England declare!

[Leothebear]

Bugger.

Great match.

That declaration will haunt Stokes. Cummings now an Aussie hero.

Bugger.

But why did he declare? I've yet to read any coherent explanation, even though the team seemed unsurprised.

Be gentle, I've only just discovered cricket.

He wanted to put the Aussies in at the end of the day. A short spell with his bowlers going full pelt. Hoping to take a wicket or two. Didn't happen.

[Leothebear]

That declaration will haunt Stokes.

An easy conclusion to draw after the fact. But both teams lost 18 wickets in the match. Oz just scored more runs.

Isn't that how you analyse a game? Your second two sentences are totally pointless. Stick to baseball.

[Mike4]

But why did he declare? I've yet to read any coherent explanation, even though the team seemed unsurprised.

Be gentle, I've only just discovered cricket.

He wanted to put the Aussies in at the end of the day. A short spell with his bowlers going full pelt. Hoping to take a wicket or two. Didn't happen.

Ok thanks. So fresh bowlers against tired Aussies?

I thought however, he declared at the end of play for the day, so this seems to make no sense. Did I misunderstand?


(edit to change "tied" to "tired"!)

[Lootman]

An easy conclusion to draw after the fact. But both teams lost 18 wickets in the match. Oz just scored more runs.

Isn't that how you analyse a game? Your second two sentences are totally pointless. Stick to baseball

I know little about baseball but have been following cricket for 60 years.

This game went back and forth several times. A couple of missed catches or a stumping would have won it for us.

The declaration was aggressive but had we won, which was easily possible, it would have been heralded.

Anyway it was a great game, isn't that the point?

[Hallucigenia]

Ok thanks. So fresh bowlers against tired Aussies?

I thought however, he declared at the end of play for the day, so this seems to make no sense. Did I misunderstand?

Yes.
No. They had 20 minutes - four overs - to bowl against the Aussies.
Yes.

[servodude]

<snigger>

I was sent this
story in the Betoota Advocate by a "colleague" who can't work out if I'm Irish or English - language warning though ( I even had to mung the link because of it)

- sd

[Newroad]

Hi All.

I didn't mind Stokes declaration - I may well have done similarly.

Whether "haunt" is the right word is interesting. There is no doubt, for example, that Australia enforcing the following on against India at Eden Gardens in Kolkata in 2001 changed the thinking of Australian captains for half a generation. Dravid and Laxman cleaned up - Australia lost.

It took Michael Clarke to come on board, declare on the 1st day (Hyderabad 2013) and lose then declare behind in another match which I can't recall, and win, to get over the ghost of it.

For me, the bigger issues were England not playing a test class keeper, not having a match-fit test class spinner in reserve (having been caught out asking for "roads" and not expecting Leach to go down) and some of downsides of so-called "Bazball" - namely throwing wickets away on occasion. Perhaps even Anderson showing some signs of his age as well.

Regards, Newroad

[bluedonkey]

One argument in favour of that declaration is psychological. "We're coming at you and we're going to keep coming". The Ashes is sometimes won or lost mentally before it's lost on the pitch.