Rogue

I think he generally does a job. Not everyone's going to be the out-and-out wicket-taker but he can create opportunities for others while also taking the odd bag (particularly in favourable conditions). I'd like to see us play a bona fide swing bowler, so here's hoping Hilfenhaus can stay fit and in-form in the lead-up to Ashes 2009.

Haha, yeah. However, the NZ'ers apparently gifted their wickets away. Whatever it is they need to get off it, ASAP. I think it's fair enough that Lee, Johnson and Clark have been chosen ahead of him atm - they have the runs on the board (or not, but you catch my drift). I think we'll see Siddle by Perth though.

No doubt he will. IIRC Hohns said that we'd like a spinner in our team but the state of the Gabba pitch made us readjust our plans.

Cricinfo > *

We're lucky NZ has brought over a pretty weak and inexperienced batting side. I'm keen to see how Ryder plays - he reminds me a little of SA's Cosgrove, but NZ haven't had any choice but to draft him in.

Yep. Seems we agree on this one

If you're batting at six and only average in the 20's you're always going to be under some pressure. Watson might be saved by the Gabba pitch though.

I think they're both in their early 30's.

It's disappointing that Bond has been banned by NZ cricket because he'd make the series watchable. I fear it will be pretty one-sided, but I'm looking forward to seeing SA tour. While you deride this as 'speculation' you've asserted that S.A. weren't going to chase down the 400+ target whether it was 420 or 490. If this is so - and Test cricket history suggets they weren't going to chase down such a score - we wasted time batting out those extra overs. It doesn't matter what your score is if you can't take 20 wickets, so if we made more runs than we needed we should have declared earlier. More time = more opportunity to take wickets. Anyhow, as I said many posts back, I believe we'll need to agree to disagree. Indeed! Regardless of whether SA chased us more balls bowled = more chances for a wicket, even if it's simply down to a break in concentration on the batsman's behalf. I find RR's argument bizarre when he admits that we had more than enough runs at 490 - if we were okay with less we should have declared for less, given the aim of the game is to take 20 wickets - but I don't think he's not going to budge

So we took it from SA needing to break the record for the highest successful fourth innings run chase in Test history to...even more. There's overkill and then there's overkill - and then there's that declaration Pollock's been gone a while and Ntini is on his last legs. They generally play an average spinner now (Harris) and have some decent young quicks. Gibbs looks to be finished and McKenzie has returned. Amla's doing okay as a middle-order batsman. Boucher still plays.

The aim of cricket is to bowl the other team out twice. History has shown that a team won't chase down anywhere near 490 in a successful fourth innings run chase. The fact we only got 5 wickets after setting 70+ more than the highest ever fourth-innings run chase in Test history, and with Sth Africa still ~200 behind, shows we need not have batted so long! We were one wicket away from breaking into the tail and there are numerous examples of a team's tail crumbling on the last day of a Test match. First, I thought we batted too long at the time. Second, add the fact that we set them 70+ more runs than anyone had ever scored to win a fourth innings run chase.

We'll have to agree to disagree. The way I see declarations is that you try and give yourself as much time as possible while also ensuring enough runs. Obviously there are times where you need to make a sporting declaration in order to make a game of it or need to declare with less runs than you'd like because you're running out of time. However, if you have set the opposition 70+ runs more than the highest ever successful chase in Test cricket history and subsequently run out time in your quest for 10 wickets that suggests you batted too long*... * unless you're from the RR school of declarations

We had more runs than we needed and didn't end up bowling them out. Enough said. As I said, at the time I felt we were batting too long. As H_T has pointed out this wasn't exactly a left-field opinion at the time. So we agree that providing you've closed the game out it doesn't matter about the runs too much - it's about giving yourself enough time to take the 10 wickets. Need I present my comment about the highest successful fourth-innings chases in Test cricket history again? As you've pointed out there was no need to keep batting as long as we did. More time can only have increased our chance of taking the ten wickets, and given we were so far ahead the runs didn't really matter (as you said). So we agree that Australia didn't need to bat as long as they did. Jolly good. PS. Hi, I'm brick. Try and get some blood out of me :D

Exactly. I had a quick look and we set a target that was 72 runs more than the highest successful fourth innings chase in Test cricket! I struggle to see how you could have argued against an earlier declaration at the time (unless you're Hodge's Mum), let alone with the benefit of hindsight. God forbid we give someone an 'outside sniff' by setting them a few runs off the second-highest successful chase in Test history, RR!

Yep. I replied to a post from RR which mentioned this. As you note, we weren't playing at Sydney - it was the WACA and it was still a decent track. We set South Africa 491, which would have been a record-breaking chase had they made it. However, at the end of day five we'd only captured five wickets while they were over 200 behind. They did bat fairly conservatively, but if they'd played more aggressively we would have had a higher likelihood of getting into the tail.

You could argue the proof's in the pudding - we were unable to knock them over and had plenty of runs to play with. At the time I felt we should have declared earlier.

Haha, so true. It can be unbearable after a loss (and equally cringe-worthy after a good win). Ryder's sick.

Like I said, semantics re: the phrase 'winning position'. WYL hasn't asserted that we were favourites at that stage but that we had a serious 'sniff'. You might argue about the odds of Australia winning at that stage, but I think you're pushing it a little here. Sure, Australia may not have had any quicks who were 'likely to run through the Indians' but I think it's pretty clear that White and particularly Hussey were less chance than some of the other options.

I think you two are playing at semantics From what I can see both of you agree that we were a chance of winning at the time Ponting decided to bowl White and then Hussey, after which a win became a remote possibility.

Absolutely.

Katich is under-bowled and I don't really understand why. Given that Clarke has a bad back I don't see why we over-bowl him while virtually refusing to throw the ball to Kat. It's worked out that way sans the declaration. We bat fairly deep so we're still in the game...but it'd be an amazing win. We'll need to come up with something better if they decide to try and choke us with an 8-1 off-side field again though. I think Jaques is out for a while, so a more likely replacement would be Marsh or even Rogers. That said, I think that - providing he's fit - Hayden will play versus NZ regardless of what happens this innings. If he fails in that series he may be in trouble, particularly if we somehow lost. It's a shame Oram's going to miss the tour. Given the conditions I think Clark's performed okay. If we had played a decent spinner Clark would have been able to tie up the other end and keep the pressure on even if he wasn't claiming wickets himself. If that's the reason - and I can't see any other explanation - it's a disgrace. It'd be interesting to see who came up with this idea, assuming it was to avoid Ponting being suspended.

Or that the appeal would have been delayed until after the next Test - pretty surprising.

Bangladesh are hapless and should have Test status revoked. In the meantime, we have stats like this: DL Vettori 1 1 0 3* Talking of hapless, Vettori has saved NZ from embarassment this series. However, there's still a fair gap between the two sides. * the wickets were batsmen 2,3,4.

So what's your answer, considering you said we needed to get a quality spinner in there? I don't think there's one available, let alone one on tour. I agree with McGain. I'm really surprised Kreza got the call though. Obviously Casson being overlooked was a bit of a surprise. Doran seems to have fallen off the radar a bit (while you could argue he was never on it, Kreza was fourth in line at NSW when he left). Deep breath first, then write your replies

Absolutely. Ah well, that's cricket.