68 replies to this topic

[bobrock]

Hallo, when I thought I understood something, here I am again... I see India have declared with 521-8, but this it's the first time I see a team declaring in their first innings. I've seen many times teams declaring to end their second innings when batting first ( I supposed it was to have more time to bowl out the other team when having a comfortable runs advantage ), but now I must admit I don't understand how the game really works because I can't see any reason to stop batting in the first innings having still others batsmen to line up.

[Saint Billinge]

Hallo, when I thought I understood something, here I am again... I see India have declared with 521-8, but this it's the first time I see a team declaring in their first innings. I've seen many times teams declaring to end their second innings when batting first ( I supposed it was to have more time to bowl out the other team when having a comfortable runs advantage ), but now I must admit I don't understand how the game really works because I can't see any reason to stop batting in the first innings having still others batsmen to line up.

England closed on 43 for 3. Could well be India fancy their chances, or else a deluge on the way!

[WearyRhino]

Hallo, when I thought I understood something, here I am again... I see India have declared with 521-8, but this it's the first time I see a team declaring in their first innings. I've seen many times teams declaring to end their second innings when batting first ( I supposed it was to have more time to bowl out the other team when having a comfortable runs advantage ), but now I must admit I don't understand how the game really works because I can't see any reason to stop batting in the first innings having still others batsmen to line up.

The bit you put in parentheses answers your own question, and bear in mind that to win a game of test cricket you have to bowl the other side out twice in 5 days.

[tim2]

West Indies did it in the test v Bangladesh they are currently playing, with only 4 wickets down. Bangladesh then overtook them.

[bobrock]

Yes but many times I've seen a score of 600 and more in the first innings all out. In your second innings you can do it because you know how the other team managed in batting, but if you're batting first and declare before being all out, who can assure you that the other team won't be able to do better than you did ? As far as I understand the game, England could have done 600 instead of 191. How could India know England were going to score so few runs ?

[Shadow45]

How could India know England were going to score so few runs ?

Because they know that England struggle to play spin

[tim2]

In the West Indies game, the coach had to defend the decision to declare on 500 odd for 4, especially when Bangladesh took a first innings lead, scoring 550 all out. Hiwever by day 5 on a worn pitch, Bangladesh collapsed chasing 250. By declaring, West indies left enough time in the game to bowl the hosts out twice.

[Wiltshire Rhino]

If a team gets a good score with wickets in hand in the opening inning surely it's worth, instead of delearing, having a slog-a-thon like 20/20.

[Northern Sol]

Yes but many times I've seen a score of 600 and more in the first innings all out. In your second innings you can do it because you know how the other team managed in batting, but if you're batting first and declare before being all out, who can assure you that the other team won't be able to do better than you did ? As far as I understand the game, England could have done 600 instead of 191. How could India know England were going to score so few runs ?

They only have five days. If England had scored so many then the game would be headed for a draw anyway.

The advantage is that if India do bat again then they will have all their top order batsmen back who will score more quickly than those lower down the order.

[WearyRhino]

The key point is that you cannot win a test cricket match unless you get 20 wickets in the 5 days. If you cannot do that then the number if runs you get is unimportant. Another point is the time of day you declare, particularly if your top order batsmen are still at the wicket. Tea is often a good time. Your bowlers who have had their feet up for a day and a half against opening batsman who have spent the same time in the field. Knock one of them over and you might get another easy wicket or 2 as the opposition send in the nightwatchmen (probably a bowler whose just spent the best part of 2 days working his socks off). A team can easily be 4 wickets down and in a state of panic.

[bobbruce]

If a team gets a good score with wickets in hand in the opening inning surely it's worth, instead of delearing, having a slog-a-thon like 20/20.

It also depends on the time of day. If there's say just over an hour left in the second day you could have a slog with your lower order. On the other hand you could put the opposition in who should be tired after spending two full days in the field. This also means that there top order have to get themselves in twice once after tea and then do it all again the next morning.

[Northern Sol]

This kind of debate is why cricket becoming a 5 day game rather than the old "timeless" tests is the best thing that could have happened to the game. It takes a situation that otherwise be tedious* and makes it tense and a talking point.


* no jokes about cricket being tedious please

[tim2]

Lots of other recent innovations have led to fewer and fewer dull Test Matches. Extra overs being added when weather intervenes, better drainage systems, new ball available earlier, DRS helping spin bowlers get wickets they previously never got but most of all the general tendancy now is towards aiming to win by playing positively (including early declarations). For the latter we largely, if begrudgingly, have to thank the Australians of the 90s.

[bobrock]

Thank you all, but the game seems to me now so complex you can always blame someone having decided anything.

[WearyRhino]

Thank you all, but the game seems to me now so complex you can always blame someone having decided anything.

You've lost me now.

[Ex-Kirkholt]

The main reason for a declaration in the first innings is that if you can get the other team all out for 200 less than your score you can force them to "follow-on" - i.e. make a side that has batted badly, bat again straight away.

This happened in the game but England have responded well - what often happens is that the following-on side collapse again and lose.

The key is that forcing the follow-on generally give you a better chance of getting the 20 wickets required to win.

[marklaspalmas]

It also depends on the time of day. If there's say just over an hour left in the second day you could have a slog with your lower order. On the other hand you could put the opposition in who should be tired after spending two full days in the field. This also means that there top order have to get themselves in twice once after tea and then do it all again the next morning.

Yes

[marklaspalmas]

Lots of other recent innovations have led to fewer and fewer dull Test Matches. Extra overs being added when weather intervenes, better drainage systems, new ball available earlier, DRS helping spin bowlers get wickets they previously never got but most of all the general tendancy now is towards aiming to win by playing positively (including early declarations). For the latter we largely, if begrudgingly, have to thank the Australians of the 90s.

Yes

[WearyRhino]

And of course, it works!

[marklaspalmas]

Umm, well, yes it does, provided your declaration decision is backed up by abject batting from the opposition who look like they've never ever seen spin bowling before.