SA Footy

Why did Australia call off the 4th Test against India ?
India was 6/174 with 24 balls left

24 balls to obtain 4 wickets
Highly improbable but not impossible
The last 5 batters left are arguably the most inferior batters in the Indian line up
Day 5 pitch , although still flatty, did give the bowlers glimmers of assistance at times

Fair bit of fuss around about Test teams bowling a prescribed amount of overs in a day, yet the Aussies knocked off early

Sport to some is played with the mindset of 'never give up'
Why play 5 days and then pack up with about 15 minutes to go , when a win is a possibility?

A days admission into Test cricket is reasonably expensive [In Adelaide this year it was $75 + $100 for some seats per day]
I imagine the costs would be similar in Melbourne
So did the Melbourne 5th day crowd get short changed ?

I think Australia made the wrong call , and should have played this match out
The only time , I feel they should have called it off with 4 wickets left , is perhaps with 3 balls left

Melbourne 5th day was $20 Adults

The Aussies should have played the match out, as the Indian tail is fragile.

To hear Smith say the bowlers are cooked, well it is called Test Match cricket for a reason.
Perhaps Smith didn't have faith in his bowlers to contain the Indian batsmen had they got set on a flat wicket.

anyway, we got the series win, another visiting captain bites the dust.

mal wrote:Why did Australia call off the 4th Test against India ?
India was 6/174 with 24 balls left

24 balls to obtain 4 wickets
Highly improbable but not impossible
The last 5 batters left are arguably the most inferior batters in the Indian line up
Day 5 pitch , although still flatty, did give the bowlers glimmers of assistance at times

Fair bit of fuss around about Test teams bowling a prescribed amount of overs in a day, yet the Aussies knocked off early

Sport to some is played with the mindset of 'never give up'
Why play 5 days and then pack up with about 15 minutes to go , when a win is a possibility?

A days admission into Test cricket is reasonably expensive [In Adelaide this year it was $75 + $100 for some seats per day]
I imagine the costs would be similar in Melbourne
So did the Melbourne 5th day crowd get short changed ?

I think Australia made the wrong call , and should have played this match out
The only time , I feel they should have called it off with 4 wickets left , is perhaps with 3 balls left

Completely agree. Imagine if we called off the Sydney test with 12 balls to go and 3 wickets left a few years ago.

It goes against so many of our sports philosophies. My members ticket was $325 and I want every test match delivery I am entitled to. If they called it off with 3 balls to go It would be OK I guess.

Apart from the fact the Indian tail is made from styrofoam another two overs from Mitch bowling at their throats would have been entertaining and could have found further flaws.

What's next??? Australia make 500 against a minnow in the World Cup and they elect not to chase.

Here is an example of what can happen in Test cricket
Albiet different circumstances etc etc

AU V PA
1978
MCG

PA 196
AU 168
PA 353

Australia needed 382 runs batting last
AU 3/128
AU 3/305
Allan Border and Kim Hughes had rescued the side with a 177 run partnership
The equation on the 5th day at that point was
Australia 77 runs
Pakistan 7 wickets

Sarfraz Nawaz ,
The man with a highly unusual start to his bowling run up , turned this test in the bowling spell of his life time
Australia capitulated to be all out for 310
Losing 7 wickets for 5 runs
The Sarf taking all 7 wickets to end with 9/86 [35.4]

Im not sure how many more balls Hughes faced in his 84 off 209 balls
But the rest of the batters were :
Wood 0[1]
Sleep 0[5]
Wright 1*[26]
Clark 0[1]
Hogg 0 [14]
Hurst 0 [2]

Those last 6 lasted 49 balls
Hughes might have lasted about another 1-10 balls [ can someone confirm ?]

In all it looks like 7 wickets fell in about 50-60 balls

As I have said different circumstances
But when its mathematically possible anything can happen in a cricket game

One of the two major blunders Smith made as captain in his 2nd Test. Needs someone to remind him that cricket is about entertainment and winning.

Who gives a shit? CA and the MCC got 99% of the 5th day's play in, Australia won the series which is far more important that watching some curry munchers block out 24 balls for nothing.

heater31 wrote:Who gives a shit? CA and the MCC got 99% of the 5th day's play in, Australia won the series which is far more important that watching some curry munchers block out 24 balls for nothing.

No need for racism.

in Heater's defence, its probably factual.

Aerie wrote:One of the two major blunders Smith made as captain in his 2nd Test. Needs someone to remind him that cricket is about entertainment and winning.

What was his other blunder

Aerie wrote:One of the two major blunders Smith made as captain in his 2nd Test. Needs someone to remind him that cricket is about entertainment and winning.

didn't make any blunders... can't help his team mates can't catch

made 192 and we won the series...

mal wrote:Here is an example of what can happen in Test cricket
Albiet different circumstances etc etc

AU V PA
1978
MCG

PA 196
AU 168
PA 353

Australia needed 382 runs batting last
AU 3/128
AU 3/305
Allan Border and Kim Hughes had rescued the side with a 177 run partnership
The equation on the 5th day at that point was
Australia 77 runs
Pakistan 7 wickets

Sarfraz Nawaz ,
The man with a highly unusual start to his bowling run up , turned this test in the bowling spell of his life time
Australia capitulated to be all out for 310
Losing 7 wickets for 5 runs
The Sarf taking all 7 wickets to end with 9/86 [35.4]

Im not sure how many more balls Hughes faced in his 84 off 209 balls
But the rest of the batters were :
Wood 0[1]
Sleep 0[5]
Wright 1*[26]
Clark 0[1]
Hogg 0 [14]
Hurst 0 [2]

Those last 6 lasted 49 balls
Hughes might have lasted about another 1-10 balls [ can someone confirm ?]

In all it looks like 7 wickets fell in about 50-60 balls

As I have said different circumstances
But when its mathematically possible anything can happen in a cricket game

Sarfraz took 7 for 1 in 33 balls. Therefore Australia lost 7 wickets in 65 balls. The Australian tail in 1978-79 was similar in batting ability to India's tail this series. Remember for much of 1978-79 the Australian 9,10,11 was Hogg, Higgs and Hurst. The fact that Higgs batted before Hurst says it all about Australia's tail that series. Peter Sleep came into the side to replace Higgs for the Melbourne test but wasn't successful in that match with either bat or ball.

Peter Sleep is one of only two Australian cricketers to play tests for Australia in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.

if my aunty had balls, she'd be my uncle...

A LOT of 'IFS" being said... We didn't even look like getting a wicket, let alone 4.

I don't believe Smith make a blunder, he played it safe. I would have liked to have seen us take some risk to win the match but that didn't happen and probably fair enough, can't blame him.

I think Clarke would have played it out differently but he wasn't the captain so it doesn't matter.

As for calling the match off earlier, it's been a part of the game for years so nothing new.

The final point about spectators getting value for money ... well, LOL.

Must be a slow news day, let's talk about pizzas perhaps.

dedja wrote:I don't believe Smith make a blunder, he played it safe. I would have liked to have seen us take some risk to win the match but that didn't happen and probably fair enough, can't blame him.

I think Clarke would have played it out differently but he wasn't the captain so it doesn't matter.

As for calling the match off earlier, it's been a part of the game for years so nothing new.

The final point about spectators getting value for money ... well, LOL.

Must be a slow news day, let's talk about pizzas perhaps.

Real good point about it being different between Smith and Clarke

I highly doubt it even if Smith wanted to declare earlier that he would of been 'able' to unless the likes of Boof, Haddin etc thought it was the way to go. What deciscion Smith made would have defiantly been a joint deciscion between all the parties involved

Clarke on the other hand you would think has a lot more confidence and 'power' in the change rooms to have the ultimate final say

With the series now won I would 100% expect if we get in the same situation in the SCG test that Smith would make a far more agressive decleration

If people wanna have a crack at Smith about the declaration I think they need to put their state loyalties behind em and have an equal crack at boof

The declaration would have come earlier if the pitch wasn't a complete road.

It was a pretty boring test and it was going to be another boring 24 balls.

i really like the opinion of people who have captained australia on this forum

Bunch of negative nancy's...

Australia 300 ahead with 100 overs to go in the match. The intent wasn't there to win the match. Negative cricket and something we are not use to with the current Australian team. At the very minimum 80 overs would have given some chance for a win and snuffed out any chance of an Indian victory. Leaving 70 overs was overkill and pulling up stumps when there is still a tiny chance to win a Test match, whilst not as poor and costly as the timing of declaration, is still poor form. Hopefully his captaincy improves as his batting has with more experience.

Aerie wrote:Australia 300 ahead with 100 overs to go in the match. The intent wasn't there to win the match. Negative cricket and something we are not use to with the current Australian team. At the very minimum 80 overs would have given some chance for a win and snuffed out any chance of an Indian victory. Leaving 70 overs was overkill and pulling up stumps when there is still a tiny chance to win a Test match, whilst not as poor and costly as the timing of declaration, is still poor form. Hopefully his captaincy improves as his batting has with more experience.

you know this how?

heater31 wrote:Who gives a shit? CA and the MCC got 99% of the 5th day's play in, Australia won the series which is far more important that watching some curry munchers block out 24 balls for nothing.

You obviously didn't see the test in Sydney in 2008? If they'd have got one wicket, the last three batsman would have been lucky to survive. There was no risk in bowling the last four overs so I can't understand why they didn't. I've never seen a draw offered with fewer than ten overs to bowl.

When India were 3/19 yesterday the declaration at lunch to bowl India in two sessions looked like a real possibility, we were all over them and at that point what seemed like a confusing declaration that came too late looked like a masterstroke and Australia were going on to win the match. Unfortunately for Australia Kohli and Rahane were able to survive and do their best to save India from defeat, even after Pujara got out we still had a chance but Dhoni and Ashwin were able to survive and hang on for a draw. We didn't take our chances that India gave us to take more wickets and possibly win the match- drop catches/run out chances and thats the difference between a win and the draw. I would of liked for Australia to bowl those last 4 overs because anything could of happened but at the same time Australia ensured a series victory and you have to be happy with that.