I can't even see where a run would come from? Who would you target to get runs from in a line up of Ambrose- Holding - Marshall - Garner? I guess you'd have to go with Holding as the "weak" link, LOL!
Given the series scoreline, it apparently is.
1-0? And thats while being dominated in Sydney for most of the game.
very rarely do the entire 7 play well for an entire 3 test series
erm... 2-0. Cry all you like about how Australia were dominated at Sydney they won, just like Australia were dominant at Perth, yet it was a draw
Because of course it rained in perth did it?Had it not rained, SA would have in all probability have won that game in Sydney. Even if it were 0-0 it would have been a draw and SA would not have declared and you know it.erm... 2-0. Cry all you like about how Australia were dominated at Sydney they won, just like Australia were dominant at Perth, yet it was a draw
there is no need for 7 to play well for the entire series. However when just 3 of them(less than half) do so, it begs the question of how much does the batting rely around them.very rarely do the entire 7 play well for an entire 3 test series
Ponting, Hussey & Hayden were the main batsmen, but Symonds, Hodge & Gilchrist all at some stage played an important role with the bat.
Speculate about the rain all you like, SA didn't win, how hard is that to understand
Might as well beg that question every series then. More often than not you have 3/4 batsmen who were in better form than the rest of them, and the batting revolves around those players. I honestly don't see what was so different about this series from any other in that regard
Its not a case of better form. 3 out of 4 of those players( Gilchrist, Hodge and Symonds) had technical frailities exposed. When was the last time you've seen something like that happen and yet seen a side win?
and how hard is it to understand that they didnt deserve to because of the rain? Its much like saying England deserved to beat SA in the semi final of the 92 WC or that England deserved their win at supersport park in 99/00 after Cronje's declaration.Speculate about the rain all you like, SA didn't win, how hard is that to understand
Err any team that batted first would be in a better position on that pitch.Its not like SA were 8 or 9 wickets down and on the verge of losing.
Its not speculation, ive removed that result all together. SA were only 'rather comfortably beaten' for reasons that was beyond their control rather than on field performance. Like it or not there isnt anything that can be done about Ntini getting injured, rain interruptions, or for that matter being forced to declare in a not so dominant position to give yourself a chance of winning.
Granted for Symonds & Hodge, but it was quite clear that Glichrist was out of form (he couldn't even manage runs against WI, and his 86 was scratchy), as was Langer.
Commone, Kallis and Nel both had him in knots when they went around the wicket to him. I dont think anyone can deny that Gilchrist has struggled only after that ploy came into effect.
How do you know that Australia wouldn't have won it had it not rained? Ponting managed to blast 142 without looking troubled, and given the form he was in, he quite easily could've led Australia to a victory with a larger total to chase had it not been a rain affected match.
Yeah he has struggled, but imo his lack of runs was just as much to do with poor form as it was the round the wicket ploy. Even in his 86 at Sydney he didn't look in good touch at all with a helluva lot of shots not meeting anything near the middle of the bat.
Because Australia didnt even manage to bowl them out once in the whole game? SA would quite easily have batted out the draw if they wanted to do so especially when you consider they batted some 150 overs in the first innings.
being out of form for 1.5 years is not an excuse. It cannot be coincidence that his slump began during and after the ashes of 2005. IMO his poor form was merely a consequence of not being able to play the round the wicket ploy.