Aggression is an excellent trait in teams. Fans expect players to go in with a positive mindset and aim for a win first and then play accordingly, even if the odds are stacked against them. In the long run, such an attitude percolates down to the entire set-up and players joining the squad automatically pick up that positivity.
It all looks good until it backfires. And sometimes it does so horribly. The third Test between Australia and South Africa in Adelaide had an explosive build-up, with the Proteas rallying behind their skipper Faf du Plessis who was found guilty of ball tampering in the second Test.
The South Africans believed Faf had been unfairly targeted, with murmurs of the host broadcaster ‘following’ the South African players for any possible infringement.
However, the fact is there was evidence against Faf and he was found guilty of using a foreign substance to shine the ball. Whether the entire exercise of looking for sweets and mints which can be used to add shine to the ball makes sense is another matter.
Cut to the opening day of the pink-ball Test and we saw a charged up South African team bat first. The Aussie pacers reduced the visitors to 161 for seven and it was up to Faf to pull the team out of the hole. He did so superbly, scoring what must be one of his most satisfying centuries. The Proteas were nine down for 259 when the skipper, batting on 118, decided to declare the innings to have a crack at the Australian batting for one hour before stumps.
Beaten with the bat
— Dale Steyn (@DaleSteyn62) November 27, 2016
Beaten with the ball
Beaten in the field
Well played Australia 😉
Now, I am all for attacking cricket. But there is a fine line that separates bravery and being impetuous. Du Plessis and the South Africans pushed it a bit too far and all credit to Australia for taking the surprise declaration in their stride and playing without any haste.
Once opener Usman Khawaja cracked a superlative century and helped earn a 124-run lead, the South Africans had fallen well behind with the hosts holding all the aces.
What must have helped the Australians play with a clear frame of mind were the wholesale changes made to the team following their defeats in the first two Tests. Not much was expected from them and it was the beginning of a new journey. South Africa’s shocking declaration at such a low score, undoubtedly, allowed them to take control of the match.
It was another instance of a team in a dominant position taking a chance with ‘sporting’ declarations and paying the price for it.
In the fourth Test of the 2001 Ashes series, acting Australia captain Adam Gilchrist declared the second innings on 176 for four, giving a beleaguered England side, trailing 3-0, an enticing target of 315 with a little over a day’s play left. The last day was dominated by Mark Butcher, who hit a majestic 173 not out to steer the hosts to a six-wicket win.
Then in the 2008 Chennai Test, England were 386 runs ahead with one wicket in hand when captain Kevin Pietersen decided to invite India to have a go at the target with four sessions to go. Opener Virender Sehwag hit a typically aggressive 83 off 68 balls to leave the Indians 256 runs away with nine wickets in hand. Sachin Tendulkar hit a memorable century in the final day to seal an improbable win.
While the intentions behind such daring declarations might be laudable, it can easily backfire. Teams hurt by these moves generally abandon such bravado and I suspect we won’t see the South Africans going for surprise declarations in the foreseeable future.
During the second day’s play in the Mohali Test between India and England, the rules regarding obstructing the field of play came up for debate and deliberation.
It started in the last ball of the third over when opener Murali Vijay defended the ball back to James Anderson, who threw the ball at the stumps with Vijay unmoved at the crease. The ball hit his pad and England instinctively appealed for obstruction.
The latest amendment to the rule means that the fielding side can appeal if the batsman is seen to have made a deliberate attempt to block the ball, irrespective of whether a run out would have
occurred or not.
Obstructing the field? Yes or No? Watch all the drama that unfolded in Over No.3 with Anderson's appeal https://t.co/S2J2c0S9nQ #INDvENG pic.twitter.com/0PKK6KpelR
— BCCI (@BCCI) November 27, 2016
This rule means bowlers can be tempted to simply hurl the ball at the batsman who might just be standing in his crease and if the ball hits the pads, leave it to the umpire to judge whether the batsman was looking to indulge in any foul play.
The rule change was made to stop batsmen from suddenly changing direction while running to come between the throw and the wickets.
But now, some might be tempted to test the resolve of the batsman and leave it to the umpire. It does not make for good viewing and only adds to the hostility between teams.
