***Official*** South Africa In Australia

[pup11]

Bit of worrying stat about Ponting:

In 2008, he's been dismissed 22 times.

Out of this he's been lbw 5 times
Bowled 4 times
Caught at slips 7 times (out of total 12 caught)
1 run out

That caught at slips, plus the higher number of lbw+bowleds is what should be worrying him.

I think the high percentage of lbw and bowled would be more worrying for him then being caught at slips, Ponting always has had the tendency of falling over his frontfoot early on in his innings and that has led to him getting bowled and lbw a lot of times, and when he is out of touch the problem seems to get more prominent.

 

[silentstriker]

Hmm, the last six times Australia has played India, they've won zero and lost three. Now, if they also lose to SA, this could be huge for world cricket. India have always been the country that pushes Australia the most, but if SA starts winning (even a Test) in Australia, I think it definitely spells the end of the Aussie-era.

No one has won a series in Australia in Test cricket history except WI and England (NZ won one series). Can SA be next? As others have said, you can't judge this score until the South Africans have better, but we'll see what happens.

 

[Lambu]

Don't know if that had a lot to do with it. Bit hard to swing the ball when you're pitching it half-way all day.

Oh definitely.He and Morkel were both guilty of bowling too short too often.

 

[Evermind]

Anyone up for an Avatar challenge? I say SA do not score more than 300.

 

[Precambrian]

Anyone up for an Avatar challenge? I say SA do not score more than 300.

Taken. One week.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Hmm, the last six times Australia has played India, they've won zero and lost three. Now, if they also lose to SA, this could be huge for world cricket. India have always been the country that pushes Australia the most, but if SA starts winning (even a Test) in Australia, I think it definitely spells the end of the Aussie-era.

No one has won a series in Australia in Test cricket history except WI and England (NZ won one series). Can SA be next? As others have said, you can't judge this score until the South Africans have better, but we'll see what happens.

The transition for mine will happen only when Australia loses a full series at home, and not before. The same applies to the team that eventually beats them. While I'd freely accept this transition if it happened before the year was out, I don't think Australia are in a sharp enough decline or South Africa in a similar ascendant for this to be likely at all. Away wins are rarely fluked.

I guess we've been blessed, though, in that Australia's depth was good enough and the team itself consistent enough to 1) defeat the West Indies conclusively enough to get closure on their era of dominance, and 2) had a developed enough infrastructure and a consistent enough team to fend them off in the return series in 1996/97. These two factors conspired to ensure that Australia's legitimacy as world champs was never questioned on any front.

I doubt the team that eventually beats Australia will have the same combination of a decisive victory and a consistently performing team to beat all comers that reinforces the world's perception of them as the 'undisputed No. 1's' in the same way the view of Australia was. It's going to be a lot messier in people's minds this time around - even to the degree that the factors in Australia's 'dominant period' could be held up as an anomaly, a case of all the planets aligning to remove all doubt as to who was top dog.

 

[silentstriker]

I doubt the team that eventually beats Australia will have the same combination of a decisive victory and a consistently performing team to beat all comers that reinforces the world's perception of them as the 'undisputed No. 1's' in the same way the view of Australia was. It's going to be a lot messier in people's minds this time around - even to the degree that the factors in Australia's 'dominant period' could be held up as an anomaly, a case of all the planets aligning to remove all doubt as to who was top dog.

Even if they lose, I don't think Australia will be less than #1 (unless they continue on that path obviously). They could still be undisputed #1 for a long time, but the teams facing them might now have a legitimate chance. I remember not too long ago, it would be a victory if you managed to draw a Test in Australia. Now people are going in with a chance at an actual victory, and maybe some really good team may pull off a series win. That chance really didn't exist in any legitimate manner since about 1996/1997.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Taken. One week.

All due respect, but you're nuts. Lee feasts on defensive batting sides, and I've got no reason to doubt him with Kallis and Amla the bedrocks of the side and the deck behaving the way it is. Would back them to do it in the second dig, though.

 

[Precambrian]

All due respect, but you're nuts. Lee feasts on defensive batting sides, and I've got no reason to doubt him with Kallis and Amla the bedrocks of the side and the deck behaving the way it is. Would back them to do it in the second dig, though.

Haha, let's confirm that same time tomorrow.

Anyway 1 week avatar bet is ok.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Even if they lose, I don't think Australia will be less than #1 (unless they continue on that path obviously). They could still be undisputed #1 for a long time, but the teams facing them might now have a legitimate chance. I remember not too long ago, it would be a victory if you managed to draw a Test in Australia. Now people are going in with a chance at an actual victory, and maybe some really good team may pull off a series win. That chance really didn't exist in any legitimate manner since about 1996/1997.

Fact remains, though, that if they do lose a series (even off the last ball of the fifth Test) at home their period will be seen in many people's eyes as obsolete.

I think we're arguing two different things, though - you're saying what is happening now and I'm saying what would happen if x. Agree wholeheartedly with you though that Australia are at a stage similar to the West Indies approx. 1991 - they've lost most of their stars, but they're not quite prepared to chuck it in - although people have started baying for blood again.

 

[Uppercut]

All due respect, but you're nuts. Lee feasts on defensive batting sides, and I've got no reason to doubt him with Kallis and Amla the bedrocks of the side and the deck behaving the way it is. Would back them to do it in the second dig, though.

I'll take the same bet with you. SA will beat 300 for sure.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Haha, wasn't betting, just taking an opportunistic dig.

But you're on. One week.

 

[Natman20]

Great game so far and is really evenly poised. South Africa's bowling attack looks impressive with the tall quickies and my favourite bowler from yesterday Harris who I thought was a bit under-rated by the commentators. He looked good and probably more destructive than Vettori did a couple weeks ago. What can you say about Clarke and Katich, they are just class and on a big run scoring run. It takes some luck amongst some good bowling to get them out these days.

Long periods of no commentary yesterday (well it was over here in NZ) and I have to say the game was so much better to watch then without lots of tripe and how lovely the scoreboard is again.

 

[Evermind]

Haha, wasn't betting, just taking an opportunistic dig.

But you're on. One week.

BTW, is your avatar Jesus or Jason Gillespie?

 

[Evermind]

I'll take the same bet with you. SA will beat 300 for sure.

What do you have to lose? Your avatar is already the most annoying one around!

 

[haroon510]

Aussies did much better than i expected so bravo to them..it will be interested to see how the 2nd day might turn out.. can't wait..

 

[Atreyu]

Aussie doing well to fight there way back into this match. Shows why they are First in the world. 341 is respectable, but I think Saffies are going to chase it down.

BTW why was johnson batting at 11? I thought he was pretty solid with the bat

 

[Bahnz]

Aussie doing well to fight there way back into this match. Shows why they are First in the world. 341 is respectable, but I think Saffies are going to chase it down.

BTW why was johnson batting at 11? I thought he was pretty solid with the bat

He isn't. Peter Siddle is. That's why Mitchell Johnson is the 10th batsman on the scorecard, and beneath that, it reads "To bat: Peter Siddle".

350 odd is respectable, but with the aussies essentially bowled out on the first day it looks like we're in for a result. I'll be very interested in how Lee goes today.

 

[Atreyu]

He isn't. Peter Siddle is. That's why Mitchell Johnson is the 10th batsman on the scorecard, and beneath that, it reads "To bat: Peter Siddle".

350 odd is respectable, but with the aussies essentially bowled out on the first day it looks like we're in for a result. I'll be very interested in how Lee goes today.

...Wow. Not sure how I missed that

 

[Top_Cat]

All due respect, but you're nuts. Lee feasts on defensive batting sides, and I've got no reason to doubt him with Kallis and Amla the bedrocks of the side and the deck behaving the way it is. Would back them to do it in the second dig, though.

Yep, agreed. Smith the barometer for how well they're doing. If he goes off, they'll probably go 400+. If he goes early, I suspect the likes of Amla and De Villiers will struggle.