Can someone explain to me why Dravid did not enforce the follow-on?
Jump to Page:
< Previous [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] Next >
Posted on: 12-08-07 13:32:58
It is more related with the captaincy issue. Dravid does not want to lose the captaincy by losing the match and leveling the series so gone safe rather going for the kill and in the bargain killing the game and befooling the cricket loving Janta.
Look at Aussies, South Africa, West Indies, etc always play for result.
Poor Captaincy and Dravid was never a captaincy material and he proved that time and again.
Quote:
Originally posted by kalia
It is more related with the captaincy issue. Dravid does not want to lose the captaincy by losing the match and leveling the series so gone safe rather going for the kill and in the bargain killing the game and befooling the cricket loving Janta.
Look at Aussies, South Africa, West Indies, etc always play for result.
Poor Captaincy and Dravid was never a captaincy material and he proved that time and again.
I agree with you dravids captaincy has been poor .... he is very defensive, hence the decision to bat again. He just wanted to be sure that Indian win is the only possibilty or a draw .... which would still keep it an Indian win in a series.
Jughead .... i doubt it would be match fixing .... remember Calacutta 2000-01 ... Australia asked India to follow on and went on to lose the match with Laxman making a double ton. ...... think Dravid did not want anyhting left to chance .. esp after the world cup debacle and Ganguly on his back ...
Quote:I used to say the exact same thing about Azhar.
Originally posted by jughead
I think Dravid is too much of a gentleman to be involved in something like match fixing.
That aside, it was not just a stupid captaincy decision.
The stupidness was followed by silliness - a scoring rate of barely 3/over.
Of course, the English slow bowlers were bowling round the leg stump - but what else would you expect?
What happened today flies in the face of everything that test cricket stands for - test cricket can sometimes be more challenging and more entertaining that one-day, but it's overly defensive decisions like these that'll be the undoing of test cricket.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Mah deah, there is much more money to be made in the destruction of civilization than in building it up."
-- Rhett Butler in "Gone with the Wind"
I dont want to argue on match fixing issue but lets talk about Dravid's decision today.
1) If India wins or even manages to draw the match india will win the series. That will be after may be what 50 years, india will win the series against England, in England. Also India can say that they can win Test series overseas and not just india.
2) You have to keep in mind that, if you ask other team to follow on, then you should have sharp bowlers, someone like, McGrath, Warne, Murli, Wasim etc. If you are bowling with Zahir, Sree-sath and Kumble then its always advisable to give them some rest as they wont be as effective by bowling 3 days continuous.
3) England is not a bad team, Lets assume they made some 400 odd runs in second inning and India have to make 100 runs to win the match. I think Indian team is more vulnerable to lost the match on the last day. (you must have seen today what they did on 4th day)
So if England is batting second and if they are playing well then you can set defensive fielding and bowl accordingly to restict them.
4) Last but not least, I can bet whatever that if India would have lost the match by following on the england you ppl would have ask Dravid to resign because he is not a good captain.
So, I think Dravid made the wise decision, specially with, kind of bowling attack we have. India should win the series. Bottom line.
Are you enlightened yet?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Boy
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Quote:
Originally posted by kalia
It is more related with the captaincy issue. Dravid does not want to lose the captaincy by losing the match and leveling the series so gone safe rather going for the kill and in the bargain killing the game and befooling the cricket loving Janta.
Look at Aussies, South Africa, West Indies, etc always play for result.
Poor Captaincy and Dravid was never a captaincy material and he proved that time and again.
Dont ever compare India with Australia and South Africa. India dont have talent they've got.
WI??!... they lost Test series against England recently... that too by 3-0 ..
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Boy
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Quote:
Originally posted by bouy
I dont want to argue on match fixing issue but lets talk about Dravid's decision today.
1) If India wins or even manages to draw the match india will win the series. That will be after may be what 50 years, india will win the series against England, in England. Also India can say that they can win Test series overseas and not just india.
2) You have to keep in mind that, if you ask other team to follow on, then you should have sharp bowlers, someone like, McGrath, Warne, Murli, Wasim etc. If you are bowling with Zahir, Sree-sath and Kumble then its always advisable to give them some rest as they wont be as effective by bowling 3 days continuous.
3) England is not a bad team, Lets assume they made some 400 odd runs in second inning and India have to make 100 runs to win the match. I think Indian team is more vulnerable to lost the match on the last day. (you must have seen today what they did on 4th day)
So if England is batting second and if they are playing well then you can set defensive fielding and bowl accordingly to restict them.
4) Last but not least, I can bet whatever that if India would have lost the match by following on the england you ppl would have ask Dravid to resign because he is not a good captain.
So, I think Dravid made the wise decision, specially with, kind of bowling attack we have. India should win the series. Bottom line.
Are you enlightened yet?
How would India have lost with a follow-on? Your #3 scenario sounds highly improbable. If England had made 400 runs, they would NOT declare with a 100 run lead if enough overs were remaining such that India would have the chance of winning. They'd just bat it out. If at all England would give up the batting, it would be if they knew outright that a draw was the only possibility.
Explain to me how with 2 days remaining and a lead of 350 odd runs, India would've lost the match by making England bat again. I personally feel that by giving England a TARGET now, there's probably a better chance of India losing, however low. They now need 444 with all 10 wickets in hand, very difficult in a test in one day, but not impossible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Are you there?
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueLobster
How would India have lost with a follow-on? Your #3 scenario sounds highly improbable. If England had made 400 runs, they would NOT declare with a 100 run lead if enough overs were remaining such that India would have the chance of winning. They'd just bat it out. If at all England would give up the batting, it would be if they knew outright that a draw was the only possibility.
Explain to me how with 2 days remaining and a lead of 350 odd runs, India would've lost the match by making England bat again. I personally feel that by giving England a TARGET now, there's probably a better chance of India losing, however low. They now need 444 with all 10 wickets in hand, very difficult in a test in one day, but not impossible.
Forget scenario # 3.
Lets take current situation. What was the target for england? 500 runs in about 100 odd overs. Do you think England can make it with 10 wickets in hand?
Lets assume your answer is YES:
Then I would assume England can do the same on Day 4 and first session of day 5. because pitch is better on day 4 compare to day 5. Correct? That will give them lead of about 181 runs. I am positive that India cannot win the match on day 5 chasing anything over 150. (Overseas and not in india). India can loose the match. Did you not see what happened today and also in second test india lost 3 wickets chasing 75 runs. Its pretty clear that we cannot rely on MR. tendulkar. He cannot play under pressure. So why take chance?
If your answer is NO: In this case Either England will bat all day on day 5 and not able to reach the target OR get all out.
If you think England can bat all day on day 5 they can do the same on day 4 with tired indian bowling attack.
If you think England cannot bat all day and will all out then India will win this match anyways.
Bottom line Indian bowling attack is better than Indian batting under pressure. Indian batting suck big time playing under pressure.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Boy
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
