Australia in South Africa

Top Contributors
Re: Australia in South Africa

Steyn to Siddle ... for a bit of revenge!?!
A short one first up, then four tame balls. Surely he has to go round the wicket and try to put him on his backside!
Good work, Sidds ... only for Haddin to surrender next over ...
We have a good lead. SA have a lot of time in which to make them. Perth revisited perhaps?
 
Re: Australia in South Africa

Haddin falls for a nice 37. Lead 400+ but as mentioned previously they have alot of time. Should be a good ending.
 
Re: Australia in South Africa

Hmmm ... They've just spent one of their two referrals. May have been an impetuous request by Ricky, and one which was based more on how important a wicket Smith is - rather than the likelihood of the decision being incorrect in the first place.
Must admit, it would have pleased them and me no end to see that big suck make a King Pair!
 
Re: Australia in South Africa

Sober Symonds;330968 said:
Hmmm ... They've just spent one of their two referrals. May have been an impetuous request by Ricky, and one which was based more on how important a wicket Smith is - rather than the likelihood of the decision being incorrect in the first place.
Must admit, it would have pleased them and me no end to see that big suck make a King Pair!
Click to expand...

Only problem was he faced two balls in the first innings. ;)
 
Re: Australia in South Africa

Ljp86;330979 said:
Only problem was he faced two balls in the first innings. ;)
Click to expand...

Ahem ... that should be simply "a pair" - thanks LJP.

Now, before us lays the question: Can Australia's bowlers take 20 wickets in a match?
 
Re: Australia in South Africa

Sober Symonds;330985 said:
Ahem ... that should be simply "a pair" - thanks LJP.

Now, before us lays the question: Can Australia's bowlers take 20 wickets in a match?
Click to expand...

Not sure, I'd hope so. South Africa haven't really offered many chances so far.

They're 0/57 at tea, still need another 397 runs with a minimum of 129 overs remaining.
 
Re: Australia in South Africa

McDonald over McGain isn't looking like such a terrific decision.

Saying that I haven't seen the pitch but I image it would be reasonably spin friendly at this late stage.
 
Re: Australia in South Africa

Smith top edges a pull shot which wasn't really there and give Hilfenhaus a wicket and Australia's second. 2/130, Smith for gone for 69 with Amla on 21.

Pretty dumb shot by the captain, just wasn't there and he's paid the ultimate price.

Jacques Kallis is the new man.
 
Re: Australia in South Africa

I thought Imran Tahir was going to play for England?? why is he playing domestic cricket in SA if he played county cricket? Is he trying to get in both sides and see which one is most welcoming, Lol
 
Re: Australia in South Africa

On the McDonald/Bollinger debate, let me say first and foremost I think we should be comparing them solely as bowlers. We are talking about selecting a fourth bowler here, and our batting lineup is long enough. Any batting proficiency in the player selected is a bonus.

Sober Symonds;330360 said:
Fair enough Bundy, at least that's a start. My point is that McDonald has clearly a better First Class bowling record than Bollinger, plus the added bonus of being able to hold a bat the right way round. The tail would be awfully long with Bollinger, which we could cope with, but I'm asking is he any better of a bowler anyway? Go back to their debut Test, look up all the figures you want, and convince me/anyone why Bollinger is the man.
Click to expand...
IIRC there isn't much between McDonald and Bollinger's FC records. Last time I checked Micky D had a marginally better average and Bollingball had a marginally better strike rate.

But I think the biggest mistake is making this decision on the basis of statistics. Sure, statistics are an excellent indicator but when they're that close then you should be using other factors to differentiate the players. Most importantly, how do they fit in with the rest of the attack? Bollinger is a strike bowler, McDonald keeps it tight and relies on the other bowlers to build the pressure for him to take his wickets. Of the three other bowlers already selected for this Test, Siddle is already performing that job, Hilfy is a pure strike bowler and Johnson is a happy medium between the two.

Do we really need another bowler who specialises in keeping things tight? Especially without a spinner. Remember, one of the main reasons we aren't playing a spinner is because we didn't have one offensive enough to take wickets aggressively.

I think that if you play four pacemen with McDonald as one of them, you're going to struggle to take wickets when it counts because your attack isn't going to have enough teeth. Sure, maybe if the other three are all aggressive strike bowlers who are going to build the pressure he needs to take his wickets. Sure, if he's playing as an actual allrounder as a supplement to a balanced attack. But not I think under the current arrangements.

We'll see today how he goes, and possibly next Test if he gets a go. But I think the bowling attack has the wrong balance with him in it - either it changes, or he goes.
 
Re: Australia in South Africa

Kram81;331088 said:
It will be pretty embarrassing to lose the game from this position.
Click to expand...
Becoming a reality.

If we dont strike early on day 5, we are in all sorts of poo.
 
Re: Australia in South Africa

Australia to reestabilsh themselves as the ants pants in world cricket, 2/0, i dont think we"ll lose this time. only playing 3 specialist bowlers is of slight concern though.
 
Re: Australia in South Africa

Biggie;331263 said:
Becoming a reality.

If we dont strike early on day 5, we are in all sorts of poo.
Click to expand...

If South Africa get to lunch without loss or only losing one, then I reckon alarm bells may start ringing in the Australian camp.

A long way to go though and money has to be on the baggy greens to win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top