I am not sure I have interpreted it right as it sounds illogical. This 1950 match looks like one of the strangest ever. I can understand why Australia declared at 30/7....they still had the margin to win. But why did Englad declare at 68/7 in the first innings when they were trailing so badly? Injuries?

Cricinfo - 1st Test: Australia v England at Brisbane, Dec 1-5, 1950

__________________
My computer can beat me at chess.....but its no match for me at kick boxing.

not a clue DK...its so far back in history that probably none of the guys here will be able to tell us about the match or the seemingly weird decision by england. interestingly it was a 6 day match with a one day break in between(??) and an over had 8 balls back then!!!

there isn't too much literature on this match available on the internet. the only way maybe to contact old timers like Neil Harvey(the only australian player in that team who i know is still alive) or search in the archives section of libraries for microfishes of some australian newspaper covering the match.

I can only assume it was an uncovered wicket job. Get them on a sticky?

The match report in Wisden that year sheds light on this one. Australia had won the toss and scored what was considered a below par score on a decent pitch. They were dismissed close to the end of play on day one, england appelaed the light and that was day one.

A severe storm hit the ground that evening washing out the next day (saturday 2nd) sunday was a rest day but there must have been more rain anyway as play didnt resume until just before lunch on the Monday.

When it did resume it was clear that the storm had turned the pitch into a batsmans nightmare. 20 wickets fell in the rest of the day for just 102 runs.

With regards to England's declaration the wisden report states that Brown declared "once the back of England's innings had been broken" as he believed England's one chance of winning the game from the position they were in was to get Australia back in to bat as quickly as possible while the pitch was still so in favour of the bowlers, dismiss Australia relatively cheaply, and hope that it had become more suitable for batting by England's second innings.

I think its fair to say he was clutching at straws but under the circumstance she was probably correct in thinking it was the only way England could gain a victory from the situation the found themselves in. I dont know how much of it is bias but the wisden match report claims that even the home spectators acknowledged that the team that lost "batted better, bowled better and fielded better " than the winners

One thing I can help on, even though I am not old enough to remember 1950, is that six day tests with a day break were not at all unusual. Well into the 1970s there was no cricket played in England on Sundays in test matches (which always started on Thursdays), as the law did not allow it. I believe it was similar in Australia.

And the eight ball over was used in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa until 1979/80. (It was even used in England for the 1939 season.) Overs have varied in length all over the cricket playing world ever since the game started, and have been anywhere from four to eight balls long (but never seven).

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

wow thanks for the insight Gildas, very interesting test match i must say. Anymore interesting test matches like this that somebody knows of??