Ideally, assuming that play can resume after lunch, Australia would declare. Much as I'd like to see Gilly swat another century, the first priority has to be those ten first innings Kiwi wickets, and I think it's unlikely that there will be a better time to bowl at them than now. If they can take the wickets for no more than 137, I would, on this occasion, favour enforcing the follow-on, because:
a) although it's plausible to think Australia could win without doing so, it's still unlikely,
b) there is a much greater likelihood of further loss of playing time due to rain and/or bad light, making bowler and fielder fatigue irrelevant, but putting playing time at a further premium,
c) Australia will probably not get to bat a second time in any event, and if they do, the innings will be trivial in length and the pitch will not have detiorated.
I think it unlikely though that Ponting will take this course. I imagine he'll bat on for at least 100-150 more. If he does, he should not repeat what he did on the first morning of that match in Australia against NZ where they grafted aimlessly for a couple of hours before declaring. They should go hard at the bowling after only a brief sighter, and aim to score whatever extra runs are needed within 15 overs and then declare. Allowing the pitch to improve for batting while Australia is using it doesn't make tactical sense, particularly as there's no telling how many further breaks in play may follow.
Andrew Dunford 20 March 2005 03:45:25 [ permanent link ]
"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1111273283.126386.158670@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> Ideally, assuming that play can resume after lunch, Australia would> declare. Much as I'd like to see Gilly swat another century, the first> priority has to be those ten first innings Kiwi wickets, and I think> it's unlikely that there will be a better time to bowl at them than> now. If they can take the wickets for no more than 137, I would, on> this occasion, favour enforcing the follow-on, because:>
a) although it's plausible to think Australia could win without doing> so, it's still unlikely,>
b) there is a much greater likelihood of further loss of playing time> due to rain and/or bad light, making bowler and fielder fatigue> irrelevant, but putting playing time at a further premium,
Just to amplify this point, it should be noted that clocks in NZ were wound back one hour overnight, signifying the end of Daylight Saving. Once this happens, it becomes increasingly difficult to extend play at the end of the day. Even on the nicest day, the sun becomes hidden behind the Vance stand during the last hour and the pitch goes into shadow. There are no floodlights to supplement the natural light.
Given that the match started with scheduled playing hours of 10.30am - 5.30pm, the approach to gaining the maximum playing time now that the clocks have gone back would be to adjust the standard hours back one hour i.e. 9.30 to 4.30, with scope to play on after 4.30 to make up lost time. Of course it won't happen.
Treat it just like Pura Cup 4-day match. Bat until this afternoon, declare and then hopefully have them a few down by stumps. Still two days to take the rest of the 20 wickets needed.
Sounds simple, but probably won't pan out that way
FRAN wrote:> Ideally, assuming that play can resume after lunch, Australia would> declare. Much as I'd like to see Gilly swat another century, the first> priority has to be those ten first innings Kiwi wickets, and I think> it's unlikely that there will be a better time to bowl at them than> now. If they can take the wickets for no more than 137, I would, on> this occasion, favour enforcing the follow-on, because:>
a) although it's plausible to think Australia could win without doing> so, it's still unlikely,>
b) there is a much greater likelihood of further loss of playing time> due to rain and/or bad light, making bowler and fielder fatigue> irrelevant, but putting playing time at a further premium,>
c) Australia will probably not get to bat a second time in any event,> and if they do, the innings will be trivial in length and the pitch> will not have detiorated.>
I think it unlikely though that Ponting will take this course. I> imagine he'll bat on for at least 100-150 more.
Gosh, I got that badly wrong ... 570!! ... self-whoosh!!
"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<1111297537.739664.104520@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>...> FRAN wrote:> > Ideally, assuming that play can resume after lunch, Australia would> > declare. Much as I'd like to see Gilly swat another century, the> first> > priority has to be those ten first innings Kiwi wickets, and I think> > it's unlikely that there will be a better time to bowl at them than> > now. If they can take the wickets for no more than 137, I would, on> > this occasion, favour enforcing the follow-on, because:> >
a) although it's plausible to think Australia could win without doing> > so, it's still unlikely,> >
b) there is a much greater likelihood of further loss of playing time> > due to rain and/or bad light, making bowler and fielder fatigue> > irrelevant, but putting playing time at a further premium,> >
c) Australia will probably not get to bat a second time in any event,> > and if they do, the innings will be trivial in length and the pitch> > will not have detiorated.> >
I think it unlikely though that Ponting will take this course. I> > imagine he'll bat on for at least 100-150 more.>
Gosh, I got that badly wrong ... 570!! ... self-whoosh!!>
Fran
With hindsight had Ponting gone with my recommendation, they might now have been two up, though Gilly would have been shy one century.
Of course, had they declared when Australia got to 437 Both Martyn and Ponting would have got red ink, and Australia might have had the time they needed to win. I wasn't aware that the follow on was 150 rather than 200 shy when I posted.
In article <8755974d.0503220308.955d03d@posting.google.com>, FRAN says...
Of course, had they declared when Australia got to 437 Both Martyn and> Ponting would have got red ink, and Australia might have had the time> they needed to win. I wasn't aware that the follow on was 150 rather> than 200 shy when I posted.
Was the 1st days play considered abandoned?
The target set would likely have been a function of weather reports and pitch conditions.
It's hard to be critical when around 2.5 days have been lost due to rain.
RodP wrote:> In article <8755974d.0503220308.955d03d@posting.google.com>,> FRAN says...>
Of course, had they declared when Australia got to 437 Both Martyn
Ponting would have got red ink, and Australia might have had the
time> > they needed to win. I wasn't aware that the follow on was 150 rather> > than 200 shy when I posted.>
Was the 1st days play considered abandoned?>
That's what I heard ... they didn't bother naming the 12th man.
The target set would likely have been a function of weather reports
pitch conditions.>
It's hard to be critical when around 2.5 days have been lost due to> rain.
I though you were a hard man?!! They say hard men are good to find ...
(Sorry, I was fretting because I missed the opportunity to do that joke during the post on hattricks)
In all seriousness though, very few teams lose after posting 400 in a four-day contest, and the prospect of that happening here, given NZ's bowling and batting profile, Australia's and the likelihood of more rain curtailing play was minimal. So the question remains, why bat on after 400? I think Gilly had his century by then, if that was a consideration. If it was certainty about the follow on right, 450 was plenty enough, given the 150 rule. Had they done this, the time they spent between there and 570 less ten minutes, might have made the difference. All those breaks in play don't help batsmen.
In article <1111553575.453912.227940@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, FRAN says...
In all seriousness though, very few teams lose after posting 400 in a> four-day contest, and the prospect of that happening here, given NZ's> bowling and batting profile, Australia's and the likelihood of more> rain curtailing play was minimal. So the question remains, why bat on> after 400?
They did make it to 244. I would have expected NZ to post 250 and having Australia bat again to set a target in order to win would have been a balancing act between how many runs should they put on and how much time do they leave to take 10 wickets. Too cute and all of a sudden we have McGrath bowling wide to ensure we don't lose ala Brisbane. Turns out it wouldn't have made much difference in the end anyway.
In article <1111576236.838812.150810@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, FRAN says...
We also don't know how many they would have scored if they'd batted> under a bit more pressure -- ie much further from the end, and with> more rain breaks. Maybe they wouldn't have scored 244.
Conversely, having a gettable target to save the match (and lets face it, having so much time lost to rain, reaching the follow-on figure was always going to save the match) may have strengthened the batsmen's resolve to dig in and graft those needed runs.
As it was, the batsmen's only concern was to attempt to protect their wicket while the Australian's just continued to pile on the pressure. Runs were secondary to survival even at the commencement of NZ's innings.
All this is moot now, obviously. I was expecting a 500 declaration but that would have left Australia short as well. I wasn't sure whether it had been declared 4 day rules but it was obvious that the only chance we had was to enforce the follow on.
