Anyone for cricket?

[45HG 1,539]

Since Clarke has become captain:

Versus SL

23 (In at 2-36 off 9.4 overs)

60 (2-5, 3.2)

13 (2-95, 36.5)

6 (3-101, 35.5)

112 (3-188, 55.5)

Versus SA

151 (3-40,16.2)

2 (2-11, 5.3)

11 (3-193, 46.3)

2 (3-141, 36.5)

Versus NZ

139 (3-91, 27.1)

22 (3-31, 15.2)

0 (3-159, 45.4)

Versus India

31 (3-159, 48.3)

1 (3-24, 11.3)

329* (3-37, 8.5)

18 (3-242, 44.5)

210 (3-84, 25.5)

37 (3-40, 11.4)

Versus West Indies

73 (3-84, 23.6)

6 (3-126, 33.6)

45 (3-83,32.3)

15 (3-57, 24.5)

24 (3-105, 45.3)

25 (3-112, 55.2)

Versus South Africa

218* (3-40, 9.3)

When he's come in after the team has posted 100, he has scores of 6, 112, 11, 2, 0, 31, 18, 6, 24 and 25 - 235 runs at 23.5 (10 innings)

When he's come in before the team has posted 100 he has scores of 23, 60, 13, 151, 2, 139, 22, 1, 329*, 210, 37, 73, 45, 15 and 218* - 1338 runs at 102.92 (15 innings)

I suppose the balance is there, but I'd rather see Clarke stride out at 1-30 than 3-50 odd. 3/5 times he's coming in with the score at less than 100.

For the record, Clarke averages 68.38 since being made captain and has now pushed his career average over 50. He's made 1000 runs this year at over 110.

Today's score is his 3rd double century of the year, making him only third player to achieve this.

He has been very well managed throughout his career.

[King Kunta 97]

The ball has been moving around enough and the bowling has been tidy but, for the most, impatient and unthreatening.

3 wickets off of no balls doesn't help, either.

If this was nearing stumps day 3, it'd be massively game on.

The rain would also have slowed up the development of the pitch. Test matches that favour the bowlers are fun, but 2 day tests aren't great all of the time. It's good to have a mixture.

If it hadn't rained day two South Africa wouldn't have upped the tempo and in most likelihood Kallis would have gone onto a double hundred and De Villiers probably would have tonned up, in addition to Amla being given rightfully not out they would of most likely batted into day 3.

A day's play, extended by an hour, to only yield one wicket which was a fluky run out, doesn't stimulate my cricket juices but each to their own.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Just a ripping, ripping post.

In fact, if you look up anti-mozz in the dictionary, this post will appear,

Before your post, Clarke had played 77 matches at an average of 45,81.

Since then, he has scored 927 runs at 103!

Its now over a 1000 at about 114.

And to think some posters wanted him gone! Unbelievable.

Truly majestic performance by the Australias against the No 1 pace attack in the world. Leave them chasing leather for a half a day after what they have been through for the past day and a half.

In the past year, Clarke has hit 2 doubles and one triple. The last person to do that was Bradman in 1930.

It's about time .We carried the arrogant little bogan for long enough .At last he is doing his job .

Ugh Ugh.

If it hadn't rained day two South Africa wouldn't have upped the tempo and in most likelihood Kallis would have gone onto a double hundred and De Villiers probably would have tonned up, in addition to Amla being given rightfully not out they would of most likely batted into day 3.

Kallis batted like he has batted all his career. At his own tempo. You need to stop fantasizing and graps the reality as hard as it is.

Amla's dismissal is another example of the soft egg approach which has dogged SA cricket for years. Its inexplicable two experienced players (Amla and Kallis) did not challenge the decision. They have themselves to blame for letting the game go.

A day's play, extended by an hour, to only yield one wicket which was a fluky run out, doesn't stimulate my cricket juices but each to their own.

Back to 20-20 cricket and the fireworks.

[titan_uranus 24,993]

If it hadn't rained day two South Africa wouldn't have upped the tempo and in most likelihood Kallis would have gone onto a double hundred and De Villiers probably would have tonned up, in addition to Amla being given rightfully not out they would of most likely batted into day 3.

A day's play, extended by an hour, to only yield one wicket which was a fluky run out, doesn't stimulate my cricket juices but each to their own.

They never upped the tempo. Look at their strike rates. de Villiers, Rudolph, Philander and Steyn all struggled to make runs.

Two wickets off no balls, dropped catches, edges between slips and poor umpiring decisions on LBWs have meant batsmen have had a lot of luck. Of the 4 centurions, Amla could easily have been given out for 0 (look at it live, it was close enough to be out) and should have been caught on 75, Kallis was out on 43 but for the no ball, Cowan was out for 40-odd but for the no ball, and Clarke edged about 10 deliveries and a decent fielder at mid on would have caught him for 50-odd (or whatever he was on when he skied the edge to mid on and Philander insipidly tried running back to get it).

This pitch wasn't the road you make it out to be. Cowan, Clarke, Amla and Kallis batted enormously well (Hussey and Peterson too). Note that South Africa lost 6/74 from when Kallis went out. Our bowlers took regular wickets but for that partnership, which should have ended well earlier anyway. South Africa erred by not playing Tahir; if they'd had him, things would be different I suspect.

[King Kunta 97]

Kallis batted like he has batted all his career. At his own tempo. You need to stop fantasizing and graps the reality as hard as it is.

He had been leaving everything outside off on day one and then came out and started flashing on day three due to the reduction in time. Surely you understand with the loss of a days play and their advantageous position they picked up the tempo which resulted in the Kallis and De Villiers wickets.

Amla's dismissal is another example of the soft egg approach which has dogged SA cricket for years. Its inexplicable two experienced players (Amla and Kallis) did not challenge the decision. They have themselves to blame for letting the game go.

Back to 20-20 cricket and the fireworks.

Not sure what they were letting go, day 3 and they were on 400 odd. No point batting into the 4th day and making the game certainly a draw.

Wanting a pitch that will yield a result as opposed to a nonrespondent lifeless pitch is something all fans should want. Surely you would prefer a final day chase as opposed to mere stat padding? If cricket's going to stay alive and grow the curators will have to give both the batsmen and bowlers a chance as the crowds are dwindling as there barely seemed to be 5000 at the ground today.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

He had been leaving everything outside off on day one and then came out and started flashing on day three due to the reduction in time. Surely you understand with the loss of a days play and their advantageous position they picked up the tempo which resulted in the Kallis and De Villiers wickets.

Thats pure rubbish.

Kallis made his 1st 50 in 63 balls. His 2nd 50 in 105 balls on day 3 and his last 45 off 106 balls. His run rate got slower as he went on.

From a team perspective on the first day they 2/255 off 82 overs (3.1 runs per over). When Kallis went out with the score on 374 off 124 overs, the Proteas run rate was just above 3 runs per over. They have got slower as they went on and never pushed the run rate. At no time did they take the initiative for the game. The inability of two experienced players not to have challenged Amla's dismissal is gobsmacking.

Now compare that to the Australias who from the start of the innings batted with purpose and resolve against the best bowling attack in the world were score at over 4 runs an over.. You should stop making things up.

Not sure what they were letting go, day 3 and they were on 400 odd. No point batting into the 4th day and making the game certainly a draw.

Wanting a pitch that will yield a result as opposed to a nonrespondent lifeless pitch is something all fans should want. Surely you would prefer a final day chase as opposed to mere stat padding? If cricket's going to stay alive and grow the curators will have to give both the batsmen and bowlers a chance as the crowds are dwindling as there barely seemed to be 5000 at the ground today.

That is exactly the purpose. They need to accumulate as close to 500 runs on day 3 as soon as possible. They meandered and sacrificed Amla. Where was the desire.

And FMD, show me a 4th day wicket that gives life and response to fast bowlers. If you could follow the tactics of the Test you make work out that Australia has gone from being at risk of innings defeat to potentially putting itself with an outside chance of putting some pressure back on the Proteas if it can get to 200 runs in front at lunch. Then for 2 sessions, the Australians have nothing to lose by giving the SAs both barrels. You dont understand the psychological importance of Clarke and Cowen with Hussey standing up to the Proteas attack. Unless he can move the ball then Philander at 128-130kmph is going to find wickets hard to come by. Australia has dented him and neutered Kleinweldt. Kallis gave them little. The unfortunate loss of Duminy will further imbalance their side in this series.

And crowds dwindling on the 4th day of a Test held on Monday workday....How can that be?

If you going to slag a pitch off in Australia head down to the newly laid Bellerive. Brisbane is a world class pitch. You undermine the achievement of the Australians today. I guess when Aust was 3-40 you must have been writing Australia off on a bowlers wicket.

[Whispering_Jack 30,008]

I'm loving this test despite the fact that the conditions are stacked in favour of the batsmen.

I know these things happen on the Sub Continent but when was the last time a whole day's play went by without a wicket falling to a bowler over here?

[King Kunta 97]

You've gone away from my original point that this pitch has heavily favoured the batsmen which has come at the expense of a tight contest and ultimately the purist's viewing expense. It is also evident that the crowds have been woeful, 4500 today and 11,000 on Sunday after the initial 25,000 show that people aren't willing to pay to see these types of matches.

And FMD, show me a 4th day wicket that gives life and response to fast bowlers. If you could follow the tactics of the Test you make work out that Australia has gone from being at risk of innings defeat to potentially putting itself with an outside chance of putting some pressure back on the Proteas if it can get to 200 runs in front at lunch. Then for 2 sessions, the Australians have nothing to lose by giving the SAs both barrels. You dont understand the psychological importance of Clarke and Cowen with Hussey standing up to the Proteas attack. Unless he can move the ball then Philander at 128-130kmph is going to find wickets hard to come by. Australia has dented him and neutered Kleinweldt. Kallis gave them little. The unfortunate loss of Duminy will further imbalance their side in this series.

Most pitches around the world will offer variance in sideways movement off the seam and variance in bounce on the 4th day but the Gabba's been a road and a slow one at that. Psychologically I admire the Cowan and Clarke of course, but the pitch failed to provide a surface to adequately test their respective techniques.

Also what about that Kleinveldt guy he bowls absolute puss; I play second eleven subbies and I reckon would put him to shame and he seemed to overstep every second delivery.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

You've gone away from my original point that this pitch has heavily favoured the batsmen which has come at the expense of a tight contest and ultimately the purist's viewing expense. It is also evident that the crowds have been woeful, 4500 today and 11,000 on Sunday after the initial 25,000 show that people aren't willing to pay to see these types of matches.

The pitch hasn't heavily favoured the batsman that much. Its just that the Brisbane pitch has not been as responsive as it normally is to bowlers. It is still a good wicket for cricket. On the first day when the pitch required the bowlers to work hard, the Australians were far too short and gave SA a good start. The full day wash out on the 2nd day took the sting out of this Test.

And your comments on the crowds are naive. Brisbane, as the venue for the first test in the series always draws a strong crowd on the 1st day. The lack of play on the 2nd day (a Saturday) took a major impetus out of the Test. And as happens in Brisbane and other venues the crowds do tamper off on the 4th and 5th day especially when something like ummmmm work/school intervenes.

If you actually did some hard research rather plucking number to suit a point of view, you would have a more rounded argument.

Most pitches around the world will offer variance in sideways movement off the seam and variance in bounce on the 4th day but the Gabba's been a road and a slow one at that. Psychologically I admire the Cowan and Clarke of course, but the pitch failed to provide a surface to adequately test their respective techniques.

Also what about that Kleinveldt guy he bowls absolute puss; I play second eleven subbies and I reckon would put him to shame and he seemed to overstep every second delivery.

Well you comment about 4th day is 100% bulltish. Good 4th day pitches are the complete opposite. In fact many of the 4th day pitches around the world actually start to crumble and break apart. The pitch is true but its not a traditional Brisbane pitch of the past 10 years. But it is still a very good wicket. You need to get the blinkers off.

And I agree about Kleinweldt. I thought Philander looked impotent and Smith's bowling showed me that I retired too early from 1st class cricket.

[H_T 3,043]

Superb batting by Clarke, Cowan and like a fine bottle of wine Hussey has put Australia in with a very slim chance of victory. Whilst a draw is more likely for today given the state of the pitch on Day 5, Sth Africa can rule out a win for themselves and may face a nervous time in the afternoon if there is a collapse of sorts on their behalf.

Michael Clarke is certainly performing well as captain with the bat as previously mentioned above (see 45HG16's stats) and may quickly add to his tally in this mornings play, along with Mike Hussey.

[H_T 3,043]

And I agree about Kleinweldt. I thought Philander looked impotent and Smith's bowling showed me that I retired too early from 1st class cricket.

Who did you play for, RR?

[H_T 3,043]

Here's an article posted on the MFC website very recently. Matthew Wade and Jeremy Howe (cousins) have six balls at each other. Bit of fun.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/150991/default.aspx

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Who did you play for, RR?

Tongue in cheek XI HT.

Superb batting by Clarke, Cowan and like a fine bottle of wine Hussey has put Australia in with a very slim chance of victory. Whilst a draw is more likely for today given the state of the pitch on Day 5, Sth Africa can rule out a win for themselves and may face a nervous time in the afternoon if there is a collapse of sorts on their behalf.

Michael Clarke is certainly performing well as captain with the bat as previously mentioned above (see 45HG16's stats) and may quickly add to his tally in this mornings play, along with Mike Hussey.

The absence of Duminy assists the slim chance.... and it is slim at that. But full marks to the Australians they have come out blazing which seems a different approach to their opponent...

[Nasher 33,613]

And I agree about Kleinweldt. I thought Philander looked impotent and Smith's bowling showed me that I retired too early from 1st class cricket.

What about Amla then? What a chukka! That said, I doubt the batsmen were complaining; he's definitely no Murali.

[titan_uranus 24,993]

You've gone away from my original point that this pitch has heavily favoured the batsmen which has come at the expense of a tight contest and ultimately the purist's viewing expense. It is also evident that the crowds have been woeful, 4500 today and 11,000 on Sunday after the initial 25,000 show that people aren't willing to pay to see these types of matches.

It hasn't 'heavily' favoured the batsmen.

All five centurions were either out to a no ball (Kallis, Cowan) or dropped (Amla, Clarke) or extraordinarily close to being out LBW (Amla, Hussey). Today we knocked over their top 3 in short succession. There has been some great batting, sure, and it's been a good deck to bat on, but this game would have played out very differently if Siddle hadn't overstepped on Day 1 when he got Kallis out.

As for your crowd rubbish, the initial 25,000 happened to be the best non-Ashes crowd in years. And then you're surprised people haven't come back after whole day's play was lost? The result was nearly put beyond doubt because of that, and you're surprised people didn't come. Wow.

[King Kunta 97]

And your comments on the crowds are naive. Brisbane, as the venue for the first test in the series always draws a strong crowd on the 1st day. The lack of play on the 2nd day (a Saturday) took a major impetus out of the Test. And as happens in Brisbane and other venues the crowds do tamper off on the 4th and 5th day especially when something like ummmmm work/school intervenes.

If you actually did some hard research rather plucking number to suit a point of view, you would have a more rounded argument.

The crowds have been abysmal since the first day, you can't deny that. It is in part due to people want to see results and things happen, not games that meander along with no result and this pitch has not induced wickets and therefor the game has been a fizzer. As for 'plucking number' the crowd attendance figures seem to reflect the interest in the game, don't you think?

Well you comment about 4th day is 100% bulltish. Good 4th day pitches are the complete opposite. In fact many of the 4th day pitches around the world actually start to crumble and break apart. The pitch is true but its not a traditional Brisbane pitch of the past 10 years. But it is still a very good wicket. You need to get the blinkers off.

You're contradicting yourself saying 4th day pitches offering variation in seam movement and bounce is "bulltish", but then go on to say many 4th day pitches start to crumble and break which creates natural variation in bounce and movement... Also you seem to think it's a good wicket because it stays true but pitches should crumble and offer natural variation in the latter days of a test rather than stay consistent in movement, pace and bounce. The aim is to get a result not for batsmen to boost their averages.

As for your crowd rubbish, the initial 25,000 happened to be the best non-Ashes crowd in years. And then you're surprised people haven't come back after whole day's play was lost? The result was nearly put beyond doubt because of that, and you're surprised people didn't come. Wow.

That's my point, there was a lot of anticipation for the first test of the summer and Brisbane finally hosted a top ranked team so they obviously drew well on the first day. But the conditions haven't been conducive to entertaining cricket and as a result people haven't turned up. That's BS that a rained out day will put any cricket result beyond doubt. They get about half of it back in extended play, it's the pitch that created the draw not the rain don't kid yourself.

Anyway if you two prefer watching leather fly to all corners of the ground that's your prerogative, for mine I (as a quick myself) would rather see an even contest between bat and ball especially with some of the quality quicks going around.

[45HG 1,539]

If it was stumps on Day 4 and S.A. were essentially 6-51, on a deteriorating pitch, it'd be an entirely different conversation.

Losing a day of play with two good sides playing is always going to put a result in doubt. Especially on a decent batting wicket. Quoting crowds for a Monday and Tuesday is bizarre, let alone factoring in the crowd for a washed-out day.

As you say, the crowd for Sunday was poor - but a day missing and the away side batting at 2-255 isn't going to drag too many away, especially at the snail's pace S.A. approached the game. If they'd had batted with more intent, a result probably would still have been on the cards.

[titan_uranus 24,993]

That's my point, there was a lot of anticipation for the first test of the summer and Brisbane finally hosted a top ranked team so they obviously drew well on the first day. But the conditions haven't been conducive to entertaining cricket and as a result people haven't turned up. That's BS that a rained out day will put any cricket result beyond doubt. They get about half of it back in extended play, it's the pitch that created the draw not the rain don't kid yourself.

Anyway if you two prefer watching leather fly to all corners of the ground that's your prerogative, for mine I (as a quick myself) would rather see an even contest between bat and ball especially with some of the quality quicks going around.

The 'conditions' you speak of were primarily, if not solely, the weather, not the pitch.

At tea on Day 5 a result was a distinct possibility, and you're whinging about the game being dead. This was not a road. The bowlers bowled well and would have taken more wickets if they'd not bowled no balls. As I said, and you conveniently ignored, if Kallis had gone for 43 on Day 1, this game would have been entirely different.

Edited November 13, 2012 by titan_uranus

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

The crowds have been abysmal since the first day, you can't deny that. It is in part due to people want to see results and things happen, not games that meander along with no result and this pitch has not induced wickets and therefor the game has been a fizzer. As for 'plucking number' the crowd attendance figures seem to reflect the interest in the game, don't you think?

Have you ever thought to compare the daily crowds of the 1st test in Brisbane over the years?? Guess they go down after the first days play. And you are plucking numbers when you take one game in isolation without consideration of the historical behaiour of crowds.

You're contradicting yourself saying 4th day pitches offering variation in seam movement and bounce is "bulltish", but then go on to say many 4th day pitches start to crumble and break which creates natural variation in bounce and movement... Also you seem to think it's a good wicket because it stays true but pitches should crumble and offer natural variation in the latter days of a test rather than stay consistent in movement, pace and bounce. The aim is to get a result not for batsmen to boost their averages.

Your point was that 4th day wickets offer sideways movement and seam. That my friend is bulltish. Many 4th day wickets tend to crumble and offer something for spinners not quicks. Its credit that the pitch has not deteriorated. Some pitches crumble sooner than others. Brisbane is one of the better wickets. It was 4th day pitch having had 3 days of cricket. The pitch was starting to deteriorate on the 5th day. Its not up to the pitch to get a result.....its the players. And with only 4 days of play Australia almost captured a win from way behind.

That's my point, there was a lot of anticipation for the first test of the summer and Brisbane finally hosted a top ranked team so they obviously drew well on the first day. But the conditions haven't been conducive to entertaining cricket and as a result people haven't turned up. That's BS that a rained out day will put any cricket result beyond doubt. They get about half of it back in extended play, it's the pitch that created the draw not the rain don't kid yourself.

Anyway if you two prefer watching leather fly to all corners of the ground that's your prerogative, for mine I (as a quick myself) would rather see an even contest between bat and ball especially with some of the quality quicks going around.

Again. Do the research on the crowd figures. And it is BS that a rained out day will put any cricket result beyond doubt. Its BS because no one made that point. The point is that it is harder to get a win result over 4 days than 5 days.

And you should replace cricket purist with cricket pretence. You have come on here to push one line of argument without anything more than strawman facts than have been dispelled at each turn. And I doubt whether there is anything quick about you.

[King Kunta 97]

If it was stumps on Day 4 and S.A. were essentially 6-51, on a deteriorating pitch, it'd be an entirely different conversation.

Losing a day of play with two good sides playing is always going to put a result in doubt. Especially on a decent batting wicket. Quoting crowds for a Monday and Tuesday is bizarre, let alone factoring in the crowd for a washed-out day.

As you say, the crowd for Sunday was poor - but a day missing and the away side batting at 2-255 isn't going to drag too many away, especially at the snail's pace S.A. approached the game. If they'd had batted with more intent, a result probably would still have been on the cards.

You can't make that comparison because as soon as the rain came both teams altered their strategy plus there was three hours recovered in longer days. Rather than hypothesising I would prefer to look at what happened which was a drawn game. Despite the players efforts to get a result.

Umm never quoted Saturday, and you can't simply ignore crowds on workdays that's ridiculous. Does that mean we eradicate Friday's as an outlier as it was also a weekday?

As you said, nobody wants to watch a team 2 down bat and bat and bat. So why don't they create more bowler friendly wickets?

The 'conditions' you speak of were primarily, if not solely, the weather, not the pitch.

At tea on Day 5 a result was a distinct possibility, and you're whinging about the game being dead. This was not a road. The bowlers bowled well and would have taken more wickets if they'd not bowled no balls. As I said, and you conveniently ignored, if Kallis had gone for 43 on Day 1, this game would have been entirely different.

I would rather a test match that is going down to the wire rather than a match with a "distinct possibility" of getting a result.

Firstly that is purely guesswork and your opinion; there is no way we know what happens if Kallis goes for 43, perhaps JP Duminy doesn't go for his run and doesn't injure himself and makes a hundred, no point in pondering what ifs? Also that possible dismissal, like many others, was the batsman's undoing rather than the bowlers. A pitch that relies on batsman's poor stroke-play rather than bowler's skill is not entertaining for me.

Have you ever thought to compare the daily crowds of the 1st test in Brisbane over the years?? Guess they go down after the first days play. And you are plucking numbers when you take one game in isolation without consideration of the historical behaiour of crowds.

Your point was that 4th day wickets offer sideways movement and seam. That my friend is bulltish. Many 4th day wickets tend to crumble and offer something for spinners not quicks. Its credit that the pitch has not deteriorated. Some pitches crumble sooner than others. Brisbane is one of the better wickets. It was 4th day pitch having had 3 days of cricket. The pitch was starting to deteriorate on the 5th day. Its not up to the pitch to get a result.....its the players. And with only 4 days of play Australia almost captured a win from way behind.

No, don't misquote me I said 4th day pitches "offer variance in sideways movement off the seam and variance in bounce on the 4th day" which is usually as a result of crumbling wicket and cracks appearing which create doubt into the batsman's minds as the ball's movement and bounce is variable.

Again. Do the research on the crowd figures. And it is BS that a rained out day will put any cricket result beyond doubt. Its BS because no one made that point. The point is that it is harder to get a win result over 4 days than 5 days.

And you should replace cricket purist with cricket pretence. You have come on here to push one line of argument without anything more than strawman facts than have been dispelled at each turn. And I doubt whether there is anything quick about you.

For a moderator you're incredibly petty and seem to struggle to be able to create useful retorts as opposed to the other posters, for a guy who has spent much of his life on an internet forum I thought you would be of a higher standard. Shame you turned a cricketing observation into personal attack but good job buddy.

Edited November 13, 2012 by New Age Hipster

[titan_uranus 24,993]

I would rather a test match that is going down to the wire rather than a match with a "distinct possibility" of getting a result.

Firstly that is purely guesswork and your opinion; there is no way we know what happens if Kallis goes for 43, perhaps JP Duminy doesn't go for his run and doesn't injure himself and makes a hundred, no point in pondering what ifs? Also that possible dismissal, like many others, was the batsman's undoing rather than the bowlers. A pitch that relies on batsman's poor stroke-play rather than bowler's skill is not entertaining for me.

According to this, you will only enjoy Tests whereby the game goes into the last session of Day 5, and all wickets fall to good balls and not batsmen undoing themselves.

I don't think that's really fair or realistic, do you? Fact is, despite losing a day, this Test was still completely alive on Day 5, and that's surely all anyone can ask for.

[titan_uranus 24,993]

To move on from the above banter and assess the match, I thought Lyon did a pretty decent job when he was asked to this match, and rewarded the selectors' faith. I also think South Africa really messed up playing Kleinveldt over Tahir. Lyon got good bounce and spin, and didn't shy away from Amla and Kallis going after him, which they're going to keep doing, as they seem him as weaker than Siddle and Pattison (fair). I think he bowled quite well, to be honest, and he got Rudolph, the leftie, out twice.

Thought Siddle and Pattison were enormous with their lines and lengths today. No balls killed us, but that's easier to fix (hopefully) than being crap. Hilfenhaus was ordinary and surely will be under pressure from Starc. Mitchell Johnson always bowled well against South Africa; I wonder if the left arm angle is something Amla/Kallis/de Villiers/etc don't like that much. Either way, I think Hilfy's in trouble.

Batting wise, Clarke is just a legend (average now above 50, as deserved), and proved yet again that he is in the top 3 or 4 in the world right now, and that has come from batting where he belongs, at 5. Cowan showed he has the perfect opener's technique, leaving the wide stuff and defending when he has to (similar to Katich in that regard).

If Watson's fit for Adelaide then sadly I think Quiney makes way, but Warner and Ponting need to make some runs. Ponting's age is a huge concern for him; despite the stack he made last summer, if he slips out of form he can't hold his spot forever. Warner is on thin ice IMO: one proper opener's innings (v NZ last year). The 180 in Perth was amazing, but he's not Hayden and can't do that regularly. The rest of his career is all little innings with no substance. Isn't there yet.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Pattison is a real trump of a bowler. Really really impressed by him.

If Clarke is not in the top 2 batsman this year then I dont know who should be. Great captaincy, peerless leadership and he really is a superb batsman.

Ponting needs runs this series. Warner has a bit of time on his side.

Have no qualms swapping Watson for Quniey if Watson is fit. Would happily go Starc for Hilfy. He looks so circa 2010 atm.

For SA, its easy Du Plessis for Duminy and Tahir for Kleinweldt.

I cant see what all the hoo haa is about the referral system on no balls. If you overstep then the bowler should not get the wicket.

[titan_uranus 24,993]

If Clarke is not in the top 2 batsman this year then I dont know who should be. Great captaincy, peerless leadership and he really is a superb batsman.

For me, it's Clarke and Amla. Chanderpaul and Kallis have also had good 2012s, but Amla pulls out 100s at the right times of series, and Clarke has been sensational.

For SA, its easy Du Plessis for Duminy and Tahir for Kleinweldt.

Not so sure about that. Tahir for Kleinveldt is clear, but don't be surprised if they play Tsolekeile instead of du Plessis, to relieve de Villiers of the keeping duties. I'm not sure how long de Villiers can keep batting at 5 for if he stays keeping wicket in long innings. His batting just isn't as good as it was when Boucher was around. So that one could go either way.

I cant see what all the hoo haa is about the referral system on no balls. If you overstep then the bowler should not get the wicket.

The issue I have is that umpires are only checking when a wicket is taken. Once the ball becomes a wicket-taking ball, they then check to see if it's a no-ball.

Ed Cowan was given four runs when he tried to pull a short ball. It didn't hit his bat, it hit his helmet. No one stepped in to review that. He kept runs he didn't deserve.

Frankly, if the umpire doesn't have the confidence to call it live, and wouldn't think twice about it if the delivery wasn't a no ball, then I have a problem with them using the wicket as an excuse to check it. Of course, the solution to it all is to stop bowling no balls, and I don't disagree that bowlers shouldn't be allowed to get away with it, but I have a problem with the inconsistency in the way umpires check their decisions.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

If we check everything we would be get through only half the required overs and would face an appeal against the light.

In regard to Cowan's incident let the SA challenge it as one of their challenges. No problem with that. The end result does not affect the score.

Giving someone out off a no ball is absolutely no no. And if you have agree they should not have this happen then where is the problem. It results in a more accurate outcome.