England wants to beat the Australians, for all intents and purposes did, then agreed to draw...?
November 30, 2010 3:30 AM Subscribe
I guess I don't understand cricket as well as I thought. Can someone explain how and why the first test in The Ashes ended in a draw?
Forgive my ignorance as a newly transplanted American in the UK. But, in such a hotly contested rivalry, why, after such a huge day of run production (517, not out ["declaring"]), resulting in a commanding runs lead, would England have the match end in a draw?
Forgive my ignorance as a newly transplanted American in the UK. But, in such a hotly contested rivalry, why, after such a huge day of run production (517, not out ["declaring"]), resulting in a commanding runs lead, would England have the match end in a draw?
It was a draw because England didn't get all of the Australian batsman out the second time around.
In test cricket both teams have two chances to go through their entire line-up within the five day period. In this case, although England scored a mighty amount of runs, they didn't manage to get all of the Australian's out before the end of play on day five, thus a draw.
Oh, and if you're asking why they declared, well that was I believe so they could have a chance to beat down the Australian batsman, given they had a pretty commanding lead. And if they'd just kept batting and scoring till the end of the fifth day they would have looked like jerks.
posted by Suspicious Ninja at 3:46 AM on November 30, 2010
In test cricket both teams have two chances to go through their entire line-up within the five day period. In this case, although England scored a mighty amount of runs, they didn't manage to get all of the Australian's out before the end of play on day five, thus a draw.
Oh, and if you're asking why they declared, well that was I believe so they could have a chance to beat down the Australian batsman, given they had a pretty commanding lead. And if they'd just kept batting and scoring till the end of the fifth day they would have looked like jerks.
posted by Suspicious Ninja at 3:46 AM on November 30, 2010
I assume the question is not about the basic mechanics of winning a test match (see Wikipedia) but is about why England didn't declare earlier on the last day. This would given them a better chance at winning. There could have been a number of reasons (1) they were piling on batting records for posterity (2) they were emphasizing the weakness of the Australian bowling attack, which may have a psychological effect in the next test, and certainly gives them the momentum (3) they didn't have a big enough lead to declare early in the day without risking losing.
It probably wasn't so relevant to this first test, but it's worth bearing in mind as the series progresses that, as holders, England only need to draw the series to retain the ashes.
posted by caek at 3:56 AM on November 30, 2010
It probably wasn't so relevant to this first test, but it's worth bearing in mind as the series progresses that, as holders, England only need to draw the series to retain the ashes.
posted by caek at 3:56 AM on November 30, 2010
Basically, the cricket match has a limit of 5 days. If you can't dismiss the other team in in their second innings in that time, then the match is a draw.
And if they'd just kept batting and scoring till the end of the fifth day they would have looked like jerks.
Yeah, there was nothing strictly stopping England doing this. But by convention a team will almost always declare to allow the other team to have their second batting innings and at least a chance to win.
In this case, the lead was simply too much and Australia were never likely to surmount it. There was also a good chance that they could have been bowled out in the day and a bit that remained, giving England the win.
posted by TheOtherGuy at 5:12 AM on November 30, 2010
And if they'd just kept batting and scoring till the end of the fifth day they would have looked like jerks.
Yeah, there was nothing strictly stopping England doing this. But by convention a team will almost always declare to allow the other team to have their second batting innings and at least a chance to win.
In this case, the lead was simply too much and Australia were never likely to surmount it. There was also a good chance that they could have been bowled out in the day and a bit that remained, giving England the win.
posted by TheOtherGuy at 5:12 AM on November 30, 2010
But by convention a team will almost always declare to allow the other team to have their second batting innings and at least a chance to win. .
Not really "by convention". They declare to ensure that they will have enough time to bowl out the opposition. the trick is to find that point where you have a strong enough lead and still enough time for another full innings to take place.
posted by mary8nne at 6:03 AM on November 30, 2010
Not really "by convention". They declare to ensure that they will have enough time to bowl out the opposition. the trick is to find that point where you have a strong enough lead and still enough time for another full innings to take place.
posted by mary8nne at 6:03 AM on November 30, 2010
if they'd just kept batting and scoring till the end of the fifth day they would have looked like jerks
The point of declaring is to give the other side enough batting time to get completely dismissed, which is the only way to win a test match. The batting side's captain needs to make a careful judgment call. Declare too early and you risk the other side winning; too late and the best you can do is draw.
And then there's the whole business of the follow-on.
posted by flabdablet at 6:18 AM on November 30, 2010
The point of declaring is to give the other side enough batting time to get completely dismissed, which is the only way to win a test match. The batting side's captain needs to make a careful judgment call. Declare too early and you risk the other side winning; too late and the best you can do is draw.
And then there's the whole business of the follow-on.
posted by flabdablet at 6:18 AM on November 30, 2010
It's complicated. Test cricket is best seen as a war, not a series of discrete battles. Or perhaps as a boxing match, where the opening rounds are more about scoping the opposition and setting up later tactics than getting a knockout.
The Gabba pitch had shown that it was pretty flat, consistent and good for batting. The prospect of getting ten wickets on the final day looked slender, and declaring early would have given the Aussies a glimmer of hope, or at least a target to aim at with restored purpose after the thankless monotony of fielding. Declaring before tea gave the bowling side enough of a sniff that a few quick wickets would have made things interesting.
In a five-Test series, with the second Test due to start in only a few days, it became more a question of Strauss wanting to win the psychological battle than take risks in search of a result in less than conducive conditions. It was important to re-establish the confidence of the opening batsmen after that under-par first innings performance, and revive the Australians' worries about the strength of their bowling attack, and the final days' coverage (along with the empty seats) highlighted that, after a day or two when the Aussies had hopes of jumping into an early lead.
So the teams go to Adelaide knowing that the pitch is likely to be equally flat and lifeless, and that while the toss will be important, England's lineup has the immediate form to respond to a 400+ Aussie first innings. To my mind, and probably the captains', the Ashes proper doesn't begin until Perth (3rd Test), where conditions will be very different.
posted by holgate at 6:57 AM on November 30, 2010
The Gabba pitch had shown that it was pretty flat, consistent and good for batting. The prospect of getting ten wickets on the final day looked slender, and declaring early would have given the Aussies a glimmer of hope, or at least a target to aim at with restored purpose after the thankless monotony of fielding. Declaring before tea gave the bowling side enough of a sniff that a few quick wickets would have made things interesting.
In a five-Test series, with the second Test due to start in only a few days, it became more a question of Strauss wanting to win the psychological battle than take risks in search of a result in less than conducive conditions. It was important to re-establish the confidence of the opening batsmen after that under-par first innings performance, and revive the Australians' worries about the strength of their bowling attack, and the final days' coverage (along with the empty seats) highlighted that, after a day or two when the Aussies had hopes of jumping into an early lead.
So the teams go to Adelaide knowing that the pitch is likely to be equally flat and lifeless, and that while the toss will be important, England's lineup has the immediate form to respond to a 400+ Aussie first innings. To my mind, and probably the captains', the Ashes proper doesn't begin until Perth (3rd Test), where conditions will be very different.
posted by holgate at 6:57 AM on November 30, 2010
But by convention a team will almost always declare to allow the other team to have their second batting innings and at least a chance to win.As mary8nne suggestions, no. This is not a convention in professional cricket, and is not why a team declares.
posted by caek at 7:14 AM on November 30, 2010
Suspicious Ninja has the basic point down. A test match involves each side having the right to bat twice (two innings each). Now, the way you win a test is by scoring more runs than the other said and by bowling them out, twice. All of them. The whole side. Twice. If you can do that in the allotted five days or less, you win the test. if the allotted time runs out and you have not done that (and they have not done it to you), it's a draw.
The reason one side might declare before losing all their wickets is that they feel they have amassed enough runs to make it unlikely that the opponents will surpass that number in the remaining time. This gives them a shot at winning - by bowling the entire opposing team out - in the time that remains. It can backfire: sometimes the opponents go on a tear and actually reach the target. Sometimes they don't reach the target but manage to avoid being bowled out, resulting in a draw.
Test cricket can be painful and frustrating. But it's also a wonderful, maddening, sublime, subtle, frustrating, exhilarating and engrossing game. Well, it is once you really understand what's going on.
posted by Decani at 2:05 PM on November 30, 2010
The reason one side might declare before losing all their wickets is that they feel they have amassed enough runs to make it unlikely that the opponents will surpass that number in the remaining time. This gives them a shot at winning - by bowling the entire opposing team out - in the time that remains. It can backfire: sometimes the opponents go on a tear and actually reach the target. Sometimes they don't reach the target but manage to avoid being bowled out, resulting in a draw.
Test cricket can be painful and frustrating. But it's also a wonderful, maddening, sublime, subtle, frustrating, exhilarating and engrossing game. Well, it is once you really understand what's going on.
posted by Decani at 2:05 PM on November 30, 2010
« Older It's Not Exactly A Secret, Sweetie, but Maybe You... | Free data on electricity spot prices? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
"The objective of each team is to score more runs than the other team and to completely dismiss the other team. In limited overs cricket, winning the game is achieved by scoring the most runs, even if the opposition has not been completely dismissed. In Test cricket, it is necessary to score the most runs and dismiss the opposition twice in order to win the match, which would otherwise be drawn."
Gotta bowl out the other team as well as score the most runs in a test match.
posted by jannw at 3:38 AM on November 30, 2010