Declarations and field placing
The timing of a captain's declaration is always going to be scrutinised and, as we can't play parallel games with different tactics(!), no one is able to prove that their tactics were right. We've talked about Strauss' declarations before in the West Indies and the fact that his declarations are only as good as his field placings. By that I mean that the timing of a declaration can only be judged having seen how the next innings is handled by the fielding skipper.
On Saturday evening we club cricketers were discussing the timing of England's declaration and I was against giving Australia less than 600 to chase. The reason being that it would have allowed Strauss to have attacking fields throughout.
As things stand he's had to use sweepers to try and contain runs when a close catcher might have created a wicket. And when Anderson was bowling with the new ball at the end of today's play, he had only 2 slips rather than the 3 or 4 that batting Australia (almost) out of the game would have allowed.
Whatever the result, in my opinion the declaration was wrong and it reminds me of Adelaide 2006 when we declared our first innings too early - let's hope the result isn't the same.
6 comments:
Before we talk about the timing of declarations surely we should question the reluctance, indeed refusal, to enforce the follow-on. This allowed the West Indies to save a game that England dominated throughout, and looks as if it might turn victory into defeat against Australia. Why do we throw away the initiative in this way? We know Flintoff can only bowl a limited number of overs, but surely the four other full-time bowlers, plus Collingwood and Bopara if necessary, could manage 180 overs over two days if they had to. If they can't there's something wrong with their much-vaunted fitness: old-timers who played proper county cricket six days a week between test matches must be turning in their graves!
On another matter, why is Pietersen allowed a fielding substitute? He wasn't injured in the course of the game and shouldn't have been selected if he wasn't fit to take his proper place in the field. His batting yesterday showed that he was either drastically out of form or severely limited by his injury: either way he shouldn't have been picked.
I thought all along that the 521 wasn't enough. The commentators were talking about Australia having to bat out the two days in order to 'save the test'. But surely any Australian side that bats two days, and isn't severely hampered by rain, would score 500 in almost 200 overs? Even if 50 odd overs were lost, Australia could still knock the runs off.
England should have batted on an hour or so this morning, even with the 5 wickets I'm not all that confident of a deserved England win
I would have wanted to enforce the follow on but in Strauss' defence apparently the overhead conditions meant that the bowlers wouldn't get a lot of swing. I wasn't watching so can't say if that was true!
I'm not sure where the line is drawn on injuries - if someone is passed "fit" at the start of the game then perhaps it can be argued that any subsequent recurrence is a new injury.....the wording of the laws is all important. Flintoff must be in the same boat as Pietersen as he had knee problems prior to the match but a replacement fielder came on for him when he left the field.
As Ed says, I think Strauss's decision to bat again was less about bowler fatigue and more about the batsman-friendly conditions on Saturday. He presumably got a chance to assess whether the ball was helping his bowlers on Saturday morning as they wrapped up the tail, and elected to 'make hay while the sun shone' instead.
I agree about the fielding substitutes - it seems rather dubious. From Law 2:
1. Substitutes and runners
(a) If the umpires are satisfied that a player has been injured or become ill after the nomination of the players, they shall allow that player to have
(i) a substitute acting instead of him in the field.
(ii) a runner when batting.
Any injury or illness that occurs at any time after the nomination of the players until the conclusion of the match shall be allowable, irrespective of whether play is in progress or not.
(b) The umpires shall have discretion, for other wholly acceptable reasons, to allow a substitute for a fielder, or a runner for a batsman, at the start of the match or at any subsequent time.
(c) A player wishing to change his shirt, boots, etc. must leave the field to do so. No substitute shall be allowed for him.
I can only assume such incidents as this relate to a convention that the umpires apply the discretion permitted in (b).
And finally, I can't believe you all doubted England's chances! I want to be Freddie when I grow up...
I'm not sure how setting a team 520 to win in the fourth innings is throwing away the initiative. I can't believe the criticism Strauss has copped over this. In the West Indies he was too defensive, here he has given himself two days to bowl the aussies out. it seems to me he can't win
He was too defensive according to some in the West Indies - Botham being one I remember. Let's remember Botham couldn't captain for toffee, and the Cricket Burble panel thought Strauss got it about right there! :-)
I thought he got it wrong at Lords because he couldn't be overly attacking in his field placing having given Australia an extremely gettable target, but all's well that ends well....
Post a Comment