FafDu declaration masterstroke or stupid?

[coffee_rules]

If it was done to just annoy Australia, I think Fafdu is plain stupid to get back for personal reasons. I think few more runs would have matter more than winning a few punches.

 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-south-africa-2016-17/content/story/1068182.html

 

Quote

Australia have admitted they were sent into a lather by Faf du Plessis' crafty declaration on the first evening of the Adelaide Test, a call that left Steven Smith and Usman Khawaja fuming as David Warner was unable to take his usual spot as an opener after spending time off the field.

Warner complained of shoulder pain and went for treatment late in South Africa's innings, but upon overhearing that the opener needed to spend a further six minutes on the field, du Plessis closed his innings. "I listened to the conversation he had with the umpires, one ear talking to the batter and one ear listening to him and then I heard he had six minutes left before he could bat again so I thought 'let's have a crack'," du Plessis said.

 

[renjith]

stupid decision. the partnership had already fetched 39 runs.

[Cricketics]

Not plain stupid, he just applied the Aussie tactic on Aussies but it did not pay off. South Africa is the best bowling attack in the world by far and the most consistent. England come close but nothing like South African attack even without Steyn. Hence, he backed his bowlers and tried something new which not many have done to Australia.

 

However, I would not call it a totally smart move though considering South Africa hasn't really played that many games with the pink ball before and having a much higher score would have been ideal. They could have scored another 20-30 runs and ended up scoring around 300 which would have been even better for their bowlers as pink ball tests are supposed to be low scoring games, at least for now as it is still new.

[express bowling]

Stupid

[coffee_rules]

^ May be taken with good intentions, but for I1 on D1, it was a taken without much thought about the outcome of the test, a gamble at best.

[coffee_rules]

3 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

Not plain stupid, he just applied the Aussie tactic on Aussies but it did not pay off. South Africa is the best bowling attack in the world by far and the most consistent. England come close but nothing like South African attack even without Steyn. Hence, he backed his bowlers and tried something new which not many have done to Australia.

 

However, I would not call it a totally smart move though considering South Africa hasn't really played that many games with the pink ball before and having a much higher score would have been ideal. They could have scored another 20-30 runs and ended up scoring around 300 which would have been even better for their bowlers as pink ball tests are supposed to be low scoring games, at least for now as it is still new.

May be taken with good intentions, but for I1 on D1, it was a taken without much thought about the outcome of the test, a gamble at best.

[coffee_rules]

Ha! PK likes AK!

[Cricketics]

Just now, coffee_rules said:

^ May be taken with good intentions, but for I1 on D1, it was a taken without much thought about the outcome of the test, a gamble at best.

I think he perhaps just went for it and tried something to make Aussies think as he knew that Aussies were under a lot of pressure with a batting line up filled with few new drafted players and all playing for their slots in the line up.

[Sidhoni]

One wicket in those 12 overs and suddenly you would see people having no doubt about it being a masterstroke. The fact that Warner couldn't open the innings meant 2 players coming out who haven't opened in the series yet. I think he should have probably played 4 more overs trying to get quick runs, 8 overs are enough to have a go.

[sourab10forever]

40 minutes ago, Sidhoni said:

/One wicket in those 12 overs and suddenly you would see people having no doubt about it being a masterstroke. The fact that Warner couldn't open the innings meant 2 players coming out who haven't opened in the series yet. I think he should have probably played 4 more overs trying to get quick runs, 8 overs are enough to have a go.

exactly...wasn't a master stroke but I don't see why it is being called stupid. The new pink ball under lights can do things and hence he wanted to use it to full potential. Plus there is the added psychological advantage the next day if they had got a wicket .

9/10 times the  9th wicket wouldn't give you anything substantial. 

[coffee_rules]

But it is test cricket 101, nobody declares on first innings. 3rd inn yes. I had the same reaction when Ganguly declared after 50 runs lead in I2 against Zim back in 2001.

[kubrickian]

Its just a gamble which didnt pay off that much. It was a good move considering Aussie batsmen had to face 12 overs in the evening under lights where it swings lot more and after a long day on the field. The batsmen would have nothing to gain because they had to start all over again the next day when the ball was still new and the bowler would be fresh. Also Warner not being able to open would have factored in the decision.

 

All in all, it was a good decision as the intention was good and there was actual logic behind it. If 2 or 3 quick wickets had fallen , everyone would have hailed it as a masterstroke. The move partly worked because they dismissed the opener and Warner cheaply.

Edited November 25, 2016 by kubrickian

[Chrish]

4 wickets fallen in last session..

[Malcolm Merlyn]

It looks stupid now.

[Shamim.Miah]

Arrogance.