England declared at 68/7, Australia declared at 32/7 and yet the match produced a result

[DomainK]

I am not sure I have interpreted it right as it sounds illogical. This 1950 match looks like one of the strangest ever. I can understand why Australia declared at 30/7....they still had the margin to win. But why did Englad declare at 68/7 in the first innings when they were trailing so badly? Injuries? http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/62713.html

[Dravid]

am guessing to take adv. of some good bowling conditions

[nospam]

1 Dec day 1 - Australia 1st innings 228 2 Dec day 2 - no play 3 Dec rest day 4 Dec day 3 - England 2nd innings 30/6 (TG Evans 0*) 5 Dec day 4 - England 2nd innings 122 (38 ov) - end of match

[The Outsider]

Sticky wicket. In those days of uncovered pitches the best time to bowl was immediately after rain when play resumed specially if there was sun. Pitches would be practically impossible to bat on but conditions tended to ease out in as short a time as a session or so at times. So instead of pottering around and making conditions easier to bat on for the opposition it made sense to declare and bowl at the opposition at times.

[Lurker]

One of the games that I wish I could have seen. Have heard about this game off and on, most recently in the interview of Neil Harvey. Atleast half a dozen players from both sides would make a case in their respective country's all-time XI. Aust - Harvey, Morriss, Keith Miller, Ray Lindwall, Lindsay Hassett, Don Tallon. Eng - Godfrey Evans, Len Hutton, Denis Compton, Alec Bedser, Trevor Bailey. Must have been a great Test, and saeries.

[Mr. Wicket]

Even more interesting is the Melbourne (3rd test) scorecard of 1936/37. One of the all time great matches.

[Gambit]

Even more interesting is the Melbourne (3rd test) scorecard of 1936/37. One of the all time great matches.

The one where DGB reversed the batting order and made 200+?

[Mr. Wicket]

Yup. England - as per Cardus, Charles Williams and Fingleton's writings on that match - really erred when Gubby Allen chose not to declare well behind until they were 9 down. Cardus wrote that Allen should have declared when 3 or 4 down as the pitch was a dog, and Australia wouldn't have lasted. Instead Australia had only a short period of play to face in their 2nd innings late in the day when the pitch was a wet brute. Bradman sent O'Reilly and Fleetwood Smith (11 and 10 in previous innings) in with the words "You can't get a bat on it when the pitch is true, so you won't get near it here". They did their job, Bradman came in at 7 and belted 270 w/ a record partnership with Fingleton. Amazing to think of what such a gamble was like considering Australia were 0-2 down at this point in the series, and only 3 tests remained. There's never been another instance AFAIK of a team coming back from a 0-2 deficit to win a series 3-2.

[Gambit]

Yup. England - as per Cardus, Charles Williams and Fingleton's writings on that match - really erred when Gubby Allen chose not to declare well behind until they were 9 down. Cardus wrote that Allen should have declared when 3 or 4 down as the pitch was a dog, and Australia wouldn't have lasted. Instead Australia had only a short period of play to face in their 2nd innings late in the day when the pitch was a wet brute. Bradman sent O'Reilly and Fleetwood Smith (11 and 10 in previous innings) in with the words "You can't get a bat on it when the pitch is true, so you won't get near it here". They did their job, Bradman came in at 7 and belted 270 w/ a record partnership with Fingleton. Amazing to think of what such a gamble was like considering Australia were 0-2 down at this point in the series, and only 3 tests remained. There's never been another instance AFAIK of a team coming back from a 0-2 deficit to win a series 3-2.

We nearly did it on our 1977-78 tour of OZ.