Cricket Discussion - Part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mar 1, 2014
13,891
17,508
People's Republic of Onkaparinga
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Cronulla Sutherland Sharks
Anyway, what a pleasure to see Shaun Marsh shove it up the doubters again. He really hasn't let us down much at all in his later incarnations as an international cricketer.

I would not go that far, in his last seven Tests Marsh has passed fifty on just 5 occasions and on seven occasions has failed to reach 20. On the last tour of India Marsh passed fifty twice but in the other four innings he failed to make it past 10. Marsh has done well at times but he has also let us down at times.
 
SACA CEO Keith Bradshaw was on ABC interviewed by Gerard Whateley and talked about the test, the crowd, the day night schedule, next year getting 1 of the 4 tests against India, if AO could ever get 2 tests in one season etc. He said that 70% of GA tickets were sold to people interstate but he meant outside the state ie inc overseas. Said a lot of people from Melbourne bought GA tickets in the eastern stands but the bad weather and floods saw a lot of flights were cancelled and people cancelled their trip so that's why there were big gaps in the eastern stand on Saturday. He explained how the Village Green worked and how that allows for a max attendance of 60k.

He said the SACA had keep membership at the same less as 2016/17 as well as the transferable tickets. There are about 8,500 transferable tickets that have been purchased with memberships. From the 2016/17 SACA annual report page 25

SACA now has a total of 25,736 financial members, with an additional 6000 on the waiting list. The transferable card uptake was 33.8 per cent, slightly higher than the previous season’s uptake of 33.4.
Attendance strong at Test match
The total attendance across the four days at the Commonwealth Bank Test match against South Africa at
Adelaide Oval last November was 125,993, the highest for a non-Ashes series at the venue. This included a four-day aggregate of 53,019 SACA members and 20,543 transferable card-holders.


So last year about 2/3rds of attendees were members and their associates. This year it will probably be closer to 50% given the extra GA tickets sold.

The crowds of 55,317 and 52,201 for the first two days is the first time outside of the MCG that a test has had 50,000+ attendees on the first two days ( or any 2 consecutive days) since the SCG test of 1962-63 v the poms. The SCG has only had 9 days where they have produced 50,000+ crowds in its 130 odd year history.

The SACA should be using the success of the pink ball test to help sure up its finances and development programs. First pick ball test v NZ 3 days 123.7k, last year v SAF 125.9k and that will be bettered by the end of today day 3.
 
Poms putting up a bit of a rear guard defence. Better late than never for them. Will be interesting what Oz do if they have a lead of 200+ and whether they are prepared to put the poms back in and make them bat under lights.
 
Why the * do Australia never enforce the follow on anymore?! Not bowling to England at night with a 200 run lead is the height of stupidity.
 

LFC2010

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 28, 2010
21,473
23,687
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Liverpool, Boston Celtics
Why the **** do Australia never enforce the follow on anymore?! Not bowling to England at night with a 200 run lead is the height of stupidity.

Sports science gone mad IMO.

Over working the bowlers is a thing of past, better start getting used to it.
 
Great 11 oval spell by Anderson tonight. Used the conditions beautifully and that ball was swing around like he was back home.

If the Poms can get the Aussies out by tea break then the ball will be 30 overs old when the lights come on and they should be able to survive better than if they have to face the new ball from around 8pm.
 
Kolkata 2001 is why
yeah I think its something like about 5 follow ons and 20 non follow ons for Australia since VVS and Dravid had that amazing partnership in Kolkata.
 
Mar 4, 2014
1,234
2,518
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
yeah I think its something like about 5 follow ons and 20 non follow ons for Australia since VVS and Dravid had that amazing partnership in Kolkata.
As a kid I don't recall not seeing the follow-on. I was 10 when the Windies were here in 1984-85. They were ruthless. Chappelli would have been ruthless.....enforcing it is the aggressive thing to do.

But since Dravid and VVS I don't recall them enforcing it.....5 surprises me TBH.

Who were they against, the 5? Suspect some of the lower ranked nations?
 
Follow on stats are better than I remembered since the VVS effect. This story after Clarke didn't make poms follow on at Lords in 2015.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-...-no-follow-on-does-not-mean-defensive/6631964
Most of us who watch cricket love nothing more than giving advice to a Test captain. This uninvited counsel flowed on day three at Lord's, when Michael Clarke declined to enforce the follow-on after his Australian side bowled out England 254 runs behind. Plenty of comments described Clarke's move as defensive, and as has become standard in these situations, a popular theory began a new round of circulation. It even has a name, with many citing 'the VVS Effect.' Cricket Australia writer Andrew Ramsay subscribed to it, explaining in Twitter shorthand, "Last time team came from further behind than Eng's deficit of 254 to win Test was India Kolkata 2001. Aust barely enforced follow-on since".
.....
It is a great theory. It makes sense. It is just not remotely true.
.....
Waugh puts the lie to VVS effect
Exhibit A for the prosecution comes from the stat columns. Before Eden Gardens, Australian teams almost uniformly enforced the follow-on. After Eden Gardens, it suddenly dropped to 11 times out of 26, or 42 per cent of the time.

Compelling, right? Except the man who should have been most burned by the Kolkata defeat - the captain who made the fateful mid-game decision - was not affected at all.

After Eden Gardens, Steve Waugh took every opportunity to enforce the follow-on for the rest of his career. In fact, Eden Gardens was Waugh's first ever chance to enforce the follow on. Afterwards, he went on to make the same call on each of his seven subsequent opportunities. He won seven of them.

The first was in Waugh's very next series. Only months after Kolkata, he had no hesitation forcing England to follow on at The Oval. His bowlers rolled them for 184. Rather than a primate on Waugh's back, it was more akin to a sea monkey. Australia's follow-on rate didn't drop after Kolkata. It rose to one hundred per cent, with a winning rate of one hundred per cent. It only dropped after 2004 with a change in captaincy.

Ricky Ponting, a far more defensive and conservative leader, was the one who killed off the tactic, enforcing it four times from thirteen chances. Michael Clarke, perhaps taking Ponting's approach as orthodoxy, is currently none from four.
....
The follow-on used to be more ruthlessly applied: in 1948 Don Bradman had his bowlers send down 123 of the era's eight-ball overs against India, then butter up again as soon as that innings closed.

Changes in game explain different approach
But in Bradman's day plenty of other things were different. Test matches had rest days. Fielding and running between wickets were less physically intense. There were often weeks between Tests, meaning players could run themselves into the ground and still resurface for next time.

The current era is one of sports scientists, bowling workloads and constant medical observation. Stories of stress fractures, hot spots, scans and soft-tissue tears. Management of valuable sporting assets. We have three-day turnarounds between games, in high-stakes series that rely on first-choice attacks. Frankly it would be remarkable and risky if a captain with time up one sleeve did enforce the follow-on, unless the other side's first innings was finished in a handful of overs.

The VVS Effect does not stack up. If Waugh shrugged off that game so soon, why would his successors 15 years later be concerned? Clarke's decision on day three was about choosing the best method to win a game and take a series lead. Any other connection is a convenient fantasy.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-...-no-follow-on-does-not-mean-defensive/6631964
 
Mar 4, 2014
1,234
2,518
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Follow on stats are better than I remembered since the VVS effect. This story after Clarke didn't make poms follow on at Lords in 2015.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-...-no-follow-on-does-not-mean-defensive/6631964
Most of us who watch cricket love nothing more than giving advice to a Test captain. This uninvited counsel flowed on day three at Lord's, when Michael Clarke declined to enforce the follow-on after his Australian side bowled out England 254 runs behind. Plenty of comments described Clarke's move as defensive, and as has become standard in these situations, a popular theory began a new round of circulation. It even has a name, with many citing 'the VVS Effect.' Cricket Australia writer Andrew Ramsay subscribed to it, explaining in Twitter shorthand, "Last time team came from further behind than Eng's deficit of 254 to win Test was India Kolkata 2001. Aust barely enforced follow-on since".
.....
It is a great theory. It makes sense. It is just not remotely true.
.....
Waugh puts the lie to VVS effect
Exhibit A for the prosecution comes from the stat columns. Before Eden Gardens, Australian teams almost uniformly enforced the follow-on. After Eden Gardens, it suddenly dropped to 11 times out of 26, or 42 per cent of the time.

Compelling, right? Except the man who should have been most burned by the Kolkata defeat - the captain who made the fateful mid-game decision - was not affected at all.

After Eden Gardens, Steve Waugh took every opportunity to enforce the follow-on for the rest of his career. In fact, Eden Gardens was Waugh's first ever chance to enforce the follow on. Afterwards, he went on to make the same call on each of his seven subsequent opportunities. He won seven of them.

The first was in Waugh's very next series. Only months after Kolkata, he had no hesitation forcing England to follow on at The Oval. His bowlers rolled them for 184. Rather than a primate on Waugh's back, it was more akin to a sea monkey. Australia's follow-on rate didn't drop after Kolkata. It rose to one hundred per cent, with a winning rate of one hundred per cent. It only dropped after 2004 with a change in captaincy.

Ricky Ponting, a far more defensive and conservative leader, was the one who killed off the tactic, enforcing it four times from thirteen chances. Michael Clarke, perhaps taking Ponting's approach as orthodoxy, is currently none from four.
....
The follow-on used to be more ruthlessly applied: in 1948 Don Bradman had his bowlers send down 123 of the era's eight-ball overs against India, then butter up again as soon as that innings closed.

Changes in game explain different approach
But in Bradman's day plenty of other things were different. Test matches had rest days. Fielding and running between wickets were less physically intense. There were often weeks between Tests, meaning players could run themselves into the ground and still resurface for next time.

The current era is one of sports scientists, bowling workloads and constant medical observation. Stories of stress fractures, hot spots, scans and soft-tissue tears. Management of valuable sporting assets. We have three-day turnarounds between games, in high-stakes series that rely on first-choice attacks. Frankly it would be remarkable and risky if a captain with time up one sleeve did enforce the follow-on, unless the other side's first innings was finished in a handful of overs.

The VVS Effect does not stack up. If Waugh shrugged off that game so soon, why would his successors 15 years later be concerned? Clarke's decision on day three was about choosing the best method to win a game and take a series lead. Any other connection is a convenient fantasy.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-...-no-follow-on-does-not-mean-defensive/6631964
Well there you have it. It's only our memories affected post 2001.
 
The 3 examples in 140 years of tast cricket of enforcing a follow on and losing. All loses by Oz.

http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchFollowOn.asp?FollowOn=T&Result=Lost

List of sides enforcing follow on and winning which includes 68 example since the VVS effect. And since the Clarke non follow on example at Lord's above Oz are 2 for 2 for enforcing the follow on

http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchFollowOn.asp?FollowOn=T&Result=Lost

20/08/2015 Kennington Oval Australia (481) England (149 & 286) deficit 332 Australia won by an innings and 46 runs

10/12/2015 Bellerive Oval Australia (4/583 dec) West Indies (223 & 148) deficit 360 Australia won by an innings and 212 runs
 
Last edited:
Well there you have it. It's only our memories affected post 2001.
I remembered Waugh did it a lot after VVS and Ponting and Clarke rarely did. I reckon its the no Warne and McGrath effect to go with the other stuff mentioned in that article about short break to tests. You knew as a skipper Warne and McGrath were good for another 60 overs after a follow on.
 
Since that Lord's test in 2015 where Clarke didn't enforce the follow on mentioned in that article, Smith has refused to enforce the follow 4 times but has won the test match every time and all 4 times was in Oz.

http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchFollowOn.asp?FollowOn=T&Result=Lost

So Smith since he took over has now had the opportunity to enforce the follow on 6 times He enforced the follow on against Windies at Bellerive and won in 2015/16. 4 times mentioned in link above he didn't enforce it but still won and tonight's non follow on.
 
Ok so let me get these post VVS effect follow on / non follow on stats stats right

Waugh 7 opportunities to enforce the follow on, did enforce it 7 times, for 7 wins.

Gilchrist 2 opportunities to enforce the follow on, did enforce it 0 times .
2 times didn't enforce it he won 1st Test and 3rd Test of 2004-05 series in India - he remembered VVS

Ponting 13 opportunities to enforce the follow on did enforce it 4 times for 3 wins and 1 draw but rain
9 times didn't enforce it he won

Clarke 5 opportunities to enforce the follow on did enforce it 1 time for 1 win
4 times didn't enforce it he won

Smith 6 opportunities to enforce the follow on did enforce it 1 time for 1 win
4 times didn't enforce it he won + tonight's non enforcement
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back