Australia tour of West Indies March-April 2011/12

Yeah it's worth mentioning that this is only the SECOND TIME IN HISTORY, a team has declared behind and won. Last time was 1935 when England were 21 behind WI and declared at 7 down.

Never knew that, makes sense though as not too many captains go chasing for a result in Test cricket.
 
I thought it was pretty standard by Clarke to declare at 400, didn't see it as a big deal at the time. Pretty crazy that it's only the second time a team has won having declared behind, but if opposition teams were closer to our level, we would've done it more often I suspect.


Anyway, the fantasy cricket game for the 2nd test has been created.

Register here and good luck.
 
Well put it this way, only one team has ever gone past 400 in the 2nd innings, declared behind and lost.
 
^^Ah well that stat may reflect poorly on the WI then. I wonder if a team has ever made 449 or more, then had the opposition 7/250 or 8/285 (take your pick) and then lost the Test...

Talk of a spinning track for the next Test. Shillingford comes into WI squad, and Beer's name is being whispered about the traps. But I would say it would be a bit surprising if Australia played 2 spinners given Lyon's ineffectiveness last game, no matter how good the pitch is for spin.

----------

Edit: Actually, just used statguru to make a list. Only 12 teams have ever lost after making 449 or more in the 1st innings. Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Only 2 of those 12 matches qualify where the team batting 2nd was 7 down and still at least 200 behind (there was a 3rd but Graeme Smith declared in the 3rd innings vs Australia in 2006 to help aid their victory):
1: 1st Test: Australia v England at Sydney, Dec 14-20, 1894 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo - England followed on after being around 250 behind on 1st innings. Made 437 in their 2nd go and bowled Aus out 10 runs short of 177. Australia bowled 320 consecutive overs across England's back-to-back innings. OUCH. There was a rest day, but it was about 3 days in the field all up.
2: 3rd Test: West Indies v Australia at Bridgetown, Mar 26-30, 1999 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo - Lara's epic chase where he made 153 to chase down 308. Very similar to this last Test, Aus collapsed in the 3rd innings of the match to give WI a sniff. Healy dropped Lara close to the end, the 2nd time he blundered to give away a 1wkt loss: the other being a missed stumping off Inzy in 1994 in Karachi.

So there you go, pretty rare way to lose for the Windies.
 
I'd say there's zero chance of us playing two spinners today. If we had Warne and MacGill, they might entertain the idea, but an attack consisting of Siddle, Harris, Lyon and Beer isn't going to take 20 wickets.

I'd go unchanged, but if I had to make one, I'd bring Beer or Pattinson in for Lyon.
 
Yeah the more I thought about it, I couldn't drop Lyon for Beer anyway after the role he played in the 1st test. Apparently the pitch isn't pace-friendly if two spinners are being considered, so no point bringing Pattinson in either.
 
Ditching Lyon for Beer would just start another spin cycle. We need to keep faith in Lyon now that we have persisted with him this long.
 
watching Sunil Narine bowl in the IPL right now, he looks an excellent bowler. If the pitch is such that there may be 2 spinners in the teams then why the hell is this guy in India?
What is wrong with the WICB? :facepalm
 
No surprises which countries his two wickets have been! He definitely should have been in this test series, he would definitely have troubled our batsmen.
 
watching Sunil Narine bowl in the IPL right now, he looks an excellent bowler. If the pitch is such that there may be 2 spinners in the teams then why the hell is this guy in India?
What is wrong with the WICB? :facepalm
I've said it before, I think a better deal could be reached. There's lots of IPL, only three Tests.

tumblr_m21k57QJHG1qlydd4.jpg
 
Sunil Narine would have contributed a lot to WI bowling department. Especially on the fifth day when Deonarine took 4 wickets. Narine would have done well, too.

Watching how Australians struggled against him in limited overs, he would have been much more dangerous in longer format as he gets more time to set the batsman up for his "kunckle ball".
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top