I think when the declaration was made it was the right time as it gave the Aussies an uncomfortable 45 minutes where they lost Langer. Also the ball was still new the next morning and the early wickets of Hayden & Martyn proved that. However missing Ponting which cost over 100 runs was crucial in the end. I am not saying England would have won from there but letting off the bloke who is currently the best in the world speaks for itself.[b said:Quote[/b] (Shrimp in a Kilt @ Dec. 05 2006,22:56)]Not wanting to seem wise after the event, but I said to Mrs. Kilt when they declared that I couldn't understand why he had. Surely to win we needed to bowl the aussies out twice, therefore needed to enforce the follow on, and the bigger the score the better for that.
I would have thought also that it would have been good psychologicaly to have tried to push the score past 600. Is it because Flintoff is inexperienced or am I not understanding the position?
Also we didn't score fast enough in the first innings..[b said:Quote[/b] (Shrimp in a Kilt @ Dec. 05 2006,22:56)]Not wanting to seem wise after the event, but I said to Mrs. Kilt when they declared that I couldn't understand why he had. Surely to win we needed to bowl the aussies out twice, therefore needed to enforce the follow on, and the bigger the score the better for that.
I would have thought also that it would have been good psychologicaly to have tried to push the score past 600. Is it because Flintoff is inexperienced or am I not understanding the position?
I thought the same. So, getting Langer before close looked to make it a good decision. However, I thought a score of 600 puts you completely safe from defeat, whereas 550 gave the Aussies an opening, if that batted well enough, to still be in the game with a shout at winning. Had we batted on on that second day and closed around 600-620, the Australians would have only been able to compete with our score by batting for the next two days, nad we would have not been subjected to the torture of yesterday morning.[b said:Quote[/b] (Shrimp in a Kilt @ Dec. 05 2006,22:56)]Not wanting to seem wise after the event, but I said to Mrs. Kilt when they declared that I couldn't understand why he had. Surely to win we needed to bowl the aussies out twice, therefore needed to enforce the follow on, and the bigger the score the better for that.
I would have thought also that it would have been good psychologicaly to have tried to push the score past 600. Is it because Flintoff is inexperienced or am I not understanding the position?
550 Should not have given the Ozzies an opening.. No team has ever lost a test from that position before.. Its all a tad embarassing[b said:Quote[/b] (C C Csiders @ Dec. 06 2006,13:38)]I thought the same. So, getting Langer before close looked to make it a good decision. However, I thought a score of 600 puts you completely safe from defeat, whereas 550 gave the Aussies an opening, if that batted well enough, to still be in the game with a shout at winning. Had we batted on on that second day and closed around 600-620, the Australians would have only been able to compete with our score by batting for the next two days, nad we would have not been subjected to the torture of yesterday morning.[b said:Quote[/b] (Shrimp in a Kilt @ Dec. 05 2006,22:56)]Not wanting to seem wise after the event, but I said to Mrs. Kilt when they declared that I couldn't understand why he had. Surely to win we needed to bowl the aussies out twice, therefore needed to enforce the follow on, and the bigger the score the better for that.
I would have thought also that it would have been good psychologicaly to have tried to push the score past 600. Is it because Flintoff is inexperienced or am I not understanding the position?
Of course, we all know that the same XI will take the field in Perth because Fletcher is intransigent.
I thought he was from Zimbabwe.[b said:
*Ba-Tish-Boom*[b said:Quote[/b] (canveyshrimper @ Dec. 07 2006,12:28)]I thought he was from Zimbabwe.[b said:
