After all, they did manage to add 20, so a last-wicket stand of
40 or 50 wasn't totally beyond the bounds of possibility.
<snip>
--
John Hall
Johnson: "Well, we had a good talk."
Boswell: "Yes, Sir, you tossed and gored several persons."
Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-84); James Boswell (1740-95)
Bharat Rao <rao.b...@gmail.com> writes:
>When the 9th wicket fell, at the 124 over mark, England was
>looking at about 50 minutes of batting time. After the 127th over,
>WI were 339/9 and I thought that would have been an ideal time to
>declare. Instead they batted 4 more overs, for only 6 more runs...
>
>How would Roach & Edwards have liked another 4-5 overs at the
>English? WI's only hope lay in forcing a win. A draw would have
>required the last pair to bat at least an hour into D5 and adding 50
>more runs -- not very likely. 184 versus 190 as a lead makes little
>difference,
I have to disagree. If West Indies do win this match, it's likely to be
>When the 9th wicket fell, at the 124 over mark, England was
>looking at about 50 minutes of batting time. After the 127th over,
>WI were 339/9 and I thought that would have been an ideal time to
>declare. Instead they batted 4 more overs, for only 6 more runs...
>
>How would Roach & Edwards have liked another 4-5 overs at the
>English? WI's only hope lay in forcing a win. A draw would have
>required the last pair to bat at least an hour into D5 and adding 50
>more runs -- not very likely. 184 versus 190 as a lead makes little
>difference,
by a narrow margin, and 6 runs might well turn out to make all the
difference. And how was Sammy to know that only 6 more runs would accrue
in those 4 overs? Until then, Edwards and Gabriel had been going along
at a reasonable pace.
> but with 8-9 overs of flat out attack, and maybe even a couple
>more wickets, England would have been in deeper trouble..
>Chances are that England would simply have sauntered along, but
>I thought it would have been a great gamble...
might have been worth declaring to bowl those overs at England tonight.
But I suspect that Sammy would have done what I would have done and let
the innings continue, just in case the last pair could add a further 20
or 30. After all, they did manage to add 20, so a last-wicket stand of
40 or 50 wasn't totally beyond the bounds of possibility.
<snip>
--
John Hall
Johnson: "Well, we had a good talk."
Boswell: "Yes, Sir, you tossed and gored several persons."
Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-84); James Boswell (1740-95)
Howzzat
May 20, 2012, 4:39:05 PM5/20/12
to
On May 20, 12:07 pm, Bharat Rao <rao.bha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When the 9th wicket fell, at the 124 over mark, England was looking at about 50 minutes of batting time. After the 127th over, WI were 339/9 and I thought that would have been an ideal time to declare. Instead they batted 4 more overs, for only 6 more runs...
>
> How would Roach & Edwards have liked another 4-5 overs at the English? WI's only hope lay in forcing a win. A draw would have required the last pair to bat at least an hour into D5 and adding 50 more runs -- not very likely. 184 versus 190 as a lead makes little difference, but with 8-9 overs of flat out attack, and maybe even a couple more wickets, England would have been in deeper trouble.. Chances are that England would simply have sauntered along, but I thought it would have been a great gamble...
That makes no sense whatsoever in the context of this game. If WI were
> When the 9th wicket fell, at the 124 over mark, England was looking at about 50 minutes of batting time. After the 127th over, WI were 339/9 and I thought that would have been an ideal time to declare. Instead they batted 4 more overs, for only 6 more runs...
>
> How would Roach & Edwards have liked another 4-5 overs at the English? WI's only hope lay in forcing a win. A draw would have required the last pair to bat at least an hour into D5 and adding 50 more runs -- not very likely. 184 versus 190 as a lead makes little difference, but with 8-9 overs of flat out attack, and maybe even a couple more wickets, England would have been in deeper trouble.. Chances are that England would simply have sauntered along, but I thought it would have been a great gamble...
ahead by 400, sure have a few more overs at the opposition. But with a
lead of only 180 odd, and full day remaining, you clearly are on the
backfoot and should be batting as long as possible to stave off
defeat. There is no question of a declaration in this situation.
Bharat Rao
May 20, 2012, 7:48:41 PM5/20/12
to
The question is one of utility. Is it more valuable to have two sets of 8-10 overs on either side of the close of play, where the bowlers go absolutely flat out -- on the theory that it is a lot harder to come in right at the close of play -- or get an additional 10-20 runs.
I would have thought WI's best chance would have been to try to get 3 top-order wickets tonight, and the remaining 3 next morning, and hustle the tail out...
Bharat
Bharat Rao
May 20, 2012, 7:53:01 PM5/20/12
to John Hall
On Sunday, May 20, 2012 3:26:36 PM UTC-4, John Hall wrote:
> It might have worked, and if the wicket hadn't fallen when it did it
> might have been worth declaring to bowl those overs at England tonight.
> But I suspect that Sammy would have done what I would have done and let
> the innings continue, just in case the last pair could add a further 20
> or 30. After all, they did manage to add 20, so a last-wicket stand of
> 40 or 50 wasn't totally beyond the bounds of possibility.
I submit that if you do NOT get an early wicket or 3, your chances of winning are virtually nil. IMO, WI's best chance was to have about 10 overs of inspired pace bowling where their 3 guns went flat out, and then 15 more tomorrow morning, and hope to have England 60/5. The best chance to get wickets is with the new ball...
> It might have worked, and if the wicket hadn't fallen when it did it
> might have been worth declaring to bowl those overs at England tonight.
> But I suspect that Sammy would have done what I would have done and let
> the innings continue, just in case the last pair could add a further 20
> or 30. After all, they did manage to add 20, so a last-wicket stand of
> 40 or 50 wasn't totally beyond the bounds of possibility.
It is going to be hard to go flat out for too long tomorrow morning -- instead do it twice... One top order bat down at the close of play is a mild wobble; 2 top-order bats down is a worry; 3 down is a complete crisis, with the ball still relatively new, and a fired up attack tomorrow.
Yes, it is extremely unlikely, but tell me how else you are going to defend 200 (even if they got another 20 runs) on a flat Lords 5th day wicket.
Bharat
Bharat Rao
May 20, 2012, 7:59:37 PM5/20/12
to John Hall
On Sunday, May 20, 2012 3:26:36 PM UTC-4, John Hall wrote:
> It might have worked, and if the wicket hadn't fallen when it did it
> might have been worth declaring to bowl those overs at England tonight.
> But I suspect that Sammy would have done what I would have done and let
> the innings continue, just in case the last pair could add a further 20
> or 30. After all, they did manage to add 20, so a last-wicket stand of
> 40 or 50 wasn't totally beyond the bounds of possibility.
Let me put it another way, John & Howzzat. Which of the two scenario's present the higher danger for an English defeat.
> might have been worth declaring to bowl those overs at England tonight.
> But I suspect that Sammy would have done what I would have done and let
> the innings continue, just in case the last pair could add a further 20
> or 30. After all, they did manage to add 20, so a last-wicket stand of
> 40 or 50 wasn't totally beyond the bounds of possibility.
A) Chase 190, facing 10 overs in the gloaming of D4, and all of D5
B) Start D5, chasing 210.
If you think the latter is harder and represents a higher chance for England to lose, and (A) is the MORE desirable situation from England's point of view, then you are consistent. Remember the issue is which situation increases the probability of the chance of a win? Not where will you lose by less, or which will take the match later into D5 -- these are irrelevant. You are likely to lose by a lot -- IMO, (A) represents a better chance of a WI win, than does B -- but that is clearly not your opinion...
Bharat
Andrew Dunford
May 20, 2012, 8:20:58 PM5/20/12
to
"Bharat Rao" <rao.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b92e3afd-b2bf-45d4...@googlegroups.com...
> When the 9th wicket fell, at the 124 over mark, England was looking at
> about 50 minutes of batting time. After the 127th over, WI were 339/9 and
> I thought that would have been an ideal time to declare. Instead they
> batted 4 more overs, for only 6 more runs...
>
> How would Roach & Edwards have liked another 4-5 overs at the English?
> WI's only hope lay in forcing a win. A draw would have required the last
> pair to bat at least an hour into D5 and adding 50 more runs -- not very
> likely. 184 versus 190 as a lead makes little difference, but with 8-9
> overs of flat out attack, and maybe even a couple more wickets, England
> would have been in deeper trouble.. Chances are that England would simply
> have sauntered along, but I thought it would have been a great gamble...
Given WI's position at the start of the day I think they'd be well satisfied
> about 50 minutes of batting time. After the 127th over, WI were 339/9 and
> I thought that would have been an ideal time to declare. Instead they
> batted 4 more overs, for only 6 more runs...
>
> How would Roach & Edwards have liked another 4-5 overs at the English?
> WI's only hope lay in forcing a win. A draw would have required the last
> pair to bat at least an hour into D5 and adding 50 more runs -- not very
> likely. 184 versus 190 as a lead makes little difference, but with 8-9
> overs of flat out attack, and maybe even a couple more wickets, England
> would have been in deeper trouble.. Chances are that England would simply
> have sauntered along, but I thought it would have been a great gamble...
with the end result, thus I wouldn't change anything. A declaration at
339/9 would require a double dose of hindsight: the knowledge that both WI's
tenth wicket would fall very soon and they'd take some wickets in the
eight-over spell available with the ball.
As it was, WI managing to take two wickets in four overs was a very good
result. If I spun the hindsightometer in a different direction it might
tell me that with England needing to negotiate eight overs until the close,
the fall of Strauss's wicket brings in Trott rather than Anderson and
England ends up only one down at stumps. Who knows?
I rate runs on the board more highly than the extra four overs bowling time.
In contrast to what you wrote, the difference between 184 and 190 lead could
turn out to be vital come Monday.
<snip>
Andrew
Bharat Rao
May 20, 2012, 8:47:34 PM5/20/12
to
On Sunday, May 20, 2012 8:20:58 PM UTC-4, Andrew Dunford wrote:
> I rate runs on the board more highly than the extra four overs bowling time.
> In contrast to what you wrote, the difference between 184 and 190 lead could
> turn out to be vital come Monday.
>
Thats consistent Andrew. I think batting at the end of hard day's fielding is something batsmen least like to do. My personal opinion is that it would be worth about 15-20 more runs, but what do I know...
> I rate runs on the board more highly than the extra four overs bowling time.
> In contrast to what you wrote, the difference between 184 and 190 lead could
> turn out to be vital come Monday.
>
Bharat
Bharat Rao
May 21, 2012, 5:38:49 AM5/21/12
to
On Sunday, May 20, 2012 8:20:58 PM UTC-4, Andrew Dunford wrote:
> I rate runs on the board more highly than the extra four overs bowling time.
> In contrast to what you wrote, the difference between 184 and 190 lead could
> turn out to be vital come Monday.
Maybe I being perverse here, but in my professional life, I make a living by questioning conventional wisdom, and trying to see if there is value in doing something else. Here, there is clearly SOME value in having England bat a few overs in the gloaming -- maybe that value is 5 runs or 50 runs; I don't know. But it does suggest that at some point, it is worth the extra runs to get more overs.
> In contrast to what you wrote, the difference between 184 and 190 lead could
> turn out to be vital come Monday.
This is a particularly strange situation, because of the one-sided nature of the game at the present moment, and the binary value of outcome -- OK trinary. WI rate to lose, and lose fairly big. Their odds of winning are small and a draw even more minuscule. So, there clearly will be some high-risk actions that will increase their probability of winning by a small amount, with the consequence that their odds of losing big increase, perhaps dramatically -- but their overall odds of losing reduce (because P(WI win) has gone up).
Lets put it this way. Assume you are trailing by 13 runs in an IPL game with 1 delivery left. A new innovation "IPL Insanity" provides 14 runs for a 6 hit one-handed and blindfolded that hits a particular sign -- odds of making it are less than 1/100th of 1%. Yet every team would try that shot, rather than trying to hit a 6 which would be much more likely to succeed, but only serve to reduce the margin of loss to 8, while giving no chance of a win...
I'm just saying it is worth questioning (hence the "*should* Sammy have declared?") rather than the "runs on the board matter" rationale, which is generally almost always true, but in some situations may not be...
Bharat
Vijay Sharma
May 21, 2012, 6:16:17 AM5/21/12
to
On Monday, May 21, 2012 12:37:47 AM UTC+5:30, Bharat Rao wrote:
> When the 9th wicket fell, at the 124 over mark, England was looking at about 50 minutes of batting time. After the 127th over, WI were 339/9 and I thought that would have been an ideal time to declare. Instead they batted 4 more overs, for only 6 more runs...
>
> How would Roach & Edwards have liked another 4-5 overs at the English? WI's only hope lay in forcing a win. A draw would have required the last pair to bat at least an hour into D5 and adding 50 more runs -- not very likely. 184 versus 190 as a lead makes little difference, but with 8-9 overs of flat out attack, and maybe even a couple more wickets, England would have been in deeper trouble.. Chances are that England would simply have sauntered along, but I thought it would have been a great gamble...
As John, Howzie, and Andrew have also stated in different ways, it requires Sammy to have a peek into the future to have made a call like that.
> When the 9th wicket fell, at the 124 over mark, England was looking at about 50 minutes of batting time. After the 127th over, WI were 339/9 and I thought that would have been an ideal time to declare. Instead they batted 4 more overs, for only 6 more runs...
>
> How would Roach & Edwards have liked another 4-5 overs at the English? WI's only hope lay in forcing a win. A draw would have required the last pair to bat at least an hour into D5 and adding 50 more runs -- not very likely. 184 versus 190 as a lead makes little difference, but with 8-9 overs of flat out attack, and maybe even a couple more wickets, England would have been in deeper trouble.. Chances are that England would simply have sauntered along, but I thought it would have been a great gamble...
What if WI managed to put on a 10th wicket partnership that ate up at least an hour of play on the final day and added at least 30 more to the total (stranger things have happened in cricket)?
I think youcan only decide based on what the present is and at 339/9 the best thing to do would have been to bat on
>
> On Sammy, I was disappointed with his batting. He played two exquisite cover drives for 4, where he didn't hit the ball -- just timed it. Then he absolutely crushed one to the point fence, middling it perfectly -- terrific shot, but somewhat expansive. He then went nuts trying to crush a lot of deliveries, when he should have been well advised to just stay there. With him and Ramdin, they had a decent chance of pushing their inning well into the first session of D5..
>
I didn't watch the game but I do feel that Sammy sells himself short as a batsman. He definitely can make more of his batting if he learns to be patient and not go after everything...maybe a lesson from Gayle could help
> On Sammy, I was disappointed with his batting. He played two exquisite cover drives for 4, where he didn't hit the ball -- just timed it. Then he absolutely crushed one to the point fence, middling it perfectly -- terrific shot, but somewhat expansive. He then went nuts trying to crush a lot of deliveries, when he should have been well advised to just stay there. With him and Ramdin, they had a decent chance of pushing their inning well into the first session of D5..
>
> Of the WI dismissals today, although they batted very well indeed, only Ramdin, and to some extent Samuels, fell to tough deliveries. Ramdin b Andersen was an absolute brute. Everyone else was guilty of gifting it away to some extent or the other. Nevertheless, in overcast conditions, WI did amazingly well, especially the human limpet, Shiv Chanderpaul.
>
> Bring back Gayle & Sarwan, add Sunil Narine, and this team could well play England even... even carrying Sammy, who is not a good enough bowler to be in the side as a bowler, and not a good enough bat (though he has the talent) to be an all-rounder who bowls a bit...
>
CaraMia
May 21, 2012, 7:57:27 AM5/21/12
to
On 21-05-2012 12:37 AM, Bharat Rao wrote:
> even carrying Sammy, who is not a good enough bowler to be in the side as a bowler,
> and not a good enough bat (though he has the talent) to be an all-rounder who bowls a bit...
Sammy would walk into the Indian test team as a pure bowler.
> even carrying Sammy, who is not a good enough bowler to be in the side as a bowler,
> and not a good enough bat (though he has the talent) to be an all-rounder who bowls a bit...
He can replace any bowler except for Zaheer and Yadav.
Bharat Rao
May 21, 2012, 9:01:21 AM5/21/12
to
So in Tests,what you are saying is that he would compete for the 3rd seamer's slot -- and India almost never plays 3 seamers in the subcontinent. So I'm not sure he would "walk into the team." given that India plays almost exclusive in the subcontinent for a year.
Further, even with injury to Zak or Yadav, I doubt he would be selected -- there are a number of young bowlers who break the speed gun in the mid-80s, and they would be preferred ahead of him. Whether they should be is a different issue, but I don't see a trundler who barely breaks 78 on a good day making the Indian squad as a pure Test bowler in the next decade.
I don't think Sammy makes most Test squads on merit -- maybe not even the Bangles. He simply isn't a Test class bowler, and his batting isn't good enough to compensate. He hugely over-achieves relative to his bowling talent, and underachieves relative to his batting skills -- just my $0.02.
Bharat
CaraMia
May 21, 2012, 9:35:59 AM5/21/12
to
He has a far better record than the usual speed gun breaking, highly
talented rubbish we have been playing in the last 10 years (Ishant,
Sreeshanth etc).
And I am not saying Sammy is a Test Class Bowler - all I am saying is
that India doesn't really have many test class bowlers who would push
him out. Outside India, it's no contest - I would play Sammy over Ashwin
or other spinners who look mediocre. The Australian rookie (Lyon?)
outbowled him. Even in India, considering the amount of tests Ishant,
Sreesanth & others have played, Sammy would be a fairly regular part of
the side.
Anyone one with a bowling ave of 31 (over 25 tests), strike rate of 67
would walk into the Indian team - you don't even have to consider his
batting average of 20.
Luke Curtis
May 21, 2012, 10:25:07 AM5/21/12
to
There was a C option, with a an old ball on a easy batting pitch the
final pair batting say 15 overs into D5 putting on another 35 and you
just start to bring in time pressure as well, your suggestion of 190
in 100 has absolutely no time pressure of a RRR of 1.9, with my
suggestion of 225 off 75 overs at 3rpo and you are starting to bring
in to possibility of a draw, along with the possibility of aggravating
the English openers, a long 10th wicket partnership can seriously
affect the state of mind and bring in mistakes, it also gives the
chance of double dipping with a 7 overs blast before lunch and again
after for the opening bowlers.
-
XBox 360 GT: Broton69
--
ButIstillneedtoknowwhat'sinthere! Thekeytoanysecurity
systemishowit'sdesigned! Thatdependsonwhyitwasdesigned!
Ihavetoknowwhatwhoeverdesigneditwastryingtoprotect!
(Blakes 7, City on the Edge of the World - Vila in typical panic mode)
arahim
May 21, 2012, 5:04:53 PM5/21/12
to
On May 20, 12:07 pm, Bharat Rao <rao.bha...@gmail.com> wrote:
situation...Where he knew his strength and the WIndian
weaknesses...Almost no one would against the present England anywhere
but especially in England and especially Sammy knowing his team and
the English team. It would not be even under consideration.
WI now for a while have been able to play half a decent game. They
just need to get the other half done some of the times.
Bharat Rao
May 21, 2012, 7:43:28 PM5/21/12
to
On Monday, May 21, 2012 10:25:07 AM UTC-4, Luke Curtis wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2012 16:59:37 -0700 (PDT), Bharat Rao
> On Sun, 20 May 2012 16:59:37 -0700 (PDT), Bharat Rao
> >A) Chase 190, facing 10 overs in the gloaming of D4, and all of D5
> >B) Start D5, chasing 210.
> >
> >If you think the latter is harder and represents a higher chance for England to lose, and (A) is the MORE desirable situation from England's point of view, then you are consistent. Remember the issue is which situation increases the probability of the chance of a win? Not where will you lose by less, or which will take the match later into D5 -- these are irrelevant. You are likely to lose by a lot -- IMO, (A) represents a better chance of a WI win, than does B -- but that is clearly not your opinion...
> >
> >Bharat
>
> I would agree that A was possibily a slighly better option than B but:
>
> There was a C option, with a an old ball on a easy batting pitch the
> final pair batting say 15 overs into D5 putting on another 35 and you
> just start to bring in time pressure as well, your suggestion of 190
> in 100 has absolutely no time pressure of a RRR of 1.9, with my
> suggestion of 225 off 75 overs at 3rpo and you are starting to bring
> in to possibility of a draw, along with the possibility of aggravating
> the English openers, a long 10th wicket partnership can seriously
> affect the state of mind and bring in mistakes, it also gives the
> chance of double dipping with a 7 overs blast before lunch and again
> after for the opening bowlers.
Absolutely 100% agree. All you then have to compare is whether Prob(C)* Prob (Draw/C) is GREATER than P(A)-P(B). My point is simply that there is some situation where P(A).P(Win/A) - P(B).P(Win/B) is sufficiently high enough that it is worth the gamble. Maybe here P(C)P(Draw/C) was too high for the gamble.
> >B) Start D5, chasing 210.
> >
> >If you think the latter is harder and represents a higher chance for England to lose, and (A) is the MORE desirable situation from England's point of view, then you are consistent. Remember the issue is which situation increases the probability of the chance of a win? Not where will you lose by less, or which will take the match later into D5 -- these are irrelevant. You are likely to lose by a lot -- IMO, (A) represents a better chance of a WI win, than does B -- but that is clearly not your opinion...
> >
> >Bharat
>
> I would agree that A was possibily a slighly better option than B but:
>
> There was a C option, with a an old ball on a easy batting pitch the
> final pair batting say 15 overs into D5 putting on another 35 and you
> just start to bring in time pressure as well, your suggestion of 190
> in 100 has absolutely no time pressure of a RRR of 1.9, with my
> suggestion of 225 off 75 overs at 3rpo and you are starting to bring
> in to possibility of a draw, along with the possibility of aggravating
> the English openers, a long 10th wicket partnership can seriously
> affect the state of mind and bring in mistakes, it also gives the
> chance of double dipping with a 7 overs blast before lunch and again
> after for the opening bowlers.
As opposed to the uniform reaction to bat on.
From my POV P(A).P(Win/A) is significantly greater than P(B).P(Win/B) because WI had precisely TWO strike bowlers. If WI were to win, Edwards & Roach would have to take about 8 wickets between then. That is best achieved by having them bowl flat out, IMO, on D4 end, and then again D5 morning...
As it is on 57/4, Sammy & Gabriel were on and England took the game away. Imagine the case that England were 4 down & Edwards & Roach had bowled just 4 overs total on D5... Now thats Babylon on Fire.
My #s could be wrong, but all I'm saying is that there is some set of circumstances where it makes sense to declare 9 down and take a crack... This seemed pretty much it as far as I could tell, due to the abject WI supporting cast...
Bharat
Andrew Dunford
May 21, 2012, 8:32:06 PM5/21/12
to
news:b4377620-c998-4331...@googlegroups.com...
Without necessarily agreeing with you on this occasion, I think the
questioning of conventional wisdom very worthwhile even though my personal
instinct is to do exactly the opposite.
Speaking of conventional wisdom, why should a short period before stumps be
so difficult for a batting team to negotiate? I didn't see the end of day
four but there was nothing wrong with the pitch on day five. And why do
teams employ night-watchmen, especially if they are going to take singles
off the first ball of an over as did Anderson?
Was very disappointed with Edwards on D5. Had a recollection of him being
hostile in the past but no sign of it now.
Incidentally, IPL Insanity is not a new innovation - it has been with us for
five seasons.
Andrew
questioning of conventional wisdom very worthwhile even though my personal
instinct is to do exactly the opposite.
Speaking of conventional wisdom, why should a short period before stumps be
so difficult for a batting team to negotiate? I didn't see the end of day
four but there was nothing wrong with the pitch on day five. And why do
teams employ night-watchmen, especially if they are going to take singles
off the first ball of an over as did Anderson?
Was very disappointed with Edwards on D5. Had a recollection of him being
hostile in the past but no sign of it now.
Incidentally, IPL Insanity is not a new innovation - it has been with us for
five seasons.
Andrew
Bharat Rao
May 22, 2012, 8:06:52 AM5/22/12
to
On Monday, May 21, 2012 8:32:06 PM UTC-4, Andrew Dunford wrote:
> "Bharat Rao" wrote in message
> Speaking of conventional wisdom, why should a short period before stumps be
> so difficult for a batting team to negotiate? I didn't see the end of day
> four but there was nothing wrong with the pitch on day five.
I think short period before stumps is difficult to negotiate for a # of reasons which has nothing to do with the pitch:
a) The light is usually the worst
b) Batsmen are tired having been on the field all day, and would prefer to just put their feet up and relax
c) The bowlers are usually fully rested and can go flat out for a 3-4 over burst with the new ball, knowing they can rest overnight. This is not true at most other times, when a Test bowler knows he must conserve his energy for the rest of the day.
d) The risk-reward ratio is the worst its going to get. Batsmen are most vulnerable at the start of an innings; but at least you know if you get in, you can score a lot of runs. Here, if you do survive, you start from scratch the next morning, again against an almost new ball hurled by fully rested brawny blokes. As a 2-drop, I hated going in late in the day, knowing that I'd be batting only to survive, rather than playing "normally" (whatever that is:-).
>
> Was very disappointed with Edwards on D5. Had a recollection of him being
> hostile in the past but no sign of it now.
Fidel was quite hostile in his short burst at the end of D4. Was a shadow of the bowler on D5. He was getting the ball to swing both ways, but seemed to have completely lost his release point, spraying the ball either side of the stumps. He didn't bowl like that on D4, or indeed even in the first England innings, when he was the best bowler on display...
Bharat
> "Bharat Rao" wrote in message
> Speaking of conventional wisdom, why should a short period before stumps be
> so difficult for a batting team to negotiate? I didn't see the end of day
> four but there was nothing wrong with the pitch on day five.
a) The light is usually the worst
b) Batsmen are tired having been on the field all day, and would prefer to just put their feet up and relax
c) The bowlers are usually fully rested and can go flat out for a 3-4 over burst with the new ball, knowing they can rest overnight. This is not true at most other times, when a Test bowler knows he must conserve his energy for the rest of the day.
d) The risk-reward ratio is the worst its going to get. Batsmen are most vulnerable at the start of an innings; but at least you know if you get in, you can score a lot of runs. Here, if you do survive, you start from scratch the next morning, again against an almost new ball hurled by fully rested brawny blokes. As a 2-drop, I hated going in late in the day, knowing that I'd be batting only to survive, rather than playing "normally" (whatever that is:-).
>
> Was very disappointed with Edwards on D5. Had a recollection of him being
> hostile in the past but no sign of it now.
Bharat
arahim
May 22, 2012, 5:08:48 PM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 5:06 am, Bharat Rao <rao.bha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, May 21, 2012 8:32:06 PM UTC-4, Andrew Dunford wrote:
> > "Bharat Rao" wrote in message
> > Speaking of conventional wisdom, why should a short period before stumps be
> > so difficult for a batting team to negotiate? I didn't see the end of day
> > four but there was nothing wrong with the pitch on day five.
>
> I think short period before stumps is difficult to negotiate for a # of reasons which has nothing to do with the pitch:
> a) The light is usually the worst
> b) Batsmen are tired having been on the field all day, and would prefer to just put their feet up and relax
> c) The bowlers are usually fully rested and can go flat out for a 3-4 over burst with the new ball, knowing they can rest overnight. This is not true at most other times, when a Test bowler knows he must conserve his energy for the rest of the day.
> d) The risk-reward ratio is the worst its going to get. Batsmen are most vulnerable at the start of an innings; but at least you know if you get in, you can score a lot of runs. Here, if you do survive, you start from scratch the next morning, again against an almost new ball hurled by fully rested brawny blokes. As a 2-drop, I hated going in late in the day, knowing that I'd be batting only to survive, rather than playing "normally" (whatever that is:-).
>
You still need to have enough runs on the board.
> On Monday, May 21, 2012 8:32:06 PM UTC-4, Andrew Dunford wrote:
> > "Bharat Rao" wrote in message
> > Speaking of conventional wisdom, why should a short period before stumps be
> > so difficult for a batting team to negotiate? I didn't see the end of day
> > four but there was nothing wrong with the pitch on day five.
>
> I think short period before stumps is difficult to negotiate for a # of reasons which has nothing to do with the pitch:
> a) The light is usually the worst
> b) Batsmen are tired having been on the field all day, and would prefer to just put their feet up and relax
> c) The bowlers are usually fully rested and can go flat out for a 3-4 over burst with the new ball, knowing they can rest overnight. This is not true at most other times, when a Test bowler knows he must conserve his energy for the rest of the day.
> d) The risk-reward ratio is the worst its going to get. Batsmen are most vulnerable at the start of an innings; but at least you know if you get in, you can score a lot of runs. Here, if you do survive, you start from scratch the next morning, again against an almost new ball hurled by fully rested brawny blokes. As a 2-drop, I hated going in late in the day, knowing that I'd be batting only to survive, rather than playing "normally" (whatever that is:-).
>
>
>
> > Was very disappointed with Edwards on D5. Had a recollection of him being
> > hostile in the past but no sign of it now.
>
> Fidel was quite hostile in his short burst at the end of D4. Was a shadow of the bowler on D5. He was getting the ball to swing both ways, but seemed to have completely lost his release point, spraying the ball either side of the stumps. He didn't bowl like that on D4, or indeed even in the first England innings, when he was the best bowler on display...
>
and not on 4th. This is hindsight.
> Bharat
Andrew Dunford
May 22, 2012, 7:33:05 PM5/22/12
to
"arahim" <arahim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ec8340b0-d975-4c50...@wp3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
their attack collectively on D5 than turned out to be the case. Edwards
disappointing, Gabriel unwell and also injured, Roach limping off etc.
Andrew
jzfredricks
May 23, 2012, 1:43:54 AM5/23/12
to
On Monday, May 21, 2012 5:07:47 AM UTC+10, Bharat Rao wrote:
> When the 9th wicket fell, at the 124 over mark, England was looking at about 50 minutes of batting time. After the 127th over, WI were 339/9 and I thought that would have been an ideal time to declare. Instead they batted 4 more overs, for only 6 more runs...
All I can say is what I would've done in that situation - bat as long as possible.
> When the 9th wicket fell, at the 124 over mark, England was looking at about 50 minutes of batting time. After the 127th over, WI were 339/9 and I thought that would have been an ideal time to declare. Instead they batted 4 more overs, for only 6 more runs...
I'd have hoped beyond all logic that my 10th wicket pair could add another 15-25 runs. Every run is precious in a low total chase.
But as is often the case, there's no right or wrong here.
Unknown
May 23, 2012, 6:11:58 PM5/23/12
to
On Mon, 21 May 2012 14:04:53 -0700 (PDT), arahim
<arahim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 20, 12:07=A0pm, Bharat Rao <rao.bha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> When the 9th wicket fell, at the 124 over mark, England was looking at ab=
>out 50 minutes of batting time. =A0After the 127th over, WI were 339/9 and =
>I thought that would have been an ideal time to declare. =A0Instead they ba=
>=A0WI's only hope lay in forcing a win. =A0A draw would have required the l=
>ast pair to bat at least an hour into D5 and adding 50 more runs -- not ver=
>y likely. =A0184 versus 190 as a lead makes little difference, but with 8-9=
> overs of flat out attack, and maybe even a couple more wickets, England wo=
>uld have been in deeper trouble.. Chances are that England would simply hav=
> cover drives for 4, where he didn't hit the ball -- just timed it. =A0Then=
> he absolutely crushed one to the point fence, middling it perfectly -- ter=
>rific shot, but somewhat expansive. =A0He then went nuts trying to crush a =
>lot of deliveries, when he should have been well advised to just stay there=
>. =A0With him and Ramdin, they had a decent chance of pushing their inning =
>amdin, and to some extent Samuels, fell to tough deliveries. =A0Ramdin b An=
>dersen was an absolute brute. =A0Everyone else was guilty of gifting it awa=
>y to some extent or the other. =A0Nevertheless, in overcast conditions, WI =
>y England even... =A0even carrying Sammy, who is not a good enough bowler t=
>o be in the side as a bowler, and not a good enough bat (though he has the =
their lowest ebb. The team badge means a lot to this wi team, you can
see it in them when they play..Always a good sign.
Sammy is a good skipper and a fast learner.. Always a good sign.
However the wi backroom need to get their act sorted
max.it
<arahim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 20, 12:07=A0pm, Bharat Rao <rao.bha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> When the 9th wicket fell, at the 124 over mark, England was looking at ab=
>out 50 minutes of batting time. =A0After the 127th over, WI were 339/9 and =
>I thought that would have been an ideal time to declare. =A0Instead they ba=
>tted 4 more overs, for only 6 more runs...
>>
>> How would Roach & Edwards have liked another 4-5 overs at the English? =
>>
>=A0WI's only hope lay in forcing a win. =A0A draw would have required the l=
>ast pair to bat at least an hour into D5 and adding 50 more runs -- not ver=
>y likely. =A0184 versus 190 as a lead makes little difference, but with 8-9=
> overs of flat out attack, and maybe even a couple more wickets, England wo=
>uld have been in deeper trouble.. Chances are that England would simply hav=
>e sauntered along, but I thought it would have been a great gamble...
>>
>> On Sammy, I was disappointed with his batting. =A0He played two exquisite=
>>
> cover drives for 4, where he didn't hit the ball -- just timed it. =A0Then=
> he absolutely crushed one to the point fence, middling it perfectly -- ter=
>rific shot, but somewhat expansive. =A0He then went nuts trying to crush a =
>lot of deliveries, when he should have been well advised to just stay there=
>. =A0With him and Ramdin, they had a decent chance of pushing their inning =
>well into the first session of D5..
>>
>> Of the WI dismissals today, although they batted very well indeed, only R=
>>
>amdin, and to some extent Samuels, fell to tough deliveries. =A0Ramdin b An=
>dersen was an absolute brute. =A0Everyone else was guilty of gifting it awa=
>y to some extent or the other. =A0Nevertheless, in overcast conditions, WI =
>did amazingly well, especially the human limpet, Shiv Chanderpaul.
>>
>> Bring back Gayle & Sarwan, add Sunil Narine, and this team could well pla=
>>
>y England even... =A0even carrying Sammy, who is not a good enough bowler t=
>o be in the side as a bowler, and not a good enough bat (though he has the =
>talent) to be an all-rounder who bowls a bit...
>>
>> Bharat
>
>Even Clarke would not have done it against the WI in a similar
>situation...Where he knew his strength and the WIndian
>weaknesses...Almost no one would against the present England anywhere
>but especially in England and especially Sammy knowing his team and
>the English team. It would not be even under consideration.
>
>WI now for a while have been able to play half a decent game. They
>just need to get the other half done some of the times.
Your right, windies will rise again. I think they had. and passed
>>
>> Bharat
>
>Even Clarke would not have done it against the WI in a similar
>situation...Where he knew his strength and the WIndian
>weaknesses...Almost no one would against the present England anywhere
>but especially in England and especially Sammy knowing his team and
>the English team. It would not be even under consideration.
>
>WI now for a while have been able to play half a decent game. They
>just need to get the other half done some of the times.
their lowest ebb. The team badge means a lot to this wi team, you can
see it in them when they play..Always a good sign.
Sammy is a good skipper and a fast learner.. Always a good sign.
However the wi backroom need to get their act sorted
max.it
0 new messages