Why are modern captains so timid and afraid of losing?

It seems like declarations these days are so much safer than what they used to be 10-15 years ago. Mahela should have declared a lot earlier against England today, and Kumble made an absolutely awful declaration against Pakistan, leaving them something like 350 to win in 48 overs on what had become a very tricky pitch. FFS. No wonder no one is watching Test cricket anymore. Oh yeah, and who could forget Dravid at the Oval. Pathetic and spineless stuff. Perhaps Test wins should carry more weight on the ICC rankings?

I don't think too many give a hoot about the ICC rankings.

What the hell is wrong with Mahela's declaration FFS?
He's put the game beyond England's reach ... end of.

SL are 1 up in the series ... they might just roll England over tomorrow and make it 2 wins. But that isn't the point.

Psychologically he's got England over a barrel - THEY have to bat for the draw not SL.
Batting out the fifth day for a draw can't be much fun ... so it isn't exactly going to be 'batting practice' for England either!

doremi wrote:I don't think too many give a hoot about the ICC rankings.

Beat me to it. Nobody gives a rats arse about the ICC, let alone the ICC rankings and that is a big part of the problem.

Until someone comes up with a better system, teams will continue to treat winning individual test series as sufficient in itself. There is no real 'pressure' on teams to win convincingly or to even win a test at all if the series is already as good as won.

That, plus modern day captains are innately spineless at all levels of cricket.

With an innings in hand and a substantial lead already, and only a day and two sessions to go, Jayawardene could easily have declared at lunch. England would still have been entirely out of the game. We'd have had to bat four sessions just to get a lead of 200 (at our average r/r), and that's assuming we batted well and quickly, which is nigh on impossible on this pitch.

Frankly, Jayawardene's declarations in this series have both been negative, and have both given England a sniff where they should have had none (of a draw). In better form, England would have seized both of them.

Because Test cricket is all about winning the series. Why would anyone risk a series lead to gamble on winning the current match?

If you're a football team leading a match 1-0, do you send everyone forward for a last-minute corner to try and make it 2-0? Of course not, you keep the ball in the corner and take no risks.

If you're a football team leading a match 1-0, do you send everyone forward for a last-minute corner to try and make it 2-0? Of course not, you keep the ball in the corner and take no risks.

Only if you're an Arsenal side managed by George Graham.

So it's ok to aim for 1-0 series wins all the time? Pretty negative, and not good for the game of cricket. Play for a draw, and the only other result you can achieve is a loss.

Henry wrote:

If you're a football team leading a match 1-0, do you send everyone forward for a last-minute corner to try and make it 2-0? Of course not, you keep the ball in the corner and take no risks.

Only if you're an Arsenal side managed by George Graham.

So it's ok to aim for 1-0 series wins all the time? Pretty negative, and not good for the game of cricket. Play for a draw, and the only other result you can achieve is a loss.

I'm not saying play for a draw all the time, in that case you will end up losing games and series you could have won.

But if you're ahead in the series (particularly a three-match one) and on the final day and the only way you can possibly lose is by declaring, then don't declare. Simple as that.

Actually, I think I've got it... it's those three-match series that are the problem! In longer series you can afford to take a few risks as there's time to recover. In short ones there's obvious advantages in sitting back on your lead if you win the first one.

Even football isn't football anymore. Last two winners of major international tournaments - Greece and Italy, by playing a defensive strategy.

Edit — Oh, I forgot the Coppa America when Brazils's coach carlos Dunga was criticised during the opening few games for being too defensive and not playing in true Brazillian style. And yet, they won the tournament easily and brushed aside Argentina in the final through playing defensively and frustrating them. Unheard of.

Probably pays better to win a five-match series 1-0 than to lose it 2-3?

India are the Chelsea of world cricket. Win everything 1-0.

Can't blame Kumble for making things absolutely fool (and Indian pacer) proof safe, but he stretched it too much. Overkill.

Even football isn't football anymore. Last two winners of major international tournaments - Greece and Italy, by playing a defensive strategy.

In the last instance though, France was famously attacking... My mum, who is acutely suspicious of soccer in spite of knowing very little of it, happened to walk into the room and start watching it on TV for the first time in her life about two seconds before the famous Zidane incident occurred! :laule:

doremi wrote:India are the Chelsea of world cricket. Win everything 1-0.
Can't blame Kumble for making things absolutely fool (and Indian pacer) proof safe, but he stretched it too much. Overkill.

India win everything?

erm...australia always sets about trying to win the game,. i think the indian habit of going for draws from the outset shows they have not fully removed the pernicious conservative influence of the english colonists

Despite having Kallis in their team, the Saffies also seem to set fair targets when declaring . . .

and that is why the saffies are a competitive cricket team

doremi wrote:India are the Chelsea of world cricket. Win everything 1-0.

Was a time that used to be Arsenal ... not now ... and tfft.

horace wrote:erm...australia always sets about trying to win the game,. i think the indian habit of going for draws from the outset shows they have not fully removed the pernicious conservative influence of the english colonists

And the Aussies tend to act like un-civilised louts, which shows that they have not fully been removed from the influence of their British colonial convict ancestors.

Metaphorically 'Still in chains', you could say.

Henry wrote:

horace wrote:erm...australia always sets about trying to win the game,. i think the indian habit of going for draws from the outset shows they have not fully removed the pernicious conservative influence of the english colonists

And the Aussies tend to act like un-civilised louts, which shows that they have not fully been removed from the influence of their British colonial convict ancestors.

Metaphorically 'Still in chains', you could say.

..uncivilised louts!!!....hooligans!!!....like our Irish (and roman) forbears we are prolly beyond the pale of your saxon snobbery

Henry wrote:
And the Aussies tend to act like un-civilised louts

I can't recall out modern day team ever acting like your lot just did in the Indian series.

correct....we have never had the born to rule mentality of many upper class english, indian brahmin types like gangles or that of SL's little lord fauntleroy - arjuna

England - home of 'playing for the draw'.

Anyone spot the irony in the biggest Pommy git on this forum starting a thread like this? PMSL.

horace wrote:erm...australia always sets about trying to win the game,. i think the indian habit of going for draws from the outset shows they have not fully removed the pernicious conservative influence of the english colonists

....influence of John Wright


FIXED

erm...john wright...a snnzzedder....i have always blamed the english for NZ

Two sporting declarations I can remember ....

Smith's declaration in Sydney (chasing a drawn series)

Gilly's declaration in the Butcher game (Headingley) chasing a 4 - 0 position