West Indies v Australia, 1st Test, Barbados, 7-11 April, 2012

tricycle wrote:Just saw the replay, top win by Australia. Good match too.

Has Shillingford's issues with his action been resolved?

Well he is an off spinner and I feel like the ICC has basically legalized chucking for off spinners so we may as well pick him. He did do the supposed remedial work in Australia.

kkf wrote:Well he is an off spinner and I feel like the ICC has basically legalized chucking for off spinners so we may as well pick him. He did do the supposed remedial work in Australia.

True that.

JGK wrote:Apparently* this is only the second time a team has won after declaring behind the oppositions score.

leather jackets and all?

TO

see Law 14

An innings is "declared" during an innings and "forfeited" before an innings commences

however Cricinfo has the Eng first innings in the match you refer to as "declared" and the Saf second innings as forfeited

The other game I can see with a declaration was the Poms at Bridgetown in 1935

Windies 102 & 6/51 dec

lost to Poms 7/81 dec & 6/75

In NLWL's 100th Test at Jo'burg Oz finished up 9 down and trailing by 33 with Langer out Retired brain dead and eventually won the game by 2 wickets

The Lankans did something similar to the Zimbos in 1998 when Vaas got measles during the game (trailled by 26 with Vaas absent ill and won by 5 wickets)

JGK wrote:Shame Hussey got out at the death there.

Apparently* this is only the second time a team has won after declaring behind the oppositions score.

Discounting the 1st innings forfeit by England at Centurion in 2000, presumably the other instance is the 4-wicket win by England on the same ground in 1935:

WI v. Eng., 1st Test, Kensington Oval, Bridgetown, 8-10 Jan. 1935

Embee has got here before me with a more complete answer.

by the way it was 12 years ago this week that Hansie held his Hands up

embee wrote:TO

see Law 14

An innings is "declared" during an innings and "forfeited" before an innings commences

however Cricinfo has the Eng first innings in the match you refer to as "declared" and the Saf second innings as forfeited

The other game I can see with a declaration was the Poms at Bridgetown in 1935

Windies 102 & 6/51 dec

lost to Poms 7/81 dec & 6/75

In NLWL's 100th Test at Jo'burg Oz finished up 9 down and trailing by 33 with Langer out Retired brain dead and eventually won the game by 2 wickets

The Lankans did something similar to the Zimbos in 1998 when Vaas got measles during the game (trailled by 26 with Vaas absent ill and won by 5 wickets)

The Jo'burg match does not count as a declaration since when a batsman is unable to return to the crease the innings is deemed as completed (although of course as far as his career average is concerned the batsman's innings is counted as not out). Since Langer didn't bat in Oz' 2nd innings either Oz effectively won by 1 wicket:

SA v. Aus., 3rd Test, New Wanderers, Jo'burg, 31 Mar - 4 Apr. 2006

I suspect the same applies to the Zimbot-Lanky match when I find it.

embee wrote:TO

see Law 14

An innings is "declared" during an innings and "forfeited" before an innings commences

however Cricinfo has the Eng first innings in the match you refer to as "declared" and the Saf second innings as forfeited

The other game I can see with a declaration was the Poms at Bridgetown in 1935

Windies 102 & 6/51 dec

lost to Poms 7/81 dec & 6/75

In NLWL's 100th Test at Jo'burg Oz finished up 9 down and trailing by 33 with Langer out Retired brain dead and eventually won the game by 2 wickets

The Lankans did something similar to the Zimbos in 1998 when Vaas got measles during the game (trailled by 26 with Vaas absent ill and won by 5 wickets)

cheers embee

on cricinfo the notes at the end of the match explain the peculiar situation

"England have forfeited their 1st innings. The match referee indicated to the scorers to use 0/0d as the laws at the time do not allow forfeitures in the 1st innings"

Allan D wrote:

embee wrote:TO

see Law 14

An innings is "declared" during an innings and "forfeited" before an innings commences

however Cricinfo has the Eng first innings in the match you refer to as "declared" and the Saf second innings as forfeited

The other game I can see with a declaration was the Poms at Bridgetown in 1935

Windies 102 & 6/51 dec

lost to Poms 7/81 dec & 6/75

In NLWL's 100th Test at Jo'burg Oz finished up 9 down and trailing by 33 with Langer out Retired brain dead and eventually won the game by 2 wickets

The Lankans did something similar to the Zimbos in 1998 when Vaas got measles during the game (trailled by 26 with Vaas absent ill and won by 5 wickets)

The Jo'burg match does not count as a declaration since when a batsman is unable to return to the crease the innings is deemed as completed (although of course as far as his career average is concerned the batsman's innings is counted as not out). Since Langer didn't bat in Oz' 2nd innings either Oz effectively won by 1 wicket:

SA v. Aus., 3rd Test, New Wanderers, Jo'burg, 31 Mar - 4 Apr. 2006

I suspect the same applies to the Zimbot-Lanky match when I find it.

I added them as extra trivial points of interest , AD ...My cricinfo search list was teams batting second and winning but not losing 10 wickets in the first innings ...

The One wrote:

JGK wrote:Apparently* this is only the second time a team has won after declaring behind the oppositions score.

leather jackets and all?

Excluding that game.

This is the match:

SL v. Zim., 2nd Test, SSC Ground, Colombo, 14-18 Jan. 1998

The Zimbots were on the way to winning until a 6th wicket partnership of 189 between Aravinda and Ranatunga (batting 7) put paid to their hopes.

Interesting that the only two instances of sides winning on genuine declarations from behind have occurred on the same ground by the visitors in the 1st Test of a series. Mind you, it must have been a rough old strip in the 1930s.

embee wrote:

Allan D wrote:

embee wrote:TO

see Law 14

An innings is "declared" during an innings and "forfeited" before an innings commences

however Cricinfo has the Eng first innings in the match you refer to as "declared" and the Saf second innings as forfeited

The other game I can see with a declaration was the Poms at Bridgetown in 1935

Windies 102 & 6/51 dec

lost to Poms 7/81 dec & 6/75

In NLWL's 100th Test at Jo'burg Oz finished up 9 down and trailing by 33 with Langer out Retired brain dead and eventually won the game by 2 wickets

The Lankans did something similar to the Zimbos in 1998 when Vaas got measles during the game (trailled by 26 with Vaas absent ill and won by 5 wickets)

The Jo'burg match does not count as a declaration since when a batsman is unable to return to the crease the innings is deemed as completed (although of course as far as his career average is concerned the batsman's innings is counted as not out). Since Langer didn't bat in Oz' 2nd innings either Oz effectively won by 1 wicket:

SA v. Aus., 3rd Test, New Wanderers, Jo'burg, 31 Mar - 4 Apr. 2006

I suspect the same applies to the Zimbot-Lanky match when I find it.

I added them as extra trivial points of interest , AD ...My cricinfo search list was teams batting second and winning but not losing 10 wickets in the first innings ...

Indeed, I limited my search to declarations so your answer was more complete. The Jo'burg match was in many ways more remarkable given that Australia were 1 player short.

Pup's declaration was the turning point of the match when 3 days of West Indian dominance were effectively nullified. It made perfect sense in retrospect since, although both batsmen appeared well set and it would have been interesting to see if Harris could have reached an improbable century, the last wicket could have fallen at any time and therefore valuable bowling time was being used up that could be utilised, as it most surely was, to take advantage of a tired and flagging opposition.

If Australia had still had 3 wickets in hand Clarke might well have been tempted to wait until an innings lead had been achieved. When wickets began to fall in the run chase I wondered whether he might have lived to regret conceding a 1st innings lead. In the event the timing was almost perfect. The spurt in the scoring rate after tea ensured that victory was secured with just sufficient light to prevent the umpires closing the game down.

If anyone still had any doubt's about Clarke's captaincy credentials then the outcome of this match ought to quell them (but it obviously won't).

if that windies test from 1935 happened today there would be a huge stink. can imagine some careers ending in tears after allegations of match-fixing

Not really. It had more to do with uncovered wickets. It was a classic "sticky" of a type unknown today. No play was possible until tea on the second day and not until 3:30 on the final day and so although it was to some extent a contrived result both sides had a chance of winning and Hammond's innings in the run chase was particularly remarkable finishing with a six off Martindale.

yeah, but it was not a surprise 'sticky' i.e. normal batting conditions for part of the test and then getting really difficult for a part of it, where it makes sense to get your bowlers out as soon as possible. seems teams struggled throughout, which makes it kind of hard to imagine why the teams declared

i am sure there were some more nuances to it

I think it was just an attempt by both captains to achieve a result in the final session. Here's the Wisden report:

Wisden Report of 1st Test, WI v. Eng. Kensington Oval, Bridgetown, 8-10 Jan., 1935

Remember also that this was the era of the amateur captain and Grant's declaration in the Windies' 2nd innings would not have caused the furore that Sobers' declaration in Trinidad did 33 years later.

Also it should be remembered that the England players would have coped with similar circumstances in similar conditions in the County Championship at that time time whereas the West Indies' attack would have been less experienced in forcing a result although in claiming 6 wickets they came pretty close.

Agree about dropping Bishoo, he was ineffective in the second innings and didn't threaten much in the first either. BTW the umpires said this morning that the light would have been too bad to bowl the last over which further underlines the point about Sammy not delaying by bowling the spinners in tandem instead of the quicks. He also played to Hussey's strength. And he ensured that there was little risk in playing the reverse sweep. Cowan must be under some pressure now that Watson is back. He is such a limited player. Yesterday the crowd was calling for Watson to run him out. Warner struggled a bit with the pace of the pitch too and most of his runs seemed to come from edges.

Good to see the Windies being competitive, they still just can't seem to find that winning edge.

On reflection it was actually quite refreshing to see both teams thinking so positively about a *ahem* positive result. Good to see.

Shiv's 8th century in a losing cause and his 3rd in a loss against Australia, all of them domestically.

Red wrote:Agree about dropping Bishoo

I will be sorry to see Sneezy go if they drop him. The next match is in Trinidad, isn't it? If so this may help him save his place.

Red wrote:Agree about dropping Bishoo, he was ineffective in the second innings and didn't threaten much in the first either. BTW the umpires said this morning that the light would have been too bad to bowl the last over which further underlines the point about Sammy not delaying by bowling the spinners in tandem instead of the quicks. He also played to Hussey's strength. And he ensured that there was little risk in playing the reverse sweep. Cowan must be under some pressure now that Watson is back. He is such a limited player. Yesterday the crowd was calling for Watson to run him out. Warner struggled a bit with the pace of the pitch too and most of his runs seemed to come from edges.

I always think there is a place to have a "limited" opener in the line up - particularly when you have a reinventer up the other end. Granted he was not suited to yesterday's situation* but in normal circumstance the main thing you want from your openers is to keep out the good ones for as long as possible - and so the rest can cash in (see England's last test)

* Yesterday's situation was a bit overstated in the panic that Aus batted with

G.Wood wrote:

Red wrote:Agree about dropping Bishoo, he was ineffective in the second innings and didn't threaten much in the first either. BTW the umpires said this morning that the light would have been too bad to bowl the last over which further underlines the point about Sammy not delaying by bowling the spinners in tandem instead of the quicks. He also played to Hussey's strength. And he ensured that there was little risk in playing the reverse sweep. Cowan must be under some pressure now that Watson is back. He is such a limited player. Yesterday the crowd was calling for Watson to run him out. Warner struggled a bit with the pace of the pitch too and most of his runs seemed to come from edges.

I always think there is a place to have a "limited" opener in the line up - particularly when you have a reinventer up the other end. Granted he was not suited to yesterday's situation* but in normal circumstance the main thing you want from your openers is to keep out the good ones for as long as possible - and so the rest can cash in (see England's last test)

* Yesterday's situation was a bit overstated in the panic that Aus batted with

What people struggled with is that he lacked the ability to even fashion singles when there were so many on offer. When he was dismissed he walked to the pavilion with his head down all the way. I think he knew he had played a shocker. Another discussion point here is how unfair it is for any youngster coming in to have to bat at #3 the way our order is structured. With Watson now fit again Cowan will be under some pressure if someone is belting down the door with runs to get a go at #3. Long-term he just doesn't seem to be a great option, though of course he could anchor down a spot and try to take the shine off the ball in England.

Windies have picked three spinners and it's meant to take more turn than here. Good to see that every local one talks to loves his cricket. (the women too)

Off to Trinidad tomorrow to cheer the team on in the second test. Hope it's competitive again.

Many not impressed with Gayle's attitude to his country's opening plight. He surely could have spiced up the second innings.

bit unfair to Cowan...given the GCS is a hit and miss airhead and schoolgirl will only be ever able to make a 50 and run people out some solid knuckle down opener is required