Discussing first test at Nagpur between India and SA, 2010

[Lord]

All said and done, a brave move. One that I dont think India might have done - if a batsman was just past 250 runs in a Test match. But yes as somebody pointed out, if the pace of run scoring was just a bit higher then SA could have afforded Amla the triple.

well i dont think its brave wen somebody declares wen a batsman is close to an important milestone,its stupid.u either declare early or give batsman the chance to get it.such opportunities dont come everyday in this case Amla was on 253*,fair way away from a triple.he should have accelerated if he wanted the triple

[achilles]

^ Nahi yaar. I still believe in honesty. This is a gentleman's game. If everyone does what Mark Boucher did, what is the difference between them and the current set of Aussies?

[thevortex]

well i dont think its brave wen somebody declares wen a batsman is close to an important milestone,its stupid.u either declare early or give batsman the chance to get it.such opportunities dont come everyday in this case Amla was on 253*,fair way away from a triple.he should have accelerated if he wanted the triple

Agreed about Amla being slow. But tell me this. Do you think India would have taken the same decision had we had a mainstream batsman on 250+ on the 2nd day of the Test match? I dont think so. That is why I called it a brave move. Not an excessively brave one. But definitely a brave one.

[thevortex]

^ Nahi yaar. I still believe in honesty. This is a gentleman's game. If everyone does what Mark Boucher did' date=' what is the difference between them and the current set of Aussies?[/quote'] Oh, I am with you, Achilles. But see the honesty thing does not work in modern cricket. The cricketers figure there are people who will give you out when you are not, so what is the problem when things go the other way. The current set of Aussies are way more disgusting in terms of cricket behaviour than just refusing to walk. They are absolute hooligans and hoodlums on the field. No other word for it.

[Lord]

Agreed about Amla being slow. But tell me this. Do you think India would have taken the same decision had we had a mainstream batsman on 250+ on the 2nd day of the Test match? I dont think so. That is why I called it a brave move. Not an excessively brave one. But definitely a brave one.

no, we would have scored quickly n scored one hour earlier,the batsman in question would have taken his chances n either he would have gotten out or be 280+.SA delayed thier declaration IMO n Amla's slow scoring had a part to it.

[achilles]

Agreed about Amla being slow. But tell me this. Do you think India would have taken the same decision had we had a mainstream batsman on 250+ on the 2nd day of the Test match? I dont think so. That is why I called it a brave move. Not an excessively brave one. But definitely a brave one.

NO. India wouldn't have done this now. But they have in the past when Sachin was on 194 against Pakistan and when Rahul Dravid was the captain. Can't think of any instance after this one in 2004.

[thevortex]

NO. India wouldn't have done this now. But they have in the past when Sachin was on 194 against Pakistan and when Rahul Dravid was the captain. Can't think of any instance after this one in 2004.

Correct. And do we remember all the flak that Dravid had to handle then? We, as a cricketing nation, are averse to such decisions. It is not that I like that fact. It just is.

[thevortex]

no' date=' we would have scored quickly n scored one hour earlier,the batsman in question would have taken his chances n either he would have gotten out or be 280+.SA delayed thier declaration IMO n Amla's slow scoring had a part to it.[/quote'] Take Sehwag out of the equation. In that case, there are absolutely no guarantees on India's run rate here, Lord.

[Lord]

Take Sehwag out of the equation. In that case' date=' there are absolutely no guarantees on India's run rate here, Lord.[/quote'] why do u think only Sehwag can score quickly?the position SA were in at tea,any Indian batsman would have taken his chances

[achilles]

Thanks. The thing is karma. We all know Symo pushed his luck a bit too hard and in return, karma returned him the fruits of what he sowed... he's lost his place in the national team. I agree that modern cricket is very competitive, but you need to have people like Sachin, Rahul & Gilly who walk when they are out. That is how cricket should be played. Coz what you do, comes back to you, in one form or another. :two_thumbs_up:

[Gunner_Mania]

194 to 200 is not the same as 253 to 300. Scoring 6 runs & scoring 47 runs is a massive difference. I think Dravid copped the flak fairly. Don't tell me that Tendulkar would have not accelerated and scored those 6 runs if he was told that the plan was to declare if he didnt get the 200 in an over. No way would have Smith declared if Amla was on 294 and bowled at India for 4 overs.

[thevortex]

why do u think only Sehwag can score quickly?the position SA were in at tea' date='any Indian batsman would have taken his chances[/quote'] On this wicket - scoring quickly is not going to be easy, Lord. That is what I figure. Of course, such mortal thoughts dont apply to Sehwag. That is why I was proposing to keep him out of the equation :). We have seen time and time again how devils in the pitch are brought out once Sehwag departs. He just bats in...well, for want of a better phrase..in a different zone.

[Lord]

194 to 200 is not the same as 253 to 300. Scoring 6 runs & scoring 47 runs is a massive difference. I think Dravid copped the flak fairly. Don't tell me that Tendulkar would have not accelerated and scored those 6 runs if he was told that the plan was to declare if he didnt get the 200 in an over.

exactly

[achilles]

Correct. And do we remember all the flak that Dravid had to handle then? We' date=' as a cricketing nation, are averse to such decisions. It is not that I like that fact. It just is.[/quote'] Yes. What Dravid did is debated even today. But I think Greg Chappell (yes, I think it was his call) made the right decision coz Sachin was taking ages to get to his double hundred.

[Lord]

On this wicket - scoring quickly is not going to be easy, Lord. That is what I figure. Of course, such mortal thoughts dont apply to Sehwag. That is why I was proposing to keep him out of the equation :). We have seen time and time again how devils in the pitch are brought out once Sehwag departs. He just bats in...well, for want of a better phrase..in a different zone.

well u didnt get me.i'm not saying anybody can do what Sehwag can.but atleast i know that any Indian batsman would have TRIED to accelerate in those situation.maybe they would have failed n gotten out.but Amla didnt even try to hit one ball in the air.he was too scared to get out

[thevortex]

194 to 200 is not the same as 253 to 300. Scoring 6 runs & scoring 47 runs is a massive difference. I think Dravid copped the flak fairly. Don't tell me that Tendulkar would have not accelerated and scored those 6 runs if he was told that the plan was to declare if he didnt get the 200 in an over. No way would have Smith declared if Amla was on 294 and bowled at India for 4 overs.

See, here is where I have problems. We are mere spectators from the outside looking in. What do we know what transpired behind the scenes and whether or not time was given to the batsman by the captain? The captain's match tactics are important than a batsman getting a landmark score. The captain could have been gracious enough waiting for those runs. But he does not need to be. Moreoever, that was one of Sachin's dourest innings ever. A painful one to witness, if ever there was one. And yes he was awfully slow throughout. The same thing happened with Dravid when we did not insert England in and declined to force a follow on. Only Dravid and the team management would have been in the know as to whether our bowlers were in the right frame of mind and health to go through the grind again. But the press and countless fans lambasted Dravid for that decision. Despite India winning that series!

[Lord]

Yes. What Dravid did is debated even today. But I think Greg Chappell (yes' date=' I think it was his call) made the right decision coz Sachin was taking ages to get to his double hundred.[/quote'] John Wright was our coach back then:cantstop:

[thevortex]

Yes. What Dravid did is debated even today. But I think Greg Chappell (yes' date=' I think it was his call) made the right decision coz Sachin was taking ages to get to his double hundred.[/quote'] I would hate to guess on who made that decision. But I agree absolutely with you. That was among Sachin's least authoritative innings. He only ebbed. He forgot to flow in that innings.

[thevortex]

well u didnt get me.i'm not saying anybody can do what Sehwag can.but atleast i know that any Indian batsman would have TRIED to accelerate in those situation.maybe they would have failed n gotten out.but Amla didnt even try to hit one ball in the air.he was too scared to get out

Actually Amla tried to accelerate in his own way, but that apparently did not include shots hit in the air. No matter what, waiting for 50 runs might have meant that SA could not declare today. And even if it were an Indian player it would not have been easy for him to get 50+ runs starting from sometime into the post Tea session.

[thevortex]

Thanks. The thing is karma. We all know Symo pushed his luck a bit too hard and in return, karma returned him the fruits of what he sowed... he's lost his place in the national team. I agree that modern cricket is very competitive, but you need to have people like Sachin, Rahul & Gilly who walk when they are out. That is how cricket should be played. Coz what you do, comes back to you, in one form or another. :two_thumbs_up:

Forgive me if I dont agree with you about the example subjects. However you and I agree in principle about honesty in sport as in life. I have seen both Tendulkar and Dravid stand their ground when they were out. Also Gilchrist - I simply lost all respect for him after that golf ball episode. Yes, I know individual opinions differ and yes MCC had no issues with it. But I happen to have issues with that move of Gilchrist. :)