Breaking/Brief news
August 08, 2006
Declaration delay
Someone try and convince me that England's unwillingness to declare their innings yesterday at Leeds is a strategic decision. Really, England ought to have asked Pakistan to bat either after Hoggard got out, or if they had to accomodate a personal landmark, after Read's first test 50. That'd have meant that Pakistan faced around 4-5 overs (8, in case the declaration was when Hoggard got out).
Pakistan's opening pair has been lasted, on an average, for 7 overs (204 balls for 5 innings) this series. This includes the 13 overs they stayed together during the first innings of the Leeds test. In addition, Pakistan's revolving door openers policy and the unsettled middle-order after Inzamam's absence (he can't bat higher than #7) meant that, to me, it'd have been the right (and obvious?) thing for England to do.
Maybe the need of the hour was to preserve the 1-0 lead.
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed -
| Well they did win the match comfortably. In fact, I seem to remember a similar post before England beat India.
They did, undoubtedly. But my point was about why the declaration was delayed. Asking Pakistan to bat for anything more than 5 overs would have almost invariably led to 1 or even 2 wickets being taken before close of play. The conservative attitude has definitely won them games. But its baffling, nevertheless.
By 
Jagadish (10 Aug 2006, 1:21:00 am)
We'd prefer if you posted comments with your real name to add more credibility to your opinions. However, the moderators reserve the right to delete comments, especially those containing offensive or unsuitable language. The opinions in the comments are your own views. You are welcome to provide a URL to your own cricket blog, but the moderators reserve the right to delete comments which only reference sites for viewing live streams.
Links within entries open in a new window. Some of the links may now be broken/not take you to the expected report since the original content providers may have archived/removed the contents. Some of the sites linked may require registration/subscription.
All opinions expressed are those of the authors alone. The authors' respective employers (past, present or future) are in no way connected to the opinions expressed here.
All pictures, photographs used are copyrights of the original owners. We do not intend to infringe on any copyright. Pictures and photographs are used here to merely accentuate and enhance the content value to our readers.
|
|
|
|
Post a Comment