Stokes Declaration

atypical_boro said:
Yes can't help but feel one or two tweaks to the side are needed for Lord's, where we have a poor Ashes win rate. Can't face going 2-0 down, imagine being whitewashed at home.:cautious:
Click to expand...
Especially to a negative team who even yesterday looked like it was play for the draw and the win is a bonus.

It was only exciting because it was close, that Khawadja made Geoffrey Boycott look dynamic.
 
TeaCider said:
I definitely found this far more entertaining than a lot of the snore draws and washed out tests over the years.

But I still don't think you can escape the fact that it was a test that England gifted to Australia through poor decisions.

It might well have just ended up being yet another boring draw if we hadn't declared, but it's largely the outcome that people will remember if we lose this series.
Click to expand...
Maybe the real answer is to get rid of draws and if there is no result give the win to the fastest scoring team or something like that.
 
EuropaParmo said:
If we'd taken 2 wickets on day 1 Stokes would have been labelled a genius.
Click to expand...
But that was never a likely result. As many have said, the pitch was lifeless, the light was good. In good bowling conditions, it would have been understandable.
HolgateCorner said:
Especially to a negative team who even yesterday looked like it was play for the draw and the win is a bonus.

It was only exciting because it was close, that Khawadja made Geoffrey Boycott look dynamic.
Click to expand...
It wasn't negative, it was percentage cricket. They didn't need to play quickly to win. We'd given them that much time to bat that if they survived the day they were always going to win. Even with the lost time on the morning. If we had an extra 50 runs and they had 5 or 6 less overs then they would have had a bit more scoreboard pressure. They then would have had a decision to make.

HolgateCorner said:
Maybe the real answer is to get rid of draws and if there is no result give the win to the fastest scoring team or something like that.
Click to expand...
What is wrong with a draw? Why do we need a result for it to be a good match? When did we become Americans where we need a result to enjoy it? That game would have been just as enthralling if we still had a 100 run lead with 10 overs to play and 8 wickets down. Men round the bat trying to force those last few wickets. I've seen many exciting draws.

We won't see bore draws with this England team because they score too quickly. The type of game where both teams bat for 5 sessions each in the first innings and kill the game. This was never going to be that type of game even if we had batted out the first day. There was no need for the declaration.
 
B_G said:
But that was never a likely result. As many have said, the pitch was lifeless, the light was good. In good bowling conditions, it would have been understandable.

It wasn't negative, it was percentage cricket. They didn't need to play quickly to win. We'd given them that much time to bat that if they survived the day they were always going to win. Even with the lost time on the morning. If we had an extra 50 runs and they had 5 or 6 less overs then they would have had a bit more scoreboard pressure. They then would have had a decision to make.


What is wrong with a draw? Why do we need a result for it to be a good match? When did we become Americans where we need a result to enjoy it? That game would have been just as enthralling if we still had a 100 run lead with 10 overs to play and 8 wickets down. Men round the bat trying to force those last few wickets. I've seen many exciting draws.

We won't see bore draws with this England team because they score too quickly. The type of game where both teams bat for 5 sessions each in the first innings and kill the game. This was never going to be that type of game even if we had batted out the first day. There was no need for the declaration.
Click to expand...

The first innings declaration is an irrelevant distraction. Not doing Y can change the outcome of Z and we may have been bowled out for 100 in the second innings, no one can now know.

The loss was purely down to not taking our chances, especially in their first innings.
 
B_G said:
But that was never a likely result. As many have said, the pitch was lifeless, the light was good. In good bowling conditions, it would have been understandable.

It wasn't negative, it was percentage cricket. They didn't need to play quickly to win. We'd given them that much time to bat that if they survived the day they were always going to win. Even with the lost time on the morning. If we had an extra 50 runs and they had 5 or 6 less overs then they would have had a bit more scoreboard pressure. They then would have had a decision to make.


What is wrong with a draw? Why do we need a result for it to be a good match? When did we become Americans where we need a result to enjoy it? That game would have been just as enthralling if we still had a 100 run lead with 10 overs to play and 8 wickets down. Men round the bat trying to force those last few wickets. I've seen many exciting draws.

We won't see bore draws with this England team because they score too quickly. The type of game where both teams bat for 5 sessions each in the first innings and kill the game. This was never going to be that type of game even if we had batted out the first day. There was no need for the declaration.
Click to expand...
What is wrong with a draw?

After 5 days play I think the watching public are entitled to an outcome, after that amount of time (subject to weather) the lack of a result is down to tactics by one or even both of the teams.

A few years ago I would have agreed with you that there is nothing wrong with a hard fought draw but if we are really honest it is really turning a blind eye to slow scoring, slow bowling, fearful tactics and a misguided ‘will to win’. A hell of a lot if people think cricket is boring and this is why.
 
HolgateCorner said:
What is wrong with a draw?

After 5 days play I think the watching public are entitled to an outcome, after that amount of time (subject to weather) the lack of a result is down to tactics by one or even both of the teams.

A few years ago I would have agreed with you that there is nothing wrong with a hard fought draw but if we are really honest it is really turning a blind eye to slow scoring, slow bowling, fearful tactics and a misguided ‘will to win’. A hell of a lot if people think cricket is boring and this is why.
Click to expand...
Like I said. Maybe Test Cricket isn't for you... stick to one day cricket.

A hard fought draw is as good as a win in some cases.
 
HolgateCorner said:
What is wrong with a draw?

After 5 days play I think the watching public are entitled to an outcome, after that amount of time (subject to weather) the lack of a result is down to tactics by one or even both of the teams.

A few years ago I would have agreed with you that there is nothing wrong with a hard fought draw but if we are really honest it is really turning a blind eye to slow scoring, slow bowling, fearful tactics and a misguided ‘will to win’. A hell of a lot if people think cricket is boring and this is why.
Click to expand...
There is a outcome, a draw, the same as football
 
Chris_Boro said:
The first innings declaration is an irrelevant distraction. Not doing Y can change the outcome of Z and we may have been bowled out for 100 in the second innings, no one can now know.

The loss was purely down to not taking our chances, especially in their first innings.
Click to expand...
Tripe.
An additional 30-50 runs wouldn't have made a difference?
You need to take 20 wickets to win certainly, but you need enough runs to give your bowlers the best possible chance to.
Stokes got it very wrong.

HolgateCorner said:
A few years ago I would have agreed with you that there is nothing wrong with a hard fought draw but if we are really honest it is really turning a blind eye to slow scoring, slow bowling, fearful tactics and a misguided ‘will to win’. A hell of a lot if people think cricket is boring and this is why.
Click to expand...

More tripe.
As for needing a binary result for exciting cricket in a 5 match series, just stop it.

2005 England 2 Australia 1 and 2 draws.
2009 England 2 Australia 1 and 2 draws.
2010-11 Australia 1 England 3 and 1 draw.
2013 England 3 Australia 2 and 2 draws.
2015 England 3 Australia 2
2019 England 2 Australia 2 and 1 draw.

The draws are not dull, they can be extremely exciting.
All those series were played to full houses.

Khawaja was absolutely brilliant by the way, as was their captain Pat Cummins.
If you need to see a binary result in every match then stick to ODI, or T20; both are also great watches.
 
Chris_Boro said:
The first innings declaration is an irrelevant distraction. Not doing Y can change the outcome of Z and we may have been bowled out for 100 in the second innings, no one can now know.

The loss was purely down to not taking our chances, especially in their first innings.
Click to expand...
The declaration increased the percentage of an Australian win, so it’s not irrelevant.

The action of not declaring we can’t be sure what would have happened, but you can still work out the possibility of something happening
 
I was thinking about this last night, and forgive me if some of the details are slightly off but if you could’ve paused at the declaration and someone told you on day 5 there’d be an hour to go, and Australia needed 60 runs with 2 wickets left and Lyon and Cummings in bat (and the new ball around the corner) I think the vast majority of England fans would’ve been very happy with that.
 
B_G said:
B0ll0cks
Click to expand...

So adding a few more runs is more important than the errors that cost us far more?

Focusing on the declaration is overshadowing the errors that ultimately cost us the game. We have no idea how many more runs we might have have scored had we not declared or their effect on the game.
 
Chris_Boro said:
So adding a few more runs is more important than the errors that cost us far more?
Click to expand...
Yes. The declaration was a conscious decision that we got wrong.

Mistakes happen. It's cricket. There's always dropped catches and missed chances. They also had a couple of dropped catches and missed chances.
 
B_G said:
Yes. The declaration was a conscious decision that we got wrong.

Mistakes happen. It's cricket. There's always dropped catches and missed chances. They also had a couple of dropped catches and missed chances.
Click to expand...

You're assuming a different outcome from something we cannot know.

Some of the chances we missed are far more important as they should not be happening at this level and cost us far more in the end.
 
ForssAwakens said:
The declaration increased the percentage of an Australian win, so it’s not irrelevant.

The action of not declaring we can’t be sure what would have happened, but you can still work out the possibility of something happening
Click to expand...

You can only speculate, not work out.

Stating we might have had more runs in the first innings does not mean Australia would be chasing anything different.

The far more important issues for me are the missed stumping, dropped catches, no balls and fitness of bowlers.
 
indeedido said:
Tripe.
An additional 30-50 runs wouldn't have made a difference?
You need to take 20 wickets to win certainly, but you need enough runs to give your bowlers the best possible chance to.
Stokes got it very wrong.
Click to expand...

What is tripe is assuming the outcome of an event based on the assumption that we would have scored more runs in the first innings and everything else being the same.
 
Chris_Boro said:
The first innings declaration is an irrelevant distraction. Not doing Y can change the outcome of Z and we may have been bowled out for 100 in the second innings, no one can now know.

The loss was purely down to not taking our chances, especially in their first innings.
Click to expand...
Ordinarily I would probably agree with you. However, in this particularly instance, I think we can make reasonable assumptions

Having only faced 4 overs at the end of the previous day, the Aussie openers had to start from scratch on the second morning against bowlers who hadn’t really exerted themselves. Therefore, there is a very strong argument that, had the Aussies started their innings on day two rather than resumed it, the same pattern of play would have ensued from then on.

The only difference would be that England would (probably) have scored more runs in their first innings and the Aussies would have scored 13 fewer. In a tight game, those extra runs in England’s advantage may well have secured a different result.

You could also employ your argument to the mistakes and say that we wouldn’t know what would have followed had those chances been taken. The incoming batsman would have faced different deliveries from the one he actually did and might have scored more runs (or less).

Mistakes do affect the game, as you say, but that’s not something in the direct control of the captain. Declaration is.
 
indeedido said:
Tripe.
An additional 30-50 runs wouldn't have made a difference?
You need to take 20 wickets to win certainly, but you need enough runs to give your bowlers the best possible chance to.
Stokes got it very wrong.



More tripe.
As for needing a binary result for exciting cricket in a 5 match series, just stop it.

2005 England 2 Australia 1 and 2 draws.
2009 England 2 Australia 1 and 2 draws.
2010-11 Australia 1 England 3 and 1 draw.
2013 England 3 Australia 2 and 2 draws.
2015 England 3 Australia 2
2019 England 2 Australia 2 and 1 draw.

The draws are not dull, they can be extremely exciting.
All those series were played to full houses.

Khawaja was absolutely brilliant by the way, as was their captain Pat Cummins.
If you need to see a binary result in every match then stick to ODI, or T20; both are also great watches.
Click to expand...
I think you need to modernise
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top