Australia vs South Africa

[GVGjr]

Re: Australia vs South Africa

Watch the steak knives come out now!

From an Aussie perspective :

Disgraceful, there's a reason that was the second highest run chase in the history of Test cricket, it just should not happen, especially after Mitch Johnson broke their backs with a brilliant spell of 5 for 2 in 20 balls.

From a cricket perspective :

Awesome game of cricket...so many kept saying how batsman friendly the pitch was, yet 3 innings over in 3 days, the match had everything, 2 centuries [both in the 4th innings], an 8 for including THAT spell.

The fact that Sth Africa have really struggled against Australian for such a long time, and from an overall perspective, a good thing for cricket - who says Test cricket is dead?

Yes, whilst it was a very frustrating loss the game of cricket has leveled out and there will be fewer easy wins. The Proteas have a lot of fighting spirit and we will have to improve a lot.

Anyone keen to predict any likely changes?

[mighty_west]

Re: Australia vs South Africa

Yes, whilst it was a very frustrating loss the game of cricket has leveled out and there will be fewer easy wins. The Proteas have a lot of fighting spirit and we will have to improve a lot.

Anyone keen to predict any likely changes?

No change!

Haydos will be the one talked about, and fair enough as well...but i feel he should be given the boxing Day test at least, given his past form at that ground, for some reason players just like playing at certain venues, pitches etc....but if he fails that, well...........

The replacements are ready to fill that spot [in order] :
1. Rogers [in top form, would have learnt from his ONE test]
2. Jaques [Only if fit]
3. Klinger [along with Rogers & Hughes, form is very good]
4. Hughes [see above, but with less experience]
5. Marsh [hasn't fired a shot since his 50/50 blast]

[azabob]

Re: Australia vs South Africa

No change!

Haydos will be the one talked about, and fair enough as well...but i feel he should be given the boxing Day test at least, given his past form at that ground, for some reason players just like playing at certain venues, pitches etc....but if he fails that, well...........

The replacements are ready to fill that spot [in order] :
1. Rogers [in top form, would have learnt from his ONE test]
2. Jaques [Only if fit]
3. Klinger [along with Rogers & Hughes, form is very good]
4. Hughes [see above, but with less experience]
5. Marsh [hasn't fired a shot since his 50/50 blast]

what about the bowling though? Is that in worse shape than the batting?
I guess it comes down to, what wins cricket matches?

[mjp]

Re: Australia vs South Africa

It was a funny match for Australia. The top-order batting let us down in both innings - but that said, a heap of wickets fell on the first 3 days (9 on each) and barely any after that. The pitch held together, bounce remained true but it slowed down...and despite the rain, the outfield remained very fast. It is funny to say this, but with 5 sessions to go I honestly wondered if 400 would be enough.

We needed a couple of half-chances - like Lee not being able to pull in De Villiers at mid-off with about 100 still to get - to come off in order to win. The reality is though, our bowling attack is pretty pedestrian at the moment - I thought we really missed Clark, and how helpful would Tait be right now - and when conditions weren't helping, we had to rely on 'someone' producing a couple of unplayables...unfortunately Warne and McGrath have retired.

Agree with others that top-order batting is a worry...just not sure what could really be done. Hayden's time has probably passed - that said, he got a shocking decision in this match - but I am pretty sure he will play the next two tests at least. Without injury, there wont be a change.

[westdog54]

Re: Australia vs South Africa

These last two innings show why Haddin play his natural game and not bat too defensively. In India, he batted with subdued aggression and came undone. Now, he seems much more free-wheeling, and his results with the bat are reflective of this.

Haddin is very much cut in the Gilchrist mould as a keeper-batsman - As there are better gloveman around (e.g: Hartley), but he gets into the team as a result of his batting, teamed with his good, yet inferior, keeping.

Shame it didn't work that way for Geraint 'Iron Gloves' Jones.

One of the best cricket jokes ever:

What does Geraint Jones put in his gloves to make sure a wicket falls next delivery?

A Bat.







Anyhoo, back OT, ripping test match, but Australia should be kicking themselves for letting this one slip, the result should have been a heck of a lot closer than it should have been. That said, Full credit to the SA top/middle order, particularly Smith and de Villiers. Batted superbly under a fair bit of pressure. Well done J.P. Duminy in his debut test. For a last minute inclusion he contributed well in that second innings, can be proud of his effort.

From the Australian P.O.V., I guess we'll never know if Stuart Clark may have made the difference. What we do know is that Siddle's bowling late on day for did neither himself nor his team any favours. He'll be fortunate to keep his spot. Lee is struggling but safe. As for Krejza, news in today's Hun indicated that there may not be much in the pitch on Boxing Day for the spinners. He may have to bide his time until the New Year Test in Sydney.

Hayden should, and will IMO, get one more chance at the MCG, but I dare say this may be his last series. At this stage I'm not convinced he has a spot on the Ashes tour, but ask me again in 2 weeks time. We can't keep picking players on reputation and past results if we're serious about retaining the Ashes. Good to see Symonds scoring some runs.

After all the talk beforehand its great that we're going to have a competitive series. Weather permitting a result in all 3 tests is in sight.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Australia vs South Africa

Yes, whilst it was a very frustrating loss the game of cricket has leveled out and there will be fewer easy wins. The Proteas have a lot of fighting spirit and we will have to improve a lot.

Anyone keen to predict any likely changes?

Not so much predicting as hoping that Watson comes in for Symonds. Watson didn't do anything wrong in India, is FINALLY fit, and can contribute as much if not more than Symonds with the bat, and would have added a real bowling option to the attack. Symonds threw away his bat twice because he doesn't know what to do once tied down in a Test, and hardly bowled, so was useless in that department.

[Sedat]

Re: Australia vs South Africa

Our "all-rounder" bowled 3 overs for the match. So I assmue the national selectors have dispensed with the "we must have an all-rounder in the team" policy so that they can continue to fulfil their unwavering love affair with "I'll play when I fkn feel like it" Symonds

Some other observations:
1. Australia's batting tail over the past 12 months has been the best technique-wise in cricket history (it would be even better with Clark in for Siddle at #11) - this single-handedly kept our noses in front for the majority of the test and saved the top 6's collective arse in both innings.
2. To win a test, you need to take 20 wickets - vale Warne and McGrath (supported by Gillespie and Kaspa)
3. Saffers won comfortably despite poor and reactive captaincy from Smith (especially late in both of Australia's innings), no contribution with the bat whatsoever from their tail and not a lot of threatening swing and pace from Steyn. They actually have some improvement left in them, so Australia will have to improve out of sight in all disciplines to get back into the series
4. Saffers caught everything in sight in the cordon to keep them in the hunt in both innings - they looked like the Aussie slips cordon with Warne and M Waugh circa 2001-2004 (as an aside, the Aussie slips cordon has deteriorated markedly since M Waugh retired)
5. Sponsor's ad breaks will start to look silly if ad whores like Symonds and Hayden get dropped from the side, deservedly or otherwise

[LostDoggy]

Re: Australia vs South Africa

Well if you don't bowl the all rounder then picking another all rounder in his place is pretty stupid imo.
I don't believe Watson is a better bat than Symonds.
You drop Symonds then bring in a true batsman.
Not sure why the all rounders spot is being questioned anyway, you have a top order that isn't making runs and experienced strike bowlers that can't take a wicket.

[Sedat]

Re: Australia vs South Africa

Well if you don't bowl the all rounder then picking another all rounder in his place is pretty stupid imo.
I don't believe Watson is a better bat than Symonds.
You drop Symonds then bring in a true batsman.
Not sure why the all rounders spot is being questioned anyway, you have a top order that isn't making runs and experienced strike bowlers that can't take a wicket.

Depends if the selectors rate wickets or runs higher in this position. If they rate wickets, Watson would be the logical choice as he is in red-hot form with the ball and was arguably the most potent pacemen Australia had in the benign conditions of the sub-continent. Watson in the Perth test would have bowled 30+ overs in the match, which would have eased the workload significantly on the rest of the pacemen and provided Ponting with an additional quality pace option at his disposal.

Symonds has been no better with the bat than Watson since he replaced him at No.6, but as the saying goes in Animal Farm, "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".

If it is a batsman-only position, then there are a number of other players with better claims to the position, on form, than both Symonds and Watson.

[mighty_west]

Re: Australia vs South Africa

Depends if the selectors rate wickets or runs higher in this position. If they rate wickets, Watson would be the logical choice as he is in red-hot form with the ball and was arguably the most potent pacemen Australia had in the benign conditions of the sub-continent. Watson in the Perth test would have bowled 30+ overs in the match, which would have eased the workload significantly on the rest of the pacemen and provided Ponting with an additional quality pace option at his disposal.

Symonds has been no better with the bat than Watson since he replaced him at No.6, but as the saying goes in Animal Farm, "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".

If it is a batsman-only position, then there are a number of other players with better claims to the position, on form, than both Symonds and Watson.

Could not agree more.

Watson would always bowl more than Symonds as he is more a strike bowler, a fast medium bowler compared to a bloke who can change from slow to medium pace, and yes, Watson did bowl well over in India, and IMO would be more valuable to the TEAM than Andrew Symonds.

Plus Symonds isn't an all rounder anyway according to Punter, so in that case, there are ALOT of better batsmen & in far better form right now, than Symonds.

[westdog54]

Re: Australia vs South Africa

Well if you don't bowl the all rounder then picking another all rounder in his place is pretty stupid imo.
I don't believe Watson is a better bat than Symonds.
You drop Symonds then bring in a true batsman.
Not sure why the all rounders spot is being questioned anyway, you have a top order that isn't making runs and experienced strike bowlers that can't take a wicket.

It isn't if the all-rounder coming in is a genuine all-rounder, not a batsman who can be handy with the ball. There's a difference and Symonds and Watson are at opposite ends of that spectrum.

You're right. Symonds is a better bat than Watson but what it comes down to is not which is the better bat but who makes the bigger contribution to the team. The Aussies didn't lose becase they didn't make enough runs, they lost because the couldn't take wickets on Day 4 and 5.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Australia vs South Africa

The Aussies didn't lose becase they didn't make enough runs, they lost because the couldn't take wickets on Day 4 and 5.

I disagree somewhat, they also struggled to make scores on a flat deck as well.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Australia vs South Africa

Depends if the selectors rate wickets or runs higher in this position. If they rate wickets, Watson would be the logical choice as he is in red-hot form with the ball and was arguably the most potent pacemen Australia had in the benign conditions of the sub-continent. Watson in the Perth test would have bowled 30+ overs in the match, which would have eased the workload significantly on the rest of the pacemen and provided Ponting with an additional quality pace option at his disposal.

Symonds has been no better with the bat than Watson since he replaced him at No.6, but as the saying goes in Animal Farm, "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".

If it is a batsman-only position, then there are a number of other players with better claims to the position, on form, than both Symonds and Watson.

If they create flat tops like in Perth then I believe the batsman need to put more runs on the board. 2 bowlers were in their 2nd game, hard to blame them.

They had 3 strike bowlers and a spinner, if they couldn't get them out then Watson would not have either.
I wouldn't boast if left India with a bowling averaging of over 30.
Strongly disagree with the Symonds/Watson batting comparision.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Australia vs South Africa

Anyway other spinner(name escapes me) in for Krezya, Hillfenhus added to squad.
No real hard decisions made there.

[GVGjr]

Re: Australia vs South Africa

Anyway other spinner(name escapes me) in for Krezya, Hillfenhus added to squad.
No real hard decisions made there.

I wonder if they would punt on playing Watson as the opener?

The replacement for Krejza is Hauritz. which continues the shuffle of spinners.