India 6/297 in 84 overs [Dravid 93, SRT 71; Lee 3-64], Day 1 of the 3rd Test @ The WACA

[mcgillianaire]

SCORECARD

"77.6 Symonds to Dravid, OUT, now where did that atrocious shot come from? Symonds tosses it up well outside off and in an extraordinary mental block, with a hundred there for the taking, Dravid plays an ugly cross-batted swipe and top-edges to the man at cover" -Jamie Alter(?), Cricinfo Commentator

WHY DRAVID WHY?! 4/278 with just 7 or 8 overs to go and you play a shot like THAT?! How could YOU of all people even THINK of playing a shot like that?! Now we're six down and have lost the initiative to the ruthless Aussies. Oh well, it could've been worse. With all the lip about how fast this WACA pitch was gonna play and the history of Subcontinental teams at this ground, it's a wee surprise we're not even all out yet! All the more reason we should've capitalised on the solid start. Oh well, I suppose beggars can't be choosers. Let's see if messrs Dhoni and Pathan can boost the total tomorrow so that we can give 'em Aussies a fight to the finish. After all, a record is at stake and the last time this record was up for grabs, it was US who stopped 'em! And what a match that was! How sweet would it be, especially given everything that has happened in the last 2 weeks, for us to stop 'em again!

COME ON INDIA, Dikha Do!!!

PS Tsk, tsk Australia for a very bad over-rate! ;-)
PPS How sad SRT couldn't repeat his heroics of 1991/2 with another century at Perth! (esp after Sydney)

Comments

[kshah.livejournal.com]

With all the lip about how fast this WACA pitch was gonna play and the history of Subcontinental teams at this ground
I watched the whole second session (after waking up late and before coming in late to work).

It didn't seem to be that scary a pitch - even Ian Chappell was commenting about Gilchrist collecting balls at his ankles than at his waist or chest.

[pappubahry.livejournal.com]

4/278 with just 7 or 8 overs to go and you play a shot like THAT?!
Would it have been acceptable at 4/290 early on day 2?

I find the idea of playing for stumps or for an interval a strange one. If you're set, you should keep scoring. You don't get a bonus point for having lost one less wicket at a break.

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

>Would it have been acceptable at 4/290 early on day 2?
It was a rhetorical question. I don't think teams should always "play for stumps/an interval" but if you look at the shot he played, you'll understand why I ranted about it. It was not only a silly shot, but uncharacteristic of Shri Rahulji (regardless of the context). The context added to the frustration I felt at the time.

[pappubahry.livejournal.com]

The context added to the frustration I felt at the time.
But the point I'm making is, this context shouldn't add to your frustration.

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

Gotcha!

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

>A 90-over stipulation was put in place to rein in the West Indians, who, it was argued, were gaining an unfair advantage by bowling their battery of fast bowlers leisurely.
Did your analysis back this argument up?

>See how no-balls have become scarce in Twenty20 after they introduced the free hit.
Is this true?

[pappubahry.livejournal.com]

Did your analysis back this argument up?
Yep. From 1980 to 1990, the Windies had 20 of the worst 30 innings over-rates. No false myth there.

Is this true?
This one took a bit of Statsguruing, since I don't have comprehensive ODI or T20 databases. I am quite shocked at the findings.

In the 100 T20I's to date, there have been 90 no-balls. In the last 100 ODI's, there have been 126 no-balls. That's a very small increase, given the large amount of extra overs bowled.

But, if you take the last hundred ODI's in 2000, there were 356 no-balls (disproportionately more than in the T20I's). It's need a bit more analysis to be sure (and this sort of analysis with Statsguru is time-consuming), but it looks like teams have realised (perhaps because they were forced to in T20's) that putting your front foot really close to the popping crease gives hardly any benefits, and increases the number of no-balls you give away.