Australia v West Indies Third Test

[Oaktree]

That Fox Sports article was appalling.

Smith saying it was 'disappointing' they didn't accept the offer and making him seem like the better man was almost as poor. No wonder a lot of countries see Australia as the no 1 enemy in world cricket when things like this occur.

I think it's good the Windies made 300 and hit their own goal.

If Smith said to Holder, let's make the second and third innings of the game 30 overs per team so we give a bit back to the fans, that would have been much better PR than show his greed for manufacturing a result to which appeared only beneficial to his team.

 

[1892]

It shows how far the West Indies have fallen in placing an objective of 300 in an innings vs the chance to play for a win. While the talent isn't there a side is never going to win if they don't believe they're good enough.

It didn't even need to be an either or scenario. Instead of the West Indies declaring on their overnight score and then batting again for another 70 odd as per Smith's suggestion they could have just had one innings of 350. Objective met and a chance to play for a win.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

It does seem like I am in the minority. Does anybody actually believe that avoiding a loss due to rain would have improved the Windies morale one iota? They go back with their tails between their legs like a bunch of losers either way due to the pathetic and divided brand of cricket they produced all tour.

I stand by the fact that it would have been worth losing the Test to put their attack under pressure and actually learn about which of those underwhelming bowlers are willing to put in to continue their careers. If they go back home and continue to play Taylor, Roach in his current form etc then they have already lost.

I understand why people say losing 3-0 would have been dumb but I just think it is completely irrelevant.

 

[Kappa]

Had they paid an entry fee, maybe they could feel slighted, but it was free entry for a reason

It was free entry because the entire summer of test matches have been utter crap.

Dead pitches resulting in everyone smashing batting records and peeling off 500 easily, then a completely incompetent opponent in the Windies.

Hell the pitches and opponents made Voges and Khawaja look like absolute superstars, just wait till you see them against a real opponent on a pitch doing something.

 

[Ross Titute]

Smith already being an arrogant prick. 'Spose he's learnt from the best.

 

[corbies]

Yeah thats how i see it as well, boof in particular seems to have an obsession with having to have 5 bowlers in all matches in all conditions but it simply doesn't work that well away from our dead tracks, overseas teams are juicing up their pitches for us because of our weak batting so in those conditions we surely need 6 batsmen far more than we do a 5th bowler?

Well last time we dropped M.Marsh for a batsman we made 60 so they may be sheepish to do it again (i do agree with you though).

 

[Bumpswithagrin]

What about for the fans?

Can't be bothered finishing the game for them?

What a horrendous summer of cricket, if they keep this up Soccer will take over very quickly

Soccer is not the threat, T20 is (80,000 at the BBL v 10,000 at the soccer the other night).

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Smith already being an arrogant prick. 'Spose he's learnt from the best.

Geez, I hope the quality of your posts improve.

 

[Ross Titute]

Geez, I hope the quality of your posts improve.

Thanks champ, I hope yours do too

 

[The Passenger]

I like Steve Smith but I don't like him offering to make a game of it.

If three days are washed out then so be it. The game will be a draw. That's cricket.

I was never a fan of the hansie cronje match, and I wasn't a fan of it long before it turned out to be a fix.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[theyellowsash]

Smith wasn't keen to make a game of the 2nd nz test. My respect for smith just went down a whole lot.

 

[Andronicus]

Smith wasn't keen to make a game of the 2nd nz test. My respect for smith just went down a whole lot.

Stupid comparison.

 

[Mateyman]

Did you not see Hobart?

Yeah that'd be why totals of 350+ have been chased at over 5 an over so often recently in tests.

 

[Mateyman]

Smith wasn't keen to make a game of the 2nd nz test. My respect for smith just went down a whole lot.

I can see the direct comparison

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Thanks champ, I hope yours do too

Well mate, the way I see it, this forum already has enough posters who just want to take cheap shots at players' personalities, not enough who actually want to talk about cricket. Don't worry about the standard of my posting, you won't hear me branding a Test captain as "arrogant" simply because he was trying to make the best of a hopeless situation. People had been sitting it out for 3 fays hoping to see something worth watching on Day 5, Smith tries to make it happen, and people want to criticise him for it. Just as well some posters in here don't captain cricket teams, they honestly have no idea.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Smith wasn't keen to make a game of the 2nd nz test. My respect for smith just went down a whole lot.

Smith will be devastated to learn some poster on some forum has lost respect for him. I can see him retiring immediately as a result. The 2nd Test on Perth was in the middle of a Test series with the winner in the balance. The 3rd Test in Sydney, the winner was already decided, it was a win/win situation for both teams to have a crack. There is a vast difference how a responsible captain would approach both situations.

 

[whats_at_stake]

Don't understand why the Windies would ever go for it. Realisticallly only Australia could win or it would be a draw under Smith's offer. Poor form to then complain about it.

If he was actually serious about it he would have said give us 370 to chase in 70 overs and if at the 70th over mark we do not get there we will declare our innings so you win the test match.

Now that would make it something worth playing for.

I mean if Australia lost 3-4 quick wickets they would just shut up shop and no way on that pitch would the windies get them out in 70 overs.

Nothing in it for the windies.

 

[JackOutback]

Don't understand why the Windies would ever go for it. Realisticallly only Australia could win or it would be a draw under Smith's offer. Poor form to then complain about it.

If he was actually serious about it he would have said give us 370 to chase in 70 overs and if at the 70th over mark we do not get there we will declare our innings so you win the test match.

Now that would make it something worth playing for.

I mean if Australia lost 3-4 quick wickets they would just shut up shop and no way on that pitch would the windies get them out in 70 overs.

Nothing in it for the windies.

I agree that he needed to give the Windies more if he wanted them to accept his challenge; it seemed heavily weighted in favour of the Australians. And while I have no problem with him offering that, his implied criticism of Holder for not taking him up on it is what I don't like. It tries to paint him as weak for not being willing to accept a deal that was pretty poor for the Windies.

 

[imadodgyumpire]

Smith wasn't keen to make a game of the 2nd nz test. My respect for smith just went down a whole lot.

It was still high after seeing the weet-bix ads?

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Don't understand why the Windies would ever go for it. Realisticallly only Australia could win or it would be a draw under Smith's offer. Poor form to then complain about it.

If he was actually serious about it he would have said give us 370 to chase in 70 overs and if at the 70th over mark we do not get there we will declare our innings so you win the test match.

Now that would make it something worth playing for.

I mean if Australia lost 3-4 quick wickets they would just shut up shop and no way on that pitch would the windies get them out in 70 overs.

Nothing in it for the windies.

I agree that he needed to give the Windies more if he wanted them to accept his challenge; it seemed heavily weighted in favour of the Australians. And while I have no problem with him offering that, his implied criticism of Holder for not taking him up on it is what I don't like. It tries to paint him as weak for not being willing to accept a deal that was pretty poor for the Windies.

People are still missing my point. The result was completely irrelevant for the Windies, but the chance to put their bowlers under the pump to find out about their character was not. And people talking about 370 in 70 overs as if it was an automatic win are wrong. I see no reason why the Windies couldn't have pushed us had the game still been alive and their bowlers actually bent their backs for once.

 

[JackOutback]

People are still missing my point. The result was completely irrelevant for the Windies, but the chance to put their bowlers under the pump to find out about their character was not. And people talking about 370 in 70 overs as if it was an automatic win are wrong. I see no reason why the Windies couldn't have pushed us had the game still been alive and their bowlers actually bent their backs for once.

I understand what you're saying, but if they had set the target, only to have Warner and co. come out and flay them for the win, that would be even more demoralising for their young players. Maybe he would have taken on the challenge if the target was a little more challenging for the Aussies. He obviously felt the risks weren't worth the rewards, and I can understand his point of view.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

I understand what you're saying, but if they had set the target, only to have Warner and co. come out and flay them for the win, that would be even more demoralising for their young players. Maybe he would have taken on the challenge if the target was a little more challenging for the Aussies. He obviously felt the risks weren't worth the rewards, and I can understand his point of view.

I honestly don't think it would have been more demoralising. I think going for the aggressive option would have been good for them, if anything. And who cares if it would demoralise them anyway? Holder would learn about which players had the right mentality and skill set going forward.

People are overrating our batting line up too. When is the last time they were under any pressure? If they had grabbed a few wickets our middle/lower order could well have crumbled.

 

[whats_at_stake]

I honestly don't think it would have been more demoralising. I think going for the aggressive option would have been good for them, if anything. And who cares if it would demoralise them anyway? Holder would learn about which players had the right mentality and skill set going forward.

People are overrating our batting line up too. When is the last time they were under any pressure? If they had grabbed a few wickets our middle/lower order could well have crumbled.

This is test match cricket. Losing 3-0 is a whitewash. 2-0 is a win for the Windies. Roles were reversed Australia would never take the "deal."

 

[Carbine Chaos]

This is test match cricket. Losing 3-0 is a whitewash. 2-0 is a win for the Windies. Roles were reversed Australia would never take the "deal."

Yeah, I bet Holder and his team feel like winners right now.

Defending 370 in 70 overs? I hope we would.

 

[whats_at_stake]

Yeah, I bet Holder and his team feel like winners right now.

Defending 370 in 70 overs? I hope we would.

The should. They have shown steady improvemnet throughout the series. Still poor but better than Test 1. Australia would be stupid to take the deal- what possible gain could they get apart from losing the test match? We all saw how Smith batted India out of the game last summer rather than take a risk. Easy to say when you are on top but not when there are things on the line.