Rhino Richards

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.

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?

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?

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. 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. 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.

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