Day 4 @ The Oval, England v India, 3rd Test

[mcgillianaire]

LUNCH: India 664 & 3/31. England 345.

India decided not to enforce the follow-on and at 3/11, it seemed like the match had turned on its head and the decision had grossly backfired. In strode Sourav Ganguly, as he and Dravid blocked their way to restore stability when the first of the day's showers sprinkled the ground and forced the players into an early Lunch. It's astonishing how a few minutes can suddenly turn the game on its head, after nearly three days of Indian dominance. India will be hoping to make at least 150, while England will expect to bowl India out for less than 100 and even win the game with a better 2nd innings batting effort. In my view, India will not declare its innings unless they score at least 150, and England will not bowl India out for less than 120. Beyond that, anything can still happen! Weather permitting, of course. (Incidentally, this is the first time I've seen rain in almost exactly 2 weeks!)

And sorry for not posting after Lunch yesterday. Some British Indian friends called me over to watch their team, Spurs, take on Sunderland in the season's 1st game. Rather unfortunately for them, Sunderland's British Indian debutante, Michael Chopra, scored in the dying seconds of injury time and left everybody stunned. When we switched back to the cricket, India didn't look like they were going to get any wickets, until Dravid brought on SRT for the penultimate over before tea and snaffled the dangerous KP off his first ball! It was just the tonic needed to get back the initiative, but it turned out to be a false-alarm. England meandered on after a quick cuppa, until about an hour before the close, when they lost four quick wickets and put India back into the driving seat. (I also watched some of the England-France Rugby Union game played at Twickenham. Quite fascinating it was! According to my friends, Rugby players are more civilized and respectful of the referee than Footballers, and rather against the nature of the game.)

TEA: India 664 & 5/121. England 345. (Ganguly 57)

I told you England wouldn't bowl us out for less than 120! That was because Sourav Ganguly produced a fantastic attacking half-century that put England back in the hole they belong, as India recovered from a dire situation. They now lead by 440, with roughly 125 overs left in the match. If I was Dravid, I'd declare with a lead of 500 and try to bowl England out in 100-110 overs.

STUMPS: India 664 & 6/180d. England 345 & 0/56. [England need 444 more runs, off ~90 overs to win, with 10 wickets in hand.]

India's declaration left England 110 overs to get 500. I could be captain! Unfortunately, India were unable to prise out either Cook or Strauss before the close of play, as England made a confident start to their run-chase. I wish we'd taken at least one wicket. It might've convinced me to go tomorrow, weather permitting of course. But now, I don't know if it'll really be worth it...

Tickets cost £20 ($40). Should I go?

--Thoughts on Day 1
--Thoughts on Day 2
--Thoughts on Day 3

Comments

[mrputter.livejournal.com]

> I could be captain!

Hee.

This being the case (or, uh, not.), I'm wondering if you (or any of yer other readers) could shed any light at all on the decision not to enforce the follow-on. 'Cuz this one has me thoroughly confused, and I'm wondering if I'm missing some of the finer points of cricket strategy.

I mean, yes, on the one hand, I understand that a draw is pretty much as good as a win for India here, can't imagine it would be anywhere near as satisfying?

And I would have thought it'd be much easier to wrangle a win out of the match by enforcing the follow-on, getting England out by (ideally) somewhere in the second session of Day 5, then picking up a few quick runs to make up the difference, than it would be to try and guess when to declare, and hope to hell they can make all 10 wickets in whatever time remains; i.e.: the situation they're in now?

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

The news from inside the dressing room included concerns over Zaheer Khan's fitness. He's apparently got a niggling thigh strain that's been taken care off by the physio until now. That would've been Dravid's primary concern, if they had chosen to enforce the follow-on. As it happened, England didn't come out to bowl with Sidebottom for the entire innings, and even though they managed to get some quick, early wickets, the fact they couldn't run through the rest, might also be put down to the fact they didn't have their best bowler of the summer. In that sense, Dravid made the right decision.

Now, had Zaheer Khan been fully-fit, Dravid had to determine if his bowlers were fit enough to bowl England out again in batting-friendly conditions. Even though it was a lot cooler today than previous days, the conditions were totally in favour of the batsmen, and the bowlers would have been nowhere as near as fresh as they would've been when they bowled during England's first innings. This, mixed together with the fact that no team likes to bat last in a Test match, might've contributed to Dravid's thinking. Dravid doesn't want to win the match unless he's 95% sure India will not lose. It's no doubt a defeatist attitude, but he's taking into account a lot of factors, including India's poor record in 4th innings chases (in wins, draws and losses), India's general record abroad, India's recent record abroad after losing series from winning positions etc. So that's where the negativity generally stems from, and has helped convince him that there was no way he was going to let India bowl again, allow England to score freely against tired bowlers (esp if Zaheer was semi-injured) and then possibly chase a sub-150 target.

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

Oh, and I forgot about The Oval pitch. It has been known to become more spinner-friendly as a match wears on, so he could've felt that it was better to have Kumble bowling to the English, than Panesar to Indians, chasing a target.

[pappubahry.livejournal.com]

So that's where the negativity generally stems from
IT'S NOT NEGATIVITY!

Arghhhhhh.

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

:)

[pappubahry.livejournal.com]

I'm wondering if you (or any of yer other readers) could shed any light at all on the decision not to enforce the follow-on. 'Cuz this one has me thoroughly confused, and I'm wondering if I'm missing some of the finer points of cricket strategy.
This is a bugbear of mine. The vast majority of cricket followers have this notion that it is the attacking thing to do to enforce the follow-on. It's nonsense. Unless you don't think there's time to bat again and take ten more wickets, you should not enforce the follow-on.

Teams that enforce the follow-on, between 1980 and 2005, won 81% of the time. In two (very famous) Tests, Australia actually lost after enforcing the follow-on.

In the same period, teams that didn't enforce the follow-on won 93% of the time, and never lost.

The idea that batting again is somehow defensive is ridiculous. It gives the bowlers a rest, and you win more often.

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

Cricket would be dull without you to put things in perspective David. Thanks for the statistical proof. mrputter, ignore everything I wrote.

[pappubahry.livejournal.com]

Actually you were correct when you talked about Zaheer's niggle, the spinning track on day five and not wanting to bat last, etc. It's just that avoiding all of these bad things is not a negative tactic.

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

True. Actually when I used the word negativity I did demur and question its reliability in the context. Without excusing the way it came out, I know I used it more in the context of Dravid using recent form, our record abroad etc in convincing himself, ceteris parabis, to not enforce the follow-on.