Re: ATG captaincy blunders in tests

Recent blog posts:

pipiska!!!upja4ka!!!pshli…
pipiska!!!upja4ka!!!pshli nax!!!

UPJA4KA!!!
TUTSJAPI6!!PI6!ZEPJ EBRILO!!!!!ZAZA!!!TELOIDI, DA! MY – EBANULISJ!!!PI6! PI6! PI6! OJAEBU!!I…

Hi!
Hi! I am Kate from Ukraine! I don't now, everything about this website. Also I dodn't know english very…

...
http://gyxu.com/p/login.cgi?r=http://www.winxclub.com/

ONOTOLE NEGODUE
Blin, nu zaipali trabli s ssilkami.Zaxozu kuda to - BAZ! i ja snova gostj.Vxozu i vse norma,no…

4to za xerj ?
Menja 4asto vikidivaet !!!X-(

Sri Lanka Vs West Indies
Sri Lanka won the first match by more than 100 runs…this is first in West Indies. .unfortunately after…

...
gfgdgd

Fs:,Iphone 8Gb,Nokia…
BUY 2 GET 1 FREE We Are Importer And Exporter Of All Kinds Of Mobile Phones Games,And All…

Blog Feed
http://feeds.feedburner.com/TumbleweedRealtyMaui

Forums:

topic feeds

• GYXU all topics, blogs and comments

• General

• F1, Indy, Nascar, Rally

• Baseball

• Basketball

• Boxing

• Football

• Soccer

• Hockey

• Rugby

• Tennis

• Pro Wrestling

• Billiard

• Cycling

• Boats

• Kites, widsurfing, waterski

• Diving

• Skiing

• Cricket

• Golf

• Skating

• Buy / Sell

• Anonymous

Discuss:

How come...
Akhtar/Murali have actions that are not dodgy sometimes, but still chuck an odd one (and and even one…

Hindus Are Praying To Their…
Hindus Are Praying To Their Gods For An Obama Win - Accuses American Christian Pastor…

Recent forum topics:

Hoffman's High Hemologin Values
Does any of our Scandinavian friends know about Christian Hoffman being recently banned from racing for…

Steel bolts and nuts for Ultima…
The now discontinued Jackson Ultima Matrix mounts (for removable figure skating blade runners) held the…

Stockholm-Falun scoring system…
Kowalczyk overcame Majdic to win the overall WC title because she got the 200 bonus points for the…

Worn Rotefella Boots
Dear All, just back from an excellent trip to Norway. One problem, in heavy snow, very difficult to…

Recent forum comments:

RE: Season opener?
On Mar 19, 7:07pm, garystanislaw...@gmail.com wrote: Hey thats great! hope to see you out…

RE: Season opener?
On Mar 20, 8:24am, Zephyr <davedejo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

RE: Season opener?
I sail Cass sometimes before jet ski season, but not sure if it's open yet. Maybe I'll see you there…

RE: Hoffman's High Hemologin Values
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:49:37 -0700 (PDT), ADK Skier <lgsumr@yahoo.com> wrote: Kikkan Randall…

RE: Hoffman's High Hemologin Values
I'll stay out of that one. Some February lab test results - in the midst of races - showed my…

RE: Hoffman's High Hemologin Values
ADK Skier wrote: The real problem wasn't a high hemo value, but the wrong ratio between what I…

RE: Hoffman's High Hemologin Values
On Mar 23, 3:11pm, Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> wrote: Thanks Terje…

RE: Worn Rotefella Boots
Neil wrote: Yes indeed! Normally it was sufficient to press the binding further down, i.e. tighten…

RE: Worn Rotefella Boots
Thanks for the suggestion. Looking at the boot tip in the cold light of day, the rubber is worn and the…

RE: OT: Ordnance Survey wallpaper
"Robert Treharne Jones" <tjwizard@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message…

Модератор:

Administrator


Re: ATG captaincy blunders in tests
Will S 2 May 2005 13:32:34
	"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1115026220.979561.176020@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...> Following recent discussions, I wonder what people think are the ATG> captaincy blunders.> To qualify, a test must be lost by the captain making the decision in> circumstances when victory seemed assured, and where it can be argued> that the decision played the most important part in the loss.> I have my own view of course, which I need hardly repeat here, but I> wonder if there are any others that might qualify as "snatching defeat> from the jaws of victory".> FRAN> Well many would say the Waugh enforcing the follow on in India but I would disagree.
		Add comment


Will S 2 May 2005 13:41:44 [ permanent link ]
	"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1115026502.441411.192560@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...> Will S wrote:>> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message>> news:1115026220.979561.176020@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...>> > Following recent discussions, I wonder what people think are the> ATG>> > captaincy blunders.>> > To qualify, a test must be lost by the captain making the decision> in>> > circumstances when victory seemed assured, and where it can be> argued>> > that the decision played the most important part in the loss.>> > I have my own view of course, which I need hardly repeat here, but> I>> > wonder if there are any others that might qualify as "snatching> defeat>> > from the jaws of victory".>> > FRAN>> > Well many would say the Waugh enforcing the follow on in India but>> I would disagree.> Now who would consider making such a claim? The man was a genius.> FRAN> sarcasm does not become you Fran My defence was that after 3 innings the Indian batsmen were in total meltdown against Australia and to keep the pressure on was the way to go. It took a freakish performance from 2 batsmen to turn the match followed by some disastrous batting and good bowling to lose the game Anyway another Captain who made a disastrous mistake was the Pom who won the toss in the last Test in Brisbane. That cost them that match
		Add comment


Shishir S. Pathak 2 May 2005 14:00:55 [ permanent link ]
	"Will S" <wlsuttonrenove@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4275f5ef$0$27860$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1115026502.441411.192560@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...>> Will S wrote:>>> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message>>> news:1115026220.979561.176020@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...>>> > Following recent discussions, I wonder what people think are the>> ATG>>> > captaincy blunders.>>> > To qualify, a test must be lost by the captain making the decision>> in>>> > circumstances when victory seemed assured, and where it can be>> argued>>> > that the decision played the most important part in the loss.>>> > I have my own view of course, which I need hardly repeat here, but>> I>>> > wonder if there are any others that might qualify as "snatching>> defeat>>> > from the jaws of victory". <snip> Anyway another Captain who made a disastrous mistake was the Pom who> won the toss in the last Test in Brisbane. That cost them that match Poms losing to Australia counts as snatching defeat from the jaws of defeat, so doesn't qualify for what FRAN is asking for. Cheers, Shishir
		Add comment


John Hall 2 May 2005 14:02:23 [ permanent link ]
	In article <1115026220.979561.176020@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, FRAN <fran_beta@hotmail.com> writes:>Following recent discussions, I wonder what people think are the ATG>captaincy blunders.> To qualify, a test must be lost by the captain making the decision in>circumstances when victory seemed assured, and where it can be argued>that the decision played the most important part in the loss.> I have my own view of course, which I need hardly repeat here, but I>wonder if there are any others that might qualify as "snatching defeat>from the jaws of victory". England v Australia, Headingley, 1964. England made 268 in their first innings. Australia then declined to 178-7 against the spinners, Titmus and Gifford. At 187-7 the new ball became available, and Dexter decided to take it. Burge, with staunch support from HGawke and then Grout, proceeded to flay Trueman and Flavell. The last three wickets more than doubled the score, taking Australia to an improbable 389. Burge's 160 was one of the great innings. Australia eventually won the match by seven wickets. -- John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?" "Well, actually, they're American." "So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?" Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"
		Add comment


Mike Holmans 2 May 2005 17:33:54 [ permanent link ]
	On 2 May 2005 06:24:52 -0700, "Aslam Siddiqui" <asiddiqu@iupui.edu> tapped the keyboard and brought forth: FRAN wrote:>> Following recent discussions, I wonder what people think are the ATG>> captaincy blunders.>> To qualify, a test must be lost by the captain making the decision in>> circumstances when victory seemed assured, and where it can be argued>> that the decision played the most important part in the loss.>> I have my own view of course, which I need hardly repeat here, but I>> wonder if there are any others that might qualify as "snatching>defeat>> from the jaws of victory".>> FRAN> I'm surprised no one has mentioned Sobers. So am I, since I composed a post saying that his declaration at Port of Spain in 1968 was my nomination. However, it seems that I must have hit 'cancel' rather than 'send', as there is no sign of it anywhere. Cheers, Mike
		Add comment


Uday Rajan 3 May 2005 02:46:50 [ permanent link ]
	Mike Holmans wrote:> On 2 May 2005 06:24:52 -0700, "Aslam Siddiqui" <asiddiqu@iupui.edu>> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:> FRAN wrote:>> To qualify, a test must be lost by the captain making the decision in>>>circumstances when victory seemed assured, and where it can be argued>>>that the decision played the most important part in the loss.>> I'm surprised no one has mentioned Sobers.> So am I Technically, Sobers' Test doesn't fit one of the two criteria mentioned above. His declaration was the most important part in the loss, certainly, but the Test was headed for a draw until he declared, not a WI victory.
		Add comment


Cicero 3 May 2005 12:35:19 [ permanent link ]
	"Will S" <wlsuttonrenove@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4275f3c9$1$27615$61c65585@un-2park-reader-02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message> news:1115026220.979561.176020@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...>> Following recent discussions, I wonder what people think are the ATG>> captaincy blunders.>> To qualify, a test must be lost by the captain making the decision in>> circumstances when victory seemed assured, and where it can be argued>> that the decision played the most important part in the loss.>> I have my own view of course, which I need hardly repeat here, but I>> wonder if there are any others that might qualify as "snatching defeat>> from the jaws of victory".>> FRAN>> Well many would say the Waugh enforcing the follow on in India but> I would disagree. I would say that that decision was the only correct decision. Australia were one wicket away from a clean sweep of the series (as I see it). What about Gilchrist setting England a gettable total the next year? They should have added another 100 runs.
		Add comment


Calvin 4 May 2005 02:24:43 [ permanent link ]
	"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message>>> Following recent discussions, I wonder what people think are the ATG>>> captaincy blunders. Kim Hughes Graham Yallop cheers, Calvin
		Add comment


Cicero 4 May 2005 13:21:58 [ permanent link ]
	"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1115165163.498476.273700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...> Cicero wrote:>> "Will S" <wlsuttonrenove@gmail.com> wrote in message>> news:4275f3c9$1$27615$61c65585@un-2park-reader-02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...>> > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message>> > news:1115026220.979561.176020@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...>> >> Following recent discussions, I wonder what people think are the> ATG>> >> captaincy blunders.>> >> To qualify, a test must be lost by the captain making the decision> in>> >> circumstances when victory seemed assured, and where it can be> argued>> >> that the decision played the most important part in the loss.>> >> I have my own view of course, which I need hardly repeat here, but> I>> >> wonder if there are any others that might qualify as "snatching> defeat>> >> from the jaws of victory".>> >> FRAN>> >> Well many would say the Waugh enforcing the follow on in India but>> > I would disagree.>> I would say that that decision was the only correct decision.> Australia were>> one wicket away from a clean sweep of the series (as I see it).>> What about Gilchrist setting England a gettable total the next year?> They>> should have added another 100 runs.> Not really. (see my answer to Amukhop below). Gilchrist could have made> it impossible for England to win, but only by making it improbable> Australia would.> The idea that Australia could bowl out England in circumstances where> they had to chase the target was realistic, and I'd say highly> probable, but Butcher played very well, and I think he was dropped at> least once early at slip.> At worst, Gilchrist conceded a loss where Australia where a drab draw> in a rain-affected match was the most likely outcome. That didn't> really hurt Australia or change the result of the series, or depress> them for the ensuing match.> But it's probably as close as any example so far. I guess every Australian supporter still expected Australia to win. But I think Gilchrist also compounded the decision by some uninspired captaincy. Of course, the counter argument is that Butcher played a once in a life time innings.
		Add comment


R. Bharat Rao 5 May 2005 04:45:42 [ permanent link ]
	"Will S" <wlsuttonrenove@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4275f3c9$1$27615$61c65585@un-2park-reader-02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message> news:1115026220.979561.176020@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...> Well many would say the Waugh enforcing the follow on in India but> I would disagree. I was one of those who posted at the time of the declaration (before Lax & Dravid went great guns) that the declaration was a mistake. But by no means was a huge blunder. What I said then was the Waugh's declaration gave India a sniff -- a 1 in 100 chance at a win, while vastly increasing the chances of an absolutely crushing defeat (innings and many runs). All Waugh did was leave the door a fraction ajar -- hardly an ATG blunder -- as it took Laxman, Dravid, and Harbhajan to slowly open the door wide and drive a truck through it. It was a slightly suboptimal decision if the sole aim was to win. The declaration was the best way to get a completely crushing win and completely destroy a side whose morale was non-existant. Leaving the door open a fraction and losing because of an ATG great innings followed by a performance by a young spinner who hit a zone in that month which he never even remotely approached again (counting the Chennai Test in that zone) is hardly an ATG blunder. A suboptimal decision perhaps at worst... Bharat
		Add comment


Gafoor 5 May 2005 09:22:09 [ permanent link ]
	R. Bharat Rao wrote:> "Will S" <wlsuttonrenove@gmail.com> wrote in message> news:4275f3c9$1$27615$61c65585@un-2park-reader-02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...>> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message>> news:1115026220.979561.176020@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...>> Well many would say the Waugh enforcing the follow on in India but>> I would disagree.> I was one of those who posted at the time of the declaration (before> Lax & Dravid went great guns) that the declaration was a mistake. As far as I remember, you posted this half way through the Dravid-VVSL partnership. You also posted saying that you knew this even before they went great guns & that you had told this to a friend or colleague or something - I maybe wrong however.
		Add comment


Andrew Dunford 5 May 2005 09:35:25 [ permanent link ]
	"dp" <dpusenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1115270753.870368.90300@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...> R. Bharat Rao wrote:> > Leaving the door open a fraction and losing because of an ATG great> > innings followed by a performance by a young spinner who hit a zone> > in that month which he never even remotely approached again (counting> > the Chennai Test in that zone) is hardly an ATG blunder.> It so happened that India won with couple of great performances by> Laxman and Harbhajan. However, when Waugh enforced follow-on, it didn't> really require any miracle or all-time great performances for India to> win. All that was needed was for India to score around 500 (on a> relatively benign 3rd&4th day pitch) and then bowl out Aus in 4th> innings for under 230. Neither of those can be called a miracle by any> stretch of imagination. India could easily have scored 500 with Dravid> scoring 150, Tendulkar and Laxman chipping in with 50s and couple of> others contributing with 30s and 40s. None of those are really all-time> great peformances. Similarly, there is nothing extraordinary about a> team getting bowled out for 200 on day 5. Happens quite regularly in> test cricket, especially on Indian pitches. Heck, the very next test> India were almost bowled out in the 4th innings chasing a small target> of 155. It just so happened that India scored 650 with two batsmen> contributing bulk of the runs and bowled out Aus with one bowler taking> most of the wickets, which gives the impression that only way Aus could> have lost was by some miraculous performances, but that is not really> true. You make a fair point, in that the individual acts (India scores 500, bowls out Australia for 200) are not themselves especially remarkable. However I put it to you that one following on from the other is more remarkable, and that taken in the context of what had transpired earlier in the series, even more so. I do wonder who would have taken the wickets had Harbhajan not done so. Andrew
		Add comment


Lenin Maran 5 May 2005 21:19:19 [ permanent link ]
	"dp" <dpusenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1115301751.213324.41850@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> Figures in ()s are (#of matches in which team fo'd/total matches)> I2 f/o I3 f/o I3 overall Overall> Ind(28/385) 21.7 30.0 30.3 32.4 First of all the stats are flawed/ I will assume that you got these figures from statsguru since you have thrown away your database after you "retired". The I3 stats are wrong in statsguru somehow don't add up correctly. Please recheck the stats. Eng(51/832) 23.7 30.2 30.3 31.6> WI (22/419) 20.0 27.0 29.5 33.0> Pak(20/310) 20.0 26.0 30.1 32.2> NZ (39/322) 20.0 24.7 25.1 28.0> Aus(38/665) 18.9 25.3 31.4 33.5> Not only has every team done much better in the 3rd innings than in> second innings when they have followed on, but more remarkably, most The reason they are batting in the 3rd innings following on is that they really messed up in innings 2 so there is a great likelyhood that innnigs 3 would be better. teams have done almost as well as their overall third innings average. The other thing of course is comparing I3 overall to I3 f/o is flawed. The circumstances under which you bet in a regular inning 3 is completey different than when you bat following on. Overall I3 has many instances when you declare or the target is reached or you go for quick runs and get out etc.. In a I3 f/o, you always are going to bat safely and more solidly Time for the pro-enforcement camp to surrender, imo not yet, imo Peace, Lenin
		Add comment


Lenin Maran 5 May 2005 21:22:09 [ permanent link ]
	"dp" <dpusenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1115292067.078324.146540@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...> I don't know what your question has got to do with what Andrew and I> were discussing. As far as I know, we were not talking about> psychological effect or any such thing. I said neither a side scoring> 500 nor bowling out the opposition for 230 is an extraordinary event.> He got back saying, by themselves they are not rare, but both happening> in succession is "remarkable". So I listed out instances where both has I am not sure what Andrew meant but I read it as a 500 - 230 sequence while following on(esepcially in the context of this thread) Maybe Dunford can clarify.> happened in succession. Now you are adding some more conditions to that> and once you narrow down your criteria, obviously there won't be too> many instances of that.> dp Peace, Lenin
		Add comment


Lenin Maran 6 May 2005 00:10:33 [ permanent link ]
	"Lenin Maran" <lenmaran@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:427a54b4_1@x-privat.org...> "dp" <dpusenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message> news:1115301751.213324.41850@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> > Figures in ()s are (#of matches in which team fo'd/total matches)> > I2 f/o I3 f/o I3 overall Overall> > Ind(28/385) 21.7 30.0 30.3 32.4> First of all the stats are flawed/> I will assume that you got these figures from statsguru> since you have thrown away your database after you my bad. statsguru is correct in terms of the actual avgs. it is just the list of matches that is not correct and so it messed up by calcs. Anyway, that doesn't in anyway detract from the main argument. Peace, Lenin
		Add comment


Andrew Dunford 6 May 2005 02:05:31 [ permanent link ]
	"dp" <dpusenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1115294384.150183.60870@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...> V wrote:> > dp wrote:> > > Scoring 500 and> > > bowling the opposition out for 230 is way too common an occurence> to> > be> > > called all-time great or a miracle.> > After following on in the first innings?> No, I don't think there was any instance of scoring 500 after following> on. There was a bloke named Hanif Mohammad whose team were once dismissed for 106 in 42.2 overs. Hanif and his mates then proceeded to bat for the next 319 overs, before declaring late on the final day at 657/8. <snip> Andrew
		Add comment


Andrew Dunford 6 May 2005 02:10:00 [ permanent link ]
	"Lenin Maran" <lenmaran@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:427a555b_1@x-privat.org...> "dp" <dpusenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message> news:1115292067.078324.146540@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...> > I don't know what your question has got to do with what Andrew and I> > were discussing. As far as I know, we were not talking about> > psychological effect or any such thing. I said neither a side scoring> > 500 nor bowling out the opposition for 230 is an extraordinary event.> > He got back saying, by themselves they are not rare, but both happening> > in succession is "remarkable". So I listed out instances where both has> I am not sure what Andrew meant but I read it as a 500 - 230 sequence> while following on(esepcially in the context of this thread)> Maybe Dunford can clarify. I was thinking of more than simply a total of 500 being followed by the other team being dismissed for 230 - after all, this could be merely be the result of a significant imbalance in the general level of achievement of the respective teams. It was more about the chances of one team scoring 300+ runs more in their second innings than they did in the first , followed immediately by the other team scoring 200+ runs fewer than in their innings. I suppose I start from the premise that if one team scores 445 and the other 171, the first team is probably better than the second team. <snip> Andrew
		Add comment


Andrew Dunford 6 May 2005 02:14:05 [ permanent link ]
	"dp" <dpusenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1115301751.213324.41850@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> V wrote:> > than the 1st or the 2nd innings of a match. And why would you wanna> > forget that India was following on?> just thought I will have some fun with follow-on related stats. Here> are the batting averages of all teams when they have followed on.> I2 f/o: Batting avg in second innings of matches where team has> followed-on> I3 f/o: Batting avg in third innings of same matches> I3 overall: Overall batting avg of the team in 3rd innings of all> matches> Overall: Batting avg of team in all innings of all matches> Figures in ()s are (#of matches in which team fo'd/total matches)> I2 f/o I3 f/o I3 overall Overall> Ind(28/385) 21.7 30.0 30.3 32.4> Eng(51/832) 23.7 30.2 30.3 31.6> WI (22/419) 20.0 27.0 29.5 33.0> Pak(20/310) 20.0 26.0 30.1 32.2> NZ (39/322) 20.0 24.7 25.1 28.0> Aus(38/665) 18.9 25.3 31.4 33.5> Not only has every team done much better in the 3rd innings than in> second innings when they have followed on, but more remarkably, most> teams have done almost as well as their overall third innings average. I find the figures interesting, but they don't surprise or dismay me. It doesn't surprise me in the least that a side asked to bat twice in a row after a first-innings failure on average improves in their second dig, or that the bowling side finds it more difficult to dismiss the opposition second time around. Steve Waugh didn't make his decision based on whether he thought he could dismiss India for 171 again in its second innings - even a score of 350 would have left Australia with a very simply target. <snip> Andrew
		Add comment


Andrew Dunford 6 May 2005 05:27:57 [ permanent link ]
	"dp" <dpusenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1115340777.136570.280860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...> Andrew Dunford wrote:> > > Not only has every team done much better in the 3rd innings than in> > > second innings when they have followed on, but more remarkably,> most> > > teams have done almost as well as their overall third innings> average.> > I find the figures interesting, but they don't surprise or dismay me.> It> > doesn't surprise me in the least that a side asked to bat twice in a> row> > after a first-innings failure on average improves in their second> dig, or> > that the bowling side finds it more difficult to dismiss the> opposition> > second time around.> Surprising part is not that teams did better in second dig than in> first (although, that goes slightly against the "psychological> advantage of enforcing" argument, because if the fo'ing team was> wilting under psychological pressure of being asked to fo, then one> would have expected them to do even worse than what they did first> innings), anyway, that is not the surprising part. As I have explained> in response to Lenin, really surprising thing is that I3fo is almost> equal to I3overall in so many cases. That shows, there is really some> significant advantage for the team following-on, for them to approach> their overall avg even when they are batting against an above-average> attack or with a weak batting themselves. You have indeed established that the team following-on does better than one might expect. However I don't see that this translates to a significant advantage to the team following on: they're likely to score more runs than if asked to bat fourth, but that isn't necessarily useful when compared with the size of the first-innings deficit they face, or the increased possibility that time may run out before that team is dismissed if asked to bat fourth. Andrew
		Add comment


Andrew Dunford 6 May 2005 06:41:25 [ permanent link ]
	"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1115344725.105579.304240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...> Andrew Dunford wrote:> > "dp" <dpusenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message> > news:1115340777.136570.280860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...> > > Andrew Dunford wrote:> > > > > Not only has every team done much better in the 3rd innings> than in> > > > > second innings when they have followed on, but more remarkably,> > > most> > > > > teams have done almost as well as their overall third innings> > > average.> > > > I find the figures interesting, but they don't surprise or dismay> me.> > > It> > > > doesn't surprise me in the least that a side asked to bat twice> in a> > > row> > > > after a first-innings failure on average improves in their second> > > dig, or> > > > that the bowling side finds it more difficult to dismiss the> > > opposition> > > > second time around.> > > Surprising part is not that teams did better in second dig than in> > > first (although, that goes slightly against the "psychological> > > advantage of enforcing" argument, because if the fo'ing team was> > > wilting under psychological pressure of being asked to fo, then one> > > would have expected them to do even worse than what they did first> > > innings), anyway, that is not the surprising part. As I have> explained> > > in response to Lenin, really surprising thing is that I3fo is> almost> > > equal to I3overall in so many cases. That shows, there is really> some> > > significant advantage for the team following-on, for them to> approach> > > their overall avg even when they are batting against an> above-average> > > attack or with a weak batting themselves.> > You have indeed established that the team following-on does better> than one> > might expect. However I don't see that this translates to a> significant> > advantage to the team following on: they're likely to score more runs> than> > if asked to bat fourth, but that isn't necessarily useful when> compared with> > the size of the first-innings deficit they face, or the increased> > possibility that time may run out before that team is dismissed if> asked to> > bat fourth.> > Andrew> Of these considerations, only the first really applies in the case of> Kolkata. A deficit of 274 means as you say, that if they only got twice> their first innings score, it would have been simple for Australia to> win, especially since Australia would have been batting on D4. I think you overplay the different conditions of the pitch on different days. In normal circumstances (i.e. when Bishen Singh Bedi hasn't been let near the pitch) the deterioration is gradual. Asked to bat 4th, with 130 overs to play, I'm in no reasonable doubt> at all that Australia would have won. I think you should be. I suppose some extraordinary> batting to draw cannot be ruled out though. I can't see anything about remarkable about batting 130 overs to save a match, unless the pitch was generally considered to be a minefield. For example, in the last five Test matches New Zealand has played in India, on three occasions they batted out time successfully: 1999/00, Mohali: set 374 in 135 overs, finished at 251/7 (the seventh wicket falling on the final scheduled ball). 1999/00, Ahmedabad: set 424 in 103 overs, finished at 252/2 when the match was called off after 95 overs. 2003/04: Ahmedabad: set 370 in 115 overs, finished at 272/6 when the match was called off after 107 overs. There may have been a problem with the Australian batsmen not being very good at batting out time (these NZ batsmen are accustomed to trying to save a match, but the Aussies never get much practice), but I'm trying to stay clear of these so-called 'psychological issues' which can't be quantified. <snip> Andrew
		Add comment


Andrew Dunford 6 May 2005 08:22:12 [ permanent link ]
	"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1115352627.047803.71390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...> Andrew Dunford wrote:> > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message> > news:1115344725.105579.304240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...> > > Andrew Dunford wrote:> > > > "dp" <dpusenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message> > > > news:1115340777.136570.280860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...> > > > > Andrew Dunford wrote:> > > > > > > Not only has every team done much better in the 3rd innings> > > than in> > > > > > > second innings when they have followed on, but more> remarkably,> > > > > most> > > > > > > teams have done almost as well as their overall third> innings> > > > > average.> > > > > > I find the figures interesting, but they don't surprise or> dismay> > > me.> > > > > It> > > > > > doesn't surprise me in the least that a side asked to bat> twice> > > in a> > > > > row> > > > > > after a first-innings failure on average improves in their> second> > > > > dig, or> > > > > > that the bowling side finds it more difficult to dismiss the> > > > > opposition> > > > > > second time around.> > > > > Surprising part is not that teams did better in second dig than> in> > > > > first (although, that goes slightly against the "psychological> > > > > advantage of enforcing" argument, because if the fo'ing team> was> > > > > wilting under psychological pressure of being asked to fo, then> one> > > > > would have expected them to do even worse than what they did> first> > > > > innings), anyway, that is not the surprising part. As I have> > > explained> > > > > in response to Lenin, really surprising thing is that I3fo is> > > almost> > > > > equal to I3overall in so many cases. That shows, there is> really> > > some> > > > > significant advantage for the team following-on, for them to> > > approach> > > > > their overall avg even when they are batting against an> > > above-average> > > > > attack or with a weak batting themselves.> > > > You have indeed established that the team following-on does> better> > > than one> > > > might expect. However I don't see that this translates to a> > > significant> > > > advantage to the team following on: they're likely to score more> runs> > > than> > > > if asked to bat fourth, but that isn't necessarily useful when> > > compared with> > > > the size of the first-innings deficit they face, or the increased> > > > possibility that time may run out before that team is dismissed> if> > > asked to> > > > bat fourth.> > > > Andrew> > > Of these considerations, only the first really applies in the case> of> > > Kolkata. A deficit of 274 means as you say, that if they only got> twice> > > their first innings score, it would have been simple for Australia> to> > > win, especially since Australia would have been batting on D4.> > I think you overplay the different conditions of the pitch on> different> > days. In normal circumstances (i.e. when Bishen Singh Bedi hasn't> been let> > near the pitch) the deterioration is gradual.> > Asked to bat 4th, with 130 overs to play, I'm in no reasonable> doubt> > > at all that Australia would have won.> > I think you should be.> > I suppose some extraordinary> > > batting to draw cannot be ruled out though.> > I can't see anything about remarkable about batting 130 overs to save> a> > match, unless the pitch was generally considered to be a minefield.> Yes, but if they've been in the field and routed so consistently and> their are footmarks made by them to work with, they are probably not> going to have the mettle to do it. They are going to dig in from the> start and just be sitting ducks all day. How is that different from the NZ examples I quoted? At Mohali in 1999/2000, NZ successfully negotiating 135 overs on day four and five after creating 183 overs worth of footmarks in India's second innings. ISTR some of Australia's wickets on the final day being the result of unnecessarily attacking shots. My rollection is not one of them 'digging in'. You don't like psychology> though. Hah. I am attempting to steer away from such factors because they cannot be quantified. Were we to include them, I have no difficulty in believing that Waugh was correct in enforcing the follow-on because India should have been mentally 'shot' at that point by being so comprehensively outplayed in the first innings. Then you can argue that India's batsmen were determined to improve on their first effort, or that some might try harder because they were in danger of being dropped from the team, or that the pressure had lifted because they were expected to lose heavily. It doesn't achieve a great deal. <snip> Andrew
		Add comment


Andrew Dunford 6 May 2005 08:25:32 [ permanent link ]
	"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1115352461.799869.159950@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... <snip> I've discussed this elsewhere, but I might add, that they were entitled> to think that Tendulkar and Sehwag would bob up at some point, even> though Laxman did most of the damage in concert with Dravid. I think Australia was entitled to think that Sehwag wouldn't bob up at some point, since he wasn't playing. <snip> Andrew
		Add comment


Andrew Dunford 6 May 2005 08:33:54 [ permanent link ]
	"Andrew Dunford" <adunford@artifax.net> wrote in message news:3e09o1Fhh9kU1@individual.net...> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message> news:1115352627.047803.71390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...> > Andrew Dunford wrote:> > > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message> > > news:1115344725.105579.304240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...> > > > Andrew Dunford wrote:> > > > > "dp" <dpusenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message> > > > > news:1115340777.136570.280860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...> > > > > > Andrew Dunford wrote:> > > > > > > > Not only has every team done much better in the 3rd innings> > > > than in> > > > > > > > second innings when they have followed on, but more> > remarkably,> > > > > > most> > > > > > > > teams have done almost as well as their overall third> > innings> > > > > > average.> > > > > > > I find the figures interesting, but they don't surprise or> > dismay> > > > me.> > > > > > It> > > > > > > doesn't surprise me in the least that a side asked to bat> > twice> > > > in a> > > > > > row> > > > > > > after a first-innings failure on average improves in their> > second> > > > > > dig, or> > > > > > > that the bowling side finds it more difficult to dismiss the> > > > > > opposition> > > > > > > second time around.> > > > > > Surprising part is not that teams did better in second dig than> > in> > > > > > first (although, that goes slightly against the "psychological> > > > > > advantage of enforcing" argument, because if the fo'ing team> > was> > > > > > wilting under psychological pressure of being asked to fo, then> > one> > > > > > would have expected them to do even worse than what they did> > first> > > > > > innings), anyway, that is not the surprising part. As I have> > > > explained> > > > > > in response to Lenin, really surprising thing is that I3fo is> > > > almost> > > > > > equal to I3overall in so many cases. That shows, there is> > really> > > > some> > > > > > significant advantage for the team following-on, for them to> > > > approach> > > > > > their overall avg even when they are batting against an> > > > above-average> > > > > > attack or with a weak batting themselves.> > > > > You have indeed established that the team following-on does> > better> > > > than one> > > > > might expect. However I don't see that this translates to a> > > > significant> > > > > advantage to the team following on: they're likely to score more> > runs> > > > than> > > > > if asked to bat fourth, but that isn't necessarily useful when> > > > compared with> > > > > the size of the first-innings deficit they face, or the increased> > > > > possibility that time may run out before that team is dismissed> > if> > > > asked to> > > > > bat fourth.> > > > > Andrew> > > > Of these considerations, only the first really applies in the case> > of> > > > Kolkata. A deficit of 274 means as you say, that if they only got> > twice> > > > their first innings score, it would have been simple for Australia> > to> > > > win, especially since Australia would have been batting on D4.> > > I think you overplay the different conditions of the pitch on> > different> > > days. In normal circumstances (i.e. when Bishen Singh Bedi hasn't> > been let> > > near the pitch) the deterioration is gradual.> > > Asked to bat 4th, with 130 overs to play, I'm in no reasonable> > doubt> > > > at all that Australia would have won.> > > I think you should be.> > > I suppose some extraordinary> > > > batting to draw cannot be ruled out though.> > > I can't see anything about remarkable about batting 130 overs to save> > a> > > match, unless the pitch was generally considered to be a minefield.> > Yes, but if they've been in the field and routed so consistently and> > their are footmarks made by them to work with, they are probably not> > going to have the mettle to do it. They are going to dig in from the> > start and just be sitting ducks all day. Routed so consistently? You seem once again to be assuming that Australia would have made a stack of runs in its second dig. How is that different from the NZ examples I quoted? At Mohali in 1999/2000,> NZ successfully negotiating 135 overs on day four and five after creating> 183 overs worth of footmarks in India's second innings. A moot point anyway, given that had Waugh batted on until only 130 overs remained, he would have lost some of the advantage cited by the anti follow-on lobby in batting again, by going on too long and thus improving India's chance of batting out time for a draw. In that scenario, IMO the best plan would have been to bat until first-session drinks on the fourth day, by which time the target might have been 550 in 165 overs. Or possibly even declared at the end of the third day with a lead of 500 and 180 overs remaining. Either way, you're asking the other team to achieve a victory target well in excess of what has ever been reached before, whilst leaving enough overs that India batting out a draw would also be a huge achievement. Andrew
		Add comment


John Hall 6 May 2005 14:13:51 [ permanent link ]
	In article <p31m71l086j780hd7351gieablqqtepue7@4ax.com>, Colin Kynoch <colinkynoch@gmail.com> writes:>The probability of a coin flip for heads is not .5 nor is it .5 for>tails.> As coins have an edge there is a very small probability that the coin>will land on its edge. Have you ever heard of that happening? The probability is so small that it is not unreasonable to neglect it. More likely is a slightly biased coin, caused by some minor defect in the manufacturing process. But certainly to one decimal place, as quoted, 0.5 for heads and also for tails will be correct. -- John Hall "The beatings will continue until morale improves." Attributed to the Commander of Japan's Submarine Forces in WW2
		Add comment


Lenin Maran 6 May 2005 23:08:08 [ permanent link ]
	"dp" <dpusenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1115339997.412124.316290@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> Lenin Maran wrote:> > > Eng(51/832) 23.7 30.2 30.3 31.6> > > WI (22/419) 20.0 27.0 29.5 33.0> > > Pak(20/310) 20.0 26.0 30.1 32.2> > > NZ (39/322) 20.0 24.7 25.1 28.0> > > Aus(38/665) 18.9 25.3 31.4 33.5> > > Not only has every team done much better in the 3rd innings than in> > > second innings when they have followed on, but more remarkably,> most> > The reason they are batting in the 3rd innings following on is that> they> > really messed up in innings 2 so there is a great likelyhood that> > innnigs 3 would be better.> Or it could be that they are batting against a strong bowling attack or> the batting is really weak or the conditions are not favourable to A strong bowling attack or a really weak batting can result in follow ons. But that is not the case most of the time. If that were so you would see plenty of series were the "weak" team is made to follow on repeatedly. It does not happen that often. f/o mostly happens if your own bowling is weak and you let the oppostion score a lot or due to some inspired bowling by one in the opposition. them... Not all follow-ons happen because the batting team messed up> things, most of them happen because they are not capable. Given that,> it is not necessary that they will do better in I3. Just because they> failed in I2, they are not "due" for a big one in I3. See below... can you not see a corelation between I3 f/o approaching I3 avgs due to the "due" factor? when facing adversity most teams would bat better the second time around(following on) even if they mostly end up losing. teams have done almost as well as their overall third innings> average.> > The other thing of course is comparing I3 overall to I3 f/o is> flawed.> > The circumstances under which you bet in a regular inning 3 is> completey> > different than when you bat following on.> > Overall I3 has many instances when you declare or the> > target is reached or you go for quick runs and get out etc..> > In a I3 f/o, you always are going to bat safely and more solidly> Let me try to explain again. Fo's by definition generally happen in> periods of adversity (either against superior attacks or when your you have this false notion that fo's generally happen as above. batting is weak etc). So I3fo includes 3rd innings scores from only> those matches. It is a highly skewed sample. You'd never expect the> average there to approach the overall I3 average. Let's look at India's doesn't I3fo avg. approaching I3 avgs contradict your theory of "periods of adversity". if you believe in the "periods of adversity" theory, then the follow on should be enforced every time, right? Since the team following on is weak in batting and already behind by at least 200 runs(in most cases) or the bowling side is superior and so should be able to bowl then out again. so why then are you arguing against enforcing the follow on? fo's. Indian test history can be roughly divided into 3 (almost) equal> segments: 1930-70 when we were a crap batting side (110 tests, avg 28),> 1970-90 when we were better (140 tests, avg 33), 1990-05 (130 tests,> avg 35). India has fo'd 28 times in all, of which as many as 18 are> from that first period when we were crap. 65% of all the fo's in just> 1/3rd of the tests. Then another 8 fo's happened between 1970-90 and> only 2 since 1990. Even out of those 10 fo's since 1970, 3 were against> an English side with the attack of Botham & Willis, 2 against Imran's> Pak in Pak, 1 against WI of '83 and 1 against Aus '01. All> above-average bowling attacks. So all the I3fo scores will only include> scores from matches where either your batting was weak or the bowling> was above-average or both. Yet, the fact that so many teams have their> I3fo's almost close to I3overall is astonishing, really (I hope> statsguru hasn't messed up somewhere which only proves that following on the team batting has more resolve. i am not too surprised with I3fo's almost close to I3overall . if you really think about it I3fo is just another I3 except that you are batting to at least reach 200(in most cases). anyways, my view is that Waugh made the right decision. also i would have no problems under most circumstances enforcing the follow-on. as I said in my other post let us just agree to disagree with regards to this. Peace, Lenin
		Add comment


Yeskay 6 May 2005 23:26:38 [ permanent link ]
	Lenin Maran wrote: anyways, my view is that Waugh made the right decision.>also i would have no problems under most circumstances enforcing the>follow-on.> Do you think India should have enforced follow-in Syndey 03-04? If done, Waugh would probably have won his last test series.
		Add comment


Lenin Maran 7 May 2005 00:44:16 [ permanent link ]
	"yeskay" <yeskay@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:d5ggdf$3vh@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...> Lenin Maran wrote:> anyways, my view is that Waugh made the right decision.> >also i would have no problems under most circumstances enforcing the> >follow-on.> > Do you think India should have enforced follow-in Syndey 03-04? If done,> Waugh would probably> have won his last test series. Definitely India should have enforced the follow-on. That was their best chance for winning the series imho. But I can see why Ganguly chose to not enforce it. imho he played it too safe. maybe waugh wins his last test series but it would have put more pressure on the Ausies. Peace, Lenin
		Add comment


Andrew Dunford 9 May 2005 02:13:40 [ permanent link ]
	"John Hall" <nospam_nov03@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message news:GP6wRtGfN0eCFwjn@jhall.demon.co.uk...> In article <p31m71l086j780hd7351gieablqqtepue7@4ax.com>,> Colin Kynoch <colinkynoch@gmail.com> writes:> >The probability of a coin flip for heads is not .5 nor is it .5 for> >tails.> > As coins have an edge there is a very small probability that the coin> >will land on its edge.> Have you ever heard of that happening? The probability is so small that> it is not unreasonable to neglect it. More likely is a slightly biased> coin, caused by some minor defect in the manufacturing process. But> certainly to one decimal place, as quoted, 0.5 for heads and also for> tails will be correct. If you tossed a baby Colin Kynoch up in the air, what are the chances of it landing on its head? Andrew
		Add comment




Get comments by e-mail Add to favourites

respect your talk pals, avoid using obscene language, typing entire messages in CAPS, posting buy/sell ads or violating netiquette or the RF Criminal Code..

	see also: GP2: Silverstone: Post qualifying press… NASCAR-BUSCH: Daytona II: Starting grid GP2: Silverstone: Racing Engineering…		pass tests:		see also: Lazily... Hi!

Re: ATG captaincy blunders in tests

Add new comment