Re: Stupid mistake by SA could hurt them psychologically


outsourcingbusin...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I stated this way before the 5th day even began. It would be a mistake
> for SA to declare setting a target of around 280 in 75 overs. I wrote
> then (and it proved miraculously accurate) that it would be a 60
> percent chance of an Australian win with maybe 30 percent chance of a
> draw and less than a 10 percent chance of a SA win. It has proved
> correct. Actually looks like a complete knockout because some of the
> South African bowlers have been even worse than what they should have
> bowled.
>
> I wrote earlier that it is COMPLETE IDIOCY to just declare for the sake
> of declaring just to prove a point. Yes, you must go for a win (if it
> is reasonably possible AND you have the attack for the conditions to
> make it so).
>
> South Africa should have ended this series with only a 1-0 loss.
> Actually, even in Melbourne if it wasn't for that dropped catch by
> Kallis (and earlier by Nel) SA could have won that match, inspite of
> some umpiring decisions against them.
>
> Then a draw here would have meant a 1-0 victory for SA. People who know
> cricket would have discussed years later that a 1-0 loss could actually
> have been a 1-0 victory.
>
> To just hand Australia the test match in trying to prove some stupid
> point is needless and could not only hurt them in the test rankings but
> more importantly in the upcoming VB series.
>
> Australia would be buoyant after this win and everyone who saw the
> series knows that it was in reality a very very close series. Had SA
> taken all thier catches, even though some crucial umpiring decisions
> went against them they could have still won the series.
>
> Stupid mistake by SA. If they had a bowler like Anil Kumble than maybe
> they could have settled for 287. (Although I would have still made a
> target of 310 or so and then declared).
>
> SA should have made about 350 and set Australia the target in about 60
> overs. It would have been 90 percent a drawn match. And a 5 percent SA
> victory and a 5 percent chance for an Australian victory. Australia may
> still have done it but then they could have lost wickets and allowed SA
> to maybe steal an unlikely victory. Most likely it would have been a
> drawn match but there would have certainly been more excitement and SA
> could have retained some psychological advantage (knowing that but for
> the rain things could have been a lot different).

While I disagree with your statements that RSA should have ensured the
draw first, I also thought the declaration was a poor one. The point
of a declaration is to set a team a gettable, but not easy, target.
Setting Aus 287 in 75 overs on this pitch with this attack was always
too generous. (I know some will point to the history of the game, but
they'll conveniently ignore the recent history, where teams have chased
down larger scores in the 4th innings and the SCG has been more batsman
friendly - remember the India match?) Smith should have set over 300
(310-320 would have been good), which would also have been a
psychological blow, in about 68-70 overs.

The way Aus has batted, that 320 probably would have been gettable, but
the calculations would have all been different. Its a game of subtlety.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Stupid mistake by SA could hurt them psychologically
    ... for SA to declare setting a target of around 280 in 75 overs. ... I wrote earlier that it is COMPLETE IDIOCY to just declare for the sake ... Then a draw here would have meant a 1-0 victory for SA. ... To just hand Australia the test match in trying to prove some stupid ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Re: Stupid mistake by SA could hurt them psychologically
    ... >> Then a draw here would have meant a 1-0 victory for SA. ... > Yeah just like the Ashes loss could have been a win or draw if Australia ... >> target of 310 or so and then declared). ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Re: OT: Bush Threatens Veto
    ... WMA was a palatable excuse. ... declare victory and pull out. ... projects continue to get funded and babtism-by-fire combat training ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: Neocon Silence...shrug.
    ... Yes, declare victory and pull out, despite the shamefulness- that didn't stop the U.S. Cavalry at wounded Knee and it damn sure didn't mean much as Saigon fell in 1975. ... because projects continue to get funded and babtism-by-fire combat training continues to keep the armed forces sharp and combat experienced. ... Why would I want to converse with *you*?! ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: 4 years after Bush declares Victory, still no victory
    ... "victory", we are still stuck. ... to declare Victory in the Battle of Iraq? ... in the surrender monkeys agenda. ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
Loading