titan_uranus

He's been pretty unlucky, with his injury in India and then gastro in SA.

I hope he gets a cap at some stage on this tour.

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.

Since we're playing North, who is a legitimate middle-order bat, at six I'd like to see our four best bowlers picked.

In that case Hilfenhaus gets the nod over McDonald.

McDonald would definitely strengthen the tail but that would leave us with just there front-line bowlers, and the aim of the game is to take 20 wickets. IMO let the top six - and the keeper - worry about scoring the runs, and choose the bowlers most likely to take 20 wickets.

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.

McGain not selected in first test in Sth Africa. North looks a though he has a start. Interesting..

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.

It was nice to read that David Boon wants Australia to show faith in a core group of players, just like they did in the mid-80's.

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.

I'd still bat him higher than McDonald.

It's probably a moot point as I imagine North will get picked.

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.

But I reckon Hussey's dismissal was his own fault. White called him for what should have been an easy quick single. Hussey wasn't backing up AT ALL. He still nearly made it, which means he would have been in by 2 yards if he'd remembered the basic fundamental of backing up.

Yeah, I saw it again and you're right, Hussey's backing up was pretty poor.

I'll make the Call, We Are Home!

(7/160)

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.

Geeves stranded on 99, very unlucky.

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.

I am measuring the standard of tennis over a longer period of time. You asked the difference between Williams/Safina and Nadal/Verdasco. I gave it. The standard of tennis and entertainment is miles ahead in mens tennis now and has been for some time. And because one Spaniard has a brain fade does not condemn the whole of men's tennis.

Dokic was only entertainment for Australian audiences because of the rampant jingoism that Australia has in claiming everyone who might have the slightest connection to Australian as their own. If she had played for her country of birth then she would have been snubbed by Australians and media for not choosing Australia. Outside Australia, no one would give a stuff about a has been with a ranking of 100.

Players should be rewarded according to the money they generate in an entertainment business. Its as simple as that

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.

They dont when it comes to the sources of the revenue. It should be divided based on who provides the most entertainment like all other sports.

Today's Age has an article by Greg Baum countering that argument: http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/tennis...3423135787.html

Easy. By the observed standard of the game.

Nadal/Verdasco or Nadal/Federer

||

||

\/

daylight

||

||

\/

Williams/Safina

Tennis is all about entertainment...TV ratings etc.

Now let me see what was better entertainment.... Mens semis and finals or the women semis or finals? Hmmm.

The depth of talent and competition in woman's tennis has always been a concern.

Tennis players on the circuit are richly rewarded for their efforts. However, the cut of the profits pie should be biased to those that bring in the dollars to the game. Costs dont come into it.

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.

I think Nadal/Federer just topped the men's semi-final.

I am not interested much in tennis these days being a game of baseline power and grunt monotony. But Nadal and Federer took the game to another level last night.

Nadal's temperament and physical effort over the past couple of days was phenomenal. I thought Federer was close to his best but Nadal just keeps getting better.

As for the women, lets here no more tripe about parity of earnings between men and women tennis players. Chalk and cheese in entertainment, effort and skill.

And women's tennis is hamstrung by the vain and narcisstic Williams sisters. Is there a more openly vain and self centred high profile sportsperson than Serena Williams? Puke.

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.

The issue is from No1 to No6 in the batting order.

Even when we have a start, the inability of the middle order to drive home the advantage is stark. There is a couple of players in the squad playing on reputation and not form.

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.

Absolutely. I'd also suggest that our bowling is suspect. Apart from Bracken we have no-one we can rely on to keep it tight. Clark is actually a better bowling option than any regular spinner which is a huge worry. I'm bitterly disappointed with Ponting's captaincy. He's been shown up to be a fair weather skipper. He's devoid of any real ideas when the momentum needs to be turned. Bowling blokes like Tait and Johnson in batting power plays is just dumb. The pace works in favour of the batsmen who don't have to do anything except put their bat in the way to clear the infield. The selections are also baffling. The whole process seems so formulaic. Why has it taken so long for Ben Hilfenhaus to play, why isn't Katich (whose bowling adds more flexibility) playing while he's firing? You can afford to stick thick with blokes when you're winning, but this aint working.

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.

Jury is still out on Hussey and McDonald IMO. Yeah I know they are Victorian players!!!

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.

However, is JP Duminy the find of the summer? At 24yo (still very young by modern cricket standards) his performance with the bat and in the field have been astonishing in their maturity and poise. I am scratching the think of a better debut under tough competitive conditions from a player under 25? Michael Clark in India in 2005(?)???

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.

You think with his latest brain explosion on radio (what the hell was he on when he did this interview - definitely under the influence of something) that it's career over for Roy. I won't be sorry to see him go - 18 months ago maybe, now he's a liability in terms of his batting (doesn't value his wicket) and a walking headline off it.

I still think the best option for South Africa is to bat Haddin at six and Johnson at 7 in the tests. Hauritz if he plays is a more than capable no 8. that still leaves space for three other bowlers. McDonald may tour, but his batting is suspect and Watson is unlikely to play a regular part in the future such is the nature of his fragile body.

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.

How good was that innings by David Warner at the "G" on Sunday night?? Awesome. What a debut 89 runs off 43 balls. Whilst its only a 20/20 international. It shows definite potential for a 50 over one day international debut.....soon.

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.

Fantastic Series with a fitting and dramatic finale that gives great credit to both captains, both sides and the administration. The best series since the Ashes 2005. Both sides should be absolutely praised for the competitive character and sportsmanship of all the players during an absorbing and rivetting series.

The conduct of the players and officials particularly during the contentious Kallis decision was exemplary and should be a training video basis for all other teams.

Graeme Smith was a stand out man of the series. And a brave effort in the 2nd innings. The last time I saw this happen was when Pakistani opener Talaat Ali came out to bat with a broken finger against Australia in Adelaide in the early 70s. He held the bat in his good (top) hand and held his injured hand behind his back. He lasted 3 balls. Smith's effort deserves recognition against the quicks.

Although the ICC rankings have Australia on top, there is no doubt in my mind that the South Africa is the top side ATM in terms of performance, sportsmanship and character. They absolutely embarrass the Indians in the last two categories who should take a lesson from them. No doubt they wont.

Good series coming up in SA. However both sides need to manage their strike bowlers Steyn and Johnson. Both have been fantastic but both looked physically jaded from their herculean efforts.

Nothing better than Test cricket. Barely interested in the lolly forms of the game.

Meanwhile English cricket once more shoots itself in the foot with the resignation of both Captain and Coach. Roll on Ashes 2009.......

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.

Awesome Awesome Awesome.

After looking set and had they lasted the next half hour then SA were in the box seat at 3/260+.

On a good batting pitch late in the day with a hint of reverse swing, Mitchell Johnson put together one of the most devastating spells of old ball swing bowling at 140+kph. Swung the Test match and made his mark on the series

If the signs were there before, then there in big lights....This guy is something special and the big thing in quick bowling.

Great stuff

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 quite seriously do not rate Watson.

If i were a question of dropping Krejza (Hauritz) for someone, why not bring in Siddle? I'm not a big fan of playing two all rounders, especially when they aren't demanding a spot for each capability (i.e. being a pretty good batsman and a pretty good bowler I don't think cuts it).

We need to figure out what we want, a strong batting line up that's possibly short a bowler, or a good bowling line up that may leave our middle order open.

We've shown we're happy to not play a spinner, and we do still have Clarke and Symonds, along with Katich, who can bowl a bit of spin.

Personally, Krejza is yet to cement his spot for mine and I don't really rate Hauritz. Krejza though does deserve the right to try and cement his spot, and you can only do this by playing test matches consistently (yes I've changed my tact a little ).

However, if he were to be dropped because of the pace friendly wicket, I'd rather we took full advantage and played our best back up pacemen, not a decent bowler who can bat a bit. After all, we have one of the best tails I've seen in recent memory

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.

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.

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'd certainly rather take Hauritz's current figures of 2/47 off 11 overs, than Brett Lee's return of 0/49 off 13 overs with 6 no balls, any day. Beginning to feel a little concerned for Brett Lee's future in the top flight. He can turn his form around, he just needs to do it and quickly. He usually has a day out against the Kiwi's.

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.

???

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.

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.