• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state with some features missing, normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Worst decisions in Cricket history


Ronson333 said:
Was it arrogant? Yes made a great game but at the same time it’s probably because we lost.
Click to expand...
It’s also why we had a chance to win.

Fine margins but the extra time and overs we had at them because of the declaration gave us a better chance to win.

I agree declaring gave us more chance of losing, but also gave us more chance of winning.

Tbf to McCullum he has always said he will risk losing to have a better chance of winning, which is exactly what happened in this test match
 
Last edited:
errant said:
We lost on no balls, dropped catches and missed stumpings… in my humble one.
Click to expand...
Realistically it was a mixture of:

- Poor keeping
- Missing Leach
- Rash declaration
- Duckett and Crawley being forced to play when the conditions were awful
- Lyon turning into prime Bradman for an hour
 
20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing It was the right decision at the time for a team that prefers to try to win, rather than try not to lose.
 
rudd said:
Bazball.

It's turned a load of fans into whinging fannies who can't understand the whole ethos is high risk, high reward.

I
Click to expand...
I think that the positive / aggressive batting approach has been great and I’m all for it. It got us into a position of strength at 180 odd for 1. However, when the opposition change tack and put 4 or 5 men on the leg side boundary and bowl everything short, then surely common sense must prevail? The Aussies limited themselves to only one mode of dismissal, and for some reason we did exactly what they wanted. IMO that crazy hour turned the test. You’ve gotta be able to adapt to in-game situations but seemed to me that ego took over. Fearless cricket is one thing, brainless another.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing It was the right decision at the time for a team that prefers to try to win, rather than try not to lose.
Click to expand...
It isn't hindsight when 50% of fans were saying it was a dodgy decision at the time but were being told to shut up and stop whingeing by the other 50%.
 
smoker said:
It isn't hindsight when 50% of fans were saying it was a dodgy decision at the time but were being told to shut up and stop whingeing by the other 50%.
Click to expand...
And we were proven to be right. A draw was sacrificed for a loss. I am all for an aggressive approach, but I’m not on board with disregarding draws which can be valuable in a 5 test series.
 
nowtgoodeverhappens said:
I think that the positive / aggressive batting approach has been great and I’m all for it. It got us into a position of strength at 180 odd for 1. However, when the opposition change tack and put 4 or 5 men on the leg side boundary and bowl everything short, then surely common sense must prevail? The Aussies limited themselves to only one mode of dismissal, and for some reason we did exactly what they wanted. IMO that crazy hour turned the test. You’ve gotta be able to adapt to in-game situations but seemed to me that ego took over. Fearless cricket is one thing, brainless another.
Click to expand...
Completely agree. The stubbornness is a big problem.
With the field the way it was it went from high risk:high reward, to stupidly high risk with the reward being either a single or a 6. The mental side of the aussies is far far stronger.
 
nowtgoodeverhappens said:
I think that the positive / aggressive batting approach has been great and I’m all for it. It got us into a position of strength at 180 odd for 1. However, when the opposition change tack and put 4 or 5 men on the leg side boundary and bowl everything short, then surely common sense must prevail? The Aussies limited themselves to only one mode of dismissal, and for some reason we did exactly what they wanted. IMO that crazy hour turned the test. You’ve gotta be able to adapt to in-game situations but seemed to me that ego took over. Fearless cricket is one thing, brainless another.
Click to expand...

The 'bazball' approach is great - the execution not so much.
PeteFTM said:
And we were proven to be right. A draw was sacrificed for a loss. I am all for an aggressive approach, but I’m not on board with disregarding draws which can be valuable in a 5 test series.
Click to expand...

I'm not commenting on whether the declaration was the right call or not, but you don't play for a draw on the first day of the first test.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top