This site goes into meltdown for less than that.

Haha, so true. It can be unbearable after a loss (and equally cringe-worthy after a good win).

Vettori batted 7 in the first innings of the tour match, and batting 6 in the second innings

Has there been an injury, or are they trying to cover holes through the great all rounder?

Ryder's sick.

how hodge cant make the aussie team has got me stumped, he is better then katich and in form big time

how hodge cant make the aussie team has got me stumped, he is better then katich and in form big time

Certainly. He is very frustrated and understandably so. Last nights All Stars v Australia - he batted with alot more purpose than what you would expect from a hit and giggle game. Seeing Symonds get a Test Squad gig when completely in all sorts with his form would be tearing Hodge to shreds.

I'd be interested to see how Michael Clarke goes in the NZ series. There could be an opening there for Hodge come Sth Africa, if he continues churning out the runs at domestic level. Didn't Hodge chalk up a double century v Sth Africa in Perth last time?

Didn't Hodge chalk up a double century v Sth Africa in Perth last time?

He made 203* at the WACA in 2005 vs Sth Africa. Letting him get to 200 meant we declared too late, and Sth Africa were able to draw the test match. That was the match before we began our 15 match winning streak that didn't end until India earlier this year.

If Clarke's unwell, Hodge is the obvious replacement. I'm just unsure if the selectors want to pick another 33 year old.

He made 203* at the WACA in 2005 vs Sth Africa. Letting him get to 200 meant we declared too late, and Sth Africa were able to draw the test match. That was the match before we began our 15 match winning streak that didn't end until India earlier this year.

If Clarke's unwell, Hodge is the obvious replacement. I'm just unsure if the selectors want to pick another 33 year old.

It was a belter of a WACA track for batting and Sth Africa had a very pedestrian attack. Hodges first 100 was a battle but the 2nd 100 was against an attack that had its back broken. I think these conditions lead to a re rating of the innings beyond the runs.

We did not declare too late. Warne had a full day on the 5th day WACA wicket and could not bowl them out. Speaks volumes for the how insipidly placid the deck was.

Why do Test Curators prepare such characterless, benign, dead cricket wickets? Its been stuffing the Test competition for years.

It was a belter of a WACA track for batting and Sth Africa had a very pedestrian attack. Hodges first 100 was a battle but the 2nd 100 was against an attack that had its back broken. I think these conditions lead to a re rating of the innings beyond the runs.

We did not declare too late.

You could argue the proof's in the pudding - we were unable to knock them over and had plenty of runs to play with.

At the time I felt we should have declared earlier.

He made 203* at the WACA in 2005 vs Sth Africa. Letting him get to 200 meant we declared too late, and Sth Africa were able to draw the test match. That was the match before we began our 15 match winning streak that didn't end until India earlier this year.

If Clarke's unwell, Hodge is the obvious replacement. I'm just unsure if the selectors want to pick another 33 year old.

The selectors Andrew Hilditch) told Bryce McGain, age is no issue...

Why do Test Curators prepare such characterless, benign, dead cricket wickets? Its been stuffing the Test competition for years.

Its a mystery. Do Cricket Australia have a say in proceedings? Do they say, "Righto Perth we want it full of pace and bounce and we don't want to see cracks until the 3rd day", or "Sydney, just keep doing what you are doing and prepare a spinners paradise with nothing in it for the pace men."

You could argue the proof's in the pudding - we were unable to knock them over and had plenty of runs to play with.

At the time I felt we should have declared earlier.

Warney had a full day's bowling. However, it was Perth so you may have a point when looking at history on the final day in Perth.

PS. Saw Hodge go out in between sessions today at the G. Poor bugger could only get 3 runs. Trapped LBW.

Warney had a full day's bowling.

Yep. I replied to a post from RR which mentioned this.

As you note, we weren't playing at Sydney - it was the WACA and it was still a decent track.

We set South Africa 491, which would have been a record-breaking chase had they made it.

However, at the end of day five we'd only captured five wickets while they were over 200 behind.

They did bat fairly conservatively, but if they'd played more aggressively we would have had a higher likelihood of getting into the tail.

I have spent the last couple of days in at the SCG watching the dismal Kiwis play against my beloved "baby" Blues and I have to say that while I know how poor the New Zealand side were (and they really were), it was genuinely great to see so many players who have yet to learn how to shave play well as they did.

It was nice to see a glimpse of at least part of the future of Australian cricket.

The other thing was that on the first day both Michael Clarke and Brett Lee (as was Doug Bollinger who suffered with the same virus as they did) were there, they looked better then they did in India, but have been on drips and antibiotics and both, especially Pup, looked like they had lost a lot of weight.

They were however feeling better and confident of playing next Thursday. They were also very proud of the NSW kiddies they have helped step up.

Yep. I replied to a post from RR which mentioned this.

As you note, we weren't playing at Sydney - it was the WACA and it was still a decent track.

We set South Africa 491, which would have been a record-breaking chase had they made it.

However, at the end of day five we'd only captured five wickets while they were over 200 behind.

They did bat fairly conservatively, but if they'd played more aggressively we would have had a higher likelihood of getting into the tail.

Ponting declared giving him easily enough time to bowl them out. Given the placidity of the pitch, setting the South Africans anything sub 400 would have been treacherous and given them an outside sniff. Asking for 490 plays Sth Africa out of the Test.

We had 4 sessions (1 &1/3 days) at the Sth Africans where we bowled 127 overs at them. They had Rudolph who played the innings of his life against the best fifth day bowler in the world. How much earlier should you realistically declare to given yourself a good chance of getting 10 wickets? If you cant get 10 wickets in 127 overs, you might want to look at your bowling attack.

I have spent the last couple of days in at the SCG watching the dismal Kiwis play against my beloved "baby" Blues and I have to say that while I know how poor the New Zealand side were (and they really were), it was genuinely great to see so many players who have yet to learn how to shave play well as they did.

It was nice to see a glimpse of at least part of the future of Australian cricket.

The other thing was that on the first day both Michael Clarke and Brett Lee (as was Doug Bollinger who suffered with the same virus as they did) were there, they looked better then they did in India, but have been on drips and antibiotics and both, especially Pup, looked like they had lost a lot of weight.

They were however feeling better and confident of playing next Thursday. They were also very proud of the NSW kiddies they have helped step up.

Kerry O'Keeffe described Henriques as the player Portugal will be rueing as the one that got away. Golden.

The other thing was that on the first day both Michael Clarke and Brett Lee (as was Doug Bollinger who suffered with the same virus as they did) were there, they looked better then they did in India, but have been on drips and antibiotics and both, especially Pup, looked like they had lost a lot of weight.

It was reported yesterday, M.Clarke had lost something in the vicinity of 6-7 Kgs caused by the virus.

I have spent the last couple of days in at the SCG watching the dismal Kiwis play against my beloved "baby" Blues and I have to say that while I know how poor the New Zealand side were (and they really were), it was genuinely great to see so many players who have yet to learn how to shave play well as they did.

Once again, Daniel Vettori plays a lone hand for NZ. He's their best bowler, and frighteningly enough he's their most consistent batsman as well. You would think they wouldn't stand a chance against us at the Gabba.

Ponting declared giving him easily enough time to bowl them out. Given the placidity of the pitch, setting the South Africans anything sub 400 would have been treacherous and given them an outside sniff. Asking for 490 plays Sth Africa out of the Test.

We had 4 sessions (1 &1/3 days) at the Sth Africans where we bowled 127 overs at them. They had Rudolph who played the innings of his life against the best fifth day bowler in the world. How much earlier should you realistically declare to given yourself a good chance of getting 10 wickets? If you cant get 10 wickets in 127 overs, you might want to look at your bowling attack.

With a 490 target, what chance did we leave the South Africans? Not much, which meant they were content to bat out a draw rather than go for the win. If we'd declared a little earlier, then maybe, with a lower target, they might have gone a bit harder for it. However, you're right in that, in 127 overs, and with Warne, we should have taken more than 5 wickets.

With a 490 target, what chance did we leave the South Africans?

Exactly.

I had a quick look and we set a target that was 72 runs more than the highest successful fourth innings chase in Test cricket!

I struggle to see how you could have argued against an earlier declaration at the time (unless you're Hodge's Mum), let alone with the benefit of hindsight.

God forbid we give someone an 'outside sniff' by setting them a few runs off the second-highest successful chase in Test history, RR!

With a 490 target, what chance did we leave the South Africans? Not much, which meant they were content to bat out a draw rather than go for the win. If we'd declared a little earlier, then maybe, with a lower target, they might have gone a bit harder for it. However, you're right in that, in 127 overs, and with Warne, we should have taken more than 5 wickets.

Exactly.

I had a quick look and we set a target that was 72 runs more than the highest successful fourth innings chase in Test cricket!

I struggle to see how you could have argued against an earlier declaration at the time (unless you're Hodge's Mum), let alone with the benefit of hindsight.

God forbid we give someone an 'outside sniff' by setting them a few runs off the second-highest successful chase in Test history, RR!

I agree, the declaration should have been called about 40minutes earlier. Even the commentators at the time were voicing their opinions that the Aussies were forcing Sth Africa to shut up shop once they took to the bat. A lead of 420-430 with 1 and 1/2 days play would have made them bat more aggressively on Day 4.

Which is what I was alluding to regarding the history of Perth's pitch Rogue. Ie. Not conducive to spinners, not even Warnie.

Once again, Daniel Vettori plays a lone hand for NZ. He's their best bowler, and frighteningly enough he's their most consistent batsman as well. You would think they wouldn't stand a chance against us at the Gabba.

With a 490 target, what chance did we leave the South Africans? Not much, which meant they were content to bat out a draw rather than go for the win. If we'd declared a little earlier, then maybe, with a lower target, they might have gone a bit harder for it. However, you're right in that, in 127 overs, and with Warne, we should have taken more than 5 wickets.

If you think 491 runs for a win is unrealistic then deciding oh well lets be content to bat out 127 overs on a fifth day wicket against Warne. How many sides in a 4th innings have ever batted out 127 overs on a fifth day content on a draw?

By doing what we did we had well and truly closed out the Sth Africa out of the game and given us more than sufficient time to bowl out them.

Exactly.

I had a quick look and we set a target that was 72 runs more than the highest successful fourth innings chase in Test cricket!

I struggle to see how you could have argued against an earlier declaration at the time (unless you're Hodge's Mum), let alone with the benefit of hindsight.

God forbid we give someone an 'outside sniff' by setting them a few runs off the second-highest successful chase in Test history, RR!

Hindsight is a wonderful skill.

It does not matter about the runs so much as giving yourself enough time to bowl them out given you had closed them out of the game. With 127 overs we could have reasonably expect the game to be done by tea. And the fact it wasn't points to other issues bar the captain's decision

It took one unique and very special innings of concentration from Rudolph with some minor support to keep us out.

And given the state of the wicket there is no evidence that declaring an hour earlier would have made any difference given they were only 5 wickets down.

Really if there is any condemnation then CA and the curator should be hung for prepare a truly crap pitch.

I agree, the declaration should have been called about 40minutes earlier. Even the commentators at the time were voicing their opinions that the Aussies were forcing Sth Africa to shut up shop once they took to the bat. A lead of 420-430 with 1 and 1/2 days play would have made them bat more aggressively on Day 4.

Given we got 5 wickets in 127 overs what would an extra 40 minutes have given us? And how many fourth innings have gone for 127 overs to save the game.

The South Africans would not have gone for 420-430 against Warne anymore than they would 491.

Which is what I was alluding to regarding the history of Perth's pitch Rogue. Ie. Not conducive to spinners, not even Warnie.

Crap. Warne has regularly taken wickets at the WACA over his career in Tests. Perth used to be a quick wicket but has not been so for 15 to 20 years. Since then it has deteriorated into lifeless uncompetitive dead strip of turf.

By doing what we did we had well and truly closed out the Sth Africa out of the game and given us more than sufficient time to bowl out them.

We had more runs than we needed and didn't end up bowling them out.

Enough said.

Hindsight is a wonderful skill.

As I said, at the time I felt we were batting too long. As H_T has pointed out this wasn't exactly a left-field opinion at the time.

It does not matter about the runs so much as giving yourself enough time to bowl them out given you had closed them out of the game.

So we agree that providing you've closed the game out it doesn't matter about the runs too much - it's about giving yourself enough time to take the 10 wickets.

Need I present my comment about the highest successful fourth-innings chases in Test cricket history again?

And given the state of the wicket there is no evidence that declaring an hour earlier would have made any difference given they were only 5 wickets down.

As you've pointed out there was no need to keep batting as long as we did.

More time can only have increased our chance of taking the ten wickets, and given we were so far ahead the runs didn't really matter (as you said).

The South Africans would not have gone for 420-430 against Warne anymore than they would 491.

So we agree that Australia didn't need to bat as long as they did.

Jolly good.

PS. Hi, I'm brick. Try and get some blood out of me :D

......

No.

127 overs was more than enough time to achieve a result. We bowled them out for 296 in the first innings in 83 overs without the monkey of survival on South Africa's back. We would not have done any better had we had 137 overs or 147 overs or 157 overs.

By just after lunch on the last day it was clear where the game was going....nowhere. The pitch was as dead as a dodo and had got more benign as the game went on. The game limped through the motions for the last session.

Its a pity the pitch killed the contest not the decision to declare.

Any takers on any other team batting a draw in the 4th innings after facing 127 overs?

We would not have done any better had we had 137 overs or 147 overs or 157 overs.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

The way I see declarations is that you try and give yourself as much time as possible while also ensuring enough runs.

Obviously there are times where you need to make a sporting declaration in order to make a game of it or need to declare with less runs than you'd like because you're running out of time.

However, if you have set the opposition 70+ runs more than the highest ever successful chase in Test cricket history and subsequently run out time in your quest for 10 wickets that suggests you batted too long*...

* unless you're from the RR school of declarations

Given we got 5 wickets in 127 overs what would an extra 40 minutes have given us? And how many fourth innings have gone for 127 overs to save the game.

The South Africans would not have gone for 420-430 against Warne anymore than they would 491.

Crap. Warne has regularly taken wickets at the WACA over his career in Tests. Perth used to be a quick wicket but has not been so for 15 to 20 years. Since then it has deteriorated into lifeless uncompetitive dead strip of turf.

This is the type of conversation I usually like with a beer in my hand.

I think Rogue best summed it up, that an earlier declaration would of given a lesser target with more overs to face, giving the aussies more of an opportunity to skittle the Sth Africans.

An extra 40min to an hour can mean the difference between a draw and a win. About 15 overs or so more to get the remaining wickets. Importantly and not to be forgotten 15 more overs for them to chase down the 420-430. Which is alot easier than 491 with 15 extra overs with the likes of Warne in Perth.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

The way I see declarations is that you try and give yourself as much time as possible while also ensuring enough runs.

Obviously there are times where you need to make a sporting declaration in order to make a game of it or need to declare with less runs than you'd like because you're running out of time.

However, if you have set the opposition 70+ runs more than the highest ever successful chase in Test cricket history and subsequently run out time in your quest for 10 wickets that suggests you batted too long*...

* unless you're from the RR school of declarations

The fact of the matter at tea on the 4th day was that you had 127 overs at the opposition. Clearly not running out of time. History has shown at a variety of grounds that on a fifth day wicket with Warne in play that no side would reasonably survive so the declaration was both reasonable and logical.

The South Africans had a flat deck and 4 runs an over to get. Not impossible. By your estimation they would have had 420 to get in just over 140 overs at 3 an over. Even more achievable.

The fact that we only got 5 wickets in 127 overs would pours cold water on the fact we declared too late. We would never have got the 10 wickets. The declaration at the time was reasonable and fair.

You've only got hindsight to support your position and its nebulous at that.

By the way should we have had 254 overs to get them out?

An extra 40min to an hour can mean the difference between a draw and a win. About 15 overs or so more to get the remaining wickets. Importantly and not to be forgotten 15 more overs for them to chase down the 420-430. Which is alot easier than 491 with 15 extra overs with the likes of Warne in Perth.

We only got 5 wickets in 127 overs and there was little to suggest that the other 5 were in reach. South Africa were never in the hunt for the runs even on a flat deck. They batted poorly in the 1st innings and gave no indication they would ever chase the score. Both scenarios unlikely.

The fact of the matter at tea on the 4th day was that you had 127 overs at the opposition. Clearly not running out of time.

History has shown at a variety of grounds that on a fifth day wicket with Warne in play that no side would reasonably survive so the declaration was both reasonable and logical.

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.

The South Africans had a flat deck and 4 runs an over to get. Not impossible. By your estimation they would have had 420 to get in just over 140 overs at 3 an over. Even more achievable.

The fact that we only got 5 wickets in 127 overs would pours cold water on the fact we declared too late. We would never have got the 10 wickets. The declaration at the time was reasonable and fair.

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!

We only got 5 wickets in 127 overs and there was little to suggest that the other 5 were in reach.

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.

You've only got hindsight to support your position

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.

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.

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?