titan_uranus

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.

All over red rover. Australia win by 149 runs. How's this for injustice: Johnson gets man of the match for taking 9 wickets on a bowler's pitch. How about Katich's match defining 131 not out? Not only was Katich clearly man of the match, but I'd have had Clarke and Clark above Johnson: Clarke for his 98 which saved our first innings, Clark for the important wickets that he took. Johnson was good, but not that good. Krejza should come in for Watson. He took 2 wickets in the first innings, didn't really get a bowl in the second, and failed with the bat both times. Adelaide should be more conducive to spin as well.

We've had the best and worst of Rudi. That decision on Taylor was a gem, but giving Hussey out was poor. Mind you, Hussey shouldn't have had his bat in a position that would allow for the umpire to consider a snick. Lunch on day 3. 8/220, Katich 113 not out, Johnson doing well on 18 not out. Lead of 278. That's a good lead, should be enough IMO. Katich was dropped early on by O'Brien as a return catch.

This is the session we needed. 4 wickets, not a drastic amount of runs (but still alright given the 214 we made) and some good bowling. All the bowlers have a wicket as well. Edit: Hmm. Almost 100 runs so far this session, with 10 minutes to go. Taylor's 36 from 39. With only 214 to defend we've got to tighten up a bit.

Well we did what was needed. Redmond out first ball. But a bit unlucky since then. A couple of very close LBW decisions that might have gone our way on other days. Haddin did nothing to help his cause by dropping Ryder. He flew in front of Hayden: it would have been an easy catch for Hayden at 1st slip.

So much depends on how we bowl in the first session today. We have to take 3 or 4 wickets, if only for a psychological boost. NZ doesn't have a strong batting line up, so there's no excuse for not taking wickets.

Vettori will be glad he sent us in: 6/147. Clarke's still there at least. Watson managed just 1. Symonds 26.

We were in trouble at 3/23, but Clarke and Hussey look settled now. I'm surprised Vettori hasn't bowled himself yet.

Michael Clarke has just said that Watson is playing and Krejza is 12th man. Delayed start to the test because of the storms up there.

Agreed. On this pitch, which got rained on last night again, Watson will do better than Krejza.

The fact that they bowl left arm orthodox does not mean they're not front line spinners. But I guess you're right in that Australia doesn't bode well for them. Kallis has taken 240 Test wickets at 31.22, and took 10 wickets in the 4 test series against England earlier this year. He can bowl.

They do have a spinner: Paul Harris. And some other guy called Botha is vying for his spot, so I guess maybe he's a spinner as well. The South African team to play Bangladesh in the 1st of two tests today is: 1. Smith 2. McKenzie 3. Amla 4. Kallis 5. De Villiers 6. Prince 7. Boucher 8. Harris 9. Morkel 10. Steyn 11. Ntini Similar to India in that they play 6 batsmen and 4 bowlers. Kallis will bowl as well. But to me Boucher looks older. Plus I'd thought he'd retired already...

I can't believe Boucher is still playing. How old is he? Amla, McKenzie, De Villiers, Kallis, Prince and Smith are all doing very nicely. Last time we played them Prince was Warne's bunny. He couldn't get a start. Now he's arguably their best or second best bastman. Moving De Villiers down the order has seen him flourish. Usually one of those 6 fires in a match. As for their bowlers, Ntini, while old, is still effective, Dale Steyn, when not injured, bowls faster than Lee. They've got Morkel and Nel as well. So overall I think they'll provide more than a decent challenge. Expect at least one loss over the 6 tests we play home and away.

Once again, Daniel Vettori plays a lone hand for NZ. He's their best bowler, and frighteningly enough he's their most consistent batsman as well. You would think they wouldn't stand a chance against us at the Gabba. With a 490 target, what chance did we leave the South Africans? Not much, which meant they were content to bat out a draw rather than go for the win. If we'd declared a little earlier, then maybe, with a lower target, they might have gone a bit harder for it. However, you're right in that, in 127 overs, and with Warne, we should have taken more than 5 wickets.

He made 203* at the WACA in 2005 vs Sth Africa. Letting him get to 200 meant we declared too late, and Sth Africa were able to draw the test match. That was the match before we began our 15 match winning streak that didn't end until India earlier this year. If Clarke's unwell, Hodge is the obvious replacement. I'm just unsure if the selectors want to pick another 33 year old.

It was the decision to use Hussey that got to me. Obviously he should have used Lee or Watson, who were reversing it for the first time in 4 tests, but if he was under orders to use part-timers, why not use Katich? He at least has taken wickets at test level, and is certainly more likely than Hussey to take a wicket. But putting on Hussey was not only wrong, it was stupid.

I was just about to say I thought we had a chance. 5 minutes ago we were 3/150, Hussey and Hayden doing very well working singles. Then, in the space of 5 balls, both are out, so we're 5/154. We had a chance, India was playing defensively, but they've started to attack and have made breakthrough. We're still well over the run rate but Haddin and Watson don't exactly inspire confidence.

We have no idea what to do in a situation such as the one we are in now. Katich and Hayden have come out slogging, Katich can't do it, played an awful stroke and was caught. Next over, Ponting takes a suicidal run and is run out by a metre. 2/37. We mightn't be there at tea. Awful batting. Absolutely awful.

Ponting's captaincy has, on this tour, been exposed for what it is: not that good. As Jon Pierik writes in the HUN today, Ponting's not an 'intuitive' captain, like Mark Taylor. I see that as somewhat of a criticism of Ponting's captaincy. Since he began, Australia has been the dominant force in cricket, and with bowlers like Warne and McGrath, you don't need to do as much as a captain than you would with the Bangladesh team. Now that we're struggling, Ponting's lack of ability to analyse the game and intuitively know what to do and when has been exposed. However, I doubt it was his decision to bowl the part-timers. What is his fault is the constant talking to the bowler between overs and the eternity he spends setting fields. If he'd not wasted so much time between overs in the first 2 sessions, then maybe he wouldn't have had this problem. As for the match, I think India will go for it to start with. They've got plenty of runs to play with, so they could well go on the attack and look for quick wickets early. If that works then they can push for a win, but if it doesn't, they can slip into an 8-1 field whenever they want to shut us out. Which they will do as soon as we look like getting close to the target.

That's what I used to believe. But we spent all day at the crease yesterday. 85.4 overs, 8 wickets in hand, but just 166 runs in total. Something like our second or third worst run rate in an innings 9 years. What will happen from here: Optimist's view: we'll bowl India out by the end of today for 200, then chase down 290-odd tomorrow and win the trophy back Pessimist's view: India will bat for almost the rest of the game, Dravid will get going and score 70 off 300 balls. I think India will post a sizeable lead (350-400), then declare, giving us 2-3 sessions to try and win. But we won't.

India's bowling a negative line outside off stump with all but 1 fielder on the off side. We scored 42 runs in a session, and lost Katich, because we weren't playing at any of the balls. It's up to the Australians to have a go, try to work the balls onto the leg side. Despite it being negative/defensive/whatever from Dhoni, we're the ones who need to win, not India. Katich scored 10 runs in an hour and a half. It's all good for India. We have to be past their score by the end of the day if we want to win, and that isn't going to happen if we don't play shots.