Case study 1: Australia versus England at Sydney in 1995

Mike Atherton decided to declare. He had worked out that Australia would have to score more than 110 runs per session on a pitch showing few signs of deterioration. A team rarely scores at more than 90 per session, so this seemed a safe target. Also, Atherton was aware of the strength of the home batting order and the consequent need to maximise the amount of time available to dismiss them.

On the other hand, hadn't Australia collapsed in the first innings? Hick was visibly disappointed, since he had been deprived of his chance to score a century. So why didn't Atherton hold on for another over to allow Hick to get his century? The reason was that Atherton asked the officials and was told - wrongly as it happened - that if he held on for another over, the rules said that tea would be taken immediately. Atherton was keen to have half an hour to bowl at the Aussies before tea, which would give the batsmen an awkward little session to bat through. He decided this was more important than Hick getting to his landmark.

Verdict:
In hindsight, Atherton made the wrong decision. Hick and several teammates were upset that he hadn't been allowed to get his century. Instead of being fired up, the England team was slightly demoralised. Exploiting this, Australia set off at a gallop, and by the close of play they were 139 for 0. They needed only 310 to win on the final day - a very similar challenge to the one England faced against Pakistan at Old Trafford in 2001. In the end, a rain delay thwarted the Australian run chase, but for a while it looked a close run thing.


Back