Rhino Richards

No7 is a bit harsh. How about 5? I like McCullum but I dont think his game is tight enough for spots 1 to 4. And that is recognising that existing NZ options dont have it either. i dont want to unnecessarily want to sacrifice him higher. FWIW I am happy with Taylor who is 24 at No 4. He is a capable batsman if he can develop the application required. I dont argue with points 2 and 3 and I note we agree on the opening issue.

On the back of one innings? McCullum has a wonderful eye and is a beautiful striker of the ball when required for a cameo but I dont think his application and technique are not suited to opening the batting and he is better at No 7. FWIW, Haddin is a similar style and I would not open with Haddin. In fact I dont like the concept of keepers being Test opening batsman. After a hard slog in the field it must be hard to have the necessary application to see off the new ball.

I was not calling for Lee to be dropped but he was using up his "Get Out of Jail Free cards". And had his poor form extended across the NZ and SA series then there would have been serious question marks about him for England. The simplest tactic to adopt in batting is occupation of the crease. NZ could not do that. Batsman dont make runs in the pavilion. The stats suggest that NZ could not bat for more than 100 overs even on the best batting wicket in the world, had only three partnerships that exceeded 50 and only 3 batsman that scored more than 50 at any time. Its an appalling peformance. The very least they could do would be to occupy the crease and when you are there the runs will eventually come. The high number of NZ dismissals to catches forward of the wicket highlights the technique and application issues. I was surprised to see many of the NZ batsman were late 20s in age. I would probably ditch Flynn, Fulton and question what future Ryder has at 3 if at all.

The problem with NZ batting is technique and more importantly application. Its got nothing to do with strategy. Their batting was not good enough to implement a simple strategy of building an innings What we have learnt is that there is real question marks about the batting order there. But this is not surprising given the impact of retirements of key players like Fleming, Astle etc which has robbed NZ of leadership, experience and character. There was a good article by Peter Roebuck on the malaise in NZ cricket. http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/magazine/c...ory/380440.html I have no problem with the first hour as NZ lost no wickets. 0/42 is a great position to be after the first hour of a Test. New ball, fresh attack, possibly something in the wicket. 2nd innings started on a belter of a pitch and the Australian attack early bowled poorly and the next morning the Australian bowlers in particular Lee found their line and got success where once again technique and application were found wanting. NZ were fv%ked once they were all out for a paltry 270 on a 450+ pitch at Adelaide. You cant dictate anything if you dont put runs on the board. Its got none of what it needs at the moment. Lee is there as a strike bowler. In India he did not strike. He was second fiddle to younger and more inexperienced bowler in Johnson. While many bowlers have struggled there, it did not hide that Lee had a very poor tour. Calendar year records go out the window if you start stringing together bad tests. His recent return to form has certainly given him breathing space to stamp his ticket for the Ashes tour. However, he needs to carry his revitalised form in against the SAs. If he lapses again the questions will come up about him and at 32 I think he realistically has about 2 years left at the top level.

Both Lee and Haddin have made the most of their opportunities today and all strength to them. And Ponting's catch at 2nd slip off Lee today was a ripper, as good as it gets.

No one is writing him off prematurely but recognising what he has been through and where he is at with his cricket. The lack of quality of the batting is neither he nor there. He bowled with far better rhythm than he has for month and was better shaping the ball. He is great when he can do that. But when he is not pinging he looks pedestrian very quickly. BTW, for the cricket fashionistas, I always liked the cable stitch jumper of the Australians (minus the sponsorship logos). NZ used to have a similar one. But what has happened? Their white jumpers with the banding on the next and shoulders looks hideous and amateurish (matches their batting). A sporting rival for last years MFC away guernsey??

I think the slow over rate issue is pushing on that and it is not unusual for fast bowlers later in their careers to reduce their run up. Having said that his afternoon spell has been far better with more pace and getting some swing. A good sign. Brad Haddin is struggling though.

??? Not at all. When Lee is not bowling well he looks all the more lame on good batting strips. He loses his outswing and is not bowling at 140kmh he becomes fodder (eg India 2008, Adelaide 2008, Aust vs India 200 He is a wonderfully athletic bowler but has never struck me as overly clever bowler particular in good batting conditions. At 32, he really needs to have developed more ways to remove a batsman. I understand he has been through alot on the field (cricket, illness) and off the field. It may be appropriate to rest him at some stage if the view is that they want at least experienced bowler for the Ashes tour.

2 cents well spent there.

Brett Lee wont see out the SA series the way he is going. He is running out of chances and flat decks just make him look even more insipid.

Sidebottom has done his back. http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/england/co...ory/378762.html In regard to spinners, isnt it a case of Ol' Mother Hubbard? I note Bryce McGain is making the long road back. I guess anyone who bowls off breaks is a chance of selection. Funky Miller anyone?

England have two potential match winners in Petersen and Flintoff. It rests with them as I dont think there is much else in the English side ATM. I am not sure if its a case of England being favorite. More like the gap between the two sides at the end of the last series being reduced. The SA series will be important to determine the composition of the Australian team. The lead up will be fascinating watch. I just hope the 2009 series is nearly as good as 2005 series. It may be asking too much to get one better. Prefer to win the Ashes.

I agree Katich probably had claims but not either of the Clarks/ Clarkes. However, I completely disagree about the wicket. After the first day, the pitch was fine for batting. In fact on day 3 and 4 the TV and radio commentators said it was a cracker to bat on with few cracks and the pitch was hard. The batting from both sides with exceptions was mediocre at best. And given your comments about Lee just makes Johnsons efforts even better. The selectors will be hoping to certainly take Lee to England for the Ashes as none of other bowlers quick or spin will have had English experience. They will give him every chance to make it.

Firstly, it was only a bowlers wicket on the first day and Australia batted on that. For the remaining days with the exception of Clarke, Taylor and Katich, no batsman applied the concentration and technique to take advantage of the conditions. Katich's innings put the match beyond NZ. The match was already defined by the low scores of the first innings and the big question mark over NZ' batting application. Clarke with a century in the making and just before stumps went out to a one day trundler. Then inexplicably ran himself out in the 2nd innings. Two bad lapses of concentration. Clark bowled well but his results on every measure were inferior to Johnsons. Credit where credit was due, Johnson performed with bat and ball. Lee is struggling at the moment and much is starting to rest on Johnson with the new ball in the near future. Lee may have taken his 300th wicket but his 1/53 off 9 was rather pedestrian. I doubt he will be around for 400 wickets.

NZ all out 156. Kerry O'Keeffe has said that there is little sideways movement and the pitch is going to become easier for batting. Then Hayden goes first ball to Martin!!! Is this vale Hayden?

In these conditions, there is no certainty that any batting side will take a stranglehold. Rain delays aside, this could be a short Test match with the ball dominating the bat. But you are right about the 1st session. Our front line bowlers will need to take wickets otherwise some Test spots are in jeopardy. FWIW, Watson, Haddin and Hayden for mine are definitely in the gun. Watsons shot selection when he went out was dumb in the conditions partcularly for a Qlder. He may bat 3 for the Maroons but gee he looks wooden at Test level.

NZ wins toss and decides to bowl on a greenish pitch. Aust 0/4 with Krejza 12th man.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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. )

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 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. 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. 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. 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.

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.