titan_uranus

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.

Absolutely friggin fantastic bowling. The way he set up Morne Morkel, two consecutive bouncers, then, when everyone expected a full, 150 km/h + yorker, he gets the slower ball which he duly messes up. Brilliant. 8/250 odd is not good for Sth A. Provided we finish the job without conceding too many, then we'll be batting from 0/100 odd. That's the kind of situation that Hayden needs. Credit also to Krejza. Bowling Amla (who I consider the best batsman out of the two teams, and is a delight to watch) like he did was superb. If he can tame the long-hops then we might have a future spinner. Australia's tail must surely be the best in the world. No bunnies at all.

I'm basically with you on all those points 45. If the selectors recognise we need another paceman, then Siddle should be playing. I thought he was quite good in Mohali. If Krejza's fit, though, I think he should play. With Lee, Johnson and Clark, I think we can afford a spinner. For mine, Stuart Clark's spot in the team should be brought into harsher consideration. If he doesn't do something on the WACA pitch, I'd look to swapping him out for Siddle/Watson. At 33, there isn't much of a future in him.

Seems as though the NZ selectors have recognised that the team they used here won't cut it, as there have been many changes made to their team for the upcoming series they have against West Indies. Chris Martin, Tim Southee, Grant Elliot, Aaron Redmond and Peter Fulton were all dropped from the squad. Firstly, let's not forget that they didn't have Jacob Oram (who returns to the team). With Oram, they could have batted McCullum at 5. There's talk on cricinfo that Ryder will be either dropped or moved from no. 3, and Flynn will play at 3. IMO, Ryder at 3 doesn't work. His style isn't suited to situations where NZ is 1/not much, with the ball only 5-10 over old. Ryder I think would do better down the order. So maybe it will be Flynn at 3, Taylor at 4, McCullum at 5, Ryder 6, Oram 7. I think the NZ team does have some good players looking to the future. Taylor has no. 4 down solid. Flynn will make a good batsman with time, McCullum and Vettori are world-class, Oram not too far behind. It's all a matter of getting a settled team with the right batsmen in the right posiitions.

All over. NZ all out for 203, we win by an innings and 62 runs. McCullum not out 84. Lee bowled brilliantly today, it's a pity he didn't get 6-for to make it 10 for the match. But he ripped their top order apart. Hauritz was pretty good actually, but he's not anywhere near as dangerous as Krejza was. I guess Krejza and Watson will have to come into consideration for the Perth match. Clark was underwhelming in Adelaide, so maybe Watson will come in for him as the 3rd seamer, and Krejza for Hauritz. Probably just Krejza for Hauritz.

We're wrapping up the tail nicely. NZ 9/270. O'Brien caught behind off Lee for 0, Southee caught by Katich off Johnson for 2, McCullum caught behind off Lee for 30. Lee has 3/66 off 25 overs. Not bad. Edit: All out 270. Lost 4 for 8 in 40 minutes. Vettori left stranded on 18*, Lee gets 4-for. 270's not a good total first up in Adelaide. And they were 3/194 at one stage.

I had thoughts similar to those above, but now Lee has hit back well I think. The way he set up Flynn, with outswingers before an inswinger, was well thought out and executed. And he bowled something like 6 overs for 3 runs at one stage in that third spell. And now he's got McCullum with a slower ball. He's getting variation in his bowling now. NZ 7/269

Good to see pace coming in, sure as hell need it.

They've also got Ryan Sidebottom, who's in the top 5 Test bowlers rankings. But yeah, they're a bit devoid of talent after that. Pietersen as captain doesn't strike me as right either. And how about Nathan Hauritz? Can't get a game for NSW, but it seems as though Hilditch and co. prefer finger spinners to wrist spinners (or so I read in one of the papers), and so they went with Hauritz. Casson does only have 1 wicket in 3 matches for NSW this season, but I can't believe they've gone for a hack like Hauritz before him.

Definitely. I still rate Lee as a bowler. He has that knack of dismissing top order batsmen on Australian soil. And he's still something like the 6th best bowler according to ICC rankings. I just don't think he will be around for too many more seasons. Speaking of the Ashes, how do people rate our chances? I've heard plenty of commentators suggest that England will go into the series favourites if we don't crush the South Africans, which seems a bit odd to me, given England's current Test squad. I think the upcoming England v India series will give a good indication of where England's at.

Of Johnson's 9 wickets, 5 of them were bowlers (batting positions 8-11). IMO, scoring an unbeaten 131 on a batting deck that undoubtedly was tougher to bat on than bowl on deserves more credit than taking 9 NZ wickets. Oh well. Agree re: Lee. He's down something like 5 to 10 km/h on average compared to last summer. I wonder how he'll go against the South African batsmen.