Cricket
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
...Why do teams do this?
If i were captain and had one wicket remaining i'd tell the two batsmen to try and hit every ball for 4/6, no matter what it is.
If we then get another 30/40 runs off 2/3 overs then great, bigger target, and what is two overs going to matter at the end?
Does it seem this way to anyone else?
If i were captain and had one wicket remaining i'd tell the two batsmen to try and hit every ball for 4/6, no matter what it is.
If we then get another 30/40 runs off 2/3 overs then great, bigger target, and what is two overs going to matter at the end?
Does it seem this way to anyone else?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 25
|
By:
Depends who you ask. Try asking Ricky that question
|
|
By:
Got one in the net. Nice catch.
|
|
By:
no fishing here, genuine questions - i just dont understand why they dont do it??
|
|
By:
You try hitting those balls aim at yer throat with the new ball for 6 or 4
|
|
By:
when batting at 11
|
|
By:
ok, not easy i know, but what downside is there to it?
Maybe an over of dot balls while you swing at it, may get lucky with a few 4's though? |
|
By:
2 in the net now, well done
|
|
By:
In Australia's case its about protecting averages.
|
|
By:
10 an 11 usually your best bowlers an what happens if one of em gets injured whilst being bowled at
|
|
By:
in that case why bother going out on the field at all if you're worried about your bowlers getting injured?
|
|
By:
it is a genuine question, one that no-one can answer, im sure strauss couldnt either if you asked him
not sure why they do it either, psychological perhaps? the only possibility |
|
By:
yeah to protect averages i couldnt see a player like Shane Watson throwing away his innings at 120 not out, for some cheap runs.
Less so for tail ender batsman. I believe they wouldnt care too much. I agree if its a team game, probably one of the least selfish batsman in the 2000's to go and search for quick runs at the expense of his wicket, was Adam Gilchrist. Played the team game, in search for quick team runs before declaring. |
|
By:
Blow me down with a feather. He's got 5 now.
|
|
By:
what you mean keep the bowlers in the dressing room all match.
hmm different but how you gonna bowl the other side out? |
|
By:
I agree with God here. Sportsman should remeber they are here to entertain as well as win and it would be very entertaining. I should think it has something to do with protecting their batting average.
Most tail enders would be out within a few balls hitting ouyt with the new ball. they shouldt be so precious. |
|
By:
7!
|
|
By:
10 and 11 batsmen trying to slog everything will only score at about 4 or 5 an over, there will be a lot of playing and missing and mis-cued shots, the odd one may go for four but o balance it may be worth going in and if they don't have enough runs the top-order batsmen can get them next innings at a faster rate, should of declared when before Onions walked out imo
|
|
By:
you might also lose on of your bowlers as we did with Gough in 1998, broke a finger batting
a new slant on the 4 or 5 bowler thread.. |
|
By:
GOD could you answer a question that's been worrying me for some time? Do you exist?
|
|
By:
i can answer that for you.
no |
|
By:
I think it was a good idea
|
|
By:
The declaration is looking better and better the more wickets that fall.
|
|
By:
what .. creating humankind ?
|
|
By:
JJust if you are going to spend an hour putting on a negligible amount of runs declare when Prior is out. Sad if not able to win from here.
|
|
By:
God! If your suggesting Struass should have batted for even longer your even madder than him. He should have declared at lunch at the very latest. With 170 lead and 5 sessions left Smith would still not have enough time to set up a declaration, especially at the rate they score and with weather around. Also I dont believe that declaring 9 down is that common and if he wanted to protect numbers 10 and 11 from injury he would have declared at the fall of the 9th wicket instead of after another 6 runs.
|