Rogue

The aim of cricket is to bowl the other team out twice. History has shown that a team won't chase down anywhere near 490 in a successful fourth innings run chase. The fact we only got 5 wickets after setting 70+ more than the highest ever fourth-innings run chase in Test history, and with Sth Africa still ~200 behind, shows we need not have batted so long! We were one wicket away from breaking into the tail and there are numerous examples of a team's tail crumbling on the last day of a Test match. First, I thought we batted too long at the time. Second, add the fact that we set them 70+ more runs than anyone had ever scored to win a fourth innings run chase.

We'll have to agree to disagree. The way I see declarations is that you try and give yourself as much time as possible while also ensuring enough runs. Obviously there are times where you need to make a sporting declaration in order to make a game of it or need to declare with less runs than you'd like because you're running out of time. However, if you have set the opposition 70+ runs more than the highest ever successful chase in Test cricket history and subsequently run out time in your quest for 10 wickets that suggests you batted too long*... * unless you're from the RR school of declarations

We had more runs than we needed and didn't end up bowling them out. Enough said. As I said, at the time I felt we were batting too long. As H_T has pointed out this wasn't exactly a left-field opinion at the time. So we agree that providing you've closed the game out it doesn't matter about the runs too much - it's about giving yourself enough time to take the 10 wickets. Need I present my comment about the highest successful fourth-innings chases in Test cricket history again? As you've pointed out there was no need to keep batting as long as we did. More time can only have increased our chance of taking the ten wickets, and given we were so far ahead the runs didn't really matter (as you said). So we agree that Australia didn't need to bat as long as they did. Jolly good. PS. Hi, I'm brick. Try and get some blood out of me :D

Exactly. I had a quick look and we set a target that was 72 runs more than the highest successful fourth innings chase in Test cricket! I struggle to see how you could have argued against an earlier declaration at the time (unless you're Hodge's Mum), let alone with the benefit of hindsight. God forbid we give someone an 'outside sniff' by setting them a few runs off the second-highest successful chase in Test history, RR!

Yep. I replied to a post from RR which mentioned this. As you note, we weren't playing at Sydney - it was the WACA and it was still a decent track. We set South Africa 491, which would have been a record-breaking chase had they made it. However, at the end of day five we'd only captured five wickets while they were over 200 behind. They did bat fairly conservatively, but if they'd played more aggressively we would have had a higher likelihood of getting into the tail.

You could argue the proof's in the pudding - we were unable to knock them over and had plenty of runs to play with. At the time I felt we should have declared earlier.

Haha, so true. It can be unbearable after a loss (and equally cringe-worthy after a good win). Ryder's sick.

Like I said, semantics re: the phrase 'winning position'. WYL hasn't asserted that we were favourites at that stage but that we had a serious 'sniff'. You might argue about the odds of Australia winning at that stage, but I think you're pushing it a little here. Sure, Australia may not have had any quicks who were 'likely to run through the Indians' but I think it's pretty clear that White and particularly Hussey were less chance than some of the other options.

I think you two are playing at semantics From what I can see both of you agree that we were a chance of winning at the time Ponting decided to bowl White and then Hussey, after which a win became a remote possibility.

Absolutely.

Katich is under-bowled and I don't really understand why. Given that Clarke has a bad back I don't see why we over-bowl him while virtually refusing to throw the ball to Kat. It's worked out that way sans the declaration. We bat fairly deep so we're still in the game...but it'd be an amazing win. We'll need to come up with something better if they decide to try and choke us with an 8-1 off-side field again though. I think Jaques is out for a while, so a more likely replacement would be Marsh or even Rogers. That said, I think that - providing he's fit - Hayden will play versus NZ regardless of what happens this innings. If he fails in that series he may be in trouble, particularly if we somehow lost. It's a shame Oram's going to miss the tour. Given the conditions I think Clark's performed okay. If we had played a decent spinner Clark would have been able to tie up the other end and keep the pressure on even if he wasn't claiming wickets himself. If that's the reason - and I can't see any other explanation - it's a disgrace. It'd be interesting to see who came up with this idea, assuming it was to avoid Ponting being suspended.

Or that the appeal would have been delayed until after the next Test - pretty surprising.

Bangladesh are hapless and should have Test status revoked. In the meantime, we have stats like this: DL Vettori 1 1 0 3* Talking of hapless, Vettori has saved NZ from embarassment this series. However, there's still a fair gap between the two sides. * the wickets were batsmen 2,3,4.

So what's your answer, considering you said we needed to get a quality spinner in there? I don't think there's one available, let alone one on tour. I agree with McGain. I'm really surprised Kreza got the call though. Obviously Casson being overlooked was a bit of a surprise. Doran seems to have fallen off the radar a bit (while you could argue he was never on it, Kreza was fourth in line at NSW when he left). Deep breath first, then write your replies

Absolutely. Ah well, that's cricket.

Huge mistake, isn't it? India would have been 5/236 with 20 overs left in the day.

For many people, the membership itself is a donation. Furthermore, even for people that have a 'spare few bob', there are plenty of worthy causes. Anyhow, $2,905,681 is the total raised so far.

I think the debt demolition 'month' has been a really good idea, because I don't think this sort of call-to-arms is something you can keep going indefinitely. The direct-debit options are a good idea to keep money coming. I think people will make sacrifices, but to ask them to do that over a long period of time is a big ask - 'donation fatigue'. I believe Stynes has asked supporters at one of the events (luncheon or dinner) to consider donating half again next year - might be something he asks all members to do. That'd get us close to the $5M mark.

They won't. You won't even have 10% of members at the event, and I'd say that the majority of those will probably have already donated. Absolutely. Donating money to a football club - particularly if you already buy a membership, which is essentially a donation for many - isn't the top priority for many people. Who's to say that's wrong, either? Not I. The only thing that's pathetic is people lambasting people for not donating money to a football Club, IMO (particularly when, as members, they're already contributing $ - which for the majority is at least part 'donation').

I'm sure they'll be happy to continue taking your money It's not at all surprising, although I do think the number of supporters donating money will grow. Many supporters feel their membership is a donation, and that's already at least ~$165 for the standard 11-game membership. I can understand that many supporters have other priorities.

Hopefully it didn't cost us anything - " Last night, the Club’s naming rights partner Primus, gave the Club use of one of the Primus call centres for a Debt Demolition Telethon." http://www.melbournefc.com.au/tabid/7415/D...px?newsid=66050

At $0.20 p/call you'd only need one $20 donation p/100 calls to break even, and I'd be disappointed if... a) the Club were spending that much on calls B) the calls didn't prompt more donations

$75K in the past few days isn't bad.

I think the aim is to wipe $3M in August, and you're right to be worried - I'm not sure we'll make it to $3M, and can't see us entirely demolishing the debt. However, it's still been a great effort to raise so much money, and I'm sure there's more to come. I'm certain I read about an event planned for those who want to donate $500+, but I haven't seen any more info on that in the members email, debtdemolition site, etc.

Fair enough, as long as you don't complain about figures from other Clubs taking little pot shots at us Haha.