Were Katich's tactics the biggest factor in the draw?

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:Yeah so fantastic that we peeled off the runs with ease, losing on two wickets in the process and having lots of time up our sleeve. He could have gone home losing 1-0 which in a three test series in Australia is not too bad. He handed us that test.

Some might think he was gambling on drawing the series.

With almost all the odds against him.

Once again red has shifted a thread to a discussion of her lover.

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:Yeah so fantastic that we peeled off the runs with ease, losing on two wickets in the process and having lots of time up our sleeve. He could have gone home losing 1-0 which in a three test series in Australia is not too bad. He handed us that test.

Some might think he was gambling on drawing the series.

With almost all the odds against him.

Jebus, I am going to have to go with tac here.

You really don't know anything about cricket, do you?

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:Yeah so fantastic that we peeled off the runs with ease, losing on two wickets in the process and having lots of time up our sleeve. He could have gone home losing 1-0 which in a three test series in Australia is not too bad. He handed us that test.

Some might think he was gambling on drawing the series.

With almost all the odds against him.

Jebus, I am going to have to go with tac here.

You really don't know anything about cricket, do you?

Surely the lesser of two evils . . . .

Tac I still want to know how he was going to bowl us out in less than a day with one fit bowler who had struggled all tour. On the other hand our bats were in good form, the pitch was playing well and we could easily avert a defeat and shut up shop if things became hairy.

You allege I know nothing about cricket but I fail to see how virtually gift-wrapping a test to the opposition is an example of a good declaration.

And in our papers they covered the reaction of many SA fans who were pissed off beyond belief. They would have settled for a draw under the circumstances.

Draw the test and still lose the series.

Due to time lost in the Sydney test when the saffies were on top, Smith had only one chance and that was to hope Oz would collapse duirng a run chase on the last day in Sydney. They had done it before. Smith set a target that was gettable so encouraging Oz to play aggressivley. He can't be blamed for Punter and Haydos batting out of their skins.

Anyone who feels he was wrong to set that target knows nowt about cricket.

"Tac I still want to know how he was going to bowl us out in less than a day with one fit bowler who had struggled all tour"

Problem is, nobody else gives a rats toss bag.

But the point I'm making is they hardly batted out of their skins given the attack that was out Smith's disposal and the state of the pitch. With the prevailing run-rates the target he set was eminently gettable. We had been scoring more freely in those years than we do today. Punter had made a ton in the first innings. SA had called the shots for most of the match but ended up going home the loser. We actually got the target with ease. Smith put up the white flag early with part-timer Rudolph and essentially bowled he and Botha for the last part of the run chase. Both Langeveldt and Nel were hobbled but he knew that at the time of the declaration. His best bowler at the time, Ntini, wasn't playing.

"And in our papers they covered the reaction of many SA fans who were pissed off beyond belief"

Oh yeah? Name one!

Fred Nerk wrote:"Tac I still want to know how he was going to bowl us out in less than a day with one fit bowler who had struggled all tour"

Problem is, nobody else gives a rats toss bag.

Yes Malcolm Blight.

Fred Nerk wrote:"And in our papers they covered the reaction of many SA fans who were pissed off beyond belief"

Oh yeah? Name one!

The Hun for one, Geoff McLure's column on the back page of The Age for another.

Enough. You are too stupid to bother with.

Red the bottom line is that it makes no difference if you lose a test series 1-0 or 2-0. Smith had to go for the result. Regarding the bowlers, he could only play the cards he was dealt.

taipan wrote:Red the bottom line is that it makes no difference if you lose a test series 1-0 or 2-0. Smith had to go for the result. Regarding the bowlers, he could only play the cards he was dealt.

And I would have thought the cards he was dealt would have been a factor in the timing of his declaration.

I think losing a test series by an extra test counts for something in the psychological battle between the nations.

The point is, he was never going to tie the series. It was a lost cause.

taipan wrote:Red the bottom line is that it makes no difference if you lose a test series 1-0 or 2-0. Smith had to go for the result. Regarding the bowlers, he could only play the cards he was dealt.

yes, taips, and even with those cards he still had the guts to make the call. It was the one good thing he did all series . . .

ISometimes I wonder, is Red the Dead Head the equivalent to Buckaroo or Lags of what Dame Edna is to Barry Humphries?

WGAF.
It's history.
Read the scorebook.

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:Red the bottom line is that it makes no difference if you lose a test series 1-0 or 2-0. Smith had to go for the result. Regarding the bowlers, he could only play the cards he was dealt.

And I would have thought the cards he was dealt would have been a factor in the timing of his declaration.

I think losing a test series by an extra test counts for something in the psychological battle between the nations.

The point is, he was never going to tie the series. It was a lost cause.

You are suggesting he should have just played for a draw with the chance of drawing the series still on the table?

Bwahahahahahaah

Red wrote:
And I would have thought the cards he was dealt would have been a factor in the timing of his declaration.

I think losing a test series by an extra test counts for something in the psychological battle between the nations.

The point is, he was never going to tie the series. It was a lost cause.

FFS Red, see a f*cking shrink. Or better yet, just shut the f*ck up.

Henry wrote:FFS Red, see a f*cking shrink. Or better yet, just shut the f*ck up and get yerself laid.

Fixed.

Even Trev thinks you're as boring as batshit. WTF is that telling you?

Fred Nerk wrote:Even Trev thinks you're as boring as batshit. WTF is that telling you?

It's telling me two things:

1. You can't have a discussion about cricket with you guys if you happen to disagree.

2. There is a bit of a closed clique here and if you're not part of it you're open to ridicule. Doesn't worry me though.

I don't think that Punter's declaration was especially bold, I gave my reasons and everyone else disagreed. I think my arguments were cogent.

I compared it with Smith's which I thought was particularly bold, even carelessly bold and I outlined my reasons.

If that's being boring, so be it. I did rather think that these types of discussions took place on a cricket forum though.

Apparently it's just easier, like Tac, to say that Red knows nothing about cricket.

Red wrote:

Fred Nerk wrote:Even Trev thinks you're as boring as batshit. WTF is that telling you?

It's telling me two things:

1. You can't have a discussion about cricket with you guys if you happen to disagree.

2. There is a bit of a closed clique here and if you're not part of it you're open to ridicule. Doesn't worry me though.

I don't think that Punter's declaration was especially bold, I gave my reasons and everyone else disagreed. I think my arguments were cogent.

I compared it with Smith's which I thought was particularly bold, even carelessly bold and I outlined my reasons.

If that's being boring, so be it. I did rather think that these types of discussions took place on a cricket forum though.



Apparently it's just easier, like Tac, to say that Red knows nothing about cricket.

I agree with Red. Smith's declaration had a touch of stupidity about it. As for Ponting he should have sent a runner to Katich to get on with it. He also overbowled his spinners yesterday making it easier for India.

Disagree? Last time Graeme Smith played against Oz I gave him the nicknames Captain Titanic, and 'Cyril', and predicted (inaccurately as it turned out, on C4 and possibly here) that his period as captain would go down in cricket history as the least fondly recalled since Kim Hughes. That is/was my opinion of Smith. (He seems to have improved since.)

In fact, just about the only thing Graeme Smith could have done last time he was in Australia to make himself any more tediously irritating than he was, was to become a Johnnie One Note ranter on an internet forum.