• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

3rd test - Headingley

Voice of fair play said:
I really struggle with your logic tbh.

We had 2 wickets to get in the last minutes on the final day in the first test.

Not declaring would undoubtedly of decreased our chances of winning and declaring increased our chances on winning the game, surely that can’t be disputed??

The fact the game went right to the end of the final day, meant not declaring would having taken more time out of the game and would have only given us a chance of draw.

It was a calculated risk that could have went either way we needed 2 wickets and they had 55 to get.

We went into this series needing to win back the ashes back and had won the toss drawing should have not been our priority winning should have been.
Click to expand...

It went to the end because we simply couldn't bowl their tail out. As already stated also.
 

Voice of fair play said:
I really struggle with your logic tbh.

We had 2 wickets to get in the last minutes on the final day in the first test.

Not declaring would undoubtedly of decreased our chances of winning and declaring increased our chances on winning the game, surely that can’t be disputed??

The fact the game went right to the end of the final day, meant not declaring would having taken more time out of the game and would have only given us a chance of draw.

It was a calculated risk that could have went either way we needed 2 wickets and they had 55 to get.

We went into this series needing to win back the ashes back and had won the toss drawing should have not been our priority winning should have been.
Click to expand...
Declaring increased our chance of losing, seeing as we lost.

Answer me this, would the number one ranked team in the world and world test champions have declared on day one when one of the best batsman of all time was 118 not out?🤔
 
stapler said:
I suspect it is a bit more complicated than just wanting to.

There will be licensing, police, transport, TV, ECB, ACB, MCC, particular County Club, etc rules, regs and agreements to navigate, plus the risk of ticket holders getting peeved if the match is played outside the published times.
Click to expand...
We played onto 6:30 when scheduled close of play was 6pm.

We play onto 7 when there's overs lost to rain. So don't get why we can't when not bowled all the overs.

The starting at 11:00 is definitely down to tradition.

Played at 10:30 for the WTC for foreign TV audiences. Absolutely no reason we can't start at 10:30 to make up overs.
 
Binxy said:
Declaring increased our chance of losing, seeing as we lost.

Answer me this, would the number one ranked team in the world and world test champions have declared on day one when one of the best batsman of all time was 118 not out?🤔
Click to expand...
It depends on your outlook the Aussies already hold the Ashes we needed to win them back and were in strong position after winning the toss and as we needed to win them back imo we needed to prioritize winning over drawing.

The way the test panned out meant it showed batting on and not declaring meant the game would have ended in a draw.

I completely agree declaring increased our chances of losing, but it also increased our chances of winning.

Personally when you have a chance to win rather than draw you weigh up the pros and cons and make a decision.

As the test proved in the end it could of gone either way.

I see your argument and understand and respect it no issue with it.

What I have an issue with is people calling something that actually increased our chances of winning the game as one of the worst decisions ever.

Find that complete nonsense
 
Last edited:
mackembhoy said:
We played onto 6:30 when scheduled close of play was 6pm.

We play onto 7 when there's overs lost to rain. So don't get why we can't when not bowled all the overs.

The starting at 11:00 is definitely down to tradition.

Played at 10:30 for the WTC for foreign TV audiences. Absolutely no reason we can't start at 10:30 to make up overs.
Click to expand...
When you say "Absolutely no reason..." you can only mean that you can't see a reason. Something like a Test match will be governed by dozens, possibly hundreds, of agreements, licenses and permits. Start time, end times and the circumstances in which they can be varied will form part of many of those.
 
Game is perfect poised, I fancy us to win as we will be fearless chasing any total and are likely to have something reasonable set. A high tempo start and I think the Aussies will crumble a bit. That said, if they get Stokes and Root cheaply our batting probably isn’t good enough or wise enough to conduct a successful high pressure run chase against a good attack at the moment.
 
The Breen Machine said:
Game is perfect poised, I fancy us to win as we will be fearless chasing any total and are likely to have something reasonable set. A high tempo start and I think the Aussies will crumble a bit. That said, if they get Stokes and Root cheaply our batting probably isn’t good enough or wise enough to conduct a successful high pressure run chase against a good attack at the moment.
Click to expand...

There’s no doubt we’re fearless, but unfortunately there are a number of other attributes needed to chase a stiff total and it doesn’t appear that we have them.
 
Binxy said:
Declaring increased our chance of losing, seeing as we lost.

Answer me this, would the number one ranked team in the world and world test champions have declared on day one when one of the best batsman of all time was 118 not out?🤔
Click to expand...
If it was a test match they needed to win, with 400 on the board, on a very flat pitch, with time likely to be lost to weather then yes perhaps they would. England of course didn’t need to win they were just happy to risk losing to win. even if their catching was below average rather than utter shite they would have done.
 
Doesn't look good for me and the sons trip down on Sunday, unless the weather plays a big part tomorrow 🙏 (apologise for anyone going tomorrow 🤔).
Hard to believe that with everything that has happened we have only had 2 days (even confused the commentators today who talked about today being the 3rd day).
 
Tongester55 said:
Doesn't look good for me and the sons trip down on Sunday, unless the weather plays a big part tomorrow 🙏 (apologise for anyone going tomorrow 🤔).
Hard to believe that with everything that has happened we have only had 2 days (even confused the commentators today who talked about today being the 3rd day).
Click to expand...
Im in the same position going down Sunday
 
Just about in the game one big partnership from them and we are in trouble.

Need early strikes tomorrow the drop from Root could still prove pivotal. Hopefully Wood can steam in for some cheap wickets first up.
 
brandon said:
There’s no doubt we’re fearless, but unfortunately there are a number of other attributes needed to chase a stiff total and it doesn’t appear that we have them.
Click to expand...

aye, fearless is only a positive attribute if you're good enough to back it up. and we haven't been at all.

that's why i was apprehensive of the approach at durham, as the last few years have looked like we just aren't good enough to play high risk/high reward cricket but we've been really really good.

and england have been recently, by and large. not this time round. australia have been better, but largely it's been england defeating themselves. the drops have done for us
 
was in my paper this morning the drops so far have cost us 434 runs when you think of the margins first 2 matches and the 112 Roots cost first innings those are match and series deciding amounts.
 
Binxy said:
Declaring increased our chance of losing, seeing as we lost.
Click to expand...
In itself, that statement is nonsense as it amounts to saying that everything we did increased our chance of losing if we lost.

We won the toss and batted. That must have increased our chance of losing, since we lost.

We had a first innings lead. That must have increased our chance of losing, since we lost.

We weren’t bowled out before lunch on day one. Must have increased our chance of losing, since we lost.

No. You have to analyse events that associate with contingent probabilities more subtly than that.
Durham-Mackem41 said:
was in my paper this morning the drops so far have cost us 434 runs when you think of the margins first 2 matches and the 112 Roots cost first innings those are match and series deciding amounts.
Click to expand...
Spot on, that’s the key.

And then the question on other decisions becomes, do you pick a side, build your innings, and time your declarations on the presumption you’ll drop loads of catches and miss easy stumpings or in the presumption you’ll be competent. If you believe you should do the former, the tactics are wrong. If you believe you should do the latter, the execution is wrong.

And surely it must be the latter. No player or team became a winner by making a starting assumption it would play like shit and adjusting its tactics to accommodate that. England are 2-0 down and about to go 3 because they have played the basics badly, most obviously with keeping and close catching.
 
Last edited:
Binxy said:
Declaring increased our chance of losing, seeing as we lost.

Answer me this, would the number one ranked team in the world and world test champions have declared on day one when one of the best batsman of all time was 118 not out?🤔
Click to expand...
Under 400 runs as well
Fleagle said:
In itself, that statement is nonsense as it amounts to saying that everything we did increased our chance of losing if we lost.

We won the toss and batted. That must have increased our chance of losing, since we lost.

We had a first innings lead. That must have increased our chance of losing, since we lost.

We weren’t bowled out before lunch on day one. Must have increased our chance of losing, since we lost.

No. You have to analyse events that associate with contingent probabilities more subtly than that.
Click to expand...
None of those points are relevant to the point he was making
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top