titan_uranus

4/303 at stumps. Brilliant start, didn't quite go on with it as we were 0/184 at the second drinks break. But overall a good day's play. Hughes is a very exciting prospect, at 20 years old. Had the guts to go for consecutive sixes to race through the 90s. First time we've gone into a test match with an unchanged line up since the SCG test of 2008. Let's hope Siddle and Hilfenhaus are actually fit.

I think we are due to tour India this year, for one of those long ODI series. Not sure though.

McGain faces uphill battle to debut Looks like Ponting wants to stick with the 11 that won at the Wanderers. According to the article, only Warne and Kumble have had any effect at Durban since 2002, and Sth Africa haven't played a specialist spinner in their last 2 tests at the venue. McGain's no certainty. This is worrying though. Magoffin has been called into the squad as cover. So it's conveivable that we could have another two debutants in Durban, should Siddle and Hilfenhaus be unfit. 5 debutants in 2 matches!

I read on cricinfo.com that South Africa has come back from 1-0 down to win home series in the last two summers, against India and West Indies. Definitely no room for complacency. Agree that a lot went right for us, and South Africa played well below their capability. Morkel and Harris were nowhere near as good as they were in Australia. And the batsmen obviously were disappointing for them. The gloss seems to have come off Duminy a little: his last 4 innings have all been 24 or below. I'm with you deanox. McDonald's bowling was praised on cricinfo and on the ABC. We went into the match with 4 'pacemen' (McDonald gets included in that group) and they combined to take 19 wickets. Despite McDonald's poor batting, he vindicated his selection. By tying up one end in the 4th innings, he frustrated Kallis to the point of him playing the expansive drive that saw him get out. Part of our loss in Perth came from Krejza leaking runs far too easily. Defending a total in the 4th innings is much easier if the runs aren't flowing. It builds confidence in the bowling team to see the lead holding up. Disagree. Obviously if you bowl them out they lose, but if they're making runs a sense of confidence and a 'we can do this' attitude develops. It definitely helps the chasing team if they're scoring. Having said that, the pitch definitely helped us out. If the next pitch demands a spinner, though, I'm not convinced the selectors will play McGain anyway. McDonald's ability to get a wicket, combined with his super economy rate, should be helping him stay in the selector's minds.

I think Ponting has been vindicated: those runs from Hilfenhaus and Siddle could prove vital. At 2/178, with Amla and Kallis doing fine and de Villiers, Duminy and Boucher to come, Sth Africa can still win. A loss, or even a draw, from here would be morale-destroying for us. When you're in a position to enforce the follow-on, and don't go on to win the match, that hurts. We must take 2 or 3 wickets before lunch, else we'll either lose to Sth Africa or the weather/light. Agree re: Hussey though. He should be batting at 5. And why don't we have another specialist batsman in the squad? If one of our top 6 goes down with an injury we've got no cover.

North is our no. 6. A composed batsman. Stabilises the order, has a cool head and knows the game well. And bowls handy off spin. The team is starting to come together nicely. We have a proper top 6 (though IMO Hussey should be batting at 5 and Clarke at 4), three good pacemen who all bring something different, and a wicket-keeper-batsman who can bat well enough at 7 but needs to work on his keeping. Johnson should bat at no.8, leaving the door open for another bowler. Having said that, McDonald does bowl well, has a habit of getting wickets when we need them, and, despite his two innings so far, can bat. McDonald could be played as a bowler at 9 if there was no need for a spinner. As for the match, we shouldn't lose from here, but I'm not convinced we're going to win. Bad light seems to end each day prematurely, there's been rain about, and South Africa won't be bowled out for 220 again I don't think. But the lead we've got should mean we can set a target of 450 and still have enough time to bowl them out.

At 5/254, things could go either way, so I'm glad we've still got McDonald to come. It's not such a bad selection for mine, his bowling in Sydney was fine, he got Amla twice, got Kallis for almost nothing (with a great return catch), and broke the Steyn-Ntini partnership on Day 5. He takes wickets, and is accurate. But if McGain is to come back in, it's his spot he'll be taking. Well batted from Ponting and Clarke, but both had lapses in concentration to lose their wickets. It's a problem that's become more evident in recent months, as players who are set fail to get to 100. Clarke really threw his wicket away, Ponting's was a shocking error in judgement. North looks like he could be our answer at no. 6 (touch wood). Pity it's taken so long to find him (he's almost 30 years old).

Should happen. I can't see North taking too many wickets against the Proteas' batsmen. They're going to be much better at picking him off than the practice team was. They had no trouble with Krejza or Haurtiz, who specialise in bowling off-spin. Not such a bad plan, actually. I just would feel sad for McDonald for getting left out of the team after doing a pretty good job in Sydney.

You could see this coming from the way Boonie was talking over the last few days. It's a seamers wicket, with only the best of the world's spinners having mild success there (Warne aside, only Kumble and Vettori have managed to get some good turn at this ground). I can't see Hilfenhaus playing alongside Siddle, Johnson and Bollinger. I think Hilfenhaus will be 12th man for this test, but will be a good chance for the second if Bollinger doesn't play well. Similarly, if McDonald doesn't play well, McGain surely will take his spot.

Oh yeah, that really pleased me. No more of this horses for courses business. South Africa managed to beat us twice and contest well in the third test without changing their team once. Meanwhile, we're about to enter our 15th consecutive test in which we have played a different team to the test before. Let's get a squad (the one we've got now I think is good) and take them to England, play them at home, then take them wherever we go next year. Not so sure about that. Yes, North will play. But I'm thinking McDonald may play instead of McGain. That would mean McDonald could bat at 8, to keep Haddin at 7, or vice versa. It would really strengthen the batting up, and in terms of bowling, we'd have the three seamers, then McDonald and North to provide back up. But I still think McGain should play. Of course, if Clarke doesn't play then McDonald and McGain will definitely play. But at the moment, looking at Boonie's words and the way the practice match panned out, I'd think a team with North and McDonald in it is quite likely. Yeah, I saw it again and you're right, Hussey's backing up was pretty poor.

Oops. We should have been home at 1/70. Poor batting. Surely there isn't a bigger choking team than the Victorian Bushrangers? By my count, that's 2 wins from 7 finals in the last 3 years, including 3 consecutive FR Cup losses (and the only two wins were Twenty/20). White absolutely threw away his wicket, and ran Hussey out too.

The problem with batting McDonald below Haddin is Haddin. I'm not sure he's good enough to bat at 6 in the test team. If he can transfer the confidence he gained from the ODI series into the Test arena, then maybe it would work, but I don't think Haddin is a long term prospect for number 6. Which strengthens the case for North to make his debut in South Africa. Whilst I think McDonald should start in the first test, North's batting in the practice match (52*, compared to McDonald's 24) suggests he's a better prospect for no. 6. But McDonald's bowling provides an extra alternative to Ponting should one of our seamers or McGain struggle.

Big test (pun intended) for the Australian team coming up in South Africa. Should be a cracking series, just like the series here. My team for the first test: 1. Katich 2. Hughes 3. Ponting 4. Clarke 5. Hussey 6. McDonald 7. Haddin 8. Johnson 9. Siddle 10. McGain 11. Bollinger 12th man Hilfenhaus Despite his crap in the ODI series, Hilfenhaus should be ready for a call up should Bollinger not provide much in the first two tests. McGain obviously gets the nod over Hauritz, who really shouldn't be in the squad. McDonald gets the 'prized' number 6 spot in place of North due to his far superior bowling and the fact that it would be harsh to call his batting sub-par on the basis of one innings of 15 in which he was dismissed by a pearler.

Oh how lovely it is to see England get smashed by the Windies. And they can consider themselves fortunate to make 51, when they were at one stage 7/26. Luckily for them Flintoff showed a bit of backbone. Let's hope they keep that kind of form up going into the Ashes.

Second time he's been stranded on 99 not out this season! That number 11 of theirs... In regards to the Haddin incident, the ball was a no ball because Haddin's gloves were clearly in front of the stumps. Whether or not the ball hit the bail shouldn't matter because it should have been called a no ball. I wasn't watching, but I wonder why the umpires didn't refer it to the third umpire, and if they did, why he didn't recognise the no ball.

Firstly, I agree re: Dokic and Australia. Only here could she have netted a sponsorhip deal which reportedly is worth a million dollars. Anyway, the point I was trying to make was that there have been instances where women's tennis has been far more entertaining than men's. Dokic/Kleybanova was a far more exciting game than Federer's QF and SF matches (Del Potro and Roddick). Yes, the standard of tennis was worse. Women's tennis doesn't match men's tennis for quality. But women's tennis can be just as entertaining. Today's Age has an article by Greg Baum countering that argument: http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/tennis...3423135787.html

Well let's look at it the other way round. Quarter finals: Federer defeated Juan Martin Del Potro 6-3 6-0 6-0 in an extremely lopsided contest. Safina beat Jelena Dokic 6-4 4-6 6-4 in a tight 3 hour affair. Del Potro was smashed, similar to how Williams beat Safina. Dokic provided fantastic entertainment for 3 hours against a much more highly fancied player than her. Dokic provided a contest, Del Potro might as well not have shown up. Yet they will receive the same amount of money. So does Del Potro deserve more money than Dokic for being thrashed at the same stage of the tournament as Dokic. And you can't say costs don't come into it. Of course they do. Women still need to get themselves from tournament to tournament, the same way men do. Equal prize money reflects that.

Well said. Women's tennis is a joke. But it is futile to suggest that, based on the results of the Australian Open, men should be paid more than women. Men don't play women, so how can one compare Nadal/Verdasco to Williams/Safina? Just because Verdasco played for 5 hours doesn't mean he deserves more than Safina. The simple fact is that Safina won her semi-final, Verdasco lost his. Of course Verdasco played far superior tennis, but that's inherent in tennis. Men play better than women. But women still have the same costs as men, and the money needs to be there to keep the sport running. As for last night, well, that was a corker of a match. RR, I don't think Federer played his best. There were a lot of unforced errors. I think he played better against Roddick, and in the second two sets against Del Potro, mainly because he controlled his unforced errors in those matches. And full credit to Nadal for backing up from the semi and not dying on the court. Unbelievable. I think in a few years Nadal will have risen to the status of Federer and Sampras and the other greats. After all, he's won slams on three surfaces compared to Federer's two.

Agreed. First step is to drop Warner. Incredibly selected based on one Twenty 20 innings. Has 1 decent score from 5 matches. The experiment has been tried and has failed. But I think Marsh is injured, which probably means Warner will be spared. I agree. Tait and Johnson shouldn't be in the same team together, and especially shouldn't be bowling together in a powerplay. But the batting is a bigger concern IMO. 6 ODIs this summer, highest score of 269. We've been batting first almost every innings and the simple reason why we're losing is that we're not setting high enough totals. Those first few matches we had some great starts which we didn't capitalise on. David Hussey might be the first casualty. Isn't firing when we need him to. And yes, I'd be playing Katich too. He can open, or he can come in at 5 or 6. And his bowling is just as good, if not better, than Clarke or DJ.

Of course the jury's still out on them at Test level. For mine, it would be unfair not to take McDonald to South Africa given that he did his (bowling) job well in Sydney. As for Hussey, well, I guess he's past his prime now. He's certainly not doing anything in the current ODI series to warrant selection. I'm also a bit sick of Ponting continually standing by Symonds. I think now it's time for Ponting to take a harder stance, and allow it to be expressed in the media. Maybe that would have more of an effect on Symonds. With Punter continually saying he wants Symonds back, then there's less motivation for Symonds to fix himself.

I would think that Duminy's start would rival most, though I have little to no recollection of Lara or Tendulkar when they started out. Everything Duminy does seems to be done perfectly, whether it be batting, fielding, or even bowling. He could really become an absolute star. I never want to see Symonds selected for Australia's Test team again. He's not good enough. He would be taking up a spot that could be given to McDonald or even David Hussey. I think Johnson, Siddle, Hilfenhaus/Bollinger and Hauritz/Krejza/another spin bowler should be the bowling line up, with Haddin at 7 and either David Hussey or McDonald at 6. McDonald would strengthen the bowling (I rate his bowling quite highly) whereas Hussey strengthens the batting. Katich to open with Jaques if he does enough when he returns. Otherwise Hughes.

He has his chance tomorrow. Clarke is out for the rest of the South Africa ODI series because of his thumb. This actually works well for us. Now Hussey doesn't have to open any more, and he can return to 4 or 5. And we get to see a Marsh-Warner partnership develop.

Very well said Rhino. Your perspective on cricket is very similar to mine. For me, South Africa is definitely no. 1 in the world. However, all this talk about Australia sliding down doesn't stack up when you consider how close we have been in a three test series against the world's best. We are no. 2 IMO. India is 3, but won't last too long there. I believe McDonald has a future in the Test side. His batting didn't look awful, and 15 on debut against bowlers like Steyn and Morkel isn't bad enough to rule out his batting. And he bowls well (though how much of it was the pitch?). But give him some time, I think he can make it. In Siddle and Johnson we have found two definite stars with the ball. I love Johnson's ability to take a wicket when needed. If he can get a ball to come back into right-handers he'll become the world's best. And Siddle has the makings of a champion. He just needs to work on not pitching too short (a la Perth). Far from convinced that Hauritz is the man for the job. Just doesn't get enough spin for mine. Having said that, Paul Harris doesn't turn it much more than Hauritz, yet South Africa manage fine with him. But I think we need someone a bit more damaging. Maybe Krejza, but at the moment he's unusable due to the amount of runs he concedes. And I believe Hayden's time is up. Time for a new face at the top of the order. Take Hughes to South Africa.

Andrew Hilditch is pathetic. I place a large portion of the blame on him. Look at some of his comments: our rebuilding phase is going well despite the results (how can that be, we've only brought in one young player), Hayden deserves his spot in the team (he most certainly does not). Hayden should have been dropped. His form is atrocious, he is placing unfair amounts of pressure on Ponting, Hussey and Clarke by getting out before the first bowling change, and he is keeping fresh players like Hughes or Rogers out of the team. And if the excuse for playing him is that he's a good first slip, then that's weak. If Hussey has to field first slip, so be it. I'd prefer a no. 1 who makes it past the new ball. Symonds should never have played in Melbourne. I don't know what the situation was with Watson prior to the test (i.e. could he have played or not), but clearly Symonds is hampered with that ankle injury. If he can't field properly (which he can't) then he loses his aura. Moreover, his off spin is pathetic. His mediums are serviceable, but he couldn't bowl them. Congratulations to MacDonald for getting an opportunity. Hard luck to Watson for missing out again. For the next test, I'd bat MacDonald at 7. Give Haddin more responsibility at 6. If he didn't continually throw his wicket away his average would be so much higher. At 6 maybe he'll recognise that he needs to stick around longer and forge a partnership or two. And I read yesterday that after 11 tests, he's hit 11 sixes, whereas after 11 tests Gilchrist had hit only 2.

Well, today's play is going to set up the rest of the series. If Kallis and De Villiers survive the first hour, then that might be enough for Sth Africa. We need early wickets. 187 runs is more than gettable. Krejza was worse yesterday than he was on Day 2. A bit worrying. He's gotta work on taming the full tosses and short ones. If Siddle doesn't improve today I'm not sure if we'll see him on Boxing Day. Watson might get a call up.