titan_uranus

He's. A. Star. That many runs in one day is insane. If we can push on towards 650 then we'll have plenty of time to push for our wickets. Lyon is going to be important. Tahir was insipid today, but Lyon knows Adelaide and was quite good in Brisbane. If Kallis doesn't bat, his chief destroyer is out, which helps.

Wow.

I thought the title of this thread was rhetorical. I should know better.

Have a read of nutbean's post, then get back to me.

For me, it's Clarke and Amla. Chanderpaul and Kallis have also had good 2012s, but Amla pulls out 100s at the right times of series, and Clarke has been sensational. Not so sure about that. Tahir for Kleinveldt is clear, but don't be surprised if they play Tsolekeile instead of du Plessis, to relieve de Villiers of the keeping duties. I'm not sure how long de Villiers can keep batting at 5 for if he stays keeping wicket in long innings. His batting just isn't as good as it was when Boucher was around. So that one could go either way. The issue I have is that umpires are only checking when a wicket is taken. Once the ball becomes a wicket-taking ball, they then check to see if it's a no-ball. Ed Cowan was given four runs when he tried to pull a short ball. It didn't hit his bat, it hit his helmet. No one stepped in to review that. He kept runs he didn't deserve. Frankly, if the umpire doesn't have the confidence to call it live, and wouldn't think twice about it if the delivery wasn't a no ball, then I have a problem with them using the wicket as an excuse to check it. Of course, the solution to it all is to stop bowling no balls, and I don't disagree that bowlers shouldn't be allowed to get away with it, but I have a problem with the inconsistency in the way umpires check their decisions.

Green, Moloney, Jurrah, Rivers, Gysberts, Morton, Martin, Bennell, Petterd, Cook, Bate, Bartram That is a hell of a lot of turn over.

Agreed. IIRC, a kick which misses the target but is later recovered by the target is also effective. It's just mindboggling.

Wasn't in our best 22, but you can sure as hell rely on the fact he'd have been working his ass off to get back in, if it wasn't for his knee. If only some other players on our list had his tenacity and courage.

I don't really think it was better than any other season, but whatevs. Each to their own. I detest the disposal efficiency stat, so I see nothing in that.

I'm tipping we'll go 70 over Davis, but it's really six of one, half a dozen of the other.

I would say this is going a little too far. And by 'a little', I mean 'a lot'. He did not have a 'pretty good year with the ball', his disposal was appalling. Having said that, I agree with you that he's a type Neeld likes (obviously, having signed the new deal). He gave it his all every week, making others look pathetic for not doing so, and he is versatile (I remember him standing, and beating, Travis Cloke once). I have liked him, but not for his disposal.

Surely that's because of his sore knee, right? I think with the state of our list (cut Davis and we still get 4 picks at the draft) he might just keep himself on it. Or maybe not. I don't see him as best 22, or close to it, so I feel like it's much of a muchness whether we keep him for his tenacity, courage etc., or feel forced to let him go.

Surely Davis is a dead man walking. That would give us 4 vacancies on the list, which, if I'm right rpfc, will be the end of it? As in, we'll re-sign Bartram and Jetta because we can, and we'll take four free spots into the drafting period?

Damn it. Surprised we kept all three after also taking Gillies. I guess competition is now fierce for those positions. Does anyone know how long the contracts are for?

To move on from the above banter and assess the match, I thought Lyon did a pretty decent job when he was asked to this match, and rewarded the selectors' faith. I also think South Africa really messed up playing Kleinveldt over Tahir. Lyon got good bounce and spin, and didn't shy away from Amla and Kallis going after him, which they're going to keep doing, as they seem him as weaker than Siddle and Pattison (fair). I think he bowled quite well, to be honest, and he got Rudolph, the leftie, out twice. Thought Siddle and Pattison were enormous with their lines and lengths today. No balls killed us, but that's easier to fix (hopefully) than being crap. Hilfenhaus was ordinary and surely will be under pressure from Starc. Mitchell Johnson always bowled well against South Africa; I wonder if the left arm angle is something Amla/Kallis/de Villiers/etc don't like that much. Either way, I think Hilfy's in trouble. Batting wise, Clarke is just a legend (average now above 50, as deserved), and proved yet again that he is in the top 3 or 4 in the world right now, and that has come from batting where he belongs, at 5. Cowan showed he has the perfect opener's technique, leaving the wide stuff and defending when he has to (similar to Katich in that regard). If Watson's fit for Adelaide then sadly I think Quiney makes way, but Warner and Ponting need to make some runs. Ponting's age is a huge concern for him; despite the stack he made last summer, if he slips out of form he can't hold his spot forever. Warner is on thin ice IMO: one proper opener's innings (v NZ last year). The 180 in Perth was amazing, but he's not Hayden and can't do that regularly. The rest of his career is all little innings with no substance. Isn't there yet.

According to this, you will only enjoy Tests whereby the game goes into the last session of Day 5, and all wickets fall to good balls and not batsmen undoing themselves. I don't think that's really fair or realistic, do you? Fact is, despite losing a day, this Test was still completely alive on Day 5, and that's surely all anyone can ask for.

The 'conditions' you speak of were primarily, if not solely, the weather, not the pitch. At tea on Day 5 a result was a distinct possibility, and you're whinging about the game being dead. This was not a road. The bowlers bowled well and would have taken more wickets if they'd not bowled no balls. As I said, and you conveniently ignored, if Kallis had gone for 43 on Day 1, this game would have been entirely different.

Good get. Surely spells the end for one of Sellar, MacDonald or Dunn. Depth is good, but I don't really see the need to be holding on to all of them.

I think his judicial work was more commercial law stuff. However, IIRC he headed up the Media Inquiry that we had a few years back. Either way: he's a boss.

Again, I was going to let this slide, until the last bit. Ironically (please note the correct use of irony), you spelled 'you're' wrong. The first article she wrote was this one: http://www.theage.co...029-28g2n.html. Date: October 30. Cox Plate was on the 27th, Derby Day the 3rd of November. So she wrote her first article right in the middle of the Spring Carnival, and continued to churn out articles for the next week, the one leading up to the Melbourne Cup. So she wrote all her articles during the Spring Racing Carnival. Well done buddy.

It hasn't 'heavily' favoured the batsmen. All five centurions were either out to a no ball (Kallis, Cowan) or dropped (Amla, Clarke) or extraordinarily close to being out LBW (Amla, Hussey). Today we knocked over their top 3 in short succession. There has been some great batting, sure, and it's been a good deck to bat on, but this game would have played out very differently if Siddle hadn't overstepped on Day 1 when he got Kallis out. As for your crowd rubbish, the initial 25,000 happened to be the best non-Ashes crowd in years. And then you're surprised people haven't come back after whole day's play was lost? The result was nearly put beyond doubt because of that, and you're surprised people didn't come. Wow.

Best team - Houston. Atlanta is the most underrated team, despite the Saints loss. Worst team - Kansas City (just so that I don't say Jacksonville like everyone else). Mind you, they put in a good show on MNF today. Biggest surprise (positive) - Indianapolis (didn't think Luck could get them from 2-12 to 6-3 so far. And it's not just Luck either). Biggest surprise (negative) - toss up between Carolina, New Orleans (although they could yet make a run at a wild card; this is mainly for the 0-4 start), Cincinnati (alleviated by the win this week) and Washington (RG3 should mean more wins).

Your posts are already difficult enough to understand as it is, no need to make them longer. Essence of this debate: you said there was nothing happening because of the Spring Carnival, I said it was because there was nothing new to add. You then agreed with me, I then agreed with you. That is all. Also, that's not irony. I'd explain it, but then you'd argue with me despite actually agreeing with me.

They never upped the tempo. Look at their strike rates. de Villiers, Rudolph, Philander and Steyn all struggled to make runs. Two wickets off no balls, dropped catches, edges between slips and poor umpiring decisions on LBWs have meant batsmen have had a lot of luck. Of the 4 centurions, Amla could easily have been given out for 0 (look at it live, it was close enough to be out) and should have been caught on 75, Kallis was out on 43 but for the no ball, Cowan was out for 40-odd but for the no ball, and Clarke edged about 10 deliveries and a decent fielder at mid on would have caught him for 50-odd (or whatever he was on when he skied the edge to mid on and Philander insipidly tried running back to get it). This pitch wasn't the road you make it out to be. Cowan, Clarke, Amla and Kallis batted enormously well (Hussey and Peterson too). Note that South Africa lost 6/74 from when Kallis went out. Our bowlers took regular wickets but for that partnership, which should have ended well earlier anyway. South Africa erred by not playing Tahir; if they'd had him, things would be different I suspect.

I would let this slide, but you called me childish. I won't stand for that; not when I've been horrendously more childish before than I was in that post. You said it had been quiet because of the Spring Racing Carnival. I said that was wrong. I think now you agree, but that wasn't clear before. You said that I over-valued her reporting skills. I never said that at all; in fact, I've been quite clearly disgusted by her abilities, and I've made that clear. Apparently you'd mentioned the stuff about Caro before. Well so had I. So there. Ha. I agree with the rest of what you've said anyway. You just made no sense when you said the Spring Racing Carnival was the reason why things had quietened down.