I'm currently explaining cricket to sphyg. I said on Sunday that I thought that it was likely England would declare with Australia needing 350.
I think them going on till they needed 420 meant that they were edging toward a low-risk strategy of narrowing the probability distribution in on a draw, rather than taking the risk of a higher (but still small) chance of an Australia win along with a much higher chance of an England win. Something like going from (A/D/E)=(10/40/50)% at 350, to something closer to (2/75/33)% at 420 (to pick numbers from the air). I don't think England are used to being good yet.
It was amusing to see Australia channelling Geoffrey Boycott with their batting strategy, though. I never was a selfish batsman, but....
no subject
I think them going on till they needed 420 meant that they were edging toward a low-risk strategy of narrowing the probability distribution in on a draw, rather than taking the risk of a higher (but still small) chance of an Australia win along with a much higher chance of an England win. Something like going from (A/D/E)=(10/40/50)% at 350, to something closer to (2/75/33)% at 420 (to pick numbers from the air). I don't think England are used to being good yet.
It was amusing to see Australia channelling Geoffrey Boycott with their batting strategy, though. I never was a selfish batsman, but....