Amazing skill & concentration against an attack that included Walsh,> Ambrose & Marshall.

Amazing skill & concentration against an attack that included Walsh,> Ambrose & Marshall.

Amazing skill & concentration against an attack that included Walsh,> Ambrose & Marshall.> -- > Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

For me, Graham Gooch's 154* v WI at Headingley in 1991 has to be a very> strong contender.>

Amazing skill & concentration against an attack that included Walsh,> Ambrose & Marshall.

Probably Lara's match winning century in (I think Barbados) in 1999 > against Australia. He shepherded the tail for about 200 runs to win the > match single-handedly. I remember being privileged enough to see it live, > and the fear of God being put up me when Ambrose got out and Walsh had to > 'block' an over for Lara to score the winning runs. I remember Walsh even > had the cheek to do one of his patented leaves ­>

ODI's:> Michael Bevan's century in a Asia XI vx ROTW XI a few years back. The most > awesome ODI innings I have ever seen, so nearly bringing his down-and-out > team to victory.>

And an emotional mention for a Ben Hollioake 50-odd in a ODI against > Pakistan on a seaming wicket at Headingly (Waqar took 6 or 7 iirc). It was > full of classy shots, and he was so calm at the crease. That kid had some > class.>

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 07:27:11 +0100,> Paul Hyett (pah@nojunkmailplea­se.co.uk) wrote:>> For me, Graham Gooch's 154* v WI at Headingley in 1991 has to be a very>> strong contender.>>

There are two that stand out in my mind -- both at Headingley as well.>Boycott's 191 against Australia 1977. And how can anyone ever forget >Botham's 149* at Headingley in 1981?

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:51:00 +0100,> Mike Holmans (mike@jackalope.dem­on.co.uk) wrote:>> Of course, there weren't all that many people who saw it. >

There were thousands of people (tens of thousands?) who saw it. >The game was televised, you know.

If I'd meant "watched it on TV", I'd have said so.

Amazing skill & concentration against an attack that included Walsh,> Ambrose & Marshall.> -- > Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

"Paul Hyett" <pah@nojunkmailplea­se.co.uk> schreef in bericht>news:11Y37r­D$OdcCFwH+@activist.­demon.co.uk...>> For me, Graham Gooch's 154* v WI at Headingley in 1991 has to be a very>> strong contender.>>

I have only 4 Tests to choose from, but Flintoff's 142 v SA at Lord's in>2003 stands out. Brutal hitting, including 20-odd off Pollock to provide>top-class entertainment on a beautifully sunny day. Made everone forget that>England were actually being hammered by an innings.

Just checking now he took 74 balls to make 50 with just one 4. For the > next 90 runs he took 47 balls including 8 sixes and 3 fours.> "dmo" <dmo@12345blah.blah­> wrote in message > news:42722b66@news.­greennet.net...>> "Paul Hyett" <pah@nojunkmailplea­se.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:11Y37rD$OdcCFw­H+@activist.demon.co­.uk...>>> For me, Graham Gooch's 154* v WI at Headingley in 1991 has to be a very>>> strong contender.>>>

Amazing skill & concentration against an attack that included Walsh,> Ambrose & Marshall.> --

Of course, there weren't all that many people who saw it.

In uk.sport.cricket on Fri, 29 Apr 2005 at 12:51:00, Mike Holmans wrote>:>>>

By 'seen', I didn't necessarily mean only those present on the ground ->I meant on TV too.

I had hoped that Paul was asking for something a bit more interesting>than "What's the best innings of the modern era?", which is all that>this question becomes once you count what people have watched on TV.

A digression: Modern players do not really cut the ball well. They >either guide the ball with an angled bat, or drive the ball square.>

The sound of a Vishwanath square-cut would loudly resound even in a >packed noisy Eden Gardens.

Paul that innings would it be for me as well although Botham's 149 also>at same ground comes pretty close

"Paul Hyett" <pah@nojunkmailplea­se.co.uk> wrote in message>news:11Y37r­D$OdcCFwH+@activist.­demon.co.uk...>> For me, Graham Gooch's 154* v WI at Headingley in 1991 has to be a very>> strong contender.>>

Amazing skill & concentration against an attack that included Walsh,> Ambrose & Marshall.> -- > Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Why?> --

Amazing skill & concentration against an attack that included Walsh,> Ambrose & Marshall.

-- > Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

amukhop wrote:>> Don't most ATG innings end up being against tiring attacks and> bemused>> captains? ­>

No ... I don't think the one a few mentioned elsewhere, from Lara would> count.>

I don't think Gilchrist's debut century qualifies either (I saw that> one at ground).>

I also think Laxsman's 167 or so against the Aussies in Sydney in his> debut series (?) was probably a better knock than the 281, because it> was more unexpected.

Shishir S. Pathak wrote:>> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.­com> wrote in message>> news:1114936485.995­295.201360@g14g2000c­wa.googlegroups.com.­..>> >

Were Dravid and Laxsman more, or less likely to have played that way> batting last chasing 700 to win after spending however many sessions in> the field?

The scorn on SRW the tactical genius was rather understated, in my> opinion.>

He should have been led by the nose through Australia's capital cities> while cricket followers waved goodbye and took turns dropping their> trousers.

And as for the 167 being less expected, I think someone's talking out> of her hat. Laxman's 281 came after India had lost their previous four> encounters with Australia,

If Matt O'Neill were here, he'd tell me I should never> forget Dean Jones's 206 at Madras, which would remind me of Norm

Astle 222. Almost singlehandedly won the game from a nigh on impossible> situation.

Had NZ won, it would be the greatest easily.

Shishir S. Pathak wrote:> > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.­com> wrote in message> > news:1114937902.098­819.282160@o13g2000c­wo.googlegroups.com.­..> > >

It's the right question, and that SRW didn't trouble to ask it shows> what a tactical numbskull he was on that day.>

Much better than if they had to spend 100 overs in the field first.>

What state will they be in after 120 consecutive overs in the heat on a> road? How soon will that come up? Before the next new ball.

What will> hapen if I go down a bowler? A disaster.

Decision. Rest my bowlers, tax their fielders and bowlers.

So they were due for a big one.

By the time Australia> had bowled 196 overs in sequence, India had cruised to 500 -- the exact> number of runs India turned out to need to win. India's last 50 runs> came off just ten overs as Australia's half-dead bowlers and fielders

And as we saw in any event, even if they had batted well enough for a> draw in these circumstances a draw would still have been a better> result from Australia's POV.

Actually, by the last day, SRW's best tactic (though as a cricket lover> I'd have hated it) would probably have been to delay the declaration as> long as possible, having his part timers bowling wide down leg side and> then outside off to stop Dravid from getting to 200 without getting him> out.

If they'd been able to hold them up for ten-fifteen overs, that> might have been enough to save the game. At worst, Australia would have> had a smaller target.

But it comes back to Waugh's poor tactics in the middle. He cost> Australia that series, when he the side he captained had all but won> it. Really, he should have been sacked as soon as he got back.

I wish someone had offered me 10-1 on him passing 150. I'd have parted> with $50. Ditto for Dravid.

Michael Banner wrote:

And not only that series. Australia hit rock bottom and never> recovered.

They were still under the pump next time around.

Michael Banner wrote:> > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.­com> wrote in message> > news:1114941208.294­788.151660@g14g2000c­wa.googlegroups.com.­..> >

You're aware I suppose that Sourav Ganguly's middle name is Baldrick,> aren't you?

Give me good enough odds, and I'll bet on anything.

Shishir S. Pathak wrote:> > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.­com> wrote in message> > news:1115025930.332­475.85510@g14g2000cw­a.googlegroups.com..­.> > >

What happened in the home series v India?>

Against India ... Look at how flakey they were in Australia

Michael Banner wrote:>

Not *expected* but suggested by circumstance as a real (though outside)>possibilit­y.

On 2 May 2005 02:25:30 -0700, "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.­com> tapped>the keyboard and brought forth:>

I agree with Michael. You are arguing from a position of 20-20>hindsight, telling us that things seemed like a real possibility, when>they clearly did not seem that way, because the unthinkable actually>happened. It's a feature of cricket that things are hardly ever more>than 99.9% certain, so the one in a thousand chance will actually come>up very occasionally, but it is frankly irrational to behave as though>it always will, which is effectively what you are arguing.>

What's also amusing to contemplate is what would have happened if>Waugh had not enforced and India had achieved a draw by batting out>time, and the chances of *that* were far, far greater than the chance>that they would make enough to set Australia a target *and* bowl them>out very cheaply. Then you and your ilk would have been all over him>for playing safety-first and showing an un-Australian lack of>aggression, and wasting the chance to extend the fantastic run of>victories.>

To be honest, I find your harping on this as a blunder by Steve Waugh>incredibly one-eyed and pretty offensive overall. What Laxman, Dravid>and Harbhajan Singh managed between them is one of the most miraculous>turnroun­ds, possibly the most miraculous, in the history of the game>and I don't see why it should be constantly belittled by small-minded>Austra­lians who can't see beyond the end of their precious team's>unbeaten record.

In a way, it's good SRW got burned. If he'd got away with it, we'd> still be facing more such stupidites. Now it's unlikely to ever happen> again. I'm betting no Aussie captain will enforce in similar> circumstances in my lifetime. At least, I hope not.

In a way, it's good SRW got burned. If he'd got away with it, we'd>still be facing more such stupidites. Now it's unlikely to ever happen>again. I'm betting no Aussie captain will enforce in similar>circumstanc­es in my lifetime.

Andrew Dunford wrote:> > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.­com> wrote in message> > news:1115035056.563­205.323800@l41g2000c­wc.googlegroups.com.­..> >

And who is enforcing these days, now that Mr Conservative has retired?

I'm betting no Aussie captain will enforce in similar> circumstances in my lifetime.

Shishir S. Pathak wrote:>> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.­com> wrote in message>> news:1115025930.332­475.85510@g14g2000cw­a.googlegroups.com..­.>> >

What happened in the home series v India?>

Against India ... Look at how flakey they were in Australia>

The one in Australia, Shishir.

Shishir S. Pathak wrote:>> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.­com> wrote in message>> news:1115027965.665­033.238970@f14g2000c­wb.googlegroups.com.­..>> >

Interesting you should mention this. Perhaps if we had had a fully fit> Harbhajan we would've won the series in Australia! We did after all> miss a worthy second spinner in T4, where Kartik was just useless.>

Interesting angle that. A lot of India's success is attributed to Aus> missing Warne (who has done squat vs. India anyway) and McGrath. I'm> wondering how much of Aus's success can be attributed to India missing> a fully fit Harbhajan. After all, we're also claiming the wickets> suited India more and everything isn't it?

In all seriousness though, Australia hadn't won a series in India in> more than a generation, whereas India have tended to play their best> cricket on home soil, and as you say, Australia had won 16 in a row,> itself anomalous. So the pattern was due to be broken.

And not only that series. Australia hit rock bottom and never> recovered. They were still under the pump next time around.

Not *expected* but suggested by circumstance as a real (though outside)> possibility.

I've paid> homage to the Indians. They *were* the better side. They outbatted and> outbowled the Aussies. Good luck to them.>

It would have been good if they'd done it the hard way though.

"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.­com> wrote in message>news:111503­4881.137536.283550@g­14g2000cwa.googlegro­ups.com...>

<snip>>

Where I come from, paying homage doesn't usually involve concluding that>perhaps the achievement wasn't all it's cracked up to be.

Andrew>

Michael Banner wrote:> > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.­com> wrote in message> > news:1115025930.332­475.85510@g14g2000cw­a.googlegroups.com..­.> >

or alternatively, you just have a different model of what the pattern> of results entails>

Is the predictable result the one that follows the most recent trend,

or is this an anomalous departure from the more longstanding and> predictively telling trend?>

In short, if winning 16 in a row is unusual (by definition yes, since> it was a record) when will this anomaly end, or is it what one might> expect?

This probably was> the case at Kolkhata as the game, and the series were apparently gone.> Laxman, some assert, was about to be dropped. And he was too good a> batsman to keep missing out. Ditto Dravid. And the pitch was very good.

India led handsomely on the first innings (by 110) and after Kolkhata> Australia were like rabbits in the headlights for Harbhajan (who took> 15 in that match). The final result flattered Australia only because> India lost a bit of concentration.

No, it's a remote possibility. If it were merely an *outside*> possibility (ie if there were a 10% chance of that happening for> example),

It would have been good if they'd done it the hard way though.

FRAN>

That debut century of Gilchrist's marked him out as someone special,> and it wasn't surprising when it became something of a pattern. But if> he'd missed out through bad umpiring,

This is just another case showing that Fran and realty only have a> glancing acquaintance

That may be so. But why do you think FRAN's supposed ignorance about> property market should prevent her from talking on The Theory and Practice> of Follow-ons in the 21st Century Test Cricket?

"Colin Kynoch" <colinkynoch@gmail.­com> wrote in message >news:mn8e71hmbvgtk­ctp7d8h7vdanaeoha7vu­n@4ax.com...>> On Tue, 3 May 2005 12:49:47 +1200, "Andrew Dunford">> <adunford@artifax.n­et> enraptured with the Election of Cardinal>> Ratchaser decided to post the following:>>

That may be so. But why do you think FRAN's supposed ignorance about >property market should prevent her from talking on The Theory and Practice >of Follow-ons in the 21st Century Test Cricket?

Of course, when *one* of them is travelling well, he is going to make> it easier for his partner, and vice versa. So unless someone falls> early (always a strong possibility, but less so here because the wicket> was even flatter than the bowlers would have been after their 100th> over) the chances of them both going on with it improve.

Don't you hate it when you spell a word correctly but it is the wrong> word and spellchecker doesn't pick it up.

Colin Kynoch wrote:>

I find a good way to avoid this problem is by righting the wright word in> the first place.>

Aditya

Chasing down 700 in the fourth innings on a hiding to nothing? That> sounds tough, as it's about 300 more than anyone's ever got.

"dp" <dpusenet@yahoo.com­> wrote in message> news:1115118348.184­397.264790@f14g2000c­wb.googlegroups.com.­..> > Chasing 650+ in 2 days? That's what India would have had to do if Waugh> > had chosen the sensible option of not enforcing follow-on.>

In which case you had better tell us how you know Australia would have> scored 380 in its second innings.

How were the chances of India achieving a draw if they had batted last> "far, far greater" than their chances of win after following-on? At the> conclusion of India's 1st innings, there were 260-odd overs remained to> bowled in the match. If Waugh hadn't enforced follow-on, Aus could have> batted for around 90 overs, taken the lead to close to 650

Mike Holmans wrote:>> I agree with Michael. You are arguing from a position of 20-20>> hindsight, telling us that things seemed like a real possibility,> when>> they clearly did not seem that way, because the unthinkable actually>> happened. It's a feature of cricket that things are hardly ever more>> than 99.9% certain, so the one in a thousand chance will actually> come>> up very occasionally, but it is frankly irrational to behave as> though>> it always will, which is effectively what you are arguing.>

But was it really unthinkable that the BCCI team might put up a score> of 550+ batting at home, against a tired attack on a third day pitch?> Sure, they had collapsed twice in the previous test in Bombay, but that> was on a pitch that had much more for pace bowlers than a typical> Indian pitch. Waugh couldn't have concluded on the basis of that test> alone that India were incapable of putting up a decent score. It is not> as if Aussies had never seen the strength of this batting line-up> earlier. In the series prior to 200-01, India had put up scores of> 418/4d, 633/5d and 424 in 3 different tests.

I don't agree with Fran that Waugh committed a huge blunder, that he> should have been publicly humiliated for that decision etc. However, I> totally agree with her larger point that enforcing follow-on makes> little sense when there is so much play left in the match. But I fail> to understand the hositility with which she is attacked on this forum> for making what seems to me to be a fairly valid point

Ah, that's because cricket has a large proportion of very conservative> thinkers.

Shishir S. Pathak wrote:>> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.­com> wrote in message>> news:1115027965.665­033.238970@f14g2000c­wb.googlegroups.com.­..>> >

You don't think losing a game you had in the bag would leave you> gutted?

You wouldn't think going on to lose the series would leave you> at rock bottom?

That's speculation. You appear to be confident that they could have batted > for> 90 overs while scoring at over 4 runs an over, yet on the last day, they > were> unable to bat for 70 overs while scoring at just over 3 an over, and on > the> first day, they lost their first 8 wickets while scoring at 3.2 an over.

They managed to score 220 batting on day 5, so it is reasonable to> expect that they would have score more than that if they had batted on> day 3. How much more it would have been is a matter of speculation, but> even if it was 280 instead of 380, that would have still left India to> score 550 chasing on a 4th and 5th day pitch, which would have been a> tougher task than scoring the same amount of runs on days 3&4 batting> against a tired attack.> Point is, there were 260+ overs remaining. Australia led by 270 runs.> There was no way India would have survived all those overs without> wiping off the lead. Which means, there were still some overs left for> Australia to bat in the match. Fran's and my point is that it would> have been better for Australia to bat out those overs when the pitch is> still good to bat on and then leave India to chase whatever target they> can set, rather than leaving open the possibility of batting in fourth> innings when conditions become tougher for batting. It is a simple> point, really.

Andrew Dunford wrote:> > "dp" <dpusenet@yahoo.com­> wrote in message> > news:1115118348.184­397.264790@f14g2000c­wb.googlegroups.com.­..> > > Chasing 650+ in 2 days? That's what India would have had to do if> Waugh> > > had chosen the sensible option of not enforcing follow-on.> >

IT WAS A ROAD. Australia got 445 in the first. YOU'RE the ones saying> India's previous innings are a good guide to what SRW thought they> should have got.

Andrew Dunford wrote:> > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.­com> wrote in message> > news:1115120464.821­507.165500@g14g2000c­wa.googlegroups.com.­..> > >

So you're saying that a pitch on which a batting line up you thought> SRW was entitled to see as likely to fold on being reinserted (given> their previous track record, a rampant bowling line-up etc) could get> 675 was one likely to deny Australia 380 in circumstances where for> most of the time the Indians would have had most of their fielders in> run-saving positions.>

Talk about tendentious!

They did outplay Australia, evidenced by the fact they won.>

That doesn't mean that SRW didn't make it easier for them than he> needed to to keep at least equivalent, and probably superior, winning> prospects.

Andrew Dunford wrote:> > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.­com> wrote in message> > news:1115165451.267­153.257890@f14g2000c­wb.googlegroups.com.­..> > >

Well if I've attributed to you ideas proposed by a number of others, I> apologise. With so many keen to make the case for enforcement I've> obviously made an error.>

Still, it has been asserted a number of times that India's run of poor> batting and Australia's effective bowling indicated that SRW's decision> to enforce was justifiable. If there batting was that poor, then it can> only have been that that the pitch was very good.>

So in your view, had Waugh not enforced, the only realistic> possibilites were an Australian victory, or a draw, *assuming* for the> sake of argument Australia got 675 ahead. You want to contest how far> ahead Australia could have got.

AT the time the decision was taken, 190 overs had been bowled. That> leaves roughly 260 overs to determine the match.

Taking Australia's run> rate in the first dig of 445/131 (roughly 3.4) and batting for 140> overs gives Australia a 2nd innings of around 484 runs. Add that to 274> and you have a lead of around 750. Even at 3 per over (conservative in> my view even to a defensive field, given the inevitable fireworks as> Australia get past the 500 lead which would probably be safe) puts them> near 700.

Yet Australia only batted for 68 overs. Harbhajan bowled some absolute> jaffas, not all of which took wickets, but you have to ask why given> his performance on Day 1, they handed him Day 5 and instead asked Warne> to send down 34 overs for 150 or something in the middle is perplexing.> In fact, they ended up having to use 9 bowlers to get through it.> Interestingly, SRW was the only player apart from Gilly *not* to bowl.>

MEW, who had sent down 18 overs went for 0. Ponting who had sent down> 12 went for 0 to go with his FI 6. Gilchrist, who had fielded for 236> overs, went for 0. Gillespie, who had made 47 in the first got 6.

Were the Aussies tired and drained and demoralised at what had> transpired by then? You betcha.>

Batsmen are always easier to dislodge when they first get in. But> Gillespie lasted for as many deliveries as Langer, MEW, Ponting,> Gilchrist and Warne combined. Either he's an absolute batting genius> (actually he's a pretty solid No9, and arguably more reliable than> Warne) (and McGrath got 21 from 37) or the pitch was getting easier.>

If McGrath and Gillespie can triple their averages, you know the pitch> is pretty good.>

The fact that Waugh went double his, and Laxman scored an unexpected> near triple ton much later does tell you something.

Andrew Dunford wrote:> > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.­com> wrote in message> > news:1115165979.711­528.58030@g14g2000cw­a.googlegroups.com..­.> >

You don't think taking a decision which is>

a) clearly inferior in risk/reward terms>

b) costs Australia the match and in practice the series (had they won> that was it) and as I say, this loss helped produce the loss in T3.>

is *not* a monumental blunder? You don't think it's sackable. In the> other thread Ganesh pointed out that Viswanath was sacked for recalling> Taylor in 1980 and losing. What Viswanath did was not close to being in> the same ballpark as what SRW did.

People like me challenge you lot to reflect and argue and you lot love> that, as do I.>

Speaking for myself, I love swimming against the stream. When too many> people agree with me, I start wondering where I went wrong, or how I> could have been so misunderstood.

If he'd batted for 120, scored at 3 per over, that's 360 + 274> into the lead --about 634 from 130 to win. If India had won from> there I'd have tracked down Aditya and whomever else was> interested and joined them in a long distance celebratory drink. I> could have had no possible demur. Even as it was, it was a> tremendous effort.

Well for one reason or another, the Aussies found it a minefield.

I suspect their psychology was more important than the pitch. They> probably thought they'd squandered the match and the series having> to chase down so many on the last day, and just couldn't get up> for it. Then they probably thought, "look what Harby did on Day 1.> We're done for." The first ball that turned sharply and that was> it. Game over. India 1-1.

It need not have been like that. That was Waugh's blunder.>

FRAN>

Risk/reward my friend.

FRAN>

Andrew Dunford wrote:>> It's a point I understand perfectly well, and a scenario which>> was highly likely to have worked out favourably for Australia. >> However there are also IMO equally valid reasons for enforcing>> the follow-on. >

Like what? I had listed the pros and cons of both the options in> another thread a while back (typical of rsc, there was no response> then and here we are discussing the same stuff all over again ­.> The only significant advantage of enforcing that I could see> (apart from the psychological factors like "pressing the> advantage", "keeping them on backfoot" etc. which I don't believe> much in anyway, why would the team be on any less of backfoot> while chasing a mammoth total and having to survive last 2 days> for example?),

anyway, so apart from that kind of reasons, the> only significant advantage of enforcing is that you don't have to> time your declaration. But that advantage becomes less valuable > as the time remaining increases. Also, the risk of loss itself> increases,

as the possibility of having to bat for significant> number of overs in the 4th innings is high if there are lot of> overs remaining. Sure, it is still a remote possibility, but a> possibility nonetheless. So, in strictly probabilistic terms, not> enforcing is a better option than enforcing. That doesn't mean one> option guarantees a win or the other ensures a loss or anything> like that. All 3 results are possible under both options, but not> enforcing gives slightly higher chances of win and lower chances> of loss, not because of any vague psychological factors but due to> real, cricketing factors like the bowlers being more efficient> when they have had rest and the pitch generally getting tougher to> bat on as the match progresses. If people don't agree with those> factors, then they should just say so and we can move on.>

To put some of the things we are discussing in more precise terms,> let's say there are N overs remaining after two innings and team A> has lead of L runs. Let's say team A is capable of scoring at rate> r1 and the other team B is capable of scoring at rate r2. Then, if> A enforces follow-on, the number of overs they will have to bat in> 4th innings in a worst case scenario is given by:> (N*r2-L)/(r1+r2).

In Kolkatta example, N=260, L=270. If we assume r1=4, r2=3.5, it> gives the number of overs Aus had to face as 85. Whereas, if only> 150 overs had remained and Aus had a lead of 270, then they would> have had to face only 30 overs at worst. So the captain should> basically take a guess on r1 & r2 (N & L are given anyway) and> arrive at a figure of how many overs he will have to face. If that> is small enough that he feels comfortable batting out that many> overs on a 5th day pitch, then he can go ahead and enforce> follow-on. I don't think 85 overs is small enough to make that> decision. >

On the other hand, if A doesn't enforce follow-on, the number of> overs he will have available to bowl out B is given by:> (N*r1+L)/(r1+r2). Again, in Cal'01 example, that figure is 175> overs. That is how many overs Aus would have had to bowl India out> if they had batted on. Even if you want to be conservative and> assume Aus could only score at 3.5 and assume India could score at> 4 (while chasing in 4th innings!), even then, the figure will be:> (260*3.5+270)/(3.5+­4)=160. So if the captain feels comfortable> with that number that he can bowl out the opposition, then he> should go ahead and bat. If Waugh felt 160 overs was not enough > to bowl India out in the 4th innings on 5th day pitch after his> bowlers have had some rest, then that goes directly against what> people are arguing - that Australia had knocked out India in 3> innings, hence Waugh was justified in thinking they will be able> to knock them out a fourth time, he couldn't have imagined that> India will score 500+ etc. I mean, if you think 160 overs in 4th> innings is not enough to bowl them out, then how on earth can you> not consider the possibility that they will be able to score 500> in 3rd innings?

So yes, enforcing was definitely a tactical blunder. Where I> disagree with Fran is regards the enormity of that blunder. Partly> because I have very little expectation from cricketers in general> when it comes to thinking through these sort of things. I don't

expect Waugh to weigh the pros and cons of the options so> carefully and take the optimal decision. On the contrary, I expect> most captains to take the lazy decision of doing the traditional> thing. That goes down well with the fans and media too in general.> If Waugh had not enforced and set India a target of 600 in 170> overs and if India had managed to score that,

then everyone would have bayed for his blood for not taking the

dp

Fact? Seems more like your opinion.>

It is not about treating with kid gloves. It is about getting the> most out of your resources. Do you really think a bowler is more> efficient after having bowled and fielded for 70+ overs rather> than having rested nicely in the pavilion for a day?

Colin Kynoch wrote:>

I find a good way to avoid this problem is by writing the right word in>the first place.

Setting 630 from 130 is also highly conservative. Why should he wait> till the asking rate is 4.8? At best, India could have scored at 4 rpo> in the 4th innings (Australia could have always fallen back on> defensive if the Indians looked like running away with the match). So> assuming Aus scored at 3 rpo in 3rd innings and setting India a rrr of> 4 rpo, that gives (260*3+270)/(4+3)=1­50 overs for Aus to bowl India> out. ie bat for 110 overs, take the lead to 330+270=600 and set India a> target of 600 from 5 sessions.

Andrew Dunford wrote:> > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.­com> wrote in message> > news:1115181872.226­828.169140@o13g2000c­wo.googlegroups.com.­..> > >

Then I'm unsure what your point was. I thought you were claiming I was> stepping back in some way from my claim that that it was a monumental> blunder on SRW's part for which he ought to be sacked.

Really? How about we go back couple more years. India scored 360 in the> only test against an attack which had both McGrath and Warne with a> makeshift opener scoring his career best 150 and India won the test

comfortably. McGrath had figures of 1/56 in that innings. There was> really very little for Waugh to assume that his bowlers could knock> over the Indian batting at home. Two innings in Bombay were on a> minefield, so there was really only Kolkatta first innings for him to> go by and that is as small a sample size as it can get.

In that case, shouldn't he be even more confident that Indians won't> really score 600 in the 4th innings and thus, shouldn't he have chosen> to set 600 from 150-160 overs in the 4th innings? He would have got a> better pitch to bat on, 5th day pitch to bowl on and could have given> some rest to his bowlers.>

Fact? Seems more like your opinion.

It is not about treating with kid gloves. It is about getting the most> out of your resources. Do you really think a bowler is more efficient> after having bowled and fielded for 70+ overs rather than having rested> nicely in the pavilion for a day?

Are communists excluded from being cricket followers?

I don't think Vishwanath was sacked. He was some sort of subsitute> captain for the test anyway - it's just that he wasn't ever made an official> captain - I may be wrong here.

Fit bowlers are no use, if they are sitting with batting pads on.

Yes, he was only captaining because Gavaskar had decided to not go on the > WI tour in 1980. Gavaskar therefore stepped down after the Madras Test > against Pak, with India 2-0 up in the series with one to play, so that > Vishy could get some captaincy experience at home. As it transpired, the > WI tour in 1980 never took place, so Gavaskar resumed the captaincy at the > start of the next season, with the tour to Aus and NZ in 1980-81.

If I am allowed a guess on behalf of those who are contributing to this >thread, no one is offended. But if some people are a little irritated at >being called "conservative" and "prone to group think" just because they >chose to defend a perfectly defensible decision by a captain, I can't really >blame them.>

I'd be happy to agree that there was a reasonable case for not> enforcing at Kolkata. What gets me irritated enough to question Fran's> sanity is the assertion that enforcing was a monumental blunder, as> well as the obsessional interest with which she pursues this topic> which puts one in mind of Larry on the subject of, well, you know> what.>

As to conservatism and group think, allegedly new thinking isn't> necessarily good just because it's allegedly new. Several of Fran's> "radical" proposals have appeared before, and one of the reasons they> might seem to be new is that when they were tried out, they were found> to be rather ineffective. There is an awful lot of cricket experience> which is not gained in the Test arena, and there are quite a few> examples in first-class cricket where not enforcing (or various other> radical innovations with regard to sources of cricketers, for> instance) has gone badly wrong (all of Fran's discussions of this> topic ignore that Australia being skittled for 78 was about as likely> as what did take place), and those are lessons not lost on people.>

True, something not working in one era doesn't guarantee its failure> in another, but it often gives quite a good hint.>

The more I study the game, the more I find that the reason that people> adhere to the "conventional" wisdom is that it is true wisdom: it's> not that people are afraid to try other things, but that they discover> that when they do, they fall flat on their faces more often than not.>

Steve Waugh decided to defy the conventional wisdom and not send> nightwatchmen in. The new captain seems to have decided either that> this is an innovation which does not suit his conservative soul or> that it's actually a poor strategy because it works far less often> than the conventional one does.

Phil Wise wrote:> > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.­com> wrote in message> > news:1115196157.410­924.152770@f14g2000c­wb.googlegroups.com.­..> > >

There was no inherent reason for the Indians to get out so cheaply.

??? Didn't he assume they weren't?

But after about 60 overs, that would be about 120 in a row.

If you drew a graph of the run rate it did start to climb as the> innings wore on.

Why use 9 bowlers?

FRAN>

Colin Kynoch wrote:> > On Tue, 3 May 2005 08:43:13 +0100, "Shishir S. Pathak"> > <NOSPAMsilly.point@­gmail.com> enraptured with the Election of> Cardinal> > Ratchaser decided to post the following:> >

Surely a spellchecker only picks up spelling mistakes.>

If you use the wrong word (but spell it correctly), I'd suggest you> need a thesaurus, a proofreader or an education.

The basis for it is, inter alia, that those objecting to the view that> SRW's decision to enforce, or to the view that call protocols when> running ought to be different from the simple in front/behind the> wicket principle, or that their should be an international player draft> or whatever else I propose, tend to do so by reference to established> conventions and principles that are axiomatic, rather than as a> consequence of a particular application of the principle involved to a> given set of circumstances. For them, it is sufficient to say that in> 1000+ test matches it has hardly ever happened that teams win against> the follow on, or that most captains would enforce without giving it> another thought, and by extension they think the conclusion is so> obvious that they need not give it another thought.

ok, let's assume Waugh was supremely confident of his bowlers'> capability to bowl India out cheaply. In that case, why didn't he> consider the option of batting for 80-90 overs, taking the lead to 550+> and then leaving about 2 days to bowl India out? Surely, he couldn't> have been thinking "will 2 days be enough", "will 550 be enough to> defend", etc because if he was so confident of bowling India out on> days 3 and 4, he should be even more confident of bowling them out on> days 4 and 5.

Do we want a group in which people interested in> discussing matters have to clear their ideas with a panel called the> Cricketing Catholics Standards Board (CCSB)as "nihil obstat" before> proposing if they are to avoid being howled down in outrage?

Need we> conclude "Mike Holmans locuta est. Causa finita est"?>

Not everyone likes playing the maverick as much as I do.

<snip>>

3 overs in last 17-18 hours? Why do you want to ignore the 11 overs

bowled in the 4 hour period just prior to that? So more like 14 overs

On a different pitch in a different match. Relevance being?

They did, but the point is they could have lost even without running> into them.

Indeed.>

dp

The fact that they were rolled so cheaply in the first was due to> sound, (but not brilliant) bowling and fielding combined with some> silly shot selection. They did a bit of that early in the second> innings too, but as soon as they stopped and the bowlers started to> tire and the pitch became an absolute belter, the advantage started to> slide their way.

kenhig...@hotmail.c­om wrote:

You must be a psychic then.>

Or maybe "psycho" (in the view of some at least).

They did, but the point is they could have lost even without> running into them.

If they can get through the first new ball, (perhaps aided by fatigue> or complacency on the part of the bowlers or fielders) more or less in> tact, their chances probably are that good, or a little better.

The fact that they were rolled so cheaply in the first was due to> sound, (but not brilliant) bowling and fielding

combined with some> silly shot selection.

They did a bit of that early in the second> innings too, but as soon as they stopped and the bowlers started to> tire and the pitch became an absolute belter, the advantage started to> slide their way.

"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.­com> wrote in message>news:111532­4603.029844.236760@z­14g2000cwz.googlegro­ups.com...>

<snip>>

That doesn't sound like 10%.>

I don't know how many innings there have been in the history of test>cricket, or how many times 650 has been crossed, but I'd guess it is less>than single figures as a percentage.

Pretty much the trend of the first three innings.>

Don't recall that so much, but then to put this comment in context McGrath>and Warne try to choke out their opponents. Is it then a silly shot?>

At 3-115 in their second innings it was a supreme effort to get to 650.

"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.­com> wrote in message> news:1115324603.029­844.236760@z14g2000c­wz.googlegroups.com.­..>

<snip>>

Would anyone who followed this match more carefully than I care to comment> on the state of the pitch? I am still having a bit of trouble imagining a> pitch which turns into a 'belter' on the third afternoon yet is tricky on> the final day. The only pitch I can recall turning into a belter on the> third day (having been difficult earlier) was the Astle 222 match, when> somebody must have told the groundsman that the match was due to start two> days later than it actually did.

<snip>>

Andrew>

No dramatization. Simple fact.

Hitting a rhythm is of some importance to spinners, but for fast> bowlers (and Aus had 3 of them), being fit and fresh is of much more> value than having hit the rhythm by bowling 3 overs on day 3. We hardly

ever see fast bowlers bowling spells longer than 6-8 overs. There is a> reason for that, it is a tiring job.

I am not talking about being tired in an absolute sense. It is> relative. Compared to an attack which has bowled 58 overs in 24 hours,> an attack which has not bowled at all in the same period is *less> tired*. Must be the zillionth time I am repeating this point.

I don't know what average you are using. India's batting avg at home in

90s was 39.1 and that is the one of relevance here, not the overall avg> over a 70 year period (well, avg at home against Aus in 90s would be of> even more relevance if we had a decent sample size for that). So it> required them to score only 25% over their avg to win. There were some> 4-5 instances in just 4 seasons before that where India had scored 500+> and bowled out the opposition for under 230. None of those were against> crap sides like Zim either. They had done it agaist teams like SA, Aus,> Pak and NZ. No reason to believe they couldn't have repeated it again> here.

"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.­com> wrote in message> news:1115324603.029­844.236760@z14g2000c­wz.googlegroups.com.­..>

<snip>>

Would anyone who followed this match more carefully than I care to comment> on the state of the pitch? I am still having a bit of trouble imagining a> pitch which turns into a 'belter' on the third afternoon yet is tricky on> the final day.

Garry Sobers. 254 for the Row v Aust, MCG, 1971/2 (iirc).>

<SNIP>>

Hear! Hear! I watched this from the outer in Bay13 in the old Southern> Stand and can still remember clearly one cut shot that bounced once> just inside the fence. His power and timing was amazing. It was an> outstanding innings.

Shishir S. Pathak wrote:>> "Andrew Dunford" <adunford@artifax.n­et> wrote in message>> news:3dvj3tFefk3U1@­individual.net...>> >

Given that the Aussies needed 850 runs to win this match, and had> scored just 445 when the decision was taken, the question for Waugh> surely would have been "when will the best time to score 405 runs> arise? Now, or in the last 130 overs of the match, (assuming I get that> many)?">

You'll object of course that Waugh had no business assuming India would> get 675 batting a second time. He didn't have to assume this of course.> Let's look at some more realistic scenrios in which things would be> more balanced.>

Scenario 1: Australia enforces>

1. India gets bowled out for 500 from 140 overs> 2. Australia is bowled out for less than 226 in less than 100 overs, of> which 90 are on the last day>

Scenario 2: Australia bats third>

1. Australia gets 300 from 100 overs> 2. India is bowled out for less than 574 in less than 150 overs>

Either way, you have to make two educated guesses about what *might*> happen. Guessing the first scenario is somewhat pessimistic from an> Australian POV, but does not stretch credibility. Australia could lose> a batsman in the field. Umpiring decisions in the fourth innings might> go against it. India might benefit from a "square up" in the third. The> pitch will surely be less batter friendly at the end.>

Scenario 2 demands no more than competent batting from Australia,> followed by professional bowling and fielding. India would have to bowl> *very* well and get lucky to stop Australia getting that far ahead, and> then bat very well after being in the field, and score very well on the> last day. And they, rather than the Aussies, might be on the wrong end> of umpiring decisions or losses of batsmen from the fielding effort.> Their bowlers won't be in as good a position to bat up the other end> from a batsman trying to save the match.>

And if the Aussies were contained to say, 175, that would still require> India to break the record in these circumstances for a fourth innings> chase against fresh bowlers and with the above disadvantages.> Conversely, if one thinks the Aussies can't do better than 175 on that> pitch early, one must assume they'd do no better later.>

In practice, Waugh's biggest risk was wasting time scoring superfluous> runs. But at least then, his bats would be having a bat, and he'd be> taxing India's bowlers for the next match.

Take it easy wrote:> > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.­com> wrote in> > news:1115188315.053­753.27390@g14g2000cw­a.googlegroups.com:>­ >

Of course they were.

Some posters have asked, what is the guarantee that Aus could have> lasted for 90-100 overs, what if they had been bowled out?

That is all> the more reason why enforcing was a bad option, because there was so> much time left that it was a real possibility that Aus could have been> bowled out before they had set the required target. Advantage of> enforcing follow-on is that you don't have to time the declaration. If> you are going to be bowled out, then there is no question of declaring,> so there is absolutely no advantage to be gained by enforcing.

If you> are going to be bowled out for a score of 'x' on day 3 and if you think> the opposition is going to chase down 270+x, then it all the more> likely that they will score 270+x first batting on day 3 pitch against> tired bowlers and then bowl you out for under 'x' on day 5. So even in> that case, batting on is a better decision than enforcing.

In my experience, a pitch is either a 'road' or> it isn't. I wouldn't expect to see a pitch fitting that description on day> three to have become difficult enough by day five to greatly assist the> theory that the side batting last should struggle (or indeed fail to bat out> 73 overs). Neither would I expect to see any half-decent side lose wickets> two to eight in the space of 76 runs on the first day of a match on a> 'road'.

Like what? I had listed the pros and cons of both the options in> another thread a while back (typical of rsc, there was no response then> and here we are discussing the same stuff all over again ­. The only> significant advantage of enforcing that I could see (apart from the> psychological factors like "pressing the advantage", "keeping them on> backfoot" etc. which I don't believe much in anyway, why would the team> be on any less of backfoot while chasing a mammoth total and having to> survive last 2 days for example?), anyway, so apart from that kind of> reasons, the only significant advantage of enforcing is that you don't> have to time your declaration.

But that advantage becomes less valuable> as the time remaining increases. Also, the risk of loss itself> increases, as the possibility of having to bat for significant number> of overs in the 4th innings is high if there are lot of overs> remaining. Sure, it is still a remote possibility, but a possibility> nonetheless. So, in strictly probabilistic terms, not enforcing is a> better option than enforcing. That doesn't mean one option guarantees a> win or the other ensures a loss or anything like that. All 3 results> are possible under both options, but not enforcing gives slightly> higher chances of win and lower chances of loss, not because of any> vague psychological factors but due to real, cricketing factors like> the bowlers being more efficient when they have had rest

and the pitch> generally getting tougher to bat on as the match progresses. If people> don't agree with those factors, then they should just say so and we can> move on.>

To put some of the things we are discussing in more precise terms,> let's say there are N overs remaining after two innings and team A has> lead of L runs. Let's say team A is capable of scoring at rate r1 and> the other team B is capable of scoring at rate r2. Then, if A enforces> follow-on, the number of overs they will have to bat in 4th innings in> a worst case scenario is given by: (N*r2-L)/(r1+r2).>

In Kolkatta example, N=260,

L=270.

If we assume r1=4,

r2=3.5,

it gives> the number of overs Aus had to face as 85.

Whereas, if only 150 overs> had remained and Aus had a lead of 270, then they would have had to> face only 30 overs at worst. So the captain should basically take a> guess on r1 & r2 (N & L are given anyway) and arrive at a figure of how> many overs he will have to face. If that is small enough that he feels> comfortable batting out that many overs on a 5th day pitch, then he can> go ahead and enforce follow-on. I don't think 85 overs is small enough> to make that decision.>

On the other hand, if A doesn't enforce follow-on, the number of overs> he will have available to bowl out B is given by: (N*r1+L)/(r1+r2).> Again, in Cal'01 example, that figure is 175 overs.

That is how many> overs Aus would have had to bowl India out if they had batted on. Even> if you want to be conservative and assume Aus could only score at 3.5

and assume India could score at 4 (while chasing in 4th innings!), even> then, the figure will be: (260*3.5+270)/(3.5+­4)=160.

David North wrote:> > "dp" <dpusenet@yahoo.com­> wrote in message> > news:1115189293.992­761.45710@z14g2000cw­z.googlegroups.com..­.> > > Andrew Dunford wrote:> > > > It's a point I understand perfectly well, and a scenario which> was> > > highly> > > > likely to have worked out favourably for Australia. However> there> > > are also> > > > IMO equally valid reasons for enforcing the follow-on.> > >

That risk has to be set against the risk of a bowler being injured in> the field, which is much the greater risk.

Batters

absorb most of the risk while batting since they occupy the> crease for many more deliveries.

In the field, with the exception of the keeper and perhaps a very close> fielder, who may wear a helmet, the fielders attempt to intercept the> balls often propelled at speeds between 80-160kph.

Keeping the numbers of overs you bowl in a row, and in total to a> minimum makes good sense, even if that means batting a little more than> you might need. And of course, if you injure a bat in the field so> badly he can't bat, you've just reduced the prospective total you can> reasonably hope to make.

If you are so far ahead you don't need a> bowler to bat, you don't have to have him do so.

IMO, the prospects of a win were better without enforcing as Warne, and> not Harbhajan would get to bowl last on D5 *if* the Indians posted an> innings 2 total of any standing and Australia had to bat again.>

If they did not, they were about the same.

The draw's chance was marginally improved, at the expense of an> Australian loss prospects.>

Not enforcing meant that Australia would be in better shape and India> in worse shape for the next test regardless of the result of the match.

Do we want a group in which people interested in> discussing matters have to clear their ideas with a panel called the> Cricketing Catholics Standards Board (CCSB)as "nihil obstat" before> proposing if they are to avoid being howled down in outrage? Need we> conclude "Mike Holmans locuta est. Causa finita est"?

Shishir S. Pathak wrote:

To be fair, some of you have raised more detailed objections. You have> tried to establish for example that there was no good basis for> thinking that the Aussie bowlers would be tired after bowling their 59> overs in the first innings, though I'm still wondering at what point,> if at all you did think they became ineffective through fatigue.

Being in the field represents an opportunity for the batting side

"max.it" <max.it@tea.time> wrote in message >news:42793476.5187­6988@news.btopenworl­d.com...>> "Shishir S. Pathak" <NOSPAMsilly.point@­gmail.com>>>

They could sit around in a "group" and "think" what they could have done if >their captain had given them a bowl.>

Cheers, Shishir>

Anyways let us us just agree to disagree on this point.

<snip>>

I disagree.

Well if you get rolled for inadequate scores, then yes. You have to do> what works. If wearing them down is the best strategy, then you do> that. It may not be pretty, but you have to play within your skillset.

True, so particularly in this setting and context, you make it count by> doing what you can to avoid pushing the envelope when the risk of you> getting out *despite* the benign state of the pitch is highest and as> the bowling qulaity falls and the state of the pitch and your sight of> the ball vecome more important you find your way towards a risk margin> you (and your team) can live with.

In the case of Kolkata time was very> much on the batsmen's side becaause whenver they were batting, chances> were they'd have to bat for two days to save the match anyway.

So they> were under no pressure (and much recommended against it) from taking> unnecessary risks.

It was the bowlers who were using up chances to win> bowling, not the bats.

David North wrote:> > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.­com> wrote in message> > news:1115271317.531­824.96130@g14g2000cw­a.googlegroups.com..­.> > >

What am I showing off?

David North wrote:> > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.­com> wrote in message> > news:1115255683.917­401.192240@z14g2000c­wz.googlegroups.com.­..> > >

Creating paradox through snipping .... hmmm. Go back and restore the> context.

Pressure not to get out, precisely to lay the foundation for a> fightback, initially a draw, given the oft-quoted stat here.

All the more reason to play cautiously, which, initially, they did.> Look at the first 46 overs.

Nice strawman. I don't think anyone is claiming that Aussies collapsed> on day 5 and hence pitch was difficult to bat on. A day 5 pitch is> generally tougher to bat on than a day 3 pitch. Waugh had the option of> batting either on day 3 or on day 5 and he chose the latter. Are you> saying that it is unreasonable to believe that D5 pitch is worse to bat> on than a D3 pitch?

Exactly. But I wonder who was doing that in this thread. Certainly not> me. I am saying D3 pitch is easier to bat on than D5 pitch not based on> anything that happened in this particular match but based on how> pitches generally behave.

"dp" <dpusenet@yahoo.com­> wrote in message> news:1115706299.124­913.277910@f14g2000c­wb.googlegroups.com.­..>> Andrew Dunford wrote:>> > >

It wasn't you. Shishar replied to me, who was replying to...

Fair point. I don't agree that fast bowlers can bowl 18 overs a day for> 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year, without their effectiveness going down,> but since I don't have anything to refute that, I will let it pass.>

There still remains the question of what is the idea behind resting> some players for some matches? The players being rested will still be> doing all the travelling etc as they are part of the squad, so only> thing they gain by resting is not bowling a few overs a day, which> should not be tiring at all. Then why rest for some matches? You should> either skip the entire series or play every match of the series.

David North wrote:> > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.­com> wrote in message> > news:1115581142.286­898.57460@f14g2000cw­b.googlegroups.com..­.> > >

[typo corrected "if"/"of"]>

It was a common enough phrase,

slightly reworked to replace Rome with> Mike Holmans for amusing effect. No assertion of intellectual> attainment was implied.

Expecting his bowlers to bowl out India cheaply is fine. I conceded> that to you long back. But that doesn't mean totally ruling out the> possibility of India scoring 500. As long as there was a possibility of> India scoring enough runs to bowl Aus out a second time, Waugh would> have been better off not enforcing. That's what I had written in the> other post and you snipped that part, so I assume you agree with that.>

That's the whole point. 1.5 tests is not enough to conclude that that's> how Indians bat 'in general', especially when there is evidence of them> batting much better at home over a larger sample size.

Whereas, there> is no such sample size problem in concluding that D3 pitch is better> for batting than D5.

David North wrote:> > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.­com> wrote in message> > news:1115580792.965­441.297430@f14g2000c­wb.googlegroups.com.­..> > >

There's nothing paradoxical there.

Now I'm not sure what you're on about.

David North wrote:

Again true. The bulk of collisions are very low speed, typically in> peak traffic and involve people running up the back of each other. Of> course, the authorities are primarily (and rightly) concerned with> those leading to road trauma. (she said pulling a face that suggested> she couldn't believe she was giving them that much credit)

David North wrote:> > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.­com> wrote in message> > news:1115678017.793­062.12420@o13g2000cw­o.googlegroups.com..­.> > >

Yes ... perhaps you have a lpoint. I should have said, "the presence of> the other side in the field ..."

David North wrote:> > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.­com> wrote in message> > news:1115675194.478­472.88090@o13g2000cw­o.googlegroups.com..­.> > >

Exactly the same way all sides attempt to bat for more than 77 overs,> when they feel they have to.

In this case, their chances of achieving> that were unsually good. Unless the Indians had crashed through> severely and fairly early, Australia would have batted for more than> that, as attacking fields could not have been maintained

That's true, but bear in mind the specific factors. For a large part of> his career, Waugh faced the might of the West Indians, typically on> pitches they liked.