Australia v South Africa, 3rd Test, Adelaide, 24-28 November, 2016

Red wrote:So Renshaw officially played and missed forty-two times.

He had decided to hold up an end and was deliberately playing inside the line.

Good to see an Australian that could actually dig in and value their Wicket, instead of playing at every Ball.

Good honour-saver for Australia.

after six losses on the trot there's not much honour to be saved

Blackadder wrote:Good to see an Australian that could actually dig in and value their Wicket, instead of playing at every Ball.

I thought he did play at every ball.

lardbucket wrote:after six losses on the trot there's not much honour to be saved

Better than 0-7.

And 0-3 at home.

taipan wrote:

Blackadder wrote:Good to see an Australian that could actually dig in and value their Wicket, instead of playing at every Ball.

I thought he did play at every ball.

If you count playing well inside the line as playing at the ball.

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:So Renshaw officially played and missed forty-two times.

He had decided to hold up an end and was deliberately playing inside the line.

Yes?

Still karti like, hitting the abacus and calculating the moral win....

Nigel in excelsious.

"The guys who came in did a really good job," Lehmann said.

Best.Duck.Ever

Maybe Boof was checking his phone and missed Madonnason's entire innings.

On Inside Cricket they seemed to be of the opinion that Faf's declaration was too clever by half and that it would have been smarter to see that Warner indeed opened under lights.

Red wrote:On Inside Cricket they seemed to be of the opinion that Faf's declaration was too clever by half and that it would have been smarter to see that Warner indeed opened under lights.

and it's easy to be too clever by half a week later.

Yeah, hindsight is always a smart-arse....but at that moment so was Faf. He tried to pull a stroke. It went off in his face. The End.

.

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:On Inside Cricket they seemed to be of the opinion that Faf's declaration was too clever by half and that it would have been smarter to see that Warner indeed opened under lights.

and it's easy to be too clever by half a week later.

I brought this up because when I made the point, it was sneered at, but better cricket brains think it too.

When you have a specialist batsman, the captain no less in, and seeing it like a football, it seems odd to declare with so many overs left that night.

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:On Inside Cricket they seemed to be of the opinion that Faf's declaration was too clever by half and that it would have been smarter to see that Warner indeed opened under lights.

and it's easy to be too clever by half a week later.

I brought this up because when I made the point, it was sneered at, but better cricket brains think it too.

When you have a specialist batsman, the captain no less in, and seeing it like a football, it seems odd to declare with so many overs left that night.

Oh dear. Remind me, how many overs left again? Better cricket brains than both you and I have defended the decision.

And it would have been smarter for Warner to bat under lights? Oh that's right he scor d a massive ton in the daylight conditions didn't he.

You made more sense the first time.

Fred Nerk wrote:You made more sense the first time.

Yeah I know. It is difficult to find an easy way to explain things to Red.

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:On Inside Cricket they seemed to be of the opinion that Faf's declaration was too clever by half and that it would have been smarter to see that Warner indeed opened under lights.

and it's easy to be too clever by half a week later.

I brought this up because when I made the point, it was sneered at, but better cricket brains think it too.

When you have a specialist batsman, the captain no less in, and seeing it like a football, it seems odd to declare with so many overs left that night.

Oh dear. Remind me, how many overs left again? Better cricket brains than both you and I have defended the decision.

And it would have been smarter for Warner to bat under lights?  Oh that's right he scor d a massive ton in the daylight conditions didn't he.

But Ussie opening performed arguably his best ever. Maybe being promoted harnessed his concentration more.

As for overs left, Faf could have batted for another three and still had eight overs to fire down. He may have added another twenty or thirty runs the way they were tonking.

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:On Inside Cricket they seemed to be of the opinion that Faf's declaration was too clever by half and that it would have been smarter to see that Warner indeed opened under lights.

and it's easy to be too clever by half a week later.

I brought this up because when I made the point, it was sneered at, but better cricket brains think it too.

When you have a specialist batsman, the captain no less in, and seeing it like a football, it seems odd to declare with so many overs left that night.

Oh dear. Remind me, how many overs left again? Better cricket brains than both you and I have defended the decision.

And it would have been smarter for Warner to bat under lights?  Oh that's right he scor d a massive ton in the daylight conditions didn't he.

But Ussie opening performed arguably his best ever. Maybe being promoted harnessed his concentration more.

As for overs left, Faf could have batted for another three and still had eight overs to fire down. He may have added another twenty or thirty runs the way they were tonking.

Maybe and if.

BTW 12-3=9.

12 is probably the optimum number to bowl if you declare before the close.

I understand the mathematics, but I was also allowing for overs lost in the changeover and hedging my bets.

Red wrote:I understand the mathematics, but I was also allowing for overs lost in the changeover and hedging my bets.

Oh dear. It would be exactly the same number of overs lost in the changeover after the declaration.

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:I understand the mathematics, but I was also allowing for overs lost in the changeover and hedging my bets.

Oh dear. It would be exactly the same number of overs lost in the changeover after the declaration.

FFS, we didn't know whether Faf would have batted for two overs, three, three and a half etc. depending whether or not they declared or were dismissed.

Hedging bets!!!!!!!!!!!!! I figured there would have been about eight left which would have been sufficient to test the Aussies

Semantics, pedantry etc.

As Basil Fawlty once famously said "I could have this argument for the rest of my life!"

Sybil would have told him that he couldn't.