creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

[thebish]

Clarke didn't try to make a game of it to suit the crowd. Lets get this straight. He did it because Australia haven't won a test in is it 10 or 11 attempts and as a team and he as captain are under pressure from a disgruntled Aussie media and set of fans.

They'd lost the series and so had little to lose going for it.

Let's get into perspective this supposedly fantastically brave and if you believe Warne 'positive' captain who is heralded by Warne as the second coming or something was getting his bowlers to bowl down the leg side, waste time and complain about the light with no close catchers when they needed 6 wickets. They still could have won the test. Not so 'brave' and 'positive' then was he?

also - he COULD have declared on 300 or so in the first innings if he was being bold and have-a-go.... but he opted to bat on... (the weather was much-predicted)

the troubling thing for Oz is their inability to bowl us out twice.... in this test - even with a massive score on the board - and supposedly pressing for a win - they could only knock over four wickets in the first day and a bit... and that's with out top order misfiring...

[William the White]

Clarke didn't try to make a game of it to suit the crowd. Lets get this straight. He did it because Australia haven't won a test in is it 10 or 11 attempts and as a team and he as captain are under pressure from a disgruntled Aussie media and set of fans.

They'd lost the series and so had little to lose going for it.

Let's get into perspective this supposedly fantastically brave and if you believe Warne 'positive' captain who is heralded by Warne as the second coming or something was getting his bowlers to bowl down the leg side, waste time and complain about the light with no close catchers when they needed 6 wickets. They still could have won the test. Not so 'brave' and 'positive' then was he?

No one said he did. Or even hinted at it.

but he declared at a time when England had the genuine opportunity to win 4-0, and Australia had a genuine chance of winning a test. That is, by any judgement, 'making a game of it'. so well done, Clarke, credit where it's due.

[Bruce Rioja]

Clarke didn't try to make a game of it to suit the crowd. Lets get this straight.

Point me to where anyone's suggested that. On you go.

EDIT: Just seen William's post - exactly that.

[BWFC_Insane]

Clarke didn't try to make a game of it to suit the crowd. Lets get this straight.

Point me to where anyone's suggested that. On you go.

EDIT: Just seen William's post - exactly that.

In which case the crowd had every right to boo him for his game spoiling tactics at the end.

[thebish]

I think booing is ugly and disappointing at a cricket ground, but I think it's understandable...

a succession of Aussies came out of the woodwork - including team members whining on about England's negative play... then we see a display of blatant negative play from the Oz - bowling wides, slowing the over rate, spreading the field, carping to the umpires about the light...

it was a mixture of Oz hypocrisy and simple disappointment at what might have been - for the latter, the ICC is the proper target - but it's hard to boo the ICC - much simpler to boo the umpires - however much it isn't their fault... a bit like getting cross with call-centre staff... they're only doing their job...

[Worthy4England]

I suspect part of the frustration was that Clarke set a target. Then when it looked like it was going to backfire, started getting into the Umpires about the light. So he gave his team a chance to win or, if England didn't go for it, point out how negative we were. Then when we went for it and looked like we might make it, ran away from his decision. I never played under floodlights, but did have the odd game still playing in twilight and it wasn't, easy to pick the ball in the field. I doubt given the floodlights another 4 over's would have made a substantive difference though, hence the frustration.

[Bruce Rioja]

Clarke didn't try to make a game of it to suit the crowd. Lets get this straight.

Point me to where anyone's suggested that. On you go.

EDIT: Just seen William's post - exactly that.

In which case the crowd had every right to boo him for his game spoiling tactics at the end.

Only completely classless pillocks take up their 'right' to boo people, IMO.

[thebish]

I suspect part of the frustration was that Clarke set a target. Then when it looked like it was going to backfire, started getting into the Umpires about the light. So he gave his team a chance to win or, if England didn't go for it, point out how negative we were. Then when we went for it and looked like we might make it, ran away from his decision. I never played under floodlights, but did have the odd game still playing in twilight and it wasn't, easy to pick the ball in the field. I doubt given the floodlights another 4 over's would have made a substantive difference though, hence the frustration.

I don't think they were having that much difficulty picking up the ball - Pieterson had no long since been out to a pretty fine catch!

I suspect we wouldn't be talking about any of this if other issues could be sorted out - OVER RATES for one... if we'd sorted that we wouldn't have been playing at 7:30 on day five (or, rather, there is every chance we wouldn't have been!)

[Worthy4England]

I don't think they were having much higher problems either, than the Pietersen dismissal or the Bell run out immediately before it. The run out had the ball travelling fairly sharpish back to the bowler, which he collected and threw the stumps down. So both of them suggest whilst not ideal, it wasn't dangerous - which is still the criteria. Hence Clarke was being a wuss and therefore got booed...

[Montreal Wanderer]

I note today that Lancashire did not enforce the follow-on against Hampshire today. Will BWFC-I agree with that decision? It seems to me there there are a number of arguments in favour of not enforcing it - e.g. weather and how tired your bowlers/fielders are; weather and what it will be like for the rest of the match; etc.

[bobo the clown]

I note today that Lancashire did not enforce the follow-on against Hampshire today. Will BWFC-I agree with that decision? It seems to me there there are a number of arguments in favour of not enforcing it - e.g. weather and how tired your bowlers/fielders are; weather and what it will be like for the rest of the match; etc.

221 ahead .... 2 days left ... and weather forecast for the next couple of days is a bit mixed.

I, for sure, would have enforced it simply due to the weather issue.

Anyway, they are so far ahead in the league things would need to be pretty awful not to progress overall this season.

[Bruce Rioja]

I think that the psychological element of forcing the follow-on is far too easily overlooked.

[jimbo]

Anyone see any of the T20 tonight? Phenomenal

[bwfcdan94]

Who is it who said Aaron Finch was going to be a world beater . Made our attack look like a village side, think he must be in with a good chance of getting into their ashes squad given what a great record he has against England in t20s and one dayers.

[Prufrock]

I think that the psychological element of forcing the follow-on is far too easily overlooked.

Indeed, there are a few, rare, instances I can see how it's a good idea not to, mainly on a quick scoring pitch, on which you've both got lots, but which might deteriorate.

Stick em in again, with their tails between their legs, and give yourself a (hopefully small) target to hit, knowing how long you have. Even if it goes wrong, you hopefully have the option of at least batting for a draw.

[thebish]

I think that the psychological element of forcing the follow-on is far too easily overlooked.

Indeed, there are a few, rare, instances I can see how it's a good idea not to, mainly on a quick scoring pitch, on which you've both got lots, but which might deteriorate.

Stick em in again, with their tails between their legs, and give yourself a (hopefully small) target to hit, knowing how long you have. Even if it goes wrong, you hopefully have the option of at least batting for a draw.

it really does depend how much effort your bowlers have expended getting them out first time... if they have slogged their gut out in the hot sun - sometimes it's just not a good idea. I don't think you can say it is a good idea either way without the individual circumstances of the game...

[Prufrock]

Of course, there is never a hard and fast rule, but my instinct would be to start with 'enforce it' and work from there. Not to say bowling isn't tiring, but Broad pulled a ludicrous spell out the other week after bowling for a while.

I don't watch any 20-20 and part of that is I like the mental element of test cricket. It probably isn't *that* physically draining to bowl for long period (vis-a-vis, say, tennis) but, mentally, you do have to come up with something a bit 'different' to get someone out. That said, it's tough to go in and bat again after you've got out cheaply, which is the case for at least some of them when there's a follow-on involved.

[Montreal Wanderer]

It might be depressing to follow-on, but I imagine it is equally depressing to face a target of close to 500 in your last innings, or stay alive for a day and a half for a draw. Since Hampshire are 33 for 3 at tea it looks to me like their spirit is crushed.

[Prufrock]

Close to 500?? That would require a team who have been not good enough to avoid following on in their first innings to post at least close to 700 in their second!

[bobo the clown]

Close to 500?? That would require a team who have been not good enough to avoid following on in their first innings to post at least close to 700 in their second!

Not qyuite. They had a 1st innings lead of 200+ and declared when on 285-5 in the second, giving an overall lead of 500 or so.

I still don't get it, but hey.

Hants ended day 3 on 137-7. So a win should come ... presuming the weather's OK. I just think they have it won by now if they'd made them follow-on.