***Official*** South Africa In Australia

[inbox24]

I'm at a loss as to why the bloody hell we need an allrounder. MacDonald is decent, a solid FC performer and I doubt he'd disgrace himself with bat or ball (especially bat) but we need guys who are going to be penetrative, not do a job. McDonald does his job so well for Vic because he has so many aggressive pace bowlers around him.

This is the legacy of 2005 and the Flintoff files. This is the greatest mark he will leave on cricket, the off field destruction of the Australian batting order.

 

[Uppercut]

Aussies are moaning too much about their selectors. The only decision i'm convinced was a prank was playing a half-fit Symonds over Watson. Every other one had a pretty reasonable case going for it- sticking with Siddle, giving Hayden another game at the MCG, switching to Hauritz- they're all solid decisions that would look like masterstrokes now if Ponting and Hussey hadn't forgot how to catch. And in truth none of their options were likely to bring any great success.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Aussies are moaning too much about their selectors. The only decision i'm convinced was a prank was playing a half-fit Symonds over Watson. Every other one had a pretty reasonable case going for it- sticking with Siddle, giving Hayden another game at the MCG, switching to Hauritz- they're all solid decisions that would look like masterstrokes now if Ponting and Hussey hadn't forgot how to catch. And in truth none of their options were likely to bring any great success.

Agreed. Blaming the selectors is pretty weak, all their decisions have been understandable, aside from the inclusion of Symonds when he couldn't bowl.

 

[Top_Cat]

Agreed. Blaming the selectors is pretty weak, all their decisions have been understandable, aside from the inclusion of Symonds when he couldn't bowl.

Agreed in general but I have a hard time believing they had no idea about Lee's foot problems before this match.

 

[Uppercut]

Agreed in general but I have a hard time believing they had no idea about Lee's foot problems before this match.

I thought he pulled up bowling a ball in the first innings? Or is it an ongoing thing?

 

[Zinzan]

Well I predicted a South African win yesterday.

In all seriousness if I was putting money on it I'd suggest South Africa would win in Sydney as well. Australia are struggling right now and there will be a ridiculously inexperienced bowling attack on show, three guys who have played four tests or less.

Just a feeling, that's all. Dead rubber syndrome for the South Africans, plus I expect Australia's batting has to click eventually.

Theres also a chance that SA might repeat that half-hearted performance in the last test against England after winning that series earlier in the year. Not suggesting they'd purposely under-perform, just that after the celebrations it may be a bit of an anti-climax for them turning up at Sydney. Hope I'm wrong.

 

[wpdavid]

Im happy for SA. It is a lndmark victory. TBH, I dont think it is a special SA team but it is certainly decent.

It does beg the question though, this is the worst Australia team since when?

Current XI? Worst since the late 80's I suppose. But the return of Stuart Clark will make a big difference, especially in England next year. Plus Johnson & Siddle will only improve with more experience at this level, not that Johnson's bad now, of couse.

As for SA, I agree with Brumby that they've looked better in Aus than they did in England four months earlier. That suggests to me that they're a young side improving. However, they did get into awfully big holes in both of these tests, which better sides will not allow them to recover from.

 

[wpdavid]

Theres also a chance that SA might repeat that half-hearted performance in the last test against England after winning that series earlier in the year. Not suggesting they'd purposely under-perform, just that after the celebrations it may be a bit of an anti-climax for them turning up at Sydney. Hope I'm wrong.

I reckon not, especially with the number 1 position up for grabs if they win 3-0.

 

[Zinzan]

I reckon not, especially with the number 1 position up for grabs if they win 3-0.

Good call. Forgot about the rankings, hopefully that'll be enough of a motivating factor for them

 

[Uppercut]

Theres also a chance that SA might repeat that half-hearted performance in the last test against England after winning that series earlier in the year. Not suggesting they'd purposely under-perform, just that after the celebrations it may be a bit of an anti-climax for them turning up at Sydney. Hope I'm wrong.

My thoughts exactly. And this, like the England match, is an opportunity for a lot of Australians whose places are under doubt or who are trying to establish a place in the side to make their case. So they'll have more to play for.

But on the other hand, this time a win can take them to number 1 in the world. It remains to be seen how much that matters to them. I think i'll stick to my general rule of not betting on dead rubbers. Or if i had to pick one, i'd take the draw.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Agreed. Blaming the selectors is pretty weak, all their decisions have been understandable, aside from the inclusion of Symonds when he couldn't bowl.

They were understandable and obviously I'm looking from the always panoramic vantage point of hindsight, but in times of adversity selectors can either trust the status quo or attempt to inject new blood. The Aussie selectors obviously opted for the former (with the lip service of dumping the two-cap off-spinner for similar), which is perfectly understandable given how well the incumbents have served their team, but it was also predictable and safe. Even now, with a dead rubber on their hands, the only changes are those forced on them by injury.

It's better to fail trying something than just backing the house for me. Not to advocate knee-jerk changes either tho, which the dumping of Krejza looks a wee bit like anyway.

 

[Prince EWS]

If Symonds really doesn't play and they do pick McDonald, it would be a pretty amazing selection. I guess I can see why they are doing it, but there really isn't a reason why Johnson, Siddle, Bollinger and Hauritz can't take 10 wickets. I doubt McDonald's doing to do much more than Symonds has in the past with the ball, which is handy but not exactly game-changing, and I'd back a large numbers of batsmen to do more with the bat.

I wonder if they'll put Haddin up to 6?

I think the squad is okay other than that, I'd prefer a specialist bat in there to McDonald, but we'll see how he turns out.

Symonds isn't actually in the squad anymore; they withdrew him due to his injury pretty much straight away.

Ronald's not who I'd have picked (I'd have probably gone with North and picked four specialist quicks, TBH) but he's not a horrible selection. He's a much better pick than someone like Hopes, Steve Smith, White or Henriques would have been, for example, and I've heard people (not so much on CricketWeb) mention them as possibilities. He'll certainly exploit any swing that's around and his batting has really come along in the last two or three seasons to the point where he commands a place in Victoria's upper middle order on batting alone. I don't think he's Test standard but he's a very good First Class player who could do a job for a couple of games.

 

[Zinzan]

Or if i had to pick one, i'd take the draw.

Will be damn interesting what sort of wicket they come up with in Sydney, usually the most likely of the Australian wickets to deteriorate on the 4th/5th day isn't it?

 

[Uppercut]

They were understandable and obviously I'm looking from the always panoramic vantage point of hindsight, but in times of adversity selectors can either trust the status quo or attempt to inject new blood. The Aussie selectors obviously opted for the former (with the lip service of dumping the two-cap off-spinner for similar), which is perfectly understandable given how well the incumbents have served their team, but it was also predictable and safe. Even now, with a dead rubber on their hands, the only changes are those forced on them by injury.

It's better to fail trying something than just backing the house for me. Not to advocate knee-jerk changes either tho, which the dumping of Krejza looks a wee bit like anyway.

Hmm, looking at each of their selections separately-

Sticking with Hayden- fair enough, he had a fantastic record at the MCG and didn't look in especially bad touch- just kept hitting the ball in the air to a fielder (or running himself out). After his years of success at the top of the order it was reasonable to give him another game. Also if i'm not mistaken Jaques is still injured? So they'd have to debut someone mid-series against an attack of the quality of South Africa.

Sticking with Siddle- a selection i disagreed with at the time, because there are a fair few quality replacements about, but he bowled very well in the first innings here. If they decide he's one of the best quicks around, giving him the chance to adjust to tests is probably preferable to chopping and changing in the hope that someone has immediate success. It worked with Johnson. Plus it was at his home ground, which they might have quite rightly hoped would inspire him.

Sticking with Symonds when injured- A shocking decision on so many levels. Can't bowl, wasn't up to his usual standards in the field, isn't in great touch with the bat and in any case isn't one of the country's best six batsmen. Extremely poor from the selectors.

Switching to Hauritz- I think this one's been justified pretty well too, Krezja just went for too many runs to be an option on non-turning pitches. Hauritz had put in a good performance against New Zealand and kept it pretty tight, which was the role they were looking for their spinner to play. Picked up some key top-order wickets and as with Siddle, if Ponting or Hussey had taken their chances off Steyn, this could currently be looked like a great decision.


The Symonds decision was horrific, and if i made a decision that bad in any job i'd fully expect to be fired. But apart from that, they didn't do anything unreasonable- whether you agree with it or not, in each case at least it was a decent, justifiable decision.

 

[pasag]

It's not just this Test, in India we had the White debacle, dropping Clark, not playing Bollinger when he should have debuted months ago, playing Casson before McGain etc etc.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Hmm, looking at each of their selections separately-

Sticking with Hayden- fair enough, he had a fantastic record at the MCG and didn't look in especially bad touch- just kept hitting the ball in the air to a fielder (or running himself out). After his years of success at the top of the order it was reasonable to give him another game. Also if i'm not mistaken Jaques is still injured? So they'd have to debut someone mid-series against an attack of the quality of South Africa.

Sticking with Siddle- a selection i disagreed with at the time, because there are a fair few quality replacements about, but he bowled very well in the first innings here. If they decide he's one of the best quicks around, giving him the chance to adjust to tests is probably preferable to chopping and changing in the hope that someone has immediate success. It worked with Johnson. Plus it was at his home ground, which they might have quite rightly hoped would inspire him.

Sticking with Symonds when injured- A shocking decision on so many levels. Can't bowl, wasn't up to his usual standards in the field, isn't in great touch with the bat and in any case isn't one of the country's best six batsmen. Extremely poor from the selectors.

Switching to Hauritz- I think this one's been justified pretty well too, Krezja just went for too many runs to be an option on non-turning pitches. Hauritz had put in a good performance against New Zealand and kept it pretty tight, which was the role they were looking for their spinner to play. Picked up some key top-order wickets and as with Siddle, if Ponting or Hussey had taken their chances off Steyn, this could currently be looked like a great decision.


The Symonds decision was horrific, and if i made a decision that bad in any job i'd fully expect to be fired. But apart from that, they didn't do anything unreasonable- whether you agree with it or not, in each case at least it was a decent, justifiable decision.

I did say they were understandable, but does that make them correct? I think Hayden's retention was more inspired out of a lack of intestinal fortitude on the selectors' parts rather than a genuine belief that he'd come good. His dismissal in the 2nd innings was straight out of the "How to dismiss Hayden 101" textbook; put a man on the drive and let his ego do the rest. It was an obvious ploy, but, by gum, he only went and fell for it.

He has been a champion player, but cricket isn't played in stasis and anno domini is the one opponent who always has the final say in the end. A test spot should never become a sinecure and it's starting to look more and more like one for Hayden now. Even after the MCG debacle (and I don't think that's too strong a word) he's still in the squad.

& if they'd brought Rogers in it wouldn't have been a debutant anyway...

 

[hammo666]

you've GOTTA LARF ..............ant yer

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I agree with you Lee is really dumb to bowl on it. I wouldn't. But then, who can stop him?

There could be a stipulation in the CA contract.

 

[Craig]

Im happy for SA. It is a lndmark victory. TBH, I dont think it is a special SA team but it is certainly decent.

It does beg the question though, this is the worst Australia team since when?

Well I'm sure a lot of other sides wouldn't mind being as decent as South Africa are!

 

[Nate]

They were understandable and obviously I'm looking from the always panoramic vantage point of hindsight, but in times of adversity selectors can either trust the status quo or attempt to inject new blood. The Aussie selectors obviously opted for the former (with the lip service of dumping the two-cap off-spinner for similar), which is perfectly understandable given how well the incumbents have served their team, but it was also predictable and safe. Even now, with a dead rubber on their hands, the only changes are those forced on them by injury.

It's better to fail trying something than just backing the house for me. Not to advocate knee-jerk changes either tho, which the dumping of Krejza looks a wee bit like anyway.

It's not just this Test, in India we had the White debacle, dropping Clark, not playing Bollinger when he should have debuted months ago, playing Casson before McGain etc etc.

Started typing out a post, but these really say it for mine. If everyone was fit, I doubt there would be any changes at all. Need to be proactive rather than reactive, or something.