Anyone for cricket?

[45HG 1,539]

Must keep in mind here that in the final 10.4 overs (roughly 40 minutes) we put on a further 76 runs, taking it from a low 400s target to a high 400s one.

[Rogue 585]

Must keep in mind here that in the final 10.4 overs (roughly 40 minutes) we put on a further 76 runs, taking it from a low 400s target to a high 400s one.

So we took it from SA needing to break the record for the highest successful fourth innings run chase in Test history to...even more.

There's overkill and then there's overkill - and then there's that declaration

looking forward more to sa africvan matches more then new zealand ones, what are the changes with the sa africans, kallis still play ,what about pollock and boucher?

Pollock's been gone a while and Ntini is on his last legs. They generally play an average spinner now (Harris) and have some decent young quicks.

Gibbs looks to be finished and McKenzie has returned. Amla's doing okay as a middle-order batsman.

Boucher still plays.

[45HG 1,539]

140 overs to chase 415 on a flat pitch. Less than 3 an over. Not so sure that's the certainty you'd have us believe it is

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

The aim of cricket is to bowl the other team out twice.

History has shown that a team won't chase down anywhere near 490 in a successful fourth innings run chase.

Its does not matter whether they would or they would not. The game was out of their reach IMO regardless and they had to survive against 2 of the greatest bowlers in the world McGrath and Warne.

I note you have not consulted history to find a team that have batted a draw after 127 overs.Hmmm.

The fact we only got 5 wickets after setting 70+ more than the highest ever fourth-innings run chase in Test history, and with Sth Africa still ~200 behind, shows we need not have batted so long!

The fact of the 5 wickets against a probing Warne and McGrath only demonstrates the sub standard nature of the pitch that killed the contest. Sth Africa went on the defensive and were never chasing runs. It also puts a dent in your argument that had we declared earlier Sth Africa would have taken up the run chase.

We were one wicket away from breaking into the tail and there are numerous examples of a team's tail crumbling on the last day of a Test match.

Your case is speculative at best. We really struggled to get 5 wickets in 127 overs where pedestrian batsman were able to withstand Warne on a 5th day.

First, I thought we batted too long at the time.

Second, add the fact that we set them 70+ more runs than anyone had ever scored to win a fourth innings run chase.

Like I said its hindsight supported by the speculative.

However, I agree with you about the forthcoming South African series. I could not think of two more ordinary touring sides than SA and NZ unless you put Zimbabwe and Bangladesh instead.

I recall the declaration. The drinks break before tea was tipped in the commentary box first, then about 20min after drinks. As Hodge got closer to the double hundred it strung out. Ricky would or should of declared when Hodge was about 160.

The more this debate has gone on, the more I recall. The lead was approx. 430 at the time. I also recall Mark Taylor and Heals holding back or at least getting their point across that the time was right for a declaration with a lifeless pitch and not much turn.

Whether it was 430/490, the South Africans would not have chased. And given the state of the wicket and extreme concentrated effort of the South African middle order, extra overs would not have assisted.

[H_T 3,038]

Whether it was 430/490, the South Africans would not have chased. And given the state of the wicket and extreme concentrated effort of the South African middle order, extra overs would not have assisted.

At the end of the day, we might not see eye to eye in this case. Whilst I usually couldn't give a 'continental' about a match played 3 years ago, I will endeavour to paint a clearer picture - if that is possible.

Ok. The Aussies set the Sth Africans 491 with 4 sessions remaining. With the likes of Warne , McGrath both world class bowlers - if not the best of their kind in their field of expertise throughout the history of cricket - bowling for the Aussies.

Session 1 - Even if the Sth Africans had batted "really well" and managed 0/120 in the last session of Day 4. It still would have left a mammoth total run chase of approx. 371 runs to get on Day 5 with 10 wkts in hand. That is more than 4 runs an over in a TEST against the number 1 cricketing nation in the world. That is nigh impossible IMO - even against a West Indies outfit - if they were Sth Africa's opposition.

It's no wonder they went defensive to achieve a draw.

The declaration should have come sooner IMO.

(HT downs the rest of his beer and says to RR "Its your shout") :D

[titan_uranus 24,873]

Pollock's been gone a while and Ntini is on his last legs. They generally play an average spinner now (Harris) and have some decent young quicks.

Gibbs looks to be finished and McKenzie has returned. Amla's doing okay as a middle-order batsman.

Boucher still plays.

I can't believe Boucher is still playing. How old is he?

Amla, McKenzie, De Villiers, Kallis, Prince and Smith are all doing very nicely. Last time we played them Prince was Warne's bunny. He couldn't get a start. Now he's arguably their best or second best bastman. Moving De Villiers down the order has seen him flourish. Usually one of those 6 fires in a match.

As for their bowlers, Ntini, while old, is still effective, Dale Steyn, when not injured, bowls faster than Lee. They've got Morkel and Nel as well. So overall I think they'll provide more than a decent challenge. Expect at least one loss over the 6 tests we play home and away.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Ok. The Aussies set the Sth Africans 491 with 4 sessions remaining. With the likes of Warne , McGrath both world class bowlers - if not the best of their kind in their field of expertise throughout the history of cricket - bowling for the Aussies.

Session 1 - Even if the Sth Africans had batted "really well" and managed 0/120 in the last session of Day 4. It still would have left a mammoth total run chase of approx. 371 runs to get on Day 5 with 10 wkts in hand. That is more than 4 runs an over in a TEST against the number 1 cricketing nation in the world. That is nigh impossible IMO - even against a West Indies outfit - if they were Sth Africa's opposition.

It's no wonder they went defensive to achieve a draw.

And the same argument applies if the South Africans were set 420/430 to win. They would have gone defensive anyway against the best side in the world so declaring earlier would not have made a difference at all to the tactics of the South Africans in that final innings. In the first hour with an attacking field, hard ball on a most batsman friendly deck ever, they were 29 off 14 overs. What a mindset!

The issue was Australia taking 10 wickets on a wicket that completely nullified the sting of the bowlers and got progressively worse over the course of the Test. We struggled to get 5 wickets in 4 sessions and 127 overs and I mean struggled (being the No 1 cricket nation in the world with two of its greatest bowlers operating). The radio commentators were calling this game a draw just after lunch on the final day. The conditions and the benign nature of the wicket killed the contest and the Australian were never going to get the 10 wickets. And its pure speculation to suggest otherwise if they had another 40 minutes of bowling at the South Africans that a different outcome would have endured in the conditions.

Furthermore, I think there is a limitation to how long a side can maintain the attack on the opposition. Any bowling side that is in the field for over 4 continuous sessions is going to find it difficult to maintain the attack without the real and reasonable prospect of facing a batting side amassing a considerable total. Indeed despite determined efforts, the sting and zip had gone out of the Australian bowlers having been blunted by the pitch for the last session and a half. If Ponting had reasonably contemplated that he would need over 4 sessions and possibly up to 5 sessions to bowl South Africa he would have had doubts that his bowlers could deliver the goods and consequentially South Africa could amass a considerable score.

The outcome to the Test was extremely unusual for a team to defend in a 4th innings for so long especially against such a renowned attack that had been completely blunted by such a sub standard pitch.

And the conditions I think undermined the rating of Hodge's 200 by selectors over the following 12 months.

(RR catches HT as he stumbles awkwardly placing empty glass on bar and suggests he take a taxi home. )

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I can't believe Boucher is still playing. How old is he?

Amla, McKenzie, De Villiers, Kallis, Prince and Smith are all doing very nicely. Last time we played them Prince was Warne's bunny. He couldn't get a start. Now he's arguably their best or second best bastman. Moving De Villiers down the order has seen him flourish. Usually one of those 6 fires in a match.

As for their bowlers, Ntini, while old, is still effective, Dale Steyn, when not injured, bowls faster than Lee. They've got Morkel and Nel as well. So overall I think they'll provide more than a decent challenge. Expect at least one loss over the 6 tests we play home and away.

Its hard to win Test matches in Australia or anywhere when you dont have a spinner

[H_T 3,038]

And the same argument applies if the South Africans were set 420/430 to win.

With a different target (lower target - of 420) for the South Africans and more overs & time up the sleeve, I fail to see how the same argument would apply. A different set of circumstances presents itself. I'm sure the 0/29 start off first 14 overs would not have been replicated.

They would have gone defensive anyway against the best side in the world so declaring earlier would not have made a difference at all to the tactics of the South Africans in that final innings. In the first hour with an attacking field, hard ball on a most batsman friendly deck ever, they were 29 off 14 overs. What a mindset!

This is where the difference of opinion is. You say declaring earlier -- whether it be giving 4 and a half or 5 sessions - would not have made a difference at all to the tactics of Sth Africa in the final innings. I disagree with that, its that simple.

The issue was Australia taking 10 wickets on a wicket that completely nullified the sting of the bowlers and got progressively worse over the course of the Test.

If 10 wickets is the issue on that wicket that you say "completely" nullified the sting of the bowlers, wouldn't that be all the more reason to declare earlier and provide more time for your bowlers to strike?; and entice Sth Africa to chase?; hence more risks; hence more chances of wickets; hence a result (win). I believe so RR.

(RR catches HT as he stumbles awkwardly placing empty glass on bar and suggests he take a taxi home. )

I'm no Nathan Carroll RR. Take it Easy Dutchy...

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I'm no Nathan Carroll RR. Take it Easy Dutchy...

And I was not going to mention the punching of a Swedish backpacker!!

[Rogue 585]

It's disappointing that Bond has been banned by NZ cricket because he'd make the series watchable.

I fear it will be pretty one-sided, but I'm looking forward to seeing SA tour.

While you deride this as 'speculation' you've asserted that S.A. weren't going to chase down the 400+ target whether it was 420 or 490.

If this is so - and Test cricket history suggets they weren't going to chase down such a score - we wasted time batting out those extra overs.

It doesn't matter what your score is if you can't take 20 wickets, so if we made more runs than we needed we should have declared earlier.

More time = more opportunity to take wickets.

Anyhow, as I said many posts back, I believe we'll need to agree to disagree.

If 10 wickets is the issue on that wicket that you say "completely" nullified the sting of the bowlers, wouldn't that be all the more reason to declare earlier and provide more time for your bowlers to strike?; and entice Sth Africa to chase?; hence more risks; hence more chances of wickets; hence a result (win). I believe so RR.

Indeed!

Regardless of whether SA chased us more balls bowled = more chances for a wicket, even if it's simply down to a break in concentration on the batsman's behalf.

I find RR's argument bizarre when he admits that we had more than enough runs at 490 - if we were okay with less we should have declared for less, given the aim of the game is to take 20 wickets - but I don't think he's not going to budge

[QueenC 74]

I can't believe Boucher is still playing. How old is he?

He's about 30'ish I think, and I think you will find that Kallis is a bit older.

[Rogue 585]

He's about 30'ish I think, and I think you will find that Kallis is a bit older.

I think they're both in their early 30's.

[titan_uranus 24,873]

Its hard to win Test matches in Australia or anywhere when you dont have a spinner

They do have a spinner: Paul Harris. And some other guy called Botha is vying for his spot, so I guess maybe he's a spinner as well.

The South African team to play Bangladesh in the 1st of two tests today is:

1. Smith 2. McKenzie 3. Amla 4. Kallis 5. De Villiers 6. Prince 7. Boucher 8. Harris 9. Morkel 10. Steyn 11. Ntini

Similar to India in that they play 6 batsmen and 4 bowlers. Kallis will bowl as well.

He's about 30'ish I think, and I think you will find that Kallis is a bit older.

But to me Boucher looks older. Plus I'd thought he'd retired already...

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

They do have a spinner: Paul Harris. And some other guy called Botha is vying for his spot, so I guess maybe he's a spinner as well.

The South African team to play Bangladesh in the 1st of two tests today is:

1. Smith 2. McKenzie 3. Amla 4. Kallis 5. De Villiers 6. Prince 7. Boucher 8. Harris 9. Morkel 10. Steyn 11. Ntini

Similar to India in that they play 6 batsmen and 4 bowlers. Kallis will bowl as well.

But to me Boucher looks older. Plus I'd thought he'd retired already...

South Africa does not have a recognised front line spinner. Paul Harris isnt. Botha isnt. Both are left arm orthodox. Unless you are Bishen Bedi or Daniel Vettori, left arm orthodox does not have a great history in Australia. They will struggle without one.

Most countries play 6 batsman and 4 bowlers. There is very little similarity between India and South Africa. Kallis bowls medium pace.

Boucher is 32. Kallis is 33.

[titan_uranus 24,873]

South Africa does not have a recognised front line spinner. Paul Harris isnt. Botha isnt. Both are left arm orthodox. Unless you are Bishen Bedi or Daniel Vettori, left arm orthodox does not have a great history in Australia. They will struggle without one.

The fact that they bowl left arm orthodox does not mean they're not front line spinners. But I guess you're right in that Australia doesn't bode well for them.

Kallis bowls medium pace.

Kallis has taken 240 Test wickets at 31.22, and took 10 wickets in the 4 test series against England earlier this year. He can bowl.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

The fact that they bowl left arm orthodox does not mean they're not front line spinners. But I guess you're right in that Australia doesn't bode well for them.

Kallis has taken 240 Test wickets at 31.22, and took 10 wickets in the 4 test series against England earlier this year. He can bowl.

They are not front line spinners...period. Neither are they anywhere near the calibre of Vettori or the Indians.

Kallis does not bowl spin. He is a most capable player in a side which has some real question marks. However, he is another medium pacer who cannot be relied upon to clean up on a 5th day wicket.

[QueenC 74]

So I guess just being "Roy" is enough to get selected these days, as he has done bugger all else to deserve the nod.......

Symonds will play against Kiwis

I feel for both Krezja and Watson (fighting for the last spot apparently) who frankly deserved better coming out of India.

[H_T 3,038]

So I guess just being "Roy" is enough to get selected these days, as he has done bugger all else to deserve the nod.......

Symonds will play against Kiwis

I feel for both Krezja and Watson (fighting for the last spot apparently) who frankly deserved better coming out of India.

Well well well. Gilchrist himself couldn't see how Symonds could get a start against the Kiwi's in the first test. Tbh neither could I based on his form which has been nothing short of poor. Will this decision put some noses out of joint? It remains to be seen.

IMO Watson and Krezja both performed well, at the very least were the best of the bowlers last test in India. Its very unfortunate for one of them to miss. Regardless of the state of the wicket in Brisbane being reportedly greener than ever.

IMO, I would consider Brett Lee to be very fortunate on being selected, for 2 good reasons: -

1/ His bowling form - out of sorts in India.

2/ Had virus, has lost several kilos - like M.Clarke - despite now improved health. Could do with a break before a long summer.

[Rogue 585]

I feel for both Krezja and Watson (fighting for the last spot apparently) who frankly deserved better coming out of India.

If you're batting at six and only average in the 20's you're always going to be under some pressure.

Watson might be saved by the Gabba pitch though.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

If you're batting at six and only average in the 20's you're always going to be under some pressure.

Watson might be saved by the Gabba pitch though.

Agree.

If there is a green tinge in the pitch, Krezja will mix the cordials and Watson will play on his home turf with Symonds to provide some spin if needed.

Krezja will have stacks of chances this summer to impress. There is hardly a queue of worthy spin challengers beating down the selector's door at the moment.

[Rogue 585]

Yep. Seems we agree on this one

[H_T 3,038]

If you're batting at six and only average in the 20's you're always going to be under some pressure.

Watson might be saved by the Gabba pitch though.

Sure. And his bowling.

Yep. Seems we agree on this one

Yay!

[45HG 1,539]

And I was lambusted for saying our next side shouldn't include a spinner!

[titan_uranus 24,873]

If there is a green tinge in the pitch, Krezja will mix the cordials and Watson will play on his home turf with Symonds to provide some spin if needed.

Krezja will have stacks of chances this summer to impress. There is hardly a queue of worthy spin challengers beating down the selector's door at the moment.

Agreed. On this pitch, which got rained on last night again, Watson will do better than Krejza.